Pro-Forma for Notice Paper Word 7 s2

NOTICE PAPER

Monday 8 April 2013 at 7:00 p.m.

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

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

PRAYER

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

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

Council Meeting Notice Paper 8 April 2013

Order of Business and Index a) Reading of the Reconciliation Statement and Prayer; b) Apologies; c) Adoption and confirmation of minutes of previous meeting(s) in accordance with Section 63 of the Act and Clause 423 of General Local Law 2008 (No 1); d) Disclosure by Councillors of any conflicts of interest in accordance with Section 79 of the Act1 e) Questions to Council from Members of the Public; f) Correspondence – (only if related to council business); g) Questions to Council Officers from Councillors; h) Tabling of Petitions and Joint Letters; i) Notices of Motion; j) Reports of Special and Other Committees; - Assembly of Councillors k) Reports by Delegates; l) General Business;

1. PLANNING APPLICATIONS...... 6

1.1. PLANNING APPLICATION 0359/12 - 4 COONIL CRESCENT, MALVERN – MEDICAL CENTRE AND BUILDINGS AND WORKS...... 6

1.2. PLANNING APPLICATION 0709/12 - 227 - 229 HIGH STREET, PRAHRAN – SIX STOREY BUILDING COMPRISING DWELLINGS, SHOPS AND OFFICE WITH CARPARKING...... 21

1.3. PLANNING APPLICATION 0010/13 - 243 GLENFERRIE ROAD, MALVERN - RESTAURANT AND CAFE LIQUOR LICENCE ASSOICATED WITH THE EXISTING USE OF THE SITE AS A RESTAURANT...... 43

1.4. PLANNING APPLICATION 0066/13 - 1341 DANDENONG ROAD - CHADSTONE SHOPPING CENTRE , MALVERN EAST – REMOVAL OF A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT E036771...... 49

2. AMENDMENT C170 - CHAPEL STREET PRECINCT HERITAGE REVIEW – ADOPTION...... 56

3. AMENDMENT C174 CHAPEL STREET NORTH BOULEVARD – CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS...... 60

4. PLANNING ZONE REFORMS – UPDATE...... 64

5. RECREATION STRATEGY...... 71

6. AQUATIC SERVICES POOL LANE HIRE...... 76

7. REPORT ON THE STREET TREES IN GLADSTONE AVENUE, ARMADALE FOLLOWING PRESENTATION OF A PETITION REQUESTING COUNCIL REPLACE THE EXISTING LILLY PILLY STREET TREES...... 79

8. APPOINTMENT OF AUTHORISED OFFICERS UNDER THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1997 & THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1989...... 84

9. 2014 GENERAL REVALUATION...... 87

10. COUNCILLORS GOVERNANCE TRAINING...... 89

11. REQUEST TO NAME A LANE – LUNN LANE...... 91

12. REVIEW OF COUNCILLOR ALLOWANCES...... 93

13. AUDIT COMMITTEE CHAIR’S REPORT FOR 2012...... 95 1 Note that s.79(1)(a) of the Act requires Councillors to disclose the nature of a conflict of interest immediately before the relevant consideration or discussion. Page 3 14. ABS CENSUS DATA USED FOR ASSESSMENT OF EMPIRICAL PARKING PROVISION RATES...... 97

m) Urgent Business; and n) Confidential Business. 1. MILTON GRAY SCOUT HALL – 216 WATTLETREE ROAD MALVERN LEASE…………………………………...102 2. AUDIT COMMITTEE INDEPENDENT MEMBER/DEPUTY CHAIR – APPOINTMENT………………………………..102

ADOPTION AND CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS 8 APRIL 2013

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council confirms the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 18 March 2013 and Minutes of the Confidential Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 18 March 2013 as an accurate record of the proceedings.

GENERAL BUSINESS 8 APRIL 2013

1. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

1.1. PLANNING APPLICATION 0359/12 - 4 COONIL CRESCENT, MALVERN – MEDICAL CENTRE AND BUILDINGS AND WORKS

(Statutory Planning Manager: Alexandra Kastaniotis) (General Manager: Stuart Draffin)

PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for partial demolition and buildings and works for use of the site as a Medical Centre (Section 2 Use) in a Residential 1 Zone and Heritage Overlay at 4 Coonil Crescent, Malvern and to allow 24 car parking spaces to be provided at 185 - 189 Wattletree Road, Malvern.

Executive Summary

Applicant: The Cabrini Property Association C/- Contour Consultants Aust P/L Ward: South Zone: Residential 1 Overlay: Heritage Overlay 375 Date lodged: 6/06/2012 Statutory days: (as at council 158 meeting date) Trigger for referral to More than 7 objections Council: Number of objections: 26 (from 22 different properties) Consultative Meeting: Yes, held on 12 February 2013 Officer Recommendation: Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Jacob Thomas & Associates Pty Ltd and are known as Drawing No.s SC-00 Rev A (Council date stamped 6 June 2012), EC-00 Rev A (Council date stamped 6 June 2012), EC-01 Rev B (Council date stamped 10 October 2012), TS-01 Rev A (Council date stamped 6 June 2012), EC-02 (Council date stamped 10 October 2012), EC-03 (Council date stamped 6 June 2012), TP-00 Rev A (Council date stamped 6 June 2012), TP-01 Rev C (Council date stamped 10 October 2012), TP-02 Rev A (Council date stamped 10 October 2012) and TP-03 Rev B (Council date stamped 10 October 2012)

The proposal is for partial demolition and buildings and works for use of the site as a Medical Centre (Section 2 Use) in a Residential 1 Zone and Heritage Overlay and to allow 24 car parking spaces to be provided at 185 - 189 Wattletree Road, Malvern. Key aspects of the proposal are:

 Partial demolition of the existing dwelling, including alterations to walls, windows and doors.  Ground floor extension to the rear setback between 4.17m and 4.79m from the eastern boundary and 4.37m from the northern boundary. The extension will incorporate decks to the north and south elevations of the new addition with part roof over.  Use of the site as a Medical Centre with eight (8) person providing health services.  Hours of operation are proposed as follows: o Monday to Friday 7am to 9pm o Saturday 8am to 4pm  The Medical Centre use requires 26 car parking spaces. Two (2) spaces are proposed to be provided on site, while 24 are proposed to be provided at 185-189 Wattletree Road, Malvern.  A 600mm high timber lattice screen to the top of the existing timber fence along the eastern boundary.

The Medical Centre will provide services by Hospital staff to out-patients of the Cabrini Hospital that require ongoing treatment and therapy. The range of service will not operate full time and the rooms will be shared between the various services each day. They will include ante-natal care, cardiac services, diabetes services, chronic disease services and complex aged services. Treatments will include ground and individual therapy which may incorporate interviews about leaving hospital and resuming home duties and exercise programs for strength and rehabilitation.

The proposed Medical Centre will function differently to a typical Medical Centre with only minimal on-site administrative support. Most of the administrative functions will be undertaken at the main Hospital administration, opposite the site.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the south east corner of Coonil Crescent and Derril Avenue, Malvern. The site has the following significant characteristics:

 It is currently occupied by a two storey dwelling with associated car parking in a double garage accessed from Coonil Crescent.  A crossover is provided via Coonil Crescent and another on Derril Avenue (with no access provided to the site).  Is irregular in shape with a frontage to Coonil Crescent of 27.61m (curved frontage), a frontage to Derril Avenue of 43.03m and a total site area of approximately 1221m².  There is a slight fall in the land from the south west corner to the north east corner of approximately 2m.

The site is located within a Heritage Overlay (HO375), the Coonil Estate Precinct and the building is afforded a C grading. The statement of significance for this precinct is as follows:

“The Coonil Estate Precinct is a residential area developed in stages during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The Victorian-era houses in the precinct are predominantly detached brick villas dating from the 1880s coexisting with a smaller number of more modest timber cottages. Most of the Edwardian houses in the precinct were developed through the subdivision of the Coonil Mansion Estate as part of a wave of suburban development that occurred in the Malvern area through the early twentieth century.”

To the north of the site, at 6 Coonil Crescent (at the north east corner of Coonil Crescent and Derril Avenue), is a single storey Edwardian dwelling with an attic storey addition. The site is accessed via three separate vehicle crossovers. A large cypress hedge is located along the southern and western title boundaries.

To the east of the site, at 2 Derril Avenue, is a single storey Edwardian dwelling that has recently completed alterations and additions pursuant to Planning Permit 769/09. A driveway is located along the common boundary.

To the south of the site, at 2 Coonil Crescent, is single storey dwelling not contained within the Heritage Overlay. This site is owned by Cabrini Hospital. Further south, at 185-189 Wattletree Road, is a 95-space car park approved by Planning Permit 919/11. This car park was approved for the exclusive use of staff and long-term out patients of the existing Hospital. It was deemed to be a positive outcome for the area in assisting to reduce car parking demand within the surrounding residential streets. It was no approved as part of any increase to the number of Hospital beds associated with the Hospital.

To the west of the site, at 183 Wattletree Road, is Cabrini Hospital. Coonil Crescent is a no- through-road travelling north from Wattletree Road and acts as the main entry point to the Hospital. A landscaped barrier prevents vehicle through-traffic before Coonil Crescent joins Derril Avenue.

Previous Planning Application(s)

A search of Council records indicates that there are no recent planning applications for the site. It is notable however, that development of Cabrini Hospital has a detailed and length planning history.

The Title

The site is described as Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 183626S on Certificate of Title 9112 Folio 915. There is no restrictive covenant on the title of land and the applicant has signed a declaration to this effect.

Planning Controls

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

Clause 32.01 Residential 1 Zone Pursuant to Clause 32.01-1 a permit is required for use of the land as a Medical Centre. Pursuant to Clause 32.01-6 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works for a use in Section 2 of Clause 32.01-1.

Overlay Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay

Pursuant to Clause 43.01 a permit is required for demolition and to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Particular Provisions

Clause 52.06 – Car Parking Pursuant to Clause 52.06-2, prior to a new use commencing the car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5 must be provided on the land or as approved under Clause 52.06-3 to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-3, a permit is required to allow some or all of the required number of car parking spaces to be provided on another site.

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5, a Medical Centre requires 5 spaces to the first person providing health services plus 3 to every other person providing health services. Hence, this proposed Medical Centre with 8 staff requires 26 car parking spaces.

Clause 52.34 – Bicycle Facilities Pursuant to Clause 52.34-1, bicycle facilities should be provided in accordance with the requirements at Clause 52.34-3 and 52.34-4. This equates to 1 employee space to each 8 practitioners and 1 visitor space for each 4 practitioners; a total of 3 spaces. A permit may be granted to vary, reduce or waive these requirements.

Relevant Planning Policies

Clause 11.04 Metropolitan Melbourne Clause 15.01 Urban Environment Clause 15.02 Sustainable Development Clause 19.02-1 Health Facilities Clause 21 Municipal Strategic Statement Clause 22.02 Urban Design Policy Clause 22.04 Heritage Policy Clause 22.06 Residential Character, Amenity and Interface Policy Clause 22.07 Discretionary Uses in Residential Areas Policy Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay Clause 52.06 Car Parking Clause 52.34 Bicycle Facilities Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

Advertising

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

The site is located in South Ward and 26 objections from 22 different properties have been received. The grounds of objection are summerised as follows:

 Extension of Cabrini Hospital (a commercial business) into residential area  Car parking and traffic congestion  Safety of children in the area with the increase of non-locals in the streets  Safety of disabled and elderly home owners with increase in cars on the streets  Access to the site by people with limited mobility, especially if car parking is at 185-189 Wattletree Road  Site is not on a main road  Deliveries associated with medical centre  Access should not be from Derril Avenue and only be via Wattletree Road  New addition will not be in keeping with Heritage Overlay, Heritage Guidelines, streetscape and character of the area Page 9 GENERAL BUSINESS 8 APRIL 2013

 Medical Centre is not for residents but for hospital’s specialists use  The site for car parking is not adjacent to the proposed site  Part of the random evolving medical precinct along Wattletree Road with no supporting infrastructure  Council should develop a medical development policy  Change in use of the building may negatively impact on the integrity of the building  Patient pick up and drop off likely to be from Derril Avenue  Number of patients attending group education sessions not specified  No detail of how car parking spaces at 185-189 Wattletree Road will be provided for staff and patients utilising the proposed site  Set a precedent for additional hospital activities in the residential heritage area  Noise  Vehicle pollution  Hours of operation outside normal business hours  Piecemeal incremental creep approach to development  Application breaches 1983 Agreement between Council and Cabrini Hospital – which bounded the Hospital development to the island site.

A Consultative Meeting was held on 12 February 2013. The meeting was attended by Councillors Ullin and Sehr, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. The meeting did not result in any changes to the plans. However, plans for discussion purposes were received on 25 February 2013 (to be included as permit conditions should a permit issue). The suggested changes to the plans are as follows:

 The exercise room has been lowered (reduced in height) by 720mm from 5.39m to 4.67m.  The northern deck has been deleted.  The northern wall setback behind the prevailing northern facade of the existing building by 1.0m.  A 3.15m wide separation between the existing building and the proposed exercise room has also been included.  Removal of the existing steps and gate along the Derril Avenue frontage (to ensure that all pedestrian access is via Coonil Crescent).

Referrals

Arborist

Five trees are noted to be removed in the rear setback to facilitate the development. One of the trees would be considered ‘significant’ under Council Local Law (Leyland Cypress). No objection is raised with the proposed removals, as long as replacement vegetation is shown on a Landscape Plan. Conditions should be included to require a Landscape Plan, a Tree Management Plan (to ensure the retained trees at the rear of the site remain in a healthy state during construction works) and that protection fencing for all street trees.

Heritage

The subject building is graded C and located in Heritage Overlay 375, The Coonil Estate. It is a building of reduced significance as a consequence of previous, reasonably sympathetic, alterations. However, it continues to contribute to the character and significance of the precinct through its scale and broad character. The addition to the existing building would be reasonably large and would be located at no setback from the projecting bay of the existing building – itself located at closer to the street than the building facade. In addition, a new verandah element would

GENERAL BUSINESS 8 APRIL 2013 extend over a proposed northern deck resulting in a new built form around two metres closer to Derril Avenue than any currently existing on site.

Rather than being concealed from nearby streets or public places, the addition will become a prominent new element within a substantially intact streetscape. The addition will conceal the early building from most vantage points in Derril Avenue and will as a consequence of poorly-considered relationship between the new and old fabric, substantially diminish the form, character and significance of the existing building. The proposal cannot be supported in its current form.

On this exposed site, where the wide side garden addresses Derril Avenue, any side addition will be visible. If the guidelines are to be exercised with discretion and a visible addition is to be supported, steps should be taken to ensure that any new volume to the east of the existing dwelling adopts a recessive manner allowing the original building to survive as the dominant element on the site.

Response by Applicant – Without Prejudice Plans The applicant responded to the Heritage comments with the submission of a plan showing a rearrangement of the proposed rear (eastern) exercise room to provide an improved outcome to the Derril Avenue streetscape. The exercise room has been lowered (reduced in height) by 720mm, the northern deck has been deleted and the northern wall setback behind the prevailing northern facade of the existing building by 1.0m. A 3.15m wide separation between the existing building and the proposed exercise room has also been included.

Council’s Heritage Advisor has reviewed these plans and offers support for the rearrangement of the proposed exercise room:

The revised design has substantially addressed all of the issues raised in my earlier advice. While the proposed addition will be visible from the street, it is now reasonably modest in terms of its height and frontage to the street and will read as a polite and understated addition to the heritage building. The works can be supported in their revised form.

Transport & Parking

The statutory car parking rate would result in a requirement of 26 car parking spaces. The proposal is providing 2 spaces on site and 24 spaces at the new car park at 185-189 Wattletree Road, which has recently been approved as a 95 space car park.

As the proposed car park at 185-189 Wattletree Road will be gated, with access provided to staff and regular visitors only, it is unclear how the car park can be considered suitable to provide the required number of parking spaces for visitors.

Given that further on-street parking restrictions in the surrounding local streets is likely, off-site parking could be supported as other parking opportunities may not be generally available. The applicant must demonstrate that the car park at 185-189 Wattletree Road can be used in the manner proposed before support for the application can be provided. The Transport and Parking Unit does not have any in-principle objections to the use of the off-site car park to accommodate a parking shortfall, but the applicant must demonstrate how this will be managed.

The traffic generation is considered unlikely to negatively impact on the road network.

The statutory rate for bicycle spaces is 1 staff space and 2 visitor spaces. The development provides 4 bicycle spaces within the on-site garage. Bicycle staff parking is to be provided in a bicycle locker or at a rail in a lockable compound. Bicycle visitor parking is to be provided at a

GENERAL BUSINESS 8 APRIL 2013 bicycle rail. Additional information in relation to the number, type and relevant dimensions should be provided.

The layout of the car parking area has been deemed satisfactory with the exception of the sight distance at the property boundary. It is acknowledged that the applicant is seeking to use the existing access point, however it is anticipated that there will be extra vehicle movements as a result of the change of use, and the desire to utilise off-site parking will likely result in additional pedestrian movements past the entrance. The proposed fence/property boundary conditions are not clear from the plans provided. The plan suggests an existing 2.1m high fence will be maintained around the property boundary, however at present there is landscaping on site near the vehicle crossing which would assist with sight distance to pedestrians. The applicant is to revise the plans to clearly show the required sight lines at the property boundary.

Response by Applicant The applicant responded to the Transport & Parking comments by providing additional information as to the type of patients that will be attending the medical centre. Each patient will be provided with a swipe card in advance of the start of their program to gain access to the car park at 185-189 Wattletree Road. The endorsed Car Park Management Plan for this approval states: registered visitors and long term outpatients who attend the Hospital on a regular basis will be provided with a card to access the car park. Visitors and patients will be advised that the car park readers will be programmed to deny access outside agreed operating hours. It is open to Council to further supplement this endorsed document with a Car Park Management Plan specific to the application at No. 4 Coonil Crescent.

Council’s Traffic Engineer reviewed the above and advised:

The explanation which has been provided is satisfactory if the facility is to only deal with regular visitors on a program, but if the facility also provides care to patients via referral or booking on a casual basis, then this is likely to remain a concern.

Each patient/visitor should have access to a swipe card for use of the car park at 185-189 Wattletree Road, not just the long-term out-patients.

KEY ISSUES

The proposal seeks to establish a non-residential use within a Residential Zone. Local Planning Policy at Clause 22.07 – Discretionary Uses in Residential Areas Policy is applicable to this type of application. The objectives of this policy are as follows:

 To retain existing residential uses.  To encourage new development that reflects the scale, built form and landscape character of the surrounding residential area.  To minimise amenity impacts on adjoining and nearby residential areas.  To encourage non-residential uses to locate in business zones, particularly in Group 4 commercial centres, and to limit these uses in residential zones to those locations that satisfy the performance criteria contained in this policy.

The policy states that a new non-residential use located in a residential area will only be encouraged if the Responsible Authority can be satisfied that:

 The use is not appropriate to locate in a nearby commercial area, particularly premises in a Group 4 commercial centre. Page 12 GENERAL BUSINESS 8 APRIL 2013

 The use is on land with a frontage to a Road Zone (category 1) and concentrates its traffic and car parking to that frontage.  The use and development will not have an adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding and nearby residential areas through noise, hours of operation, traffic and car parking.  The use will cater for a need in the local community.  The use will be conducted in a building constructed as a dwelling or a heritage building.  The use and development will maintain the residential and streetscape character of the area.

Assessing the application against the above criteria, the following comments are made:

Location

The proposed use can accommodate all the car parking requirements on the subject site and at 185-189 Wattletree Road (no waiver of the car parking requirement is being sought). The site is located within close proximity to the car park and to the existing Hospital and as such the proposed use is considered acceptable for this location.

Road Zone

The site does not have a frontage to a Road Zone (Category 1). However, 24 of the 26 car parking spaces required are to be provided at 185-189 Wattletree Road, which has a frontage to a Road Zone (Category 1). Access to the car park site is via Coonil Crescent which is a no-through-road travelling north from Wattletree Road and acts as the main entry point to the Hospital. This access arrangement is via a controlled and signalised intersection. It does not encourage or require cars to access the site via residential streets. The proposal is considered to satisfy this policy requirement.

Amenity

The proposed use is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding residential area through noise, hours of operation, traffic and car parking. The proposed hours of operation are Monday to Friday 7am to 9pm and Saturday 8am to 4pm. The use will not operate on Sunday. The proposed hours are considered reasonable and sympathetic to the amenity of adjoining residential properties. They are appropriate having regard to the ongoing relationship with the Hospital use and the need to provide services to clients both within and outside of traditional business hours. Between the hours of 7am to 8am Monday to Friday, only staff would be at the premises. Patients would not arrive until 8am, which is consistent with the operating hours of the car park. However, given that only two car spaces are provided on site only staff members accessing the site between 7am and 8am will only be able to park on the subject site. Any additional staff will either need to walk, ride or be dropped off rather than park at 185-189 Wattletree Road, given that the car park does not operate until 8am. This will be included as a condition on any permit to issue.

All pedestrian access to the site would be via Coonil Crescent. The applicant has agreed to remove the existing gate and steps to the Derril Avenue frontage and this will be addressed via a condition on any permit to issue.

Two car parking spaces are to be provided on the site for staff, while the remainder of the spaces (24) will be provided at 185-189 Wattletree Road. The location of the majority of the car parking spaces will require staff and patients to only use Coonil Crescent (via Wattletree Road) for access to the site. This will reduce traffic and parking issues within Derril Avenue and the wider residential area. Page 13 GENERAL BUSINESS 8 APRIL 2013

The proposed use will not generate any unreasonable noise impacts. The distance between the building and the existing dwellings which are not owned/occupied by Cabrini Hospital are adequate to mitigate any off-site noise impacts.

Community

The existing Hospital caters for both the wider and local community. The proposed medical centre, which seeks to relocate some of the facilities provided at the Hospital, will continue to cater for the wider and local community needs.

Building

The proposed use will be conducted in a building constructed as a dwelling which is a heritage building. The building is proposed to be altered and extended. The heritage implications of the addition will be discussed below.

Character

The proposed streetscape character will not be significant altered by the new addition to the dwelling. The existing dwelling will maintain its prominence in the streetscape and the addition will be reasonably modest in terms of its height and frontage to the street.

Having particular regard to the objectives and policy outlined under Clause 22.07 of the Planning Scheme, the proposed use of the site for a Medical Centre is considered acceptable.

Built Form / Heritage

In order to convert the existing dwelling into a Medical Centre, it is proposed to partially demolish the existing dwelling (mainly consisting of the rear wall and various windows/doors) and for the construction of an addition to the rear. The addition will be added onto the existing building rather than incorporating it into the existing footprint.

The original proposal, as advertised, included an addition that maintained the existing setback of the dwelling from the northern, Derril Avenue frontage. The addition extended for 15.04m towards the eastern boundary and provided a setback of between 4.17m and 4.79m from the eastern title boundary. The setback to the southern boundary was also consistent with the existing setback of the dwelling. Decks were proposed to the northern and southern elevations; a setback of 4.37m from the northern boundary and 0.4m from the southern boundary. The overall height of the addition, measured from the eastern elevation (lowest point) was 5.39m.

Council’s Heritage Advisor provided comments on the proposed scheme and was not supportive of the addition in its original form. The main concerns were in relation to the limited setback of the addition from the projecting bay of the existing building, the impact on the form, character and significance of the existing building and that any new addition should adopt a recessive manner with the existing building to be the dominant element on the site.

The applicant responded to these comments and to objectors concerns in relation to the addition’s impact on the existing heritage building with the submission of plans showing an improved outcome. These plans show a clear separation between the existing building and the new addition. The northern deck has been deleted and the northern wall of the addition set back behind the projecting bay of the existing building. The addition maintains the existing setback to the east, a reduced setback to the south and a reduction in the building height of 0.72m to 4.67m (measured

GENERAL BUSINESS 8 APRIL 2013 from the eastern elevation). Council’s Heritage advisor has reviewed the plans and advised that the revised design substantially addresses all of the issues raised previously.

Given the above, the proposed addition can be supported.

Amenity Impacts

The only sensitive interfaces are to the south, which is a building used as a dwelling (owned by Cabrini and up until recently occupied by sisters of the Hospital) and to the east, a dwelling at 2 Derril Avenue.

Overshadowing

Overshadowing of the property to the south is likely to occur along the northern portion of the site throughout the day. This part of the site is heavily landscape and the private open space is located in the south east corner of the site. Hence, no unreasonable overshadowing will occur to the property to the south.

The owners of 2 Derril Avenue have requested a 600mm lattice screen to the common fence. The lattice combined with the addition will marginally increase shadow to the existing driveway at 2 Derril Avenue in the afternoon. However, it is considered that no unreasonable overshadowing will occur over the property to the east in the afternoon.

Overlooking

The south facing deck would be built to the southern boundary (as shown on the discussion plans). The common boundary fence and the existing vegetation at 2 Coonil Crescent would limit any direct overlooking opportunities into the site.

The east facing windows of the addition will be a minimum of 2m above the finished floor level. The south facing deck will incorporate 2.1m high privacy screen along its east elevation with maximum 25% openings. These measures will ensure that no unreasonable overlooking will occur from the addition to the property at 2 Derril Avenue.

Car Parking and Traffic

Pursuant to Clause 52.06, a Medical Centre requires 5 spaces to the first person providing health services plus 3 to every other person providing health services. Hence, this Medical Centre with 8 persons providing health services, requires 26 car parking spaces.

The application is proposing two (2) spaces to be provided within the existing garage and 24 spaces to be provided at 185-189 Wattletree Road, Malvern. Planning Permit 919/11 was issued on 20 September 2012 for buildings and works and use as a car park in association with a Section 2 use (Hospital) in a Residential 1 Zone at 185-189 Wattletree Road, Malvern. This car park has been approved to provide 95 additional car parking spaces (including 2 disabled spaces) to the existing Hospital. These spaces are not associated or linked with any particular development of the Hospital. A plan should be provided to show the location of the proposed car parking spaces on the site to be used for the Medical Centre. This will be included as a condition on any permit to issue.

It is noted that Council’s Transport & Parking Unit expressed concerns regarding the management of and access to the car park at 185-189 Wattletree Road, the location of the bicycle spaces and the sight distance for the on-site car spaces within the existing garage.

The applicant advises that registered visitors and long-term outpatients who attend the Hospital on a regular basis will be provided with a swipe card to access the car park at 185-189 Wattletree Road. These swipe cards will be given to the patients and visitors when they arrange/book for the activities at the Medical Centre at 4 Coonil Crescent. If the patients and visitors arrange/book for the activities by phone, then the swipe cards will be mailed out to them well in advance of their activities. The patients and visitors will be advised that the car park readers will be programmed to deny access outside the operating times. This arrangement is considered satisfactory and can be further addressed via the submission and endorsement of a Parking Management Plan and conditions on any permit to issue.

With regard to the location of the bicycle spaces, staff parking should be provided in a bicycle locker or a rail in a lockable compound and visitor parking is to be provided at a bicycle rail. Additional information should be presented to ensure that the location and dimensions of the bicycle spaces are satisfactory. This can be addressed by a condition on any permit to issue.

With regard to the sight distance at the property boundary, it is noted that there is an existing garage on site and it is not proposed to alter it in any way. The car parking spaces are proposed to be used by staff and as such are unlikely to generate multiple movements throughout the day as opposed to if they were to be used by visitors. The garage provides adequate sight distance at the boundary. However, the plans do not show this. It is considered that the plans should be amended to show the existing conditions and location of the garage. This can be addressed by a condition on any permit to issue.

It is proposed to remove five trees from the site, one of which would be considered significant. No objection has been raised by Council’s Arborist for its removal. However, replacement vegetation should be provided. A Landscape Plan, a Tree Management Plan (for the existing trees on site) and protection fencing would be required by conditions on any permit to issue.

Objections

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

 While the applicant provided an estimate of the types of services and staffing/patient numbers as a guide for a typical week, any permit issued can only stipulate the number of persons providing health services on the site.  There may be increased noise from the proposed use. However, the use will have to comply with relevant EPA laws and regulations.  Pollution associated with vehicles is not a relevant planning consideration.  Council is currently assessing the merits of this application and will assess any new application if/when they are presented to Council for assessment.  The 1983 Agreement between Council and Cabrini Hospital – which seems to bind the Hospital development to the island site – is not an agreement registered on the Certificate of Title. This agreement was made in 1983 and outlines a consultative/co-operative process between Council and the Hospital with broad objectives and parameters about built form and car parking. This existence of this Agreement does not preclude the Hospital from seeking approval via the usual planning permit application process for development outside the agreed parameters.

Human Rights Consideration

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

CONCLUSION

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

 The proposed medical centre is appropriate for the site and the neighbourhood.  The medical centre will operate during appropriate hours.  The proposed addition to the heritage building is considered modest and acceptable.  The proposed addition will not have any substantial impact on the amenity of adjoining properties.  The use of the car park at 185-189 Wattletree Road is considered to be an acceptable use of the spaces.  Should the medical centre use not be pursued or abandoned, the existing building could be easily converted back to a dwelling, an as of right use in a Residential 1 Zone.

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 359/12 for the land located at 4 Coonil Crescent, Malvern be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for partial demolition and buildings and works for use of the site as a Medical Centre (Section 2 Use) in a Residential 1 Zone and Heritage Overlay and to allow 24 car parking spaces to be provided at 185 - 189 Wattletree Road, Malvern subject to the following conditions:

1. Prior to the endorsement of plans, plans associated with Planning Permit 919/11 must be amended to identify which spaces are to be allocated to the Medical Centre at 4 Coonil Crescent, Malvern.

2. Before the commencement of the development, three (3) copies of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans advertised October 2012 but modified to show:

a) A plan identifying the location of the proposed 24 car parking spaces at 185-189 Wattletree Road, Malvern. b) Setbacks of the addition to the building modified from the northern and southern boundaries as shown on drawings TP7-01, TP7-02 and TP7-03 prepared by Jacob Thomas & Associates Pty Ltd and received 25 February 2013. c) Removal of the existing gate and steps along the Derril Avenue frontage as shown on drawing TP7-01prepared by Jacob Thomas & Associates Pty Ltd and received 25 February 2013. d) Bicycle spaces to be provided on site (staff parking should be provided in a bicycle locker or a rail in a lockable compound and visitor parking should be provided at a bicycle rail) in accordance with Clause 52.34 or to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. e) The correct location of the garage at the Coonil Crescent frontage demonstrating that adequate sight distance is provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Page 17 GENERAL BUSINESS 8 APRIL 2013

f) An eastern boundary fence elevation showing the existing fence with the proposed 600mm lattice.

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

4. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans a Tree Management Plan prepared by a suitably qualified arborist must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the Tree Management Plan will form part of this permit and all works must be done in accordance with the Tree Management Plan. The Tree Management Plan must detail measures to protect and ensure the viability of the trees being retained at the rear of the site, to ensure that they are, maintained in a healthy condition during construction works

Without limiting the generality of the Tree Management Plan it must have at least three sections as follows:

a) Pre-construction – details to include a tree protection zone, height barrier around the tree protection zone, amount and type of mulch to be placed above the tree protection zone and method of cutting any roots or branches which extend beyond the tree protection zone. b) During-construction – details to include watering regime during construction and method of protection of exposed roots. c) Post-construction – details to include watering regime and time of final inspection when barrier can be removed and protection works and regime can cease.

Pre-construction works and any root cutting must be inspected and approved by the Parks Unit. Removal of protection works and cessation of the Tree Management Plan must be authorised by the Parks Unit.

5. Prior to the commencement of the buildings and works, a Parking Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Parking Management Plan must include, but not limited to:

a) How the car park at 185-189 Wattletree Road will operate, including details of access and security of staff, patients and visitors. b) Details regarding the allocation of swipe cards to patients and visitors when arranging/booking for the activities at the site. c) Number of staff arriving between 7am and 8am and details of where they will park given that only two car parking spaces are provided on site and that the car park at 185-189 Wattletree Road operates from 8am.

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

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

b) A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers, including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant; c) The number and mature size of the replacement planting to be consistent with the existing conditions on the site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

8. Before the development (including excavation and demolition) starts, a tree protection fence must be erected around all street trees abutting the property and must be at least 1.8m high, be of steel mesh construction, run from kerb to footpath and 1m either side of the tree stems to define a ‘Tree Protection Zone’ to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The tree protection fence must remain in place until all construction is completed. The ground surface of the Tree Protection Zone must be covered by a 100 mm deep layer of mulch before the development starts and be watered regularly to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

10. A maximum of eight (8) persons providing health services may operate on the premises at any one time.

11. The use hearby permitted may only operate between the following hours:

a) Monday to Friday 7am to 9pm b) Saturday 8am to 4pm

12. All appointments are to be scheduled in advance and no ‘walk up’ consultations are permitted.

13. Before the use commences, car parking in accordance with the rates required by Clause 52.06 of the Planning Scheme must be provided, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The car parking may be provided as a combination of car park spaces on the land and car park spaces on 185-189 Wattletree Road, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

14. Prior to the commencement of use, the car spaces hereby approved at 185-189 Wattletree Road must be made available and used by patients, visitors and staff of the proposed use during the hours of operation of the car park. No fees may be imposed for the use of the spaces to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

16. All loading and unloading of goods must be undertaken in accordance with Council’s Local Laws.

17. Prior to commencement of use, the existing vehicular crossing along the Derril Avenue frontage must be broken out and re-instated as standard footpath and kerb and channel at the permit holders cost to the approval and satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit. b) The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit. c) The use is not commenced within five years of the date of this permit. d) The use is discontinued for a period of two years or more.

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.

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

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

“Significant tree” means a tree:

a) with a trunk circumference of 180 centimeters or greater measured at its base; or b) with a trunk circumference of 140 centimeters or greater measured at 1.5 metres above its base; or c) listed on the Significant Tree Register.

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

1.2. PLANNING APPLICATION 0709/12 - 227 - 229 HIGH STREET, PRAHRAN – SIX STOREY BUILDING COMPRISING DWELLINGS, SHOPS AND OFFICE WITH CARPARKING

PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for construction and use of a multi dwelling building in a Business 2 Zone, Design and Development Overlay and Special Building Overlay and the reduction of car parking associated with use of the site as dwellings, shops and office (as of right use) at 227 – 229 High Street, Prahran.

Executive Summary

Applicant: SJB Planning Ward: South Zone: Business 2 Overlay: Design and Development Overlay 7 Special Building Overlay Environmental Audit Overlay Incorporated Plan Overlay 3 Date lodged: 4/10/2012 Statutory days: (as at council 141 meeting date) Trigger for referral to More than 4 storeys and more than 7 objections Council: Number of objections: 16 objections from 15 different properties Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on 28 February 2013 Officer Recommendation: Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Ascui Edwards Architects and are known as Drawing No.s: TP01A –TP13A, TP16A-TP25A all Council date stamped 4 October 2012 and TP14B, TP15B, TP26A and TP27A all Council date stamped 2 November 2012.

Key features of the proposal are:

 Demolition of the existing building on site (no permit required) and the construction of a six storey building comprising a ground floor office (147sqm) and shops (229sqm), 34 dwellings (17 x 1 bedroom and 17 x 2 bedroom) and two levels of basement car parking accessed from Mount Street comprising 32 car parking spaces and 38 bicycle spaces.  Basement 2 comprises 17 car parking spaces, 17 storage spaces, 12 bicycle spaces and a 10,000L stormwater tank.  Basement 1 comprises 15 car parking spaces, 17 storage spaces and 22 bicycle spaces.  The Ground Level comprises two shops (119m² + 110m²), an office (147m²), resident lobby accessed from Mount Street, a vehicle ramp accessed from Mount Street, lift and stair, Page 21 GENERAL BUSINESS 8 APRIL 2013

residential bin store room and shop and office bin store and four visitor bicycle spaces located adjacent to vehicle ramp.  Levels 1-3 comprise 8 dwellings (5 x 1 bedroom and 3 x 2 bedroom), lift and stair and rubbish chute for each level.  Levels 4-5 comprise 5 dwellings (1 x 1 bedroom and 4 x 2 bedroom), lift and stair and rubbish chute for each level.  The overall building height when measured from the centre of the High Street frontage to the parapet is 19.45m (AHD 37.32m). The lift overrun has a height of 20.15m (AHD 38.02m) and the plant screen a height of 21.25m (AHD 39.12m).

A Transport Impact Assessment prepared by GTA Consultants, a Waste Management Plan prepared by Leigh Design and a Sustainability Management Plan prepared by Sustainable Development Consultants also form part of the assessment of this application.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the north west corner of the High Street and Mount Street, Prahran, approximately 180m east of Chapel Street. The site has the following significant characteristics:

 Is regular in shape with a frontage to High Street of 15.85m, a depth of 43.28m and a total site area of approximately 686m².  Is currently occupied by a two storey rendered building occupied by an office and gymnasium.  Vehicle access to the site is via a crossover at the northern end of the Mount Street frontage.  There is a slight fall in the land from the south west corner to the north east corner of approximately 830mm.

The site is located within the Prahran/South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre. It is zoned Business 2 and affected by Design and Development Overlay Schedule 7 (Prahran/South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre), Special Building Overlay, Environmental Audit Overlay and the Incorporated Plan Overlay. It is strategically located within close proximity to Chapel Street, providing good access to shopping, services, tram routes and the Prahran Railway Station.

To the north of the site, at 10 Mount Street (also known as 11 Clifton Street), is a four storey residential building with frontages to both Clifton Street and Mount Street. The site is known as the “Mondrian Apartments” and contains two buildings, one to each street frontage orientated north- south, with a central parking area. The building is marginally setback form the common boundary with the subject site, however, this interface comprises a solid wall. Balconies associated with the most immediate dwellings have an outlook to the street.

To the west of the site, at 223 High Street, is a two storey commercial building. This building has total site coverage and has vehicle access from the laneway to the rear which is accessed from Clifton Street. It is noted that Planning Permit 1287/07 was issued on 21 May 2008 for use and development of the site for a shop and dwellings and associated car parking and loading bay dispensations in a Special Building Overlay and Environmental Audit Overlay. The permit allowed for the construction of a new 5 storey building for ground and first floor shop, 7 dwellings and 9 car parking spaces. While this permit was extended in March 2010 for an additional two years, there are no endorsed plans and works have not commenced. This permit has lapsed.

To the east of the site, beyond Mount Street at 235 High Street, is a two storey commercial building that is used as a dwelling. The building steps down to a single storey portion at the rear and is setback from its western boundary. Vehicle access to the site is via a crossover at the northern end of the Mount Street frontage.

To the south of the site, on the southern side of High Street, is a mixture of building types, heights and uses. There are car repair workshops, car wash, yoga studio and retail uses. It is noted that Planning Application 1036/11 at 242-246 High Street, Windsor was refused by Council at its meeting on 17 December 2012 for a six storey building comprising a shop, restaurant/cafe, 47 dwelling and access to 44 car parking spaces from Victoria Street. The building is proposed to have a height of 18.9m (20m to the lift and stair overrun). The applicant has appealed to VCAT against Council’s refusal and the matter has been set down for 3 days starting on 8 April 2013.

Previous Planning Applications

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

 Planning Permit 1229/03 was issued on 27 January 2004 for use of the premises as an indoor recreational facility and dispensation from the requirement to provide more than 2 car parking spaces.  Planning Permit 825/01 was issued on 24 August 2001 for buildings and works and dispensation from the requirement to provide more than 4 spaces on the site for the office use.

The Title

The site is described as Lot 1 on Title Plan 806728R on Certificate of Title 7515 Folio 133. There is no restrictive covenant on the title of land and the applicant has signed a declaration to this effect.

Planning Controls

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

Clause 34.02 – Business 2 Pursuant to Clause 34.02-1 a permit is required to use the land for dwellings and shops. Pursuant to Clause 34.02-4 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Overlays

Clause 43.02 – Design and Development Overlay 7 (Prahran/South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre) Pursuant to Clause 43.02-2 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Schedule 7 to the Overlay relates to the Prahran/South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre. The site is within a moderate change area. The preferred maximum building height for the site is 19m. The preferred street wall height is between 8-12m and a 6m setback for any part of the building that exceeds 12m.

Clause 43.03 – Incorporated Plan Overlay Schedule 3 to the Overlay relates to the Late Night Liquor Licence Trading in the Chapel Street Precinct: Measuring the Saturation Levels This overlay is not applicable to this application as liquor is not proposed.

Clause 44.05 – Special Building Overlay

Pursuant to Clause 44.05-1 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works. Pursuant to Clause 44.05-5 an application must be referred to the relevant floodplain management authority, Melbourne Water.

Clause 45.03 – Environmental Audit Overlay Pursuant to Clause 45.03-1, before a sensitive use commences or before the construction or carrying out of buildings and works in association with a sensitive use commences, either, a certificate of environmental audit must be issued for the land or an environmental auditor appointed under the Environment Protection Act 1970 must make a statement that the environmental conditions of the land are suitable for the sensitive use in accordance with the relevant Act.

Particular Provisions

Clause 52.06 – Car Parking Pursuant to Clause 52.06-2, a new use must not commence or a new building occupied until the required car spaces have been provided on the land.

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-3 a permit may be granted to reduce (including reduce to zero) the requirement to provide the number of car parking spaces required under this clause.

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5 Table 1 sets out the number of car parking spaces required for a use.

A dwelling requires the following car parking rates: - 1 to each one or two bedroom dwelling; - 1 for visitors to every 5 dwellings for developments of 5 or more dwellings

A shop requires a rate of 4 car spaces to each 100m² of leasable floor area.

An office requires a rate of 3.5 car spaces to each 100m² of net floor area.

Hence, 34 spaces are required for the dwellings, 6 for residential visitors, 9 for the shop and 5 for the office.

Clause 52.07 – Loading and Unloading of Vehicles Pursuant to Clause 52.07, space must be provided on the land for the loading and unloading of vehicles associated with certain uses. A permit may be granted to reduce or waive these requirements.

Clause 52.34 – Bicycle Facilities Pursuant to Clause 52.34-1, a new use must not commence or the floor area of an existing use must not be increased until the required bicycle facilities and associated signage has been provided on the land.

Pursuant to Clause 52.34-3: A dwelling requires the following rates: - In developments of four or more storeys, 1 to each 5 dwellings - In developments of four or more storeys, 1 to each 10 dwellings for visitors.

The applicable rates do not apply to shop given the floor area does not exceed 1000m².

The applicable rates do not apply to office given the floor area does not exceed 1000m².

Hence, 7 spaces are required for the dwellings and 3 for resident visitors.

Clause 52.35 – Urban Context Report and Design Response for residential development of four or more storeys

Pursuant to Clause 52.35-1 an application for a residential development of four or more storeys must be accompanied by:

 An urban context report  A design response

The State Planning Policy Framework: Clause 11.01 Activity Centres Clause 15.01-1 Urban Design Clause 15.01-5 Cultural Identify and Neighbourhood Character Clause 15.02 Sustainable Development Clause 16 Housing

Municipal Strategic Statement: Clause 21.02 Settlement and Environment Clause 21.03 Housing

Local Planning Policy Framework: Clause 22.02 Urban Design Policy Clause 22.05 Residential Development in Commercial Areas Clause 22.06 Neighbourhood Character, Amenity and Interface Policy Clause 22.09 Retail Centres Policy Clause 22.13 Parking Policy Clause 22.19 Prahran, South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre Policy

Advertising

Pursuant to Clause 34.02-4 and 44.05-4 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme the application for buildings and works under the Business 2 Zone and Special Building Overlay is exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of Section 82(1) of the Act.

The application (by virtue of the proposed uses, buildings and works under the Design and Development Overlay, reduction in the car parking requirements and waiver of the loading requirements) has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land and by placing two signs on the site. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

The site is located in South Ward and 16 objections from 15 different properties have been received. The grounds for objection are summerised as follows:

 Overlooking and overshadowing  Parking and traffic congestion  Conflict between trams on High Street and vehicles  Noise impact with increase of cars in Mount Street  No consideration of traffic from other buildings under construction  Proposed height exceeds height limit and height of all surrounding buildings  Not enough parking provided for all dwellings and office and retail staff Page 25 GENERAL BUSINESS 8 APRIL 2013

 Loss of multiple sporting facilities  Proposal will threaten character of the area  Effect quality of life for surrounding residents  Construction noise, pollution and disruption  Too many developments being constructed in the area  Overdevelopment of the site

A Consultative Meeting was held on 28 February 2013. The meeting was attended by Councillor Ullin, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. The meeting did not result in any changes to the plans.

Pursuant to Clause 34.02-4 and 44.05-4 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme the application for buildings and works under the Business 2 Zone and Special Building Overlay is exempt from the notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of Section 82(1) of the Act.

Referrals

Infrastructure

Conditions to be included on any permit to issue regarding legal point of discharge and footpath levels at the property line must not be raised or altered (to facilitate Melbourne Water requirements). Water tanks for recycling should significantly reduce runoff from the site and particularly if they are connected to the toilets.

Arborist

Construction excavation works will not impact on the health of the street tree on High Street. Proposed 1.2m wide canopy over High Street footpath will impact on future growth of the street tree and may require pruning of the tree to facilitate construction of the canopy. The proposed canopy will also limit any future planting opportunities for the site.

A Landscape Plan should be provided for all planting at Level 1.

The size of the roof space would lend itself to the installation of an extensive roof top garden for the benefit of future residents.

A setback at ground level (including basement and built form) at either the High Street or Mount Street frontage would enable the design to incorporate some landscape content visible in the public realm. Concerns with no scope for landscape content in High Street and risk of the area transforming into a large tunnel devoid of any vegetation.

Environmental Sustainable Design

Whilst some steps have been taken to consider sustainable design for this development (such as the use of the Green Star Multi-Residential tool), further details and clarifications are required before the Sustainable Management Plan is deemed fully satisfactory. The following aspects should be noted:

 Despite use of the Green Star Multi-residential tool, no information has been provided in the Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) on sustainability for the non-residential component of the development.

 Stonnington Council has adopted the SDAPP program. As such, there are some Council requirements which are not covered by the Green Star scorecard. For example, WSUD and ecological aspects are discussed in more detail under SDAPP. The Applicant should review these and address those which do not appear under Green Star.

Conditions to be included on any permit to issue regarding the submission of an amended Sustainable Management Plan, the submission of an implementation schedule, all works to be undertaken in accordance with the Sustainable Management Plan and prior to occupation a report is be submitted confirming all measures in the Sustainable Management Plan have been implemented.

Melbourne Water

No objection to the application, subject to conditions and footnotes being included on any permit to issue, including raising the finished floor levels above the applicable flood level of 17.82m to AHD.

Urban Design

This (primarily) residential development would cause a significant displacement of commercial activity and employment for the Principal Activity Centre (PAC). Higher-density developments are causing a progressive reduction in the diversity of uses and a significant loss of employment space from the PAC.

In its form and scale, the building is generally consistent with other comparable recent developments on main streets within the PAC. However, the mix of uses needs to be re-balanced to avoid the potential significant loss of commercial floor-space from the PAC. It is suggested that the first floor apartments be deleted and re-designed for commercial use including an increase in floor to ceiling height and independent access from the ground floor. In the process of re-design, it is also suggested that the building provide a street wall and upper-level setback to High Street which is more consistent with the intentions of the DDO.

Applicant’s response: The applicant responded (on 22 February 2013) to the Urban Design comments with the submission of a plans showing a reduced street wall height of 13.25m to High Street and 13.96m to Mount Street.

Transport & Parking

The statutory rate is 54 car parking spaces (34 for residents, 6 for residential visitors, 5 for office and 9 for shop). The proposal is providing 32 spaces. A shortfall in the Clause 52.06 requirements can be supported, noting that 12 dwellings are proposed with no parking spaces, so it encourages a shift towards more sustainable forms of transport, which is in line with Council’s Sustainable Transport Policy. However, some resident visitor parking should be provided on site. Residential Parking Permits would not be available to any future occupants of the development, including any future restriction to on-street parking. Four retail spaces and four office spaces are also proposed. Parking for retail and office should be for staff rather than customers. An additional space should be provided for the office. Notwithstanding the above, the parking allocation is considered satisfactory.

The additional traffic generated by the development will not significantly impact upon the existing traffic conditions in the area and can be considered satisfactory.

The statutory rate for the bicycle spaces is 7 resident spaces and 3 resident visitor spaces. The development provides 38 bicycle spaces. The 11 “Ned Kelly” bicycle spaces are satisfactory. The two “Ned Kelly” bicycle spaces adjacent to the stairs are satisfactory with the exception of a reduced access corridor. The 19 “Mona Lisa” bicycle spaces (above bonnet) are considered satisfactory. The two “Towel Rail” are satisfactory with the exception of a reduced access corridor. The four spaces to be provided with the “Flat Top” rails are satisfactory with the exception of a reduced access corridor.

The shops generate the need for loading facilities. No objection is offered to the omission of an on-site loading area, especially given the limited access within the site.

There are a number of concerns raised with the car parking layout, which are summerised as follows:

 The access ramp from Mount Street to Basement 1, including that the entire development provides one way access. Vehicles travelling in opposite directions may only pass each other at the level sections in the basements. This is will cause conflict between entering and exiting vehicles, forcing motorists to either reverse up or down the ramp. This arrangement is not considered safe and cannot be supported.  Pedestrians would be forced to use the vehicle ramps to traverse the car park from the northern portion of each basement to the lift and stairs. A stairway or pedestrian ramp should be located at the split-level for pedestrian access between levels so that pedestrians do not have to use vehicular ramps.  The marked waiting area in front of the lift, on both basement levels, has not been dimensioned and it is unclear how this will be affected by vehicles making the turn at this corner. The auto turn assessment should include dimensions and bollards should be provided along the edges of the marked area to protect waiting pedestrians.  It is unclear how pedestrian movements will be managed in the garage area on the ground floor, including for waste collection.  All dimensions for the car parking spaces are considered satisfactory. However, the accessible car parking space should be increased in length from 4.9m to 5.4m. In addition, the office tandem space should not be located at the rear of the shared space. The shared space should not be provided for any other purpose (access) other than for a shared space. A bollard should be required to prohibit vehicle access.  Floor gradients have not been shown.  Column dimensions have not been provided for the 5.4m long tandem spaces.  The access ramp for the first 5m of the property boundary which is shown as 1:8 should be no steeper than 1:10. More details of the ramps is required to determine whether wheel scraping will occur.  The ramp widths are considered satisfactory.  While the longitudinal plans show that the headroom clearance provided throughout the car park will be at least 2.2m, no information has been provided regarding the clearance at the entry point with the garage door open.  The proposed sign, ‘pedestrians beware of vehicles exiting’ and a flashing light that is activated when the security grille is opened is unsatisfactory and it is desirable that some sight distance be provided on the north side of the site.  The vehicle crossover should be to Council’s standards.  The kerb and channel are to be reinstated at the locations of the existing redundant crossover as required during the modification of the northern crossover.

Applicant’s response:

The applicant responded (on 7 February 2013) to the Transport & Parking Unit’s comments with additional information from GTA Consultants. The following is a summary of their response:

 The proposed bicycle provision of 38 spaces exceeds the required spaces by 28 (only 10 spaces are required). It is considered than any ‘compromised’ spaces could be removed or modified as a condition of permit.  A plan showing a modification to the vehicle entry has been submitted to provide a 5m by 7m passing bay at the entrance to the site. However, this is not strictly required by the Planning Scheme as the ramp is not 50m long nor connects to a road in a Road Zone. The proposed passing bay would also result in the provision of a sight distance on the north side of the entry. In addition, within the basement car park, vehicles can pass on each car park level which are separated by 10m long ramps (shown on swept path assessments). On the basis of the modified design, vehicles will be able to pass each other at the top of the ramp and at four locations within the basement which is considered appropriate for a private low turnover car park. This arrangement could be included as a condition of permit.  Given the lower level car park will only cater for dedicated standard residential spaces it is not considered unreasonable that these pedestrians would traverse a 1:9 ramp for 10m. It is noted that the parking space designated for people with a disability is located adjacent to a lift.  A bollard could be provided to protect pedestrians waiting in the marked area for the lift as a condition of permit.  Only the waste contractor will access the residential bin area with residents disposing waste via the rubbish cute on each level.  The length of the accessible car parking space, 4.9m complies with Clause 52.06. The location of the space and its shared space was determined to minimise the number of tandem spaces. This arrangement could be swapped if preferred by Council, so that the accessible space is in tandem with the standard parking space and the shared area located between the space and the lift. However, the preference is that the current arrangement is appropriate and can be adequately managed given the car park is for private use.  All column locations could be provided as a condition of permit.  Basement gradients should be designed in accordance with the Australian Standards.  The proposed 1:8 transition from 1:5 ramp to flat is considered satisfactory. Longitudinal sections for the ramp have been provided and confirm that vehicles are able to access the ramp without scraping. The 1:8 ramp to the property boundary, while greater than the 1:10 ramp suggested, is considered satisfactory. This is because the intent of the requirement is for vehicles travelling up a ramp where sight distance to the property boundary may be compromised.  A 2.2m clearance should be provided throughout the car park including at the entrance.

The Waste Management Plan submitted with the application responded reasonably well to some of the waste management challenges presented in the plans. Other challenges though, remain somewhat unresolved; those challenges include:

 Shop 1 and Shop 2 have no direct (internal) access to the bin storage area. As currently portrayed, traders wishing to deposit their wastes need to exit their shop on High Street, proceed along High Street and then Mount Street to re-enter the building at the vehicle entrance (through the full width security grille). The bin storage area is located on this level in the rear corner of the building. This poor level of access is unsatisfactory.

 Equally, there is no internal access from the apartments to the bin storage area. Nor any direction on how residents may dispose of regular household wastes that are unsuitable of being placed down the waste chutes. Again, this poor level of access and lack of information requires attention.

Any Planning Permit issued for this development must include a clause specifically requiring the submission and approval of a Waste Management Plan. Once a Planning Permit has been issued for the development, a Waste Management Plan (similar to that previewed here expect with amendments to address unresolved issues) should be submitted for approval.

Applicant’s response:

The applicant responded (on 4 March 2013) to the Waste comments with the submission of a plan showing a new Back of House bin room for the Shop tenancies and a new door between the residential lobby and the bin store at Ground Level. In addition to this plan, a revised Waste Management Plan was provided. Council’s Waste Management Coordinator reviewed the plan and the Waste Management Plan and advised that the information now satisfies the previous concerns raised. The only amendment required is the reference to the site at 227-229 High Street, rather than 225-227 High Street. The submission of a revised Waste Management Plan (similar to the 1 March 2013 Plan) should be submitted for approval. This will form a condition on any permit to issue.

KEY ISSUES

State Policy

A number of State Planning Policies are relevant in regard to the policy setting for assessment of this application. These include Clauses 11.01 (Activity Centres), 11.04 (Metropolitan Melbourne), 15.01 (Urban Environment), 16.01 (Residential Development), 17.01-1 (Business) and 18 (Transport). The objectives listed provide a strong policy context for intensive housing developments within Principal Activity Centres that are well served by physical and social infrastructure. In particular, the State policy framework includes specific direction for the encouragement of a diversity of housing types in and around activity centers (11.01), increasing the supply of housing in urban areas (16.01), and ensuring housing stock matches changing demand by widening housing choice (16.01-4).

When considered against these policy directions there is strong State policy support for redevelopment of a site of this size and location within the Prahran, South Yarra and Windsor Principal Activity Centre for residential intensification. While the site may be strategically located for higher scale development, the design response must respect and enhance the existing neighbourhood character.

Local Policy

Council’s local policy at Clause 22.19 implements the contents of the relevant Chapel Vision Structure Plan (December 2007) in relation to land use. The subject site and immediate surrounding pocket is identified for moderate change pursuant to the Structure Plan document and this is reinforced in the relevant Design and Development Overlay 7. Clause 22.19 specifically encourages ground floor uses that contribute to a vibrant street life, provide a safe environment and which minimise the potential for conflict and the over-privatisation of the footpath, and it is policy to support uses that activate building frontages and that encourage safety and passive surveillance of public spaces.

Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement seeks to maintain and enhance the individual identity and distinctive character of all of Stonnington’s commercial areas. Having regard to the Retail Centres policy at Clause 22.09, it is policy to support and reinforce a hierarchy of shopping centres. Chapel Street is a Group 1 Centre, but the subject site is zoned Business 2 and falls under the Group 4 category which caters to local and everyday retail, office and service activities and the needs of the surrounding area. A proposal should promote effective land use and complement the individual character of the particular centre. Furthermore, the objectives of this policy seek to maintain the individual character in terms of use and built form in existing centres and to maintain and enhance the commercial viability of existing centres.

The Local Planning Policy Framework clearly identifies the subject site and its immediate surrounding environs as being an area where ground floor uses should contribute to a vibrant street life and provide passive surveillance. Subsequently, the sites inclusion within the Business 2 Zone encourages the development of offices and other commercial uses. The proposal comprises an office use component fronting Mount Street and two shops fronting High Street which is consistent with both policy and strategic direction for this area. Furthermore, the mixed use style building is consistent with the more recent developments which are generally occupied by small commercial spaces such as studios, offices, or service type uses which is in line with policy that seeks to encourage development to enhance the individual identity and distinctive character of Stonnington’s commercial areas such as this. The proposal is supported by the Local Planning Policy Framework.

Where residential development is encouraged in commercial areas pursuant to Clause 22.05, it is policy to ensure that development is carried out to standards of design and construction that will maintain the character and amenity of the surrounding area. It is considered the six storey building having regard to the proposed upper level setbacks, is generally consistent with more recently approved developments, and whilst exceeding the preferred height limit, this is only by less than 500mm and can be considered.

Built form

Clause 55 (ResCode) does not specifically apply to the assessment of this development by virtue of the fact that the site is located in a Business 2 Zone and the proposed building is four storeys or more. The application has been assessed against Clause 15.01-1 and the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 7. The assessment of this application must take into account the Urban Design Guidelines outlined in Clause 15.01-1, and should take into account the Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (Department of Sustainability and Environment 2004).

The site is specifically identified under the relevant Design and Development Overlay 7 (DDO7) as being within a moderate change area where moderate change in new development is expected to occur. In these areas there will be incremental opportunities for infill development consistent with the preferred future character of the area. The subject site and immediately surrounding area has a preferred maximum height limit of 19m under the applicable DDO7. Growth and redevelopment should reflect the degree of change identified for each change area and the preferred maximum building heights specified in the Schedule to the Overlay. The street setback is specified as a street wall height (0m setback) with any part of the building that exceeds 12m being setback 6m. Reduced upper level setbacks may be appropriate for corner sites and along side streets, subject to an appropriate site-specific design response. The Schedule also states that development should seek to open up building facades to passing pedestrian traffic. The character objectives for this area encourage innovative, high quality and well designed buildings which complement the existing urban fabric and mixed use character of the Activity Centre and which achieves the preferred built form outcomes for the Activity Centre as set out in this Schedule.

The following is an assessment against the guidelines in Clause 15.01-1:

Context

The proposed building would reach a height (when measured from the centre of the High Street frontage) of approximately 19.45m or 21.25m above natural ground level when including the plant screen at roof level. Along Mount Street, this increases to 20.17m (an additional 0.72m) given the slope in the land and the requirements of Melbourne Water. The preferred height of 19m is not mandatory and allows for some flexibility depending on the design of the building. The partial increase beyond the preferred maximum building height of 19m is considered acceptable as it relates to part of the upper level, the lift overrun and the plant. The additional height is as a result of the commercial ground level being greater than a minimum of 3m and the required finished flood level requirements of Melbourne Water. The overall height of the building is acceptable given the site context and the setbacks provided above the street wall.

The building has a four storey street wall height (when measured from the centre of the High Street frontage) of between 13.45m and 13.85m above natural ground level. This increases to 14.56m along the Mount Street frontage. The street setback requirements of the DDO7 are generally up to 12m. It is considered in the instances when we are seeking to encourage ground level active commercial uses, these cannot be achieved given that a commercial floor level required a floor to floor height greater than 3m. The greater floor to floor heights required for the ground floor commercial uses together with the higher finished floor levels as required by Melbourne Water result in a street wall height greater than 12m. The street wall is varied and articulated, with the High Street frontage presenting a projecting square frame interface with punctuated balconies, central recess and a bold delineation of the street intersection. The street wall is maintained around the Mount Street frontage, where a symmetrical approach is used which breaks the street wall into three elements. The treatment of the street wall and the additional height of 1.85m above the preferred street wall height is considered acceptable. Above the street wall height, the upper two levels of the building are progressively setback from the south, east and north boundaries. From the south, the setbacks are between 3.5m and 4.77m to the balcony and between 6m and 8.55m to the wall. From the east, the setbacks are between 900mm and 1.8m to the balcony and between 2.8m and 3.5m to the wall. From the north, the setbacks are between 4.48m and 5.0m to the balcony and 4.48m to 6.69m to the wall. While the DDO7 has a preferred upper level setback of 6m, it does allow for reduced upper level setbacks for corner sites and along side streets, subject to an appropriate site-specific design response. It is considered that the proposed design, including the lightweight materials of the upper level balconies, with its hugging of the corner, is acceptable for this site.

Council’s Urban Designer has suggested that the street wall height and upper level setbacks be closer to the DDO7 requirements than currently proposed. The applicant responded to these comments with the submission of plans showing a reduced street wall height of 13.25m to High Street and 13.96m to Mount Street. This is a decrease of 600mm, which is closer to the 12m preferred street wall height and similar to the four storey height of the Mondrian apartments to the north. These heights are also considered acceptable and an improvement on the advertised plans. It is considered that the plans should be amended to show the reduced street wall height as shown in the plans received 22 February 2013 and this can be addressed by a condition on any permit to issue.

The site is appropriately located in a strategic context, in a Business 2 Zone and within a Principal Activity Centre for a multi level residential building. The ground floor presentation is considered satisfactory. The proposal responds well to its immediate and wider context. The overall height of the building is consistent with the recently approved developments in the area and exceeds the (discretionary) preferred maximum building height marginally.

The Public Realm

It is considered that the public realm will be enhanced by the proposal. The development provides an active ground floor frontage to both streets and balconies at upper levels ensuring surveillance of the surrounding area are improved.

Safety

The proposed development will not detrimentally impact on the safety of the surrounding public environment. The building facades consist of open terrace balconies which would provide passive surveillance opportunities. A security grille (as shown on the plans for discussion) setback 2.5m from the title boundary will provide security to vehicle access and basement level car parking.

Landmarks, Views and Vistas

The proposed six storey building would not impact on or diminish or obstruct views to any landmarks, views and vistas within the vicinity. The immediately surrounding area is designated for moderate change and the building height proposed is anticipated.

Pedestrian Spaces

The design of the proposed building responds well to the prevailing context and pedestrian environment given it promotes streetscape interaction at ground level to High Street and Mount Street noting the provision of the shops and office tenancies. The architectural detailing above the ground level would also create a visual and social experience for pedestrians.

Heritage

The subject site is not located within a Heritage Overlay, nor are any of its abutting sites.

Consolidation of Site and Empty Sites

The site is currently on one title and no consolidation is necessary. The land is considered to be an underdevelopment given the two storey scale. Development of the site is encouraged and the new building will add to the complexity and rhythm of both street frontages.

Light and Shade

Given the inner city location of the subject site and the desired built form outcomes, the public realm would not be detrimentally impacted upon to an unreasonable degree by the proposed development. Given the orientation of the site, there will be increased shadow over the properties to the west and High Street during the morning period and will then move to the south and east in the afternoon into Mount Street and private property. The extent of shadow over the public realm is considered reasonable in this location.

The overshadowing impacts to the private properties will be discussed later in the report.

Energy and Resource Efficiency

Given the orientation of the site, the apartments face north, south or east. A small light court is proposed to the west side of the building which offers access to light and ventilation for a bedroom for one of the north facing apartments and allows for light and ventilation into common area.

The development has tried to maximise the northern aspect, with setting the building back from its northern boundary. In addition, some apartments will benefit from cross flow ventilation opportunities. These elements along with a reduced car parking rate, adequate bicycle spaces, the inclusion of a water tank and rooftop solar hot water panels promote sustainable design outcomes will assist in achieving efficient use of energy and resources.

Architectural Quality

The architectural design of the building does exhibit a high standard in architecture and urban design response to the site and its surrounding context. The design is contemporary and the proposed materials and finishes will ensure the building sits comfortably within the evolving and eclectic character of the surrounding environs.

Landscape Architecture

The site is located within a mixed use setting within a commercial zone and the area is considered to have a hard edge character. As such, the proposal to fully develop the site would not be out of context. A small component of landscaping along the northern boundary of Level 1 is proposed which provides softness to the existing wall along this boundary.

Amenity Impacts

In terms of external amenity, it is important to highlight that the subject site and nearby land is located within the Business 2 Zone and thereby cannot hold expectations of the same amenity standards as would a resident of an established residential neighbourhood. It is also relevant to note that the provisions of the Business 2 Zone and Special Building Overlay include exemptions from notice and review for buildings and works. This exemption also applies under the provisions of the Design and Development Overlay when an application proposes buildings and works that do not exceed the preferred maximum height limit of 19m. The only component of the building that exceeds this height is part of the upper level, lift overrun and services.

Overshadowing

To the west are commercial buildings built to all boundaries. These will be affected by shadows in the morning. No private open space is proposed to be overshadowed.

To the east of the site, on the opposite side of Mount Street, the rear yard of the dwelling at 235 High Street will be affected by shadow in the afternoon as a result of the proposed development. The extent of shadow during the afternoon up until 3pm is considered acceptable having regard to the sites setting when balanced against the strategic direction of the Stonnington Planning Scheme and policy for development in commercial areas and residential character, amenity and interface policies.

Overlooking

While Rescode does not apply to a building of four or more storeys, the overlooking standard can be used as a guide to assess the impact on adjoining properties from potential overlooking.

The proposal comprises balconies that are orientated to the north, east and south. Balconies facing High Street do not require screening as they overlook the public realm. Similarly, the east facing balconies are onto Mount Street. It appears that Mount Street is less than 9m in width (approximately 8.5) and therefore the building used as a dwelling at 235 High Street is less than 9m from the proposed building, including its rear yard. Some views may be possible to this dwelling.

However, the subject site and the surrounding land are within a Business 2 Zone and the level of amenity that can be reasonably expected is much lower than that within a residentially zoned land. Furthermore, if all windows and balconies along the eastern elevation required screening to prevent overlooking to 235 High Street, this would produce an acceptable urban design outcome. Hence, the distance of Mount Street provides an acceptable separation between the two sites to restrict unreasonable direct overlooking.

Along the north elevation, the building incorporates balconies and windows setback between 4.15m and 5m from the northern boundary. The Mondrian apartments to the north include a four storey wall along the common boundary. This wall steps down in part to Mount Street. There are balconies associated with the dwellings to the north at this interface which have an outlook to the street. In the plans submitted to address the Urban Design comments, screening to the north facing windows and balconies to Apartments 2.06 and 3.06 were also shown to address concerns raised by an objector. These amendments can be included as a condition on any permit to issue. The balconies and windows to the apartments on levels 4 and 5 are considered satisfactory as they will have no unreasonable direct overlooking to the balconies to the property to the north.

Internal Amenity

The proposed development consists of various one and two bedroom dwelling types. The internal floor layouts range in size from 46m² to 53m² for one bedroom apartments and 62m² to 77m² for two bedroom apartments.

The mix of dwelling types and configurations is diverse in this building, having regard to the provision of one and two bedroom dwellings, with some that include a study. Nine of the 34 dwellings include bedrooms that rely on borrowed light. All the borrowed light bedrooms are for one bedroom dwellings that have a north or east orientation. This level of reliance on borrowed light is considered acceptable. Every dwelling has access to a minimum 9m² of private open space provided from a living room. This is considered an acceptable outcome for a development of this type.

The pedestrian entry point on Mount Street is considered satisfactory and will provide a sense of address and a safe access point. The development has adequate internal accessibility with lift and stair access.

Each dwelling will be provided with an external storage space in the basement levels and this is considered satisfactory.

The proposal responds well to the State and Local Planning Policy framework which encourages the need for diverse housing stock to meet the needs of existing and future populations and the projections that indicate there is a need for smaller household types. Overall, the proposed development provides a sufficient level of internal amenity for future residents.

Land Use

The proposed dwelling and shops uses are appropriate for the site having regard to the location and existing mixed use character. Clause 22.19 seeks to provide a range of uses that are accessible to all and complement the role of the Activity Centre as a Principal Activity Centre and to accommodate housing growth and diversity by providing a range of housing types. The proposed office, shop and residential uses would co-exist harmoniously with surrounding light industrial, commercial and residential land uses and is consistent with this policy. Furthermore, these uses would be consistent with the strategic direction for this location and policy under Clause 22.09 Retail Centres Policy.

It is noted that Council’s Urban Designer recommended that office be provided at first floor level. The ground floor proposes two shops to High Street and an office to Mount Street. These uses improve the ground level activation and provide a mix of uses over the site. While it would be desirable to incorporate a first floor office, there is no policy requirement for this additional commercial use and further, there is no policy requirement which seeks to incorporate the existing commercial floor area into any new proposal. Hence, there is no policy justification to provide additional commercial uses than what is currently being proposed and as such, the proposed mix of uses is acceptable.

Car Parking and Traffic

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5, the proposal requires a statutory rate of 54 car spaces for 34 dwellings, 229m² of shop and a 147m² office. 32 car spaces are proposed and as such the proposal seeks a reduction of 22 car spaces required by the Planning Scheme. A rate of 0.65 car spaces would be provided to each dwelling. Four spaces are proposed for the shop use and four spaces are proposed for the office use. The proposed car parking rate is supported by Council’s Transport & Parking Unit, however the allocation of spaces is preferred to include some visitor spaces. It is considered that the proposal would be acceptable without the provision of visitor car parking given enough car parking has been provided to both the residential and commercial uses, and any visitors would have to rely on short term car parking or other modes of transport. The site is located within a Principal Activity Centre and public transport immediately available to this site is exceptional, notwithstanding the range or services which are located within immediate walking distance, thus resulting in no need for residents or visitors to rely on car use. The reduced supply of car parking is also supported by the fact that the resultant development will have a reduced impact on the local traffic environment. The Chapel Street environs are known to be congested and thus development with reduced car parking is encouraged. Hence, the allocation of spaces as proposed by the applicant is considered satisfactory.

The additional traffic generated by the development is considered satisfactory.

The proposal generates a requirement for 7 resident bicycle spaces and 3 resident visitor bicycle spaces. The proposal provides 38 bicycle spaces. 30 of the spaces (in excess of the requirements) are considered to be satisfactorily located and dimensioned. The additional 8 spaces, while not compliant with access widths, their dimensions are acceptable. Given they are ‘additional’ spaces, they are considered satisfactory.

The absence of a loading bay on-site is considered acceptable in this location. There are 15 minute spaces located nearby and a 30-minute loading zone in Mount Street which would assist in loading and unloading for the site.

Council’s Transport & Parking Unit has identified a number of concerns with the layout of the car parking area. These are summarised in the referral section above. Most of the concerns relating to the passing bay at the entrance, column locations, floor gradients and the headroom clearances could be addressed by a condition on any permit to issue.

It is considered that the proposal is providing in excess of the bicycle requirements and as such the reduced access corridor can be accepted. Also, the requirement for an additional stairway or pedestrian ramp to be provided so that pedestrians do not use the vehicular ramp is considered to be onerous and may require the deletion of car spaces. Given that the lower level car parks will be used by residents and that the entire car park is for only a limited number of cars, it is considered appropriate for pedestrians to use the vehicular ramps.

Any permit to issue will also include a note to ensure that residents of this development would not be issued with resident and visitor parking permits.

A condition should be included on any permit to issue requiring the submission and approval of a Waste Management Plan (similar to the WMP prepared by Leigh Design Pty Ltd and dated 1 March 2013).

Street Tree/Landscape Plan

While the tree along High Street may be affected by the proposed canopy for the building, it is considered that a canopy should be provided so that weather protection for pedestrians is provided. This might require pruning of the street tree to facilitate its construction. The canopy to the building should take priority over pruning to a tree to allow for a building on this site.

A Landscape Plan should be submitted for the proposed planting along the north boundary on Level 1.

Council’s Arborist has suggested that a setback at ground level (including basement and built form) at either the High Street or Mount Street frontage be provided to enable the design to incorporate some landscape content visible in the public realm. It is considered that this view is at odds with the DDO7 which seeks to encourage buildings to build hard up against the property boundary.

It is noted that Council’s Arborist recommended that an extensive roof top garden for the benefit of future residents could be provided. The additional balustrade and stair height required for any roof top garden would increase the overall height of the building and further increase the height above the preferred maximum building height of the DDO&. While a roof garden would be beneficial, this has not been proposed and as such cannot be considered.

Melbourne Water

The site is subject to flooding and the applicable flood level for the property is 17.82 metres to the Australian Height Datum (AHD).

Melbourne Water does not object to the proposal, subject to conditions and footnotes being included on any permit to issue.

The proposed finished floor levels have incorporated Melbourne Water’s requirements and as such, no amendments are required to the plans.

Environmental Sustainable Design

Conditions should be included on any permit to issue requiring the submission and approval of an amended Sustainable Management Plan, the submission of an implementation schedule, all works to be undertaken in accordance with the Sustainable Management Plan and prior to occupation a report is be submitted confirming all measures in the Sustainable Management Plan have been implemented.

Water Sensitive Urban Design

A STORM report included in the Sustainable Management Plan indicates the proposed 10,000L rainwater tank in Basement 2 will achieve a STORM rating in excess of 100% and best practice stormwater management. Additional information is to be provided in the Sustainable Management Plan regarding the rainwater tank’s connection to the central hot water system and the filtration method proposed.

Environmental Audit Overlay

As noted above, the site is subject to an Environmental Audit Overlay. Clause 45.03 advises of requirements that must be met prior to a sensitive use, such as residential, commencing on potentially contaminated land. A condition will be included on any permit to issue for this requirement.

Drainage/Infrastructure

Conditions relating to legal point of discharge and footpath levels to be retained should be included as a condition on any permit to issue.

Objections

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

 The subject site and the surrounding area is within a Principal Activity Centre were one would expect increased residential density.  Construction issues, including noise, pollution and disruption are not planning considerations.  Noise impact associated with increase of cars in Mount Street is not a planning consideration.

CONCLUSION

 The building height and setbacks subject to conditions is considered to appropriately respond to the evolving built form environment of the nearby area and strategic context of the site.  The proposed uses are appropriate given the site’s location within a Business Zone and Principal Activity Centre and will provide for greater housing choice and diversity within the area.  Adequate provision is made for on and off site amenity, subject to permit conditions.  Appropriate car parking and bicycle parking area provided.

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 709/12 for the land located at 227- 229 High Street, Prahran be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for construction and use of a multi dwelling building in a Business 2 Zone, Design and Development Overlay and Special Building Overlay and the reduction of car parking associated with use of the site as dwellings, shops and office (as of right use) subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the use and development, three (3) copies of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with Drawing No.s: TP01A – TP13A, TP16A-TP25A all Council date stamped 4 October 2012 and TP14B, TP15B, TP26A and TP27A all Council date stamped 2 November 2012, but modified to show:

a. Reduction in the street wall height to 13.25m to High Street and 13.96m to Mount Street as shown on drawings TP-20 Rev B and TP-21 Rev prepared by Ascui Edwards Architects Pty Ltd and received 22 February 2013. b. Screening to the north facing windows and balconies to Apartments 2.06 and 3.06 as shown on drawing TP-23 Rev B prepared by Ascui Edwards Architects Pty Ltd and received 22 February 2013. c. A shared waste area for Shop 1 and 2 and a doorway between the Residential Lobby and the Bin Store at Ground Level as shown on drawing TP-15 Rev C prepared by Ascui Edwards Architects Pty Ltd and received 4 March 2013. d. A passing bay at the top of the ramp entrance at Mount Street as shown on the GTA Consultants Drawing 12M1977000-01-01P1 and received 7 February 2013. e. A bollard at the pedestrian area at the lift entrance. f. The dimensions of the structural columns such that they are in accordance with the Planning Scheme or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. g. Floor gradients for the parking area to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. h. The headroom clearance throughout the car park, including at the car park entrance (with the security grille open) to be a minimum 2.2m.

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

3. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan (similar to the Waste Management Plan prepared by Leigh Design Pty Ltd and dated 1 March 2013) 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. Waste collection from the development must be in accordance with the plan, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

4. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, an amended Sustainable Management Plan Report (SMP) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The report must be generally in accordance with the Sustainability Management Plan Report dated 28th September 2012 and the recommendations of the report must be incorporated into the design and layout of the development, and must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the occupation of the development. The amended report must include, but not limited to, the following:

a. Updated Green Star Multi-Unit Residential Tool to include details of all scorecard credits selected and incorporated in development. b. A completed Sustainable Design Scorecard (SDS) for the commercial component of the development. c. Demonstrate implementation of Best Practice measures from Stonnington Council’s Sustainable Design Assessment in the Planning Process (SDAPP), where these are not already covered by the Green Star Multi-residential Unit or SDS tools.

5. Before the development commences, an Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) implementation schedule to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. This should identify the different areas of responsibility and provide a schedule for implementation, ongoing management, maintenance and monitoring.

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

7. Prior to the occupation of the development approved under this permit, a report from the author of the Sustainability Management Plan report, approved pursuant to this permit, or similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The report must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must confirm that all measures specified in the Sustainability Management Plan have been implemented in accordance with the approved plan.

8. Prior to the commencement of the use, a Parking Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Parking Management Plan must include, but not limited to:

a. Allocation of car parking spaces. b. Detail the signing and line marking of parking spaces. c. Detail any access controls to the parking area.

When approved, the Parking Management Plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.

9. Before the commencement of the use and development, a landscape plan to be prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The landscape plan must show all planting to be provided at Level 1, including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant.

10. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Responsible Authority, before a sensitive use (residential use, child care centre, pre-school centre or primary school) commences or before the construction or carrying out of buildings and works in association with a sensitive use commences, either:

a. A certificate of environmental audit must be issued for the land in accordance with Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970, or

b. An environmental auditor appointed under the Environment Protection Act 1970 must make a statement in accordance with Part IXD of that Act that the environmental conditions of the land are suitable for the sensitive use.

Before the occupation of the building all the conditions of the Statement of Environmental Audit must be complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

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

13. A report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in accordance with that report prior to a building permit being issued. The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer’s design.

14. The level of the footpaths and/or laneways must not be lowered or altered in any way.

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

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

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

18. Prior to the occupation of the building, privacy screens designed to limit overlooking as required in accordance with the endorsed plans must be installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority thereafter for the life of the building.

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

Melbourne Water Conditions

20. Pollution and sediment laden runoff shall not be discharged directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water's drains or waterways.

21. The ground floor of the building comprising of shops, office and lobby must be constructed with finished floor levels a minimum of 300mm above the applicable flood level.

22. All new dwellings must be constructed with finished floor levels a minimum of 300mm above the applicable flood level.

23. All entry/exit ramps of the basement car park must incorporate a flood proof apex of a minimum of 300mm above the applicable flood level.

24. All external doors, windows, vents and openings to the basement car park must be a minimum of 300mm above the applicable flood level.

25. Prior to the issue of a Certificate of Occupancy for the dwellings, a certified survey plan, showing finished floor levels (as constructed) reduced to the Australian Height Datum, must be submitted to Melbourne Water to demonstrate that the floor levels have been constructed in accordance with Melbourne Water’s requirements.

a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit. b)The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit. c) The use is not commenced within five years of the date of this permit. d)The use is discontinued for a period of two years or more.

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.

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

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

The owners and occupiers of the dwelling/s hereby approved are not eligible to receive “Resident Parking Permits”.

The crossover design as shown on the drawings does not comply with Council’s Vehicle Crossing Policy and is unlikely to receive a local laws permit. The crossover must be constructed to Council’s Standard Vehicle Crossover Guidelines unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority.

The applicable flood level for the property is 17.82 metres to Australian Height Datum (AHD).

If further information is required in relation to Melbourne Water's permit conditions shown above, please contact Melbourne Water on telephone 9679 7517, quoting Melbourne Water's reference 204313.

1.3. PLANNING APPLICATION 0010/13 - 243 GLENFERRIE ROAD, MALVERN - RESTAURANT AND CAFE LIQUOR LICENCE ASSOICATED WITH THE EXISTING USE OF THE SITE AS A RESTAURANT

PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for a restaurant and cafe liquor licence associated with the existing use of the site as a Restaurant at 243 Glenferrie Road, Malvern.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Nandos Australia Pty Ltd Ward: South Zone: Business 1 Overlay: Heritage Overlay Date lodged: 14/01/2013 Statutory days: (as at council 36 meeting date) Trigger for referral to 7 Objections and Councillor Call Up Council: Patron Numbers: 78 Number of objections: 7 Consultative Meeting: No Officer Recommendation: Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plan that forms part of the basis of Council's consideration was prepared by the applicant and can be described as a floor plan of the restaurant. The plan is Council date stamped 14 January 2013.

The proposal incorporates the following key aspects:

 Restaurant and Cafe liquor licence associated with the existing use of the site as a restaurant  Licensed to serve liquor from 11:00am – 11:00pm Monday to Sunday  Maximum of 60 patrons internally and a maximum of 18 patrons externally (in the existing outside seating area)

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is located at 243 Glenferrie Road, Malvern, on the south west corner of Glenferrie Road and Stanhope Street. The site has the following characteristics:

 The subject tenancy forms part of a large single storey building which is separated into five separate commercial tenancies fronting Glenferrie Road. The subject tenancy is located directly on the Glenferrie Road/Stanhope Street corner.  The subject tenancy is currently in use as a Nando’s Restaurant which operates with 78 seats (including the existing approved seating area outside the restaurant along Glenferrie Road and Stanhope Street).  The subject tenancy is L-shaped and has a frontage to Glenferrie Road of approximately 6 metres and a frontage to Stanhope Street of approximately 24 metres.  To the rear of the site is an open lot car park accessed from Stanhope Street which provides parking for the five commercial tenancies fronting Glenferrie Road.

The subject site is located within a Business 1 Zone and designated Major Activity Centre. Features of the adjoining land and properties are summarised as follows:

 To the north, on the opposite side of Stanhope Street is a ‘7-Eleven’ shop.  Land to the west, beyond the commercial carpark is zoned Residential and consists primarily of single storey dwellings.  To the east, on the opposite side of Glenferrie Road are a mix of uses which include office, retail and restaurant uses.  To the south, directly abutting the subject tenancy is a ‘Subway’ and further along the strip is a ‘Noodle Box’, a Japanese Restaurant and an Italian restaurant.

It is noted, that there are many uses that operate with liquor licences in the immediate area. The Japanese restaurant, ‘Ayame’ which is located to the south of the subject tenancy holds a Restaurant and Cafe Liquor Licence. This licence allows alcohol to be served Monday to Saturday between 7:00am and 1:00am and on Sundays between 10:00am and 11:30pm.

The Italian Restaurant to the south, ‘Something Italian’, also holds a Restaurant and Cafe Liquor Licence. This licence allows liquor to be served between 7:00am and 12:30am Monday to Thursday, between 7am and 1:00am Friday and Saturdays and between 10:00am and 11:00pm on Sundays.

Opposite the site, on the far side of Glenferrie Road is an Indian Restaurant, ‘Moti Mahal’, which also holds a Restaurant and Cafe Liquor Licence. This licence allows alcohol to be served between 6:00pm and 11:00pm Sunday to Wednesday and between 12:00pm and 2:30pm and 6:00pm and 11:00pm Thursday to Saturday.

Previous Planning Application(s)

A search of Council records indicates that there are no relevant previous planning applications for this site.

The Title

The site is known as Volume 09938 Folio 683 and is described as Unit 1 on Strata Plan 034609m. There is no restrictive covenant on the title of land and the applicant has signed a declaration to this effect.

Planning Controls

Clause 34.01 Business 1

Pursuant to Clause 34.01-1 (Business 1 Zone) a permit is required to use the land as a Restaurant. Given that the restaurant use is existing, a permit is not required for the use under the zone.

Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay

Pursuant to Clause 43.01-1, a planning permit is required to demolish or remove a building, to construct a building or to construct or carry out works. A permit is not required under the Heritage Overlay as no works are proposed.

Any Particular Provisions

Clause 52.06 Pursuant to Clause 52.06-1 the requirements for car parking apply to applications for a new use, an increase in floor area or an increase in patron numbers. The provisions of Clause 52.06 do not apply to this application as it is not proposed to increase the floor area or the patron numbers of the existing restaurant.

Clause 52.27 licensed Premises

Pursuant to Clause 52.27 a permit is required to use land to sell or consume liquor if a license is required under the Liquor Control Act 1998.

Clause 22.10 Licensed Premises Policy Clause 52.27 Licenced Premises Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

Advertising

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

The site is located in South Ward and 7 objections have been received. The objections can be summarized as follows:

 Increase in noise, litter and anti social behaviour  The licence will lead to underage drinking  The liquor licence will attract more people and therefore more traffic on Stanhope Street

Cr Sehr called up the application to Council and advised that a consultation meeting was not required.

Assessment

The site is located in an established Major Activity Centre along Glenferrie Road where a mix of liquor licences exists. The alcohol consumption is proposed to be in conjunction with the serving of food at the existing restaurant and as such, a Restaurant and Cafe Liquor Licence is being applied for, which is proposed to include the outside dining area along Glenferrie Road and Stanhope Street.

The proposal complies with the relevant objectives and policy statements of the Licensed Premises Policy at Clause 22.10 and the decision guidelines of the Licenses Premises Particular Provision at Clause 52.27. It is considered that the use will contribute to the economic strength and vibrancy of the municipality which is an objective of Councils Municipal Strategic Statement at Clause 21.04-1.

The hours of operation (i.e. finish time of 11:00pm) meets the suggested parameters provided in Clause 22.10 for a site located nearby a Residential 1 Zone. Furthermore, given such a licence requires that 75 % of people who are consuming alcohol be also be seated and consuming food as part of a meal, it is not considered that this proposal will result in instances of intoxication or anti social behaviour. As such, the proposal to incorporate a liquor licence is not considered to adversely affect the amenity of the area in accordance with Clause 22.10-3.

It is noted, that there are a number of uses in the immediate area that operate with a Restaurant and Cafe Liquor Licence. These include ‘Ayama’ and ‘Something Italian’ to the south of the site and ‘Moti Mahal’ to the east of the site, on the opposite side of Glenferrie Road. These existing licences allow alcohol to be served up until 11:00pm, and in some cases up until 1:00am. These uses have been operating for some time without any known issues or concerns.

The proposal seeks licensed hours until 11:00pm which is not considered unreasonable in a Major Activity Centre where a mix of uses and liquor licences exist. It is considered that this restaurant will be able to operate without creating an adverse impact on the nearby residential area.

The proposed liquor licence is not considered to lead to excessive noise levels however, it is deemed appropriate to place a permit condition on any permit issued requiring that any music in the restaurant be limited to background music only. Another condition will also require the noise levels to comply with the State Environment Protection Policy. A further condition will also be placed on the permit requiring the owner to display a sign at the exit of the premises advising patrons to respect the amenity of the adjacent residential area and to leave in an orderly manner.

The proposal as discussed above meets the decision guidelines set out at Clause 52.27 and the policy objectives and decision guidelines at Clause 22.10 as such, it is considered that the proposal can be supported.

Objections

In response to the grounds of objection not already discussed in the report, the following comments are made:  Concerns were raised that the liquor licence would attract additional customers that will lead to an increase of traffic along Stanhope Street. It is not considered that there will be an increase in traffic as the patron numbers of the restaurant are not increasing.  Concerns regarding underage drinking were raised. It is the responsibility of the licence holder to ensure that alcohol is only served to persons over the age of 18 years. This is the case for any licence holder.

CONCLUSION

Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons:  The proposed use is consistent with Clause 22.10 (Licensed Premises Policy) and Clause 52.27 (Licensed Premises).

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 10/13 for the land located at 243 Glenferrie Road, Malvern be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for a Restaurant and Cafe Liquor Licence associated with the existing use of the site as a restaurant, subject to the following conditions:

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

2. Without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the sale of liquor must only occur within the premises between the hours of 11:00am – 11:00pm Monday to Sunday.

3. A maximum number of 78 patrons may be housed on the premises (including a maximum of 18 patrons on the footpath dining area) at any one time to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

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

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

7. Tables and chairs must be placed in position on the licensed premises so as to be available for at least 75% of the patrons attending the premises at any one time, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

8. The applicant must display a sign at the exit of the premises advising patrons to respect the amenity of the adjacent residential areas and leave in a quiet and orderly manner, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

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

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

Background music level, in relation to premises, means a level that enables patrons to conduct a conversation at a distance of 600 millimetres without having to raise their voices to a substantial level.

1.4. PLANNING APPLICATION 0066/13 - 1341 DANDENONG ROAD - CHADSTONE SHOPPING CENTRE , MALVERN EAST – REMOVAL OF A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT E036771

PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for removal of restrictive covenant E036771 at 1341 Dandenong Road, Malvern East.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Urbis Pty Ltd Ward: East Zone: Business 1 Overlay: Incorporated Plan Overlay (Schedule 2) Special Building Overlay Date lodged: 11/02/2013 Statutory days: (as at council 56 meeting date) Trigger for referral to Application of interest Council: Number of objections: Not applicable Consultative Meeting: No Officer Recommendation: Issue a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

It is proposed to remove the restrictive covenant E036711 from the Certificate of Title, known as Lot 1 on Title Plan 950949R (Volume 11395, Folio 271).

This Covenant was created in April 1971 between the Roman Catholic Trusts Corporation for the Diocese of Melbourne (RCT) and Myer Shopping Centres Pty Ltd. The restriction relates to the former Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 60268 shown on the now cancelled Certificate of Title Volume 8424 Folio 530.

Covenant E036771 requires that the owners of the land transferred “will not at any time hereafter

(a) erect or build or suffer or allow to be erected or built or constructed on the land hereby transferred or any part thereof any building or erection or structure with a flat roof unless such building erection or structure shall have a parapet wall along its southern boundary of not less than six feet above such roof level

(b) erect or build or construct or suffer or allow to be erected built or constructed any building on the land hereby transferred or any part thereof without previously erecting or constructing along the southern boundary of the land hereby transferred a brick wall not less than eight feet in height.

And it is agreed for the purpose of these covenants the terms building or erection or structure shall not include standards post signs, barriers or like structures for use in connection with the parking of vehicles or roadways paths drainage works underground sewerage works fences and boundary walls”.

Legal advice was sought by the Applicant to determine the impacts of this restriction on the proposed expansion of the Chadstone Shopping Centre. It was found that the land to which this restriction relates is burdened by the land to the south and east which were formerly known as Lots 2 and 3. As the land has been consolidated into one title, the former Lots 1, 2 and 3 are all held in the same ownership, being Perpetual Ltd (owners of the Chadstone Shopping Centre). Additionally, the entire site contains the Chadstone Shopping Centre and the area affected by the Covenant has been developed without any regard to the restriction for in excess of 20 years. Therefore, Covenant E036771 is considered to be redundant and this application seeks to remove it from the land.

Site and Surrounds

Chadstone Shopping Centre is located on the northern side of Dandenong Road (Princes Highway) in Malvern East. The site is irregular in shape and has a total area of approximately 27 hectares. The site is adjacent to the Princes Highway and additional vehicle access to the Shopping Centre is provided from Chadstone Road (west) and Middle Road, which runs east to west off Warrigal Road (east). The site is dominated by one building positioned diagonally across the land and is generally surrounded by open air car parks and multi-level car parking decks. An internal ring road extends around the boundary of the land, allowing for vehicles to circulate within the site and enter and exit from the east, west or south.

The Shopping Centre itself currently contains approximately 129,924 square metres of shop floor area and 41,293 square metres of ‘other’ floor area, such as office, food and drink premises and place of assembly, to name a few. As per the figures presented to the Panel during Amendment C154, there are presently 9,390 car parking spaces provided on the site in seven car parking locations around the Shopping Centre.

Chadstone Shopping Centre is identified as a Principal Activity Centre within Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement (Clause 21) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. The subject site is bound by residential properties to the north, east and west with the exception being the McDonalds restaurant located on the north-west corner of Dandenong and Chadstone Roads. Within the wider surrounding area there are a variety of non-residential uses such a medical centres, schools, religious and cultural facilities. These are generally situated adjacent to arterial roads.

On the opposite (south) side of Dandenong Road, east of Poath Road, is the City of Monash. West of Poath Road is the City of Glen Eira. Lots on the southern side of Dandenong Road are zoned Residential 1 and access is provided via a service lane.

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

In February 2013, three planning permits were approved allowing for development to increase the shop floor area on the site by 7,179 square metres (under Planning Permit 0783/12 - Stage 3A). The works also permitted a new bus interchange, a new first floor Myer car parking deck, a new Kmart Tyre and Auto building, a new basement car park and roadworks to the Princes Highway. Plans associated with each of these applications have not been endorsed and as such construction works have not commenced. More detail on these applications is provided below.

Previous Planning Applications

This site has a complex and extensive history with regard to previous planning permits. A search of Council records indicates the following most recent planning applications:

 Planning Permit 0407/12 was issued on 27 August 2012 for building and works to the existing building and the reconfiguration of the existing loading dock.

 Planning Permit 0546/12 was issued on 5 February 2013 and allows for a new bus interchange; variations to the Myer car park including a new car parking deck; road works to the Princes Highway; and the relocation and construction of a new Kmart Tyre and Auto Service Centre. This application, known as Stage 2A, was determined at a Council Meeting held on 4 February 2013 and plans have not been endorsed in accordance with the conditions of the Permit.

 Planning Permit 0547/12 was issued on 5 February 2013 and allows for the construction of a new four level basement car park and road works to the intersection of the Princes Highway and Central Access Road. This application is known as Stage 2B and was determined at a Council Meeting held on 4 February 2013. Plans have not been endorsed in accordance with the conditions of the Permit.

 Planning Permit 0783/12 was issued on 6 March 2013 and allows for the construction of a new building to contain a new basement level car park, a retail tenancy (Target) at lower ground level and two car parking decks at the upper floor levels. This application is known as Stage 3A and was determined at a Council Meeting held on 4 February 2013.

 Planning Application 0784/12 was lodged concurrently with Stage 3A on 26 October 2012 and includes the main redevelopment of the northern mall which involves demolition of the existing mall and construction of four new retail and entertainment floor levels. This application also seeks to extend the Coles car park to the east of the main shopping centre building. The application is known as Stage 3B and is currently being assessed by Council’s Planning Department.

 Planning Application 0785/12 was lodged along with Stages 3A and 3B on 26 October 2012 and includes the construction of two cinema “boxes” which sit outside of the building envelope as permitted by the Incorporated Plan (August 2012). This application is known as Stage 3C and is being considered concurrently with Stage 3B.

 Planning Application 0905/12 was lodged with Council on 12 December 2012 for the construction and use of new office and residential hotel buildings along the Princes Highway frontage including a dispensation in the statutory car parking rate for an office at Clause 52.06. This application is known as Stage 4 and is currently being assessed by Council’s Planning Department.

The Title

The site is described as Lot 1 on Title Plan 950949R (Volume 11395, Folio 271) and there are numerous restrictions which affect the land.

 Covenant A718781 was registered on the title on the Transfer of Land 31 March 1959, between Sisters of the Good Shepherd (vendor) and Chadmyr Pty Ltd. The covenant is in relation to the purchase price of the land.

 Covenant E036711 (the subject of this application) was registered on the Transfer of Land 1971, between the Roman Catholic Trusts Corporation for the Diocese of Melbourne (vendor) and Myer Shopping Centres Pty Ltd (purchaser). The covenant a) prohibits the construction of flat roof structures unless behind a parapet wall; and b) requires the construction of a brick wall not less than eight feet in height along the southern boundary of the land transferred.

 Agreement M056681Y was entered into on 21 October 1985 between The Mayor Councillors and Citizens of the City of Malvern and Bridgehead Pty Ltd. The agreement provides for landscaping of the land immediately adjoining Middle Road, Chadstone between Warrigal Road and Capon Street and leading up to the shopping centre as well as the provision of an acoustic fence erected in conjunction with the widening of Middle Road.

 Agreement R26177X, was entered into on 18 February 1991 between The Mayor Councillors and Citizens of the City of Malvern and Bridgehead Pty Ltd. The agreement references a previous planning scheme amendment to the Malvern Planning Scheme and four planning permits and links the aforementioned planning approvals to the requirements of Section 55A of the Building Control Act 1981. Agreement R361771X also makes note that the gross leasable floor area for shop is to limited to 60,000 square metres.

 Under previous Planning Permit 954/07 legal advice was sought which determined that this restriction is redundant and an application should be made to have the restriction removed.

 Agreement S675494B, was entered into on 6 September 1993 between The Mayor Councillors and Citizens of the City of Malvern and Bridgehead Pty Ltd. The agreement relates to Amendment RL142 to the Malvern Planning Scheme, prepared at the request of the owner to rezone the subject land facilitating expansion of the shopping centre. The agreement requires the owner to make payments to Council for community facilities commensurate with the then proposed retail expansion.

 Agreement V215634S, was entered into on 20 January 1998 between Stonnington City Council and Perpetual Trustees Australia Ltd & Bridgehead Pty Ltd. The agreement had been prepared in accordance with Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and allows works over a Council easement, built over by the north-east (Coles) car park. The agreement relates to access protection and maintenance of this easement.

 Agreement AG218150S, was registered on 17 November 2008 between Stonnington City Council, Perpetual Ltd and Bridgehead Pty Ltd and Commonwealth Managed Investments Ltd. The agreement had been prepared in accordance with Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and allowed the construction of a bridge over a drainage easement in favor of Council (easement known as ‘E31’) subject to the Owners entering into the covenants and conditions contained within the Agreement.

 Agreement AG298761J, was registered on 16 January 2009 between Stonnington City Council, Perpetual Ltd and Bridgehead Pty Ltd and Commonwealth Managed Investments Ltd. The agreement had been prepared in accordance with Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The Agreement was required under condition 54a of Planning Permit 0981/06 and condition 53 of Planning Permit 0508/06. The Agreement stipulates that the Owner agrees:

a) to indemnify the Council against any loss, damage and costs that may arise as a consequence of development within the property under Planning Permit 0981/06 and Planning Permit 0508/06; b) that the Basement Car Park will not be used for any other purpose other than the parking of vehicles, offloading or collection of goods and activities directly associated with those uses; and c) that the proposed development allowed under Planning Permit 0981/06 and Planning Permit 0508/06 and any future development that may be subjected to the flooding associated with the “Special Building Overlay” under the Planning Scheme must be designed and constructed to provide appropriate protection from flooding.

Planning Controls

The following permit triggers are considerations for this application:

Clause 52.02- Easements, restrictions and reserves

Pursuant to Clause 52.02, a permit is required before a person proceeds under Section 23 of the Subdivision Act 1988 to create, vary or remove an easement or restriction or vary or remove a condition in the nature of an easement in a Crown grant.

Clause 52.02 Easements, Restrictions and Reserves Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

Advertising

Pursuant to Section 47(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 this application is exempt from the notice and review requirements of Section 52 and 55, detailed as follows:

Sections 52 and 55 do not apply to an application for a permit to remove a restriction (within the meaning of the Subdivision Act 1988) over land if the land has been used or developed for more than 2 years before the date of the application in a manner which would have been lawful under this Act but for the existence of the restriction.

The covenant has been breached for in excess of 20 years and therefore is exempt from the notice and review requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

KEY ISSUES

The purpose of Clause 52.02 is to enable the removal or variation of an easement or restrictions to enable a use or development that complies with the planning scheme after the interests of affected people are considered. In addition to the interests of affected people, Clause 65.01 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme indicates that Section 60 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 must be considered as appropriate.

Section 60(5) of the Act states that:

The responsible authority must not grant a permit which allows the removal or variation of a restriction referred to in subsection (4) unless it is satisfied that-

a) the owner of any land benefited by the restriction (other than an owner who, before or after the making of the application for the permit but not more than three months before its making, has consented in writing to the grant of the permit) will be unlikely to suffer any detriment of any kind (including any perceived detriment) as a consequence of the removal or variation of the restriction; and

b) if that owner has objected to the grant of the permit, the objection is vexatious or not made in good faith

Importantly, Covenant E036711 burdens the land that was formerly known as Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 60268 of which Lot 2 and Lot 3 benefited. These lots have since been consolidated and are now held in the same ownership by Perpetual Ltd. As such there are no other land owners that benefit from the Covenant.

This position has been confirmed in the legal advice provided in support of the application, prepared by Rigby Cooke on behalf of the Applicant, which advises:

“In order for a Covenant to be enforceable, there must be both dominant and servient tenements. Additionally, each tenement must be held by two separate owners; a mutuality of ownership will result in a merger of the covenator’s obligations”.

Additionally, Section 47(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 exempts the application from the normal notice and referral requirements as the Covenant has been breached for more than 2 years. The subject site contains the Chadstone Shopping Centre and the area affected by the Covenant has been developed without any regard to the Covenant for in excess of 20 years.

As noted above, the land benefited by the Covenant is owned by Perpetual Ltd and therefore the restriction is considered to be redundant. Additionally, the Covenant has been breached as the site is fully developed for the purpose of a Shopping Centre (specifically Coles Supermarket) and these buildings have been in place without any of the detail required by the Covenant for more than 20 years.

Based on the legal advice provided by Rigby Cooke; the fact that the Covenant has been breached for more than 20 years; and due to there being no beneficiaries to the Covenant, it is considered that the restriction is no longer relevant or enforceable and can be removed.

CONCLUSION

 The land has been consolidated and all lots associated with the Covenant are now held in the same ownership. Therefore, it is considered that no detriment of any kind will result from the removal of this restriction from the land;  The proposal satisfies the requirements of Section 60(5) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987; and  The Covenant has been breached for more than 20 years.

RECOMMENDATION

That a Planning Permit No: 0066/13 for the land located at 1341 Dandenong Road, Malvern East be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for removal of restrictive covenant E036771 subject to the following condition:

1. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances apply:

a) The plan is not certified under Section 6 of the Subdivision Act 1988 within two (2) years of the date of this permit.

b) The plan is not registered with the Registrar of Titles within five (5) years of the date of certification.

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

2. AMENDMENT C170 - CHAPEL STREET PRECINCT HERITAGE REVIEW – ADOPTION

Acting Manager: Susan Price Executive Manager: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of the report is:  To update Council on a change to submissions for Amendment C170 and a Panel Report, and  For Council to consider adopting Amendment C170 with changes, and to request the Minister for Planning for an exemption from Ministerial 15 timeframes and to approve the Amendment.

BACKGROUND

Council’s Heritage Strategy

This amendment is part of the ongoing implementation of Council’s Heritage Strategy adopted in 2006. The Strategy and implementation plan provides Council with a framework for a comprehensive and coordinated review of existing heritage places and the assessment of new places. A review of existing heritage precincts and citations is progressively taking place. The review of the Chapel Street Precinct the subject of this report has now been completed.

Review of existing heritage citation HO126

Council’s heritage advisor (John Statham) has undertaken a review of the existing citation for HO126, taking the Prahran Character and Conservation Study into consideration. The review aimed to provide a clear and more comprehensive explanation of the heritage values currently identified. The updated citations will also provide further clarification for VCAT cases. The review recommended that the current citation should be refined to allow two residential precincts to be protected under separate Heritage Overlays which acknowledge and conserve those aspects of significance that are relevant to those specific areas.

# Attachment 1 is a map of the extent of HO126 boundary and the location of the two new precincts.

## Council’s heritage advisor prepared new citations and schedules of building gradings for the Chapel Street Precinct. The consultant recommended that HO126 should be modified and the areas removed placed in two new precincts - Greville Street Residential Precinct (Attachment 2) and Medley Place Precinct (Attachment 3). Three new buildings will be introduced to the Heritage Overlay. Their previous omission was an error. A very small number of buildings will be removed from heritage control and no building gradings have been altered.

Exhibition

Amendment C170 was placed on public exhibition between 15 November 2012 and 17 December 2012. Full copies of the proposed Amendment C170 documents and heritage citations were available for viewing at the Prahran Town Hall and on Council's and Department of Planning and Community Development websites. Page 56 GENERAL BUSINESS 8 APRIL 2013

A notice of the preparation of Amendment C170 appeared in the Stonnington Leader and the Government Gazette on 13 November and on 15 November 2012, respectively. Notice was also sent to the owners and occupiers, prescribed authorities and public authorities on 12 November 2012.

As a result of exhibition one submission of objection was received. The objecting submitter requested that 160 High Street be removed from the Heritage Overlay.

Council considered a report and the submission on 4 February 2013 and resolved to request the Minister for Planning to appoint a Panel to hear the submission and consider proposed Amendment C170.

DISCUSSION

# Council met with the submitter in January 2013 to review the submission and agreed to some minor changes to the revised Chapel Street Precinct Citation. Officers agreed with the submitter that changes to the citation, specifically addresses and gradings of particular buildings on the Swinburne University site, would clarify the heritage position in relation to these buildings (refer Attachment 4). The final version of the citation is included in Attachment 5.

## Subsequent to the February resolution, Council received correspondence on 8 March 2013 (Attachment 6), from the representative of the submitter to Amendment C170. The correspondence advises that the submission is to be withdrawn on the basis that minor changes to the addresses and gradings are incorporated into the citation as agreed by officers. Given that this is the only objecting submitter to the amendment there is no need to proceed to a full Panel if Council endorses these clarifications. As a request for Panel was submitted a brief panel report has been completed by the Panel member noting the withdrawal of the submission and recommends that Council adopt C170 as exhibited (see Attachment 7).

In accordance with Ministerial Direction No 15, Council should decide whether or not to adopt an amendment within 60 working days of close of exhibition (by 14 March 2013). Due to the technicality of the objecting submission being subsequently withdrawn, the deadline could not be met. Council can now adopt the Amendment and ask the Minister for Planning for an exemption from meeting this timeframe on this technicality.

Next Steps

As the one submission has been withdrawn, a Panel hearing is no longer required. In accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Council can now adopt Amendment C170 and release the Panel Report. It is recommended that the Chapel Street Precinct Heritage citation be updated as per the changes noted above. The Greville Street Residential Precinct citation and Medley Place Precinct citation will not be changed from that exhibited.

Community Benefit

The proposed Amendment will strengthen community recognition of heritage places. It will provide a clear and consistent framework for the consideration of heritage significant buildings/precincts and their impact/contribution to the municipality.

Heritage protection helps a community to preserve its history and environment and a sense of continuity and identity. The HO enables the preservation of buildings, places and objects of cultural heritage significance for the benefit of future generations.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The proposed Amendment C170 is consistent with the following Council Plan strategy: 'Celebrate the municipality's heritage and diverse buildings by balancing its existing character with complementary and sustainable developments'.

It is also consistent with Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement Clause 21.02-3 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme which seeks to: “Identify, assess and protect places with architectural, cultural or historical significance.”

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

The protection of heritage places has been included in the budget of Council's Strategic Planning Unit for 2012/2013.

Amendment C170 timeline:

Oct 2012 Nov/Dec 2012 N/A Mar 2013 April 2013 Authorisation Exhibition Panel Adoption Approval

LEGAL ADVICE AND IMPLICATIONS

All affected parties have been given the opportunity to make submissions on Amendment C170.

CONCLUSION

The Amendment proposes to split the existing Chapel Street Precinct (HO126) into three separate precincts. The revised boundary of the Chapel Street Precinct is consistent with the recommendations made in the Prahran Character and Conservation Study and the introduction of two new Heritage Overlay areas were identified and assessed as independent precincts with their own character and significance. One submission was received requesting a property be taken out of the Heritage Overlay.

As the submission has been withdrawn a Panel hearing is no longer required. A short Panel Report has been written outlining this process. It is recommended that Council adopt Amendment C170 as exhibited with the changes to the Chapel Street Heritage Citation as set out in this report and attachment, and release the Panel Report.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION

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

RECOMMENDATION

That Council

1. Requests the Minister for Planning for an exemption from the Ministerial No. 15 pursuant to Section 23 of the Planning Environment Act 1987 to make a decision within sixty business days of the closing date for submissions.

2. Adopts Amendment C170 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme as exhibited with minor changes to the Chapel Street Heritage Citation.

3. Submits the adopted Amendment C170 documents to the Minister for Planning for approval, in accordance with Section 31(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

4. Advises the submitter to the proposed Amendment C170 Chapel Street Heritage Review of Council’s decision.

3. AMENDMENT C174 CHAPEL STREET NORTH BOULEVARD – CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the submission received on Amendment C174 following exhibition and decide whether to request the Minister for Planning to appoint a Panel to consider the submissions and the amendment.

BACKGROUND The Forrest Hill Precinct (FHP) Structure Plan was adopted in December 2005 and Chapel Vision in December 2007. Amendment C58 implemented the FHP Structure Plan and introduced Design and Development Overlay 8 (DDO8) into the Planning Scheme on 25 June 2009. Chapel Vision is currently being reviewed (Chapel reVision) as part of developing permanent planning controls for the area. A current amendment C139 proposes to introduce a car parking overlay in the FHP, refinements to DDO8 and implement the recommendations and initiatives of the Forrest Hill Infrastructure Development Master Plan (Traffic and Transport Assessment) 2012. This amendment was exhibited in July/ August 2012. Submissions received are currently being reviewed. Council officers are preparing a report to go before Council shortly. On 17 December 2012, Council resolved to consider requesting authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare Amendment C174 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme and authorise Council officers to prepare the amendment documents and exhibit Amendment C174.

The Amendment proposes to correct zoning and overlay mapping errors created by errors in the LandVic mapping system. The Road Zone 1 that is currently affecting private land is to be replaced with the underlying Mixed Use Zone and Design and Development Overlay 8 is to be realigned to the correct property boundaries. ## Amendment C58 that introduced DDO8 required a setback of up to 3 metres along the western side of Chapel Street from Toorak Road up to 657 Chapel Street (refer attachment 1). This amendment did not apply the setback requirement to all properties along Chapel Street North to Alexandra Avenue as it was deemed to already exist as road reserve and a Road Zone, based on Land Victoria mapping data and the current zoning maps at the time (refer attachment 2). However, title searches indicate that this setback remains on private land and title information has been incorrectly represented since at least the late 1980s. Amendment C174 proposes to correct the setback anomaly and to introduce the “up to 3 metre setback” requirement along the entire length of the west Chapel Street (661 to 709 Chapel Street South Yarra) to facilitate a boulevard treatment and consistent built edge to Chapel Street north. Amendment C174 was placed on public exhibition between 31 January and 7 March 2013. A full copy of the proposed Amendment C174 documents were available for viewing at the Prahran Town Hall and on Council's and Department of Planning and Community Development websites.

A notice of the preparation of amendment appeared in the Stonnington Leader and the Government Gazette on 26 January and 31 January 2013 respectively.

Notice was sent to the affected owners and occupiers, prescribed authorities and public authorities on 25 January 2013.

An onsite meeting was held on Friday 8 March with the submitter.

DISCUSSION As a result of exhibition one submission was received. The submission supports the correction and realignment of the zoning and Design Development Overlay but objects to the extension of the setback. In summary the submission provided objection to the following issues:  The timing of the Amendment

 The existing conditions of the street stated in the Amendment

 The wording of the Amendment

 The nature of the controls to be introduced by the Amendment.

Amendment C174 is important to fully realise the desired boulevard character of Chapel Street. The realisation of this boulevard character will contribute to forming an important gateway to the Chapel Street Principle Activity Centre and add value to the public realm of the surrounding precincts which continue to undergo significant development and population growth. The adequate allocation of space for the planting of trees along Chapel Street is a key element of realising the boulevard character.

Recommendations # A summary of Officer discussion and responses to the submission can be seen in attachment 3. The submitter raised concerns relating to the timing of the Amendment and its strategic justification, the existing conditions of the street stated in the Amendment, the wording of the Amendment and the nature of the controls to be introduced by the Amendment. Most of these concerns have been previously addressed by the Panel that considered Amendment C58. The Panel noted that it appeared the north of Chapel Street already had wider footpaths due to the apparent setback of property boundaries. Had the correct condition been evident at that time, the setback would have been implemented along the entire western side of Chapel Street in order to achieve a boulevard character which the Panel supported. The Panel also stated in its report that the current wording of the setback requirement for the Chapel Street South Precinct was appropriate as it avoided being overly prescriptive. The Panel also supported the use of the DDO to implement the setback. As such it is considered appropriate that the setback be extended using the same wording and the same planning provision as it was previously implemented with. Having considered all of the points presented in the submission, no changes are recommended to the Amendment. Council must forward the submission received and the amendment to a Panel if it is not prepared to vary the amendment to address issues that were raised by the submission and it intends to continue with the amendment process.

Council needs to make a formal request to the Minister for Planning to appoint a Panel, after which Planning Panels Victoria will confirm the hearing dates.

Next Steps

In accordance with Minister’s Direction, Council must request the appointment of a Panel under Part 8 of the Act within 40 business days of the closing date of submissions (ie. by 6 May 2013) unless an extension of time is sought by Council. The Council meetings prior to that date are 8 April and 22 April 2013.

Pre-set panel dates for a directions hearing during the week beginning 3 June 2013 and a panel hearing during the week beginning 1 July 2013 were set with Planning Panels Victoria prior to exhibition.

On receipt of the Panel report, a report will be brought to Council to consider the Panel's recommendations.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The Amendment proposes to correct the zoning of land and continue to implement current initiatives that will more accurately reflect the planning objectives for the area.

Amendment C174 will be funded from within the 2012/13 Strategic Planning Unit’s budget. The Amendment will have very little impact on the resource and administrative costs of the Council.

Jan 2013 Feb/March 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 Authorisation Exhibition Panel Adoption Approval

The Amendment will improve administration by aligning the planning scheme with correct title information.

All affected parties have been given the opportunity to make submissions on Amendment C174 and will be able to be heard by an independent Planning Panel.

CONCLUSION

Amendment C174 proposes to include a 3 metre setback requirement in DDO8 along the western side of Chapel Street north and to rectify zoning as a result of incorrect title information.

As a result of exhibition, one submission has been received for the Amendment and no changes are recommended to the Amendment. Council must formally request that the Minister for Planning appoint a Panel if it wishes to proceed with the Amendment.

Council's position to the Panel will be based on the response to the submission in this report and the attachments.

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

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Requests the Minister for Planning to appoint a Panel pursuant to Section 23 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to hear all submissions and consider the proposed Amendment C174 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

2. In its submission to the Panel hearing, Council adopts a position in support of Amendment C174, generally in accordance with the officer's response to the submission as contained in this report and attachments.

3. Advises the submitter to proposed Amendment C174 of Council’s decision.

4. Refers all submissions and any late submissions to the Panel appointed to consider proposed Amendment C174.

4. PLANNING ZONE REFORMS – UPDATE

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to update Council on the planning zone reforms released by the Minister for Planning.

BACKGROUND

The proposed zone reforms released by the Minister for Planning in July 2012 represent significant changes to the Victorian Planning System. The consultation period for the planning zones ran for 2 months from 11 July until 28 September 2012. A discussion paper, fact sheets for each zone and an online form (all available on the Department of Planning and Community Development) were released for the public and Councils to utilise throughout the consultation period.

The reforms propose three new residential zones, a new commercial zone and a change to the mixed-use zone and industrial zone which are relevant to the City of Stonnington. Officers assessed the changes in detail and sought clarification and justification where possible to enable an informed consideration of how the planning zone reforms will impact on the Municipality.

# On 10 September 2012, Council adopted the submission in response to the Planning Zone Reforms consultation as outlined in Attachment 1 to this report. Officer’s assessment of the implications of the new zones identified major concerns. The main issues identified were as follows:

 Lack of strategic justification and identification and understanding of economic and social impacts of the reforms.  Expansion and dispersal of commercial uses into the residential areas adjoining Activity Centres.  A lack of detailed information on key issues including transitioning to the new zones, consultation, resourcing, strategic context, current planning applications and VCAT appeals.  Reduced residential amenity from ‘as of right’ commercial uses in residential zones and the intended expansions of Activity Centres into residential zones.  The reforms encourage high density housing in all Activity Centres, without context or control.  There is no economic study, no housing strategy, no capacity assessment or targets to provide the context which justifies the reforms.

The Minister for Planning appointed an Advisory Committee to consider all submissions to the proposed zones. The Committee provided a progress report to the Minister for Planning on the review of the proposed residential zones on 14 December 2012.

DISCUSSION

The Minister for Planning after considering the Advisory Committee’s report released Amended residential zones on 5 March 2013. The Commercial and Industrial zones have not yet been released and are still under consideration by the Minister. It is unclear when these will be made available.

# The Ministerial Advisory Committee made 21 recommendations to the Minister for Planning, suggesting a number of changes to the draft residential zones as initially proposed in 2012. Of those recommendations, 18 have been accepted by the State Government as detailed in a response to the Advisory Committee’s report. Details of the changes/recommendations can be found in Attachment 2.

The three amended residential zones and amended Mixed Use zone proposed by Government are as follows (see Attachment 3 for all zones):

Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) (new zone) will allow:  Housing at increased densities in buildings up to and including four storeys.  Encourage housing diversity in areas offering good access to services.  Default four storey (13.5 metre) height control which can be varied by Council and made mandatory with a schedule.  Non-residential land uses such as food and drink premises i.e. restaurant and take away food premises (excluding convenience restaurant, Hotel and Tavern) do not require a permit if they are within 100 metres of a commercial zone, with the same street frontage, and adjoin or have access to a road in a Road Zone.  Medical Centres require a permit if above 250m2.  Offices require a permit within 100 metres of a commercial zone, have the same street frontage, if they adjoin or have access to a road in a Road Zone.  Planning permit trigger threshold for single dwelling lots will remain at 300m2.  Any building or works constructed on a land that abuts land which is in a General Residential Zone or Neighbourhood Residential Zone must meet the ResCode requirements for side and rear setbacks, walls on boundaries, daylight to existing windows, overshadowing and overlooking (Clauses 55.04-1, 55.04-2, 55.04-3, 55.04-5 and 55.04-6) along that boundary.

The introduction of conditions to the amended RGZ addresses Council’s concerns as outlined in the submission to retain third party notice, objection and review rights. The additional conditions set by the Committee to be applied to commercial uses within 100 metres of a commercial zone now prevents the commercial creep into more sensitive residential areas. The requirements of Clause 55.04 (setbacks, overshadowing etc) will apply to all proposed uses and is favourable to maintain the amenity of the abutting residential zone.

General Residential Zone (GRZ) (new zone) will allow:  Incremental change in locations offering good access to services and transport while implementing neighbourhood character policy and adopting neighbourhood character guidelines.  Mandatory height control of 9m and can be varied by Council with a schedule.  Non-residential land uses such as shops, cafes and restaurants do not require a permit if they are within 100 metres of a commercial zone, with the same street frontage, and if they adjoin or have access to a road in a Road Zone.  Medical centres do not require a permit but they must meet the Car parking requirements under Clause 52.06-3 and must adjoin a Road Zone.  Offices are prohibited in this zone. Page 65 GENERAL BUSINESS 8 APRIL 2013

 Planning permit trigger threshold for single dwelling lots will remain at 300m2.  Associated buildings and works for ‘as of right’ uses are be exempt from a planning permit.

Neighbourhood character and heritage are important attributes in Stonnington. The inclusion of a specific purpose in the GRZ and NRZ will give enhanced weight to neighbourhood character policy giving greater certainty for the implementation of neighbourhood character objectives. The permit requirements proposed for non-residential uses addresses Council’s concerns regarding noise impacts, transport and parking and hours of operation in residential areas. If one of the building and works requirements for an ‘as of right’ use is not met, a permit must be sought.

Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) (new zone) will allow:  Limited opportunities for increased development.  Default density of a maximum of two dwellings per lot.  Mandatory maximum height controls of 8 metres (2 storeys) which can be varied by Council with a Schedule.  Medical Centres and Places of Worship under 250m2 are as of right but must be located in an existing building, adjoin a Road Zone and meet the Car parking requirements under Clause 52.06-3.  Planning permit trigger threshold for single dwelling lots will be 300m2.  Potential to apply to land in residential heritage precincts and neighbourhood character overlay areas.  Associated buildings and works for ‘as of right’ are exempt from a planning permit.

Conditions placed on Medical Centres and Places of Worship address Council’s initial concerns regarding potential amenity impacts (scale etc) on residential areas. The ability to vary heights in areas via a schedule will allow varied heights as a result of further strategic work and studies.

Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) (amended Zone) will allow:  For higher density housing.  A schedule to this zone may contain objectives to be achieved for the area.  Discretionary height controls to be set by the Council with a Schedule.  Cafes and restaurants, small medical centres, offices and shops are an as of right use.  Place of Worship now has reduced restrictions.  Planning permit trigger threshold for single dwelling lots will be 300m2.  Any building or works constructed on a land that abuts land which is in a Residential Growth Zone, General Residential Zone or Neighbourhood Residential Zone must meet the ResCode requirement for side and rear setbacks, walls on boundaries, daylight to existing windows, overshadowing and overlooking (Clauses 55.04-1, 55.04- 2, 55.04-3, 55.04-5 and 55.04-6) along that boundary.

Under the amended Mixed Use zone, for developments of four or more storeys, excluding a basement, the Design Guidelines for Higher Density Development will be used in decision making.

In each zone, there is an opportunity to use a schedule to define specific built form outcomes in the whole zone or for sub-areas within the zone. More work will need to be done to assess the best use of the schedules and analyse preferred outcomes for specific areas.

General Comments

The inclusion of neighbourhood character and heritage in the purpose for the Neighbourhood Residential Zone and General Residential Zone could potentially result in conversion of Council’s Neighbourhood Character and Heritage Overlays to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. This is in keeping with the indicative criteria set out in the recommendations by the Committee to Government in Attachment 3. Regardless, it is suggested that consistent with the MSS, Council advocates that these areas are in the NRZ.

The recommendations of the Advisory Committee have resulted in an improvement to what was previously released for consultation in July 2012. The introduction of additional requirements for offices in the Residential Growth Zones will help limit the amenity impacts in a residential zone and prevent large offices from being located away from centres and public transport nodes. These zones create opportunities for residential growth of a controlled height that is different to Activity Centres. However, in the submission to the State Government, Council raised concerns that the height limits were set out for residential uses only and not commercial uses. This has not been clarified as the amended commercial zones have not yet been released.

Council, in its submission to the Government in September 2012 requested a longer time period to implement the new zones. The 12 month timeframe given by Government to implement these zones is likely to be resource intensive and comes at a time when several other high priority and resource intensive projects are taking place. Officers have done an initial assessment on the amended zones; however more discussion will need to be had with DPCD to clarify some outstanding issues.

Applying the New Zones

The conversion of the current Residential 1 Zone into the three new Residential Zones will require Council to strategically apply the zones in the appropriate locations. Their application should enable differentiation of residential areas so that varying densities and built form outcomes can be achieved. The application of the new zones will need to be considered strategically to implement local housing strategies and / or the Metropolitan Planning Strategy. There will be a need to balance demand for housing yet identify and protect liveability and neighbourhood character attributes.

The Advisory Committee report notes that the Department has invested significant resources in the development of a comprehensive spatial dataset about housing stock and future capacity. The Committee believes this information would be a useful input to the development of the Metropolitan Planning Strategy as well a greatly assisting in the application of the new zones and their ongoing monitoring. The State Government has agreed to its release. This is anticipated to occur through the implementation phase of the reformed Residential Zones during 2013 with further work needed by DPCD in advance of its release. Officers generally support its release with some reservation that it may not be in line with Council guidelines and projections. Its release will need to be timely given the 12 month transition period starting in July 2013.

The new MSS (Am C161, awaiting approval by the Minister for Planning) defines the following locations for residential development, which potentially align with the new zones:  Substantial Change Areas, being locations for medium and higher density development where development over 11 metres in height is directed, generally being areas abutting the PPTN and in and beside activity centres..  Incremental Change Areas, being the residential hinterland, where 2-3 storey development is directed; and  Minimal Change Areas, being residential land in a Heritage or Neighbourhood Character Overlay, where limited development may be appropriate.

The Panel on Am C161 accepted Council’s position that a city-wide capacity assessment and full housing strategy is not warranted at this stage, as sites with current permits / applications and in Structure Plan areas alone have capacity to meet the Victoria in Future (VIF12) dwelling projections and beyond.

The Panel on Am C161 noted that Council proposes to undertake further work in relation to higher density guidelines, housing capacity and population projections and that this is likely to result in a review of the change areas. Future work already underway/scheduled includes Neighbourhood Character Policy and Structure Plans for additional centres. This work will assist in further refining the preferred locations, scale and form of development across the City.

In the meantime, it is considered that the change areas defined in the revised MSS provide a basis for the application of the new zones. Over time, further work is expected to result in progressive refinements to the zones as they apply in the City. Outcomes of future work on Structure Plans and the higher density guidelines is expected to refine the substantial change areas, and further work on Neighbourhood Character Overlay Areas is likely to define additional minimal change areas. As this further work is completed, refinements to the zones can be exhibited in the same planning scheme amendments used to introduce the policy outcomes of the further work.

Officers will continue to have discussions with DPCD, and continue to advocate this position consistent with the adopted MSS.

Implementation and criteria

# Implementation of the new zones will require Council to apply the zones by way of Planning Scheme Amendment(s). The Committee has set out a three tiered approach (refer Attachment 3). This will help Councils identify how prepared they are for implementation of the new zones over 12 months from 1 July 2013. In the event that Councils do not meet the 12 month implementation timeline (by 30 June 2014), the General Residential Zone should be applied by default.

The released material states that to help Councils with implementation, a series of workshops are planned to be conducted with stakeholders to test and finalise the new zones. It also notes that DPCD will develop a process of assessment to advise the Government on the application of the reformed zones. It is unclear at this stage what form assistance from DPCD will take.

The Committee recommended that a Standing Advisory Committee be established to advise on the application of new residential zones using the application criteria when finalised. The Minister did not support this recommendation and advised DPCD would undertake this role.

At this stage, Council does not have all the information to consider when and where zones may best be applied. Once Council has further discussions with DPCD it will be in a better position to start engaging the community to determine the best locations for different zones. Community consultation is unlikely to take place before July 2013.

Transitional provisions

Any planning application made from 1 July 2013 for a 12 month period, will be assessed under the existing residential zones. The drafting of the transitional provisions will occur before the new Residential Zones are introduced in to the Victorian Planning Provisions (1 July 2013) so that existing permit holders or applicants suffer no unreasonable disadvantage through the introduction of the new residential zones. The transitional arrangements will not apply until the new zones are introduced into a Municipal Planning Scheme.

Officers will meet with DPCD in April to discuss Council’s position with regards to transition of the zones and strategic work already undertaken.

Community Benefit

The full impacts of the zones are not yet known, however there is potential for the new residential zones to provide more certainty for both the community and developers regarding what type of growth will be allowed in specific areas.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Implementation of these zones will be through Council’s Planning Scheme Amendments which follow the State Planning process.

The implementation of the zones comes at a time where significant projects are being undertaken by the Strategic Planning Unit, not least providing feedback into other key State Government policies including the Metropolitan Planning Strategy and Developer Contribution Plans. It is also a requirement that Council must undertake a Planning Scheme Review within 12 months of the Council Plan’s adoption, which coincides with 12 month transitional period for the zones. In addition, Council has already progressed significantly on the review of Chapel Vision and further Structure Plans for High Street / Glenferrie Road and Hawksburn are planned to commence later this year.

Additional resources or a change in work plan priorities will be required to undertake the process to translate the existing strategic work for specific properties within the municipality and apply it through a planning scheme amendment(s). It is likely to involve extensive community interest and engagement.

Officers will continue to liaise with the Department of Planning and Community Development and attend workshops/meetings for the new zones. Until such time exact financial and resource implications are difficult to predict.

Legal advice may be sought for the next stage of the process.

CONCLUSION The amended zones will give more certainty to proposed uses and development outcomes in residential areas. Officers have made an initial assessment of the amended zones and will continue to liaise with DPCD and other Councils to fully understand the impact of the new zones on Council resources and the Stonnington Community. An update report will be brought to Council prior to the residential zones being introduced to the Victorian Planning Provisions on 1 July 2013.

The resources involved to implement the new zones are expected to be reasonably significant, and may require further strategic work to be undertaken.

This recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. Human rights, as defined by the Act, are not limited as a result of the information provided or recommendations made in this report.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council note the update to the Planning Zone Reforms.

5. RECREATION STRATEGY

(Authors: Tony Oulton and Ninetta Innocca) (General Managers: Connie Gibbons)

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is inform Council of the need to develop a Stonnington Recreation Strategy. This report outlines the aim and key objectives of the strategy, identifies the key stages for its development and indicative project timelines.

BACKGROUND

With a diverse community and an extensive network of parks, gardens, paths, trails and sport and recreation facilities, Stonnington is a great place to lead an active and healthy lifestyle. Participation in physical activity not only contributes to the health and wellbeing of individuals it also provides a range of social, environmental and economic benefits for the community.

Declining levels of physical activity is an increasing concern in most westernised countries. This is the result of multiple factors including increased influence of technology, urban planning which restricts opportunities for physical activity, increased reliance on motorised transport, increased working hours, increased demand on open space, increased demands on the education curriculum and changing leisure patterns.

Stonnington residents enjoy a very high degree of health and wellbeing. However despite a relatively strong health performance, the Stonnington community is still at risk of developing debilitating health conditions related to lifestyle, metal health issues and insufficient exercise or nutrition. From around age 45, residents begin to experience high levels of many preventable health conditions including diabetes complications, cancers and heart disease (MPHP, 2009, p. 20).

Stonnington’s Municipal Public Health Plan (MPHP) recognises prevention and early intervention are the strongest tools we have to fight lifestyle-related diseases. The provision of information, support and evidence-based programs, in addition to realistic health and wellbeing goals, are the key to a healthy future for the Stonnington community.

According to recent research detailed in the MPHP, Stonnington residents have become more overweight and obese and a significant proportion of residents do not exercise sufficiently for good health, trailing well behind the Victorian average.

Regular participation in physical activity is seen to play a key role in determining a healthy future for the Stonnington community. The World Health Organisation promotes the benefits of being physically active and confirms that regular exercise can reduce the risk of disease.

The need for a Recreation Strategy stems from the MPHP which aims to contribute to the provision of leadership, advocacy and facilitation of ‘healthy lifestyles’ by:

 Providing education to improve health and wellbeing;  Designing infrastructure to enhance opportunities for healthy, active lifestyle choices;  Supporting a range of affordable and accessible, healthy activities;  Developing partnerships with organisations which provide health and wellbeing activities;  Promoting and encouraging physical activity;  Supporting mental health and wellbeing initiatives; and  Encouraging and providing for sustainable transport, particularly active modes like walking and cycling.

Through the development and implementation of the Recreation Strategy, Council will encourage more people to lead an active and healthy lifestyle.

# Attachment 1, ‘Why a Recreation Strategy for Stonnington’ is attached to this report and provides greater detail on the need to adopt a Recreation Strategy.

DISCUSSION

Recreation Strategy Aim & Objectives

To develop a strategic framework that will guide Council for the next ten years and establish priorities to guide the planning, development, maintenance, management and delivery of sport and recreation opportunities and facilities to meet current and future needs of the Stonnington community.

Specifically, its objectives will be to:

 Identify strategies that maximise opportunities to increase participation in physical activity and recreation with the view to improving the health and wellbeing of our community;  Develop a plan that identifies and prioritises the provision, upgrade and development of sport and recreation infrastructure to meet future sport and recreation needs of the community;  Define Council’s role in the provision of sport and recreation and facilities, services and programs; and  Identify a broad range of solutions to ongoing sport and recreation issues.

Recreation Strategy Definitions and Scope

The Recreation Strategy will consider sport, physical and recreation opportunities, activities, facilities, programs and services.

For the purposes of this study:

 Sport will be defined as those activities involving competitive, social, organised and structured sporting activities;  Physical activities will be defined as activities involving structured and unstructured physical activities undertaken for the purposes of keeping physically and mentally fit and healthy;  Recreation will be defined as those activities undertaken during free time and chosen and pursued because of the enjoyment, pleasure and satisfaction derived from the activity (Leisure and Recreation Universities of Sydney).

The scope of this project will include sport, physical activities and recreation activities and will include the use of:

 Reserves, grounds and facilities used for sport and physical activity;  Informal sport facilities and infrastructure e.g. tennis hit-up walls, basketball half courts, skate parks, and outdoor fitness equipment;  Off-road bike and walking trails and paths;  Aquatic and recreation facilities; and  Any other associated facilities or venues used for sport and physical activity.

Sport and Recreation Trends

# The are a number of trends and changes that impact on sport and recreation choices and participation such as the popularity and profile of certain sports; the flexibility and diversity of sporting opportunities; a growing demand for quality and accessible facilities; and changing patterns of work and play. A more detailed description of the influences on sport and recreation is contained within Attachment 2 to this report, ‘What influences sport and recreation?’

Recreation Strategy Development

# The Recreation Strategy will be undertaken in six key stages as detailed in Attachment 3, Recreation Strategy Stages.

Stage 1 – Project Plan (complete)

Refine the project brief and plan, establish a project working group, complete a communication strategy and stakeholder analysis.

Stage 2 – Literature Review (complete)

Undertake a comprehensive literature review and identify key Council policies and strategies, community participation data, profile and trends. Identify key recreation issues and complete a facility and services audit. An internal working document containing this information has been completed and is available for review by Councillors.

Stage 3 – Consultation Program (ready to commence)

# A Communications and Consultation Plan has been developed and is included as Attachment 4 to this report.

Stage 4 – Issues Paper

Following the initial consultation, an issues paper outlining key gaps and issues associated with the provision of recreation services and facilities will be presented to Council. The issues paper will also identify opportunities to satisfy needs and potential development scenarios.

Stage 5 – Draft Strategy

After consideration of the issues paper, a draft strategy will be prepared and presented to Council for endorsement prior to undergoing community consultation.

Stage 6 – Final Strategy

The results of community consultation will be summarised, responded to and presented to Council as part of a further Council repot to adopt the final Recreation Strategy.

Project timelines for the adoption of the Recreation Strategy have been developed and are contingent on the level of engagement and response from the community. Officers are planning to complete the consultation and presenting the issues paper to Council in July with a view to developing a draft and adopting a final strategy before December 2013.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The Recreation Strategy will be guided by the current and proposed Council Plan and Municipal Public Health Plan 2009-2013, both of which identify public health and community well-being as priorities.

There are a number of other Council policies and plans applicable to the strategy (and open space management strategy) including:

 Public Realm Strategy 2010  Sustainable Transport Policy 2008  Walking Policy 2011  Draft Bicycle Strategy  Youth Strategy 2010-14  Older Persons Strategy 2008  Pavilion Redevelopment Strategy 2009  Arts and Cultural Strategy 2011-2015  Access and Inclusion Plan 2010-2013  Best Value Reviews  Open Space Management Framework – currently being developed

Resources are provided in the 2012/2013 budget to complete stage 3 and commence stage 4 of the Recreation Strategy by June 2013. Resources are included within the draft 2013/14 operating budget to enable the completion of the strategy and publication of the document.

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

CONCLUSION

A strategic framework is required to guide the planning, allocation, development, management and delivery of sport and recreation opportunities in Stonnington to maximise community participation in physical activity, optimise facility usage and improve the health and well-being of the community. The Recreation Strategy will assist in the distribution of resources to maximise opportunities for active participation.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council endorses the proposed aims and objectives of the Stonnington Recreation Strategy, which are:

 Identify strategies that maximise opportunities to increase participation in physical activity and recreation with the view to improving the health and wellbeing of our community;  Develop a plan that identifies and prioritises the provision, upgrade and development of sport and recreation infrastructure to meet future sport and recreation needs of the community;  Define Council’s role in the provision of sport and recreation and facilities, services and programs; and  Identify a broad range of solutions to ongoing sport and recreation issues.

6. AQUATIC SERVICES POOL LANE HIRE

Manager: Tony Oulton General Manager: Connie Gibbons

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to highlight issues associated with the allocation of pool lane space at Stonnington aquatic centres and to discuss options to address inconsistencies in the allocation of lanes and application of charges.

BACKGROUND

The Harold Holt Swim Centre and Prahran Aquatic Centre currently hire pool lanes to a variety of groups at various times throughout the day for their exclusive use. Agreements are in place with all user groups who hire lanes and specify the number of lanes, cost and times each group is able to use the pool. Schools occasionally hire an entire pool for their carnivals.

Pool lane agreements are currently in place for the 50 metre outdoor pools at Prahran Aquatic and Harold Holt Swim Centres and the 25 metre indoor pool at Harold Holt Swim Centre.

The types of groups with existing hire agreements include:  Not-for-profit swimming clubs;  Private businesses offering swimming tuition, sports specific training, rehabilitation and fitness coaching to local and non-local residents;  Private and public schools; and  Community groups.

DISCUSSION

Allocation of Pool Lap Lanes

The allocation of lane space to groups, clubs and organisations is a long-standing issue that pre-dates Council’s in-house management of the Harold Holt Swim Centre. Current agreements are generally based on historical arrangements, and do not necessarily consider the type of group, precedent, extent of community benefit or changes to the group’s numbers. Due to the complexity of the issue, existing lane allocations are usually re-honoured every year with little opportunity for change and creating an expectation of ongoing renewal.

Hire Agreements

Due to the historical nature of the existing agreements and the terms and conditions therein, user charges and usage entitlements vary greatly. Some agreements require groups to pay full lane hire charges, while others contain discounted or free lane hire. Some agreements require individual users to pay normal entry fees in addition to the lane hire charge, while others have discounted or free entry for patrons using the lanes.

It is generally recognised that groups that pay no lane hire charge and entry fee only contain fewer swimmers per lane compared to those groups required to pay lane hire fees. This anomaly is of particular concern to many users and centre management as the discrepancy among users is noticeable. It has also become an issue where membership has declined and groups retain their lane allocation or where commercial operators compete for lane space with community groups.

Discounted rates for hire during off-peak times have been used as an incentive to groups, clubs and organisations to hire during the quieter times.

Demand for Pool Lanes

Total swimming attendances at the Harold Holt Swim Centre have continued to grow since the redevelopment and have returned to the levels last achieved in 2005/06. This is consistent with anecdotal evidence from the centre regarding increased demand and enquiries for group bookings and lane hire. Annual swimming attendances at the Harold Holt Swim Centre from 2004 to 2012 are shown below:

Community Access and Council Run Services

Centre operations dictate that no more than four outdoor and two indoor pool lanes can be hired at any one time to ensure that sufficient space is available for casual swimming and water play. These restrictions are based around historical demands for casual usage and centre operated programs and can often cause problems at peak periods for casual use when limited space is available.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

There is no policy guiding the allocation or charges applied to user groups for lane hire.

Pool fees and charges are set annually by Council. Due to the historical nature of the pool hire agreements, Council has not previously considered nor endorsed the usage fee arrangements for lane hire agreements. Some agreements including those without lane hire charges currently contain a larger discount than those that require lane hire and entry fee. Any changes to lane hire fees may therefore result in either a negative or positive impact to pool income.

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

CONCLUSION

A review of pool lane hire booking arrangements is needed to address current concerns regarding the allocation and charges for pool lane hire.

It is proposed that Council endorses a set of lane hire principles to guide Officers in their allocations. These principles would be drafted by Officers, endorsed by Council for the purpose of consultation and then considered by a working group consisting of existing and non-existing users to be established by Council. Following the consultation with the working group, Officers would prepare a further report recommending principles and initial allocations for Council’s consideration.

It is therefore recommended that Officers develop a series of lane hire principles to present to Council for its endorsement for consultation and prepares draft terms of reference for the establishment of a working group consisting of existing and non-existing users.

RECOMMENDATION

That Officers prepare a further report containing:

1. Draft principles to guide the development of future lane hire agreements and booking procedures for Council’s consideration and endorsement for consultation.

2. Draft terms of reference and proposed structure for a working group to review the draft principles and provide feedback for Council’s consideration.

7. REPORT ON THE STREET TREES IN GLADSTONE AVENUE, ARMADALE FOLLOWING PRESENTATION OF A PETITION REQUESTING COUNCIL REPLACE THE EXISTING LILLY PILLY STREET TREES.

Author: Mark Phillips General Manager: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

The purpose of the report is to consider the petition from the residents of Gladstone Avenue, Armadale proposing the removal and replacement to the existing Syzygium australe (Scrub Cherry) and Waterhousea floribunda (Weeping Lilly Pilly), both commonly referred to as Lilly Pilly, street trees.

BACKGROUND

The Street

Gladstone Avenue is a residential street running from Dandenong Road to Wattletree Road. The street is approximately 250 metres in length. The majority of the street is residential with predominantly single and double fronted period dwellings with very small gardens at the front.

There are 37 properties abutting Gladstone Avenue, as follows;  35 single dwellings  2 properties with units (1 x 12 units, 1 x 13 units)

Street Trees

The street is planted with 13 x Waterhousea floribunda (Weeping Lilly Pilly), 8 x Syzygium australe (Scrub Cherry), 1 x Callistemon ‘Kings Park Special’ (Kings Park Bottlebrush) and 2 x Prunus x blireana (Double Flowering Cherry Plum). # (Attachment 1)

Street Reconstruction

Council’s Infrastructure Unit is planning to reconstruct Gladstone Avenue; Armadale Council is currently undertaking detail design for the above road reconstruction project, and is planning to undertake these works during the 2012/2013 financial year.

The works likely to be undertaken are:  Kerb and channel improvements;  Vehicle crossing reconstruction;  Road resurfacing and/or reconstruction;  Footpath & naturestrip reconstruction;  The installation of speed suppression devices.

The Petition

During preliminary discussions with the Infrastructure Unit a number of residents of Gladstone Avenue expressed concern about the existing street trees. Initial advice to the residents was that Council would not support removal and replacement of the trees as part of the reconstruction project. Council has now received a petition, dated 18 November 2012, from residents and ratepayers expressing concerns about the Lilly Pilly trees. The petition has been signed by residents from 27 properties (from 27 single dwellings). The resident’s main concerns are: 1. The fruit and flower drop; 2. The fruit bats and possums feeding on the fruit and the associated excrement and noise; 3. The trees root systems causing damage to Council infrastructure and private property.

The petition seeks the following:

1. Re-consideration of the current street-tree situation in the light of comments already expressed in response to Council’s letter to residents dated 18 September 2012, with a proper assessment of the damaging effect and general unsuitability of lillypilly trees in Gladstone Avenue where there is very limited off-street parking; 2. Some discussion between Council and resident aimed at selecting more appropriate replacement trees while the opportunity exists prior to the reconstruction.

Council Meeting 4 February 2013

Council originally considered a report on this matter at its meeting of 4 February 2013, and resolved as follows;

‘That consideration of a report on the street trees in Gladstone Avenue, Armadale, following presentation of a petition requesting council replace the existing Lilly Pilly street trees be deferred to enable a report on possible cost recovery from the ratepayers of the street, to come back to Council’.

Council meeting 4 March 2013

Council considered a further report at its meeting of 18 February, proposing to survey the residents on the basis that the costs for the removal and replacement of trees would be recovered from the abutting owners, and resolved as follows;

‘That consideration of the report on the street trees in Gladstone Avenue, Armadale, regarding the request to council to replace the existing Lilly Pilly street trees be deferred to enable a further report on the possible cost recovery from the ratepayers of the street, to come back to Council’.

DISCUSSION

Residents have petitioned Council in the belief that the streets liveability and appearance would be enhanced by the removal of the existing trees and their replacement with an alternative species.

Current Situation

The dominant features of the streetscape are the maturing / mature Syzygium australe (Scrub Cherry) and Waterhousea floribunda (Weeping Lilly Pilly). The trees have fair to good health and structure and are regarded by Council officers as an appropriate street tree.

There is very little borrowed landscape from the abutting properties because the size of the gardens has generally not been conducive to the planting of trees.

There is some opportunity for additional tree planting in the footpath or naturestrips if they are created as part of the road reconstruction.

Petition Request

The resident petition requests the removal of the Syzygium australe (Scrub Cherry) and Waterhousea floribunda (Weeping Lilly Pilly) and their replacement with an appropriate species after further discussion between Council officers and residents.

The trees are considered to be appropriate and as such officers could not recommend removal as there are many other streets considered to be in greater need of street tree planting / replacement.

Options

There are two options that could be considered; 1. Resolve to retain the Syzygium australe (Scrub Cherry) and Waterhousea floribunda (Weeping Lilly Pilly) while at the same time planting additional trees in appropriate sites following resident consultation. 2. Or alternatively survey the residents of Gladstone Avenue to determine the extent of support for the replacement of the Syzygium australe (Scrub Cherry) and Waterhousea floribunda (Weeping Lilly Pilly) with an agreed tree species.

The cost of removing the existing trees, replacing them and establishing the new trees would be in the order of $800 to $1000 per tree ($19,200 to $24,000 to replace all trees).

If Council were of a mind to recover the costs for tree removal and replacement from residents, an appropriate mechanism auspiced under the Local Government Act would be via a special charge scheme (SCS). In simple terms under a SCS the costs for improvement works may be apportioned to abutting property owners based on the benefit derived by those properties. Generally the SCS mechanism is used to recover costs for road and/or drainage construction where there is special benefit derived directly by the abutting property owners, e.g. reduction in dust, improved drainage, improved property access etc. The assignment of benefit is technical and is often the subject of appeal to VCAT.

In this case in principle a SCS mechanism could be used to apportion the costs for removal and replacement of the trees however the method for assignment of benefit is unclear. This would be an unusual circumstance for implementation of a SCS, and legal advice would need to be sought as to an appropriate methodology for assignment of benefit based on VCAT precedent.

Generally a SCS is applied for much higher value capital improvement projects, as there are substantial costs associated with the establishment and administration of the scheme, particularly if it is subject to an appeal and needs to be defended at VCAT. In this case the capital value is low in the order of $19,000 to $24,000 dollars, and it is considered that the costs associated administering the scheme would be excessive in comparison the total capital value of the improvement works. Therefore a SCS for cost recovery for a project of this size and scale is not recommended.

CONCLUSION

While Council officers believe the Syzygium australe (Scrub Cherry) and Waterhousea floribunda (Weeping Lilly Pilly) in Gladstone Avenue are appropriate street trees there is a perception among the petitioning residents that the fruit and flower drop; the fruit bats and possums and the trees root systems causing damage make these tree species inappropriate.

The petition is signed by the majority of the streets residents. Council however needs to give all residents in the street an opportunity to comment independently on the possible replacement of the Syzygium australe (Scrub Cherry) and Waterhousea floribunda (Weeping Lilly Pilly).

In principle Council could seek to recover the costs of the removal and replacement of the trees from the residents by way of a Special Charge Scheme, however this mechanism is considered cumbersome and impractical as the costs for administration of the scheme would be disproportionately high for a project of this size.

It is therefore proposed that a survey be conducted of the residents of Gladstone Avenue to ascertain the level of support for the removal of the existing Syzygium australe (Scrub Cherry) and Waterhousea floribunda (Weeping Lilly Pilly), as part of the street reconstruction project.

It is proposed that a further report be prepared for Council consideration following the resident survey.

RECOMMENDATION

1. The residents of Gladstone Avenue, Armadale, are surveyed to determine their level of support the removal of the existing Lilly Pilly and replacement with an alternative species as part of the street reconstruction proposal.

2. The nominated contact for the petition be advised accordingly.

8. APPOINTMENT OF AUTHORISED OFFICERS UNDER THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1997 & THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1989.

Compliance Coordinator: Jim Mclauchlan General Manager: Stuart Draffin

PURPOSE

To authorise nominated Council Officers under the Planning and Environment Act 1997, for the purposes of enforcing the Planning and Environment Act 1997. A resolution of Council is required to achieve the authorisations.

BACKGROUND

Following a recent review of Authorisations to Council officers, Council has received legal advice that suggests that Council officers engaged in enforcing the provisions of Planning and Environment Act 1997 should be appointed by a resolution of Council pursuant to section 147(4) of Planning and Environment Act 1997. Further, that section 188(2(c) of the Planning and Environment Act 1997 provides that Councils cannot delegate the power to authorise officers for the purposes of enforcing the Planning and Environment Act 1997.

DISCUSSION

Council’s Planning and Development Division contains the following Council officers who are engaged in Planning Enforcement at various times:

 Stuart Draffin, Alexandra Kastaniotis, Gareth Gale, Andrea Pagliaro, Phillip Gul, Kevin Hawkins, Gavin Rendall, Jim McLauchlan, Jason McConkey, Brendan O’Brien, Darren Day and Bruce Lowe.

In order to perform their duties, staff are required to be authorised and nominated pursuant to the Acts and regulations listed hereunder and be required to appear as informants in proceedings instituted by the City of Stonnington in relation to beaches of or failures to comply with various provisions of the Acts or Regulations. These provisions include:

1.1 Section 224 of the Local Government Act 1989 for the purposes of the administration of the Local Government Act 1989 and Section 223 of the Local Government Act 1997 for the purposes of authorising the officers generally to institute proceedings for offences against the Acts and regulations described.

1.2 Without limiting paragraph (1.1) for the purpose to administer and enforce the following Acts and Regulations (including any subordinate legislation under them):

 the Local Government Act 1989  the Planning and Environment Act 1987  the regulations made under those acts.

and authorises Stuart Draffin, Alexandra Kastaniotis, Gareth Gale, Andrea Pagliaro, Phillip Gul Kevin Hawkins, Gavin Rendall, Jim McLauchlan, Jason McConkey, Brendan O’Brien, Darren Day and Bruce Lowe generally to institute proceedings on behalf of the City of Stonnington for offences against –

 the Local Government Act 1989  the Planning and Environment Act 1987  under section 232 of the Local Government Act 1989  the regulations made under those acts.

# Accordingly, the attached instruments of appointment and authorisations under the Local Government Act 1989 are provided for signing by the Chief Executive Officer and resolution of Council.

This authorisation procedure is in accordance with advice provided by Council’s legal advisors.

CONCLUSION

The authorisations are in accordance with legal advice and are required by Council officers to discharge their duties in accordance with the relevant legislative requirements.

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

RECOMMENDATION

1. That Council exercises the powers conferred by section 147(4)) of the Planning and Environment Act, 1994, and resolves to appoint Stuart Draffin, Alexandra Kastaniotis, Gareth Gale, Andrea Pagliaro, Phillip Gul, Kevin Hawkins, Gavin Rendall, Jim McLauchlan, Jason McConkey, Brendan O’Brien, Darren Day and Bruce Lowe for the purposes of enforcing the Planning and Environment Act 1997.

2. That Stuart Draffin, Alexandra Kastaniotis, Gareth Gale, Andrea Pagliaro, Phillip Gul, Kevin Hawkins, Gavin Rendall, Jim McLauchlan, Jason McConkey, Brendan O’Brien, Darren Day and Bruce Lowe are appointed as authorised officers pursuant to section 223 and 224 of the Local Government and such authorisations be signed and sealed.

9. 2014 GENERAL REVALUATION

Author/Manager: Peter Fitzgerald/Fabienne Thewlis General Manager: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to: 1. cause a valuation of all rateable properties within its municipal district to be made as at 1 January 2014 and to be returned before 30 June 2014; and 2. appoint Peter John Fitzgerald, pursuant to Section 13DA (1) & (2), of the Valuation of Land Act 1960 (the Act), to be responsible for undertaking of the valuations; and 3. record that he has made a Statutory Declaration of Impartiality in relation to the valuation return under section 13DH (2) of the Act.

BACKGROUND A General Valuation must be returned to Council to satisfy the requirements of the Local Government Act 1989 to raise general rates on rateable land within a Council’s municipal district.

DISCUSSION The next General Valuation is to be returned after 1 January 2014 and before 30 June 2014 in time for use in the 2014/2015 rating year and will reflect a valuation made with a level of value date of 1 January 2014. The General Valuation will be carried out by a combination of in-house and contracted staff under the direction of Valuations Coordinator for the City of Stonnington, Mr Peter Fitzgerald.

Mr Fitzgerald is a Certified Practising Valuer and an Associate Member of the Australian Property Institute (Victoria). He has in excess of twenty-four years of municipal valuation experience, more than twenty of these with the City of Stonnington.

# Section 13DH (2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1960 requires that a Declaration of Impartiality be made by the Valuer appointed to carry out the General Valuation. A copy of this declaration is attached and is to be recorded in the Council minutes.

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS Section 11 of the Valuation of Land Act 1960 (the Act) prescribes that the frequency of municipal re-valuations is to be made in two (2) yearly cycles effective as at 1 January in every even calendar year.

Section 13DA (1) & (2) of the Act also requires that a Valuer of suitable qualifications and experience be appointed to be responsible for undertaking the valuations.

Section 13DH(2) of the Act requires that a Valuer make a Statutory declaration that the “valuation and return will be impartial and true to the best of that person’s judgement and will be made by that person or under that person’s immediate personal supervision”.

Further, pursuant to section 6(1)of the Act Council is required to give notice to all authorities which may have an interest in the revaluation of rateable properties in the municipality – these include all neighbouring councils, the State Revenue Office, office of the Valuer General, and the Water Authorities over this area.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS Council budget provides for the conduct of the General Revaluation and the operation of the in-house Valuations Unit. The budget also makes provision for the engagement of contracted staff to assist with the workload that the Revaluation brings. (The task requires a valuation of over 55,000 properties to a January 1, 2014 date returned to the Council just three months later – i.e.31 March 2014). This enables Council to predict rates schedules as part of the budget process for the next financial year, and is also in accordance with a timetable set out by the Valuer-General.

Further, Council receives funding from the State Revenue Office for the information that is provided to that office for Land Tax purposes. In the 2012 General Revaluation the State Revenue Office paid Council around $448,000.

CONCLUSION Council is obliged by the legislation to undertake the general revaluation and appoint a qualified Valuer to undertake the Valuation in an impartial and true manner.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council resolves:

1. to cause a valuation to be made of all rateable properties within the Stonnington City Council for the year commencing 1 July 2014 in accordance with Section 11 of the Valuation of Land Act 1960

2. that each property be computed at its Capital Improved Value, Site Value and Net Annual Value pursuant to Section 157 of the Local Government Act 1989.

3. to appoint Mr Peter Fitzgerald to make the valuations in accordance with Section 13DA(1) & (2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1960

4. notes the receipt of a Declaration of Impartiality from Council’s Valuer, Mr Peter Fitzgerald made in accordance with Section 13DH of the Valuation of Land Act 1960; and

5. to give notice to all authorities which may have an interest in the revaluation of rateable properties in the municipality –these include all neighbouring councils, the State Revenue Office, office of the Valuer General, and the respective Water Authorities for the City of Stonnington pursuant to section 6(1)of the Act.

10. COUNCILLORS GOVERNANCE TRAINING

(Author and General Manager: Geoff Cockram) (CEO: Warren Roberts)

PURPOSE

For Council to give consideration to the provision of governance training for Councillors.

BACKGROUND

Council currently has a policy on Councillors training, Councillor Civic Support and Expenses Policy, which was first adopted by Council in 2001 and last reviewed in October 2011.

Council annually provides an amount in the budget for each Councillor to attend relevant training courses, seminars and conferences. The amount provided in the 2012/13 budget is $4,000 per Councillor.

The policy provides for Councillors to be able to ‘bank’ the training allowance over a two year period so that two year’s allocation is able to be spent in one year, given the cost of some courses, seminars and conferences.

This has generally proved satisfactory in providing adequate funds to enable Councillors to undertake training necessary to equip them to undertake their duties, obligations and responsibilities as Councillors.

Governance Training – A.I.C.D.

Governance training is clearly important for Councillors. One of the acknowledged best quality courses is offered by the Australian Institute of Company Directors and on completion offers a nationally recognised qualification as Graduate of Australian Institute of Company Directors (G.A.I.C.D.).

The course may be undertaken by a variety of methods including a residential program or a one week five day intensive course including written assignment and an exam or by correspondence.

The course is recommended by the Municipal Association of Victoria for Councillors.

The current cost of the course is $6,685 for members and $9,360 for non-members and has been undertaken by some Stonnington Councillors in the past.

In light of the quality of the course and its cost it is recommended that provision be made for Councillors in the first three years of any Council term to undertake the course and that the cost be over and above the annual amount available to Councillors under the Councillor Civic Support and Expenses Policy.

FINANCE AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

The cost of the course will be covered through budgetary provision in the Corporate Services budget.

HUMAN RIGHTS

RECOMMENDATION

That Council, in addition to training provided for under Council policy Councillor Civic Support and Expenses Policy adopted by Council on 3 October 2011, agrees to fund the cost of Councillors undertaking, during the first three years of each four year Council term, the Australian Institute of Company Directors Course (G.A.I.C.D.).

11. REQUEST TO NAME A LANE – LUNN LANE

Author: Fabienne Thewlis General Manager: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to consider submissions in respect to the proposed naming of a lane –Lunn Lane and to resolve on the name of the lane.

BACKGROUND

Council at its meeting of 4 February 2013 resolved to proceed with public consultation on the proposal to name a lane located between 471 and 475 Toorak Road Toorak (informally known as Jackson Way Arcade) as Lunn Lane in recognition of Don Lunn – former radio personality who died in 2006. It should be noted that the name can only be Lunn Lane - the word Don is not permitted under the Geographic Place Names Guidelines.

The required submission period closed on 21 March 2013 and no submissions were received. The Toorak Village Trader Association has previously provided written advice of their support for the proposal.

As no submissions were received Council can now move to the next step with the formal naming, which again is then advertised locally and in the Government Gazette. Should no objections be received from the Office of Geographic Names or from the gazettal of the proposed name (this is for one month) Council is then able to proceed with any formal naming ceremony.

HUMAN RIGHTS

This process has been open to the community to consider and has been assessed to meet the obligations of the Human Rights Charter.

CONCLUSION

As there have been no submissions it is recommended that the lane be formally named Lunn Lane.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the laneway situated at located between 471 and 475 Toorak Road Toorak (informally known as Jackson Way Arcade) as Lunn Lane in recognition of Don Lunn

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

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

4. The following bodies shall be notified of this decision:

 Melways Publishing Pty Ltd  Melbourne Water  Address Management  Metropolitan Fire Brigade  The Divisional Returning Officer  Boral Energy 21  Universal Press  Metropolitan Ambulance Service  State Electoral Office Victoria  Commissioner of Land Tax  Telstra  Australia Post  Office of Geographical Names  Prahran Historical Society  Vic Roads – Metropolitan South Eastern Region  City Power  United Energy

12. REVIEW OF COUNCILLOR ALLOWANCES

Author: Fabienne Thewlis General Manager: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to consider any submissions received in respect to the formal review of the Councillor allowances (including Mayoral allowance) under the Local Government Act 1989 and to determine and fix the Mayor and Councillor allowances for the next four financial years being 2013/2014 to 2017/2018.

BACKGROUND

Council at its meeting of 4 February 2013 resolved:

“That Council:

1. determine that the Councillor and Mayoral allowances be set for the next four years, subject to any change by Order in Council, at: Councillor $26,843 Mayoral $85,741 plus an amount equivalent to the superannuation guarantee contribution (currently 9% and increasing to 9.25% in 2013/14)

2. in accordance with section 74(1) of the Local Government Act 1989, advertise the conduct of the public consultation on the proposed allowances and call for submissions under section 223 of the Act, and

3. determines that any submissions will be heard by a Committee of the whole Council on Monday 25 March 2013 at 6.00pm in the Council Chambers, Stonnington City Centre, Malvern.”

DISCUSSION

The required public notices commenced on 26 February 2013 with the closing date effective on 26 March 2013 which is one day after the date set for the hearing of any submissions, however no submissions were received for consideration.

Under the limits set for the allowances – the Councillor allowances cannot be increased except by Order in Council however the Mayoral allowance can be decreased if so determined by Council.

CONCLUSION

As no submissions have been received it is recommended that Council. confirm the fixing of the allowances as below.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. confirm that the Councillor and Mayoral allowances be set for the next four years, subject to any change by Order in Council, at: Councillor $26,843 Mayoral $85,741

2. plus an amount equivalent to the superannuation guarantee contribution - currently 9% and increasing to 9.25% in 2013/14 and subsequent annual increases as per legislative requirements.

13. AUDIT COMMITTEE CHAIR’S REPORT FOR 2012

(Author: GM Corporate Services, Geoff Cockram) (Chief Executive Officer: Warren Roberts)

PURPOSE

To submit to Council the 2012 annual report of the Chair of the Audit Committee.

INTRODUCTION

The Audit Committee comprises two Council appointed external independent members who occupy the positions of Chair and Deputy Chair. The Chair is Mr. Garry Richardson and the Deputy Chair is Mr Stuart Newey.

Mr. Richardson has not sought a further term as member of the Committee and his term as both Chair and Independent Member will conclude on 30 April 2013.

Council at its meeting on 4 February 2013 appointed Mr. Newey as the Chair of the Audit Committee effective 1 May 2013.

Cr. Melina Sehr and former Cr. Anne O’Shea were the Councillor representatives for the February, May and August 2012 meetings.

Following the Council elections on 27 October 2012 Council appointed Crs. Melina Sehr and Adrian Stubbs as Councillor Representatives to the Committee. Both Councillors attended the November 2012 Audit Committee meeting. Subsequently at its meeting on 4 February 2013 Council appointed Cr. John McMorrow in place of Cr. Sehr.

Audit Committee Terms of Reference

This report has been prepared in accordance with the Audit Committee’s Terms of Reference, the relevant sections of which are:

. Objectives . Reporting to Council

These two sections are reproduced below:

Objectives

The primary objective of the Committee is to assist Council in its responsibilities relating to organisational risk management practices, accounting and reporting to the City. In doing so the Committee will:

. Monitor Council’s exposure to risk and management of risk. . Maintain open lines of communication among the Councillors, internal auditors, external auditors and officers enabling an exchange of views and information.

. Determine through regular review of audit activity, the adequacy and effectiveness of the City’s administrative, operating and accounting controls.

. Assist in establishing and maintaining appropriate corporate conduct and good governance. . Oversee and appraise the quality of the audits conducted by the City’s internal and external auditors. . Review the annual financial statements of the Council. . Provide advice in determining Council’s risk control audit programs and risk minimisation measures.

Reporting to Council

The Minutes of all Audit Committee meetings shall be circulated to members of Council. The Chair shall through the Chief Executive Officer submit an Annual Report to the Council summarising the Committee’s activities through the year and related significant results and findings.

The purpose of the Committee’s reports to Council will be for advice and information, not for authorisation.

Audit Committee Report

# The report from the Chair of the Audit Committee for the period 1 January to 31 December 2012 is attached.

The Committee met on four occasions during 2012 namely:

. 28 February . 3 May . 14 August . 27 November

Both External and Internal Auditors are invited to attend all meetings. Council Officers attend as required.

The External Auditor is the Auditor General who was represented during the year by Stephen O’Kane of LDAssurance and the Internal Auditor is Oakton Services Pty Ltd.

2012 Report Presentation

The Chair of the Audit Committee Mr. Garry Richardson presented the Chair’s report at the Councillor Briefing Session on 25 March 2013. Mr. Stuart Newey Independent Member also attended the meeting.

RECOMMENDATION

That: a) Council receives the 2012 report from the Chair of the Audit Committee; b) the Mayor writes to the outgoing Chair of the Audit Committee, Mr. Garry Richardson, thanking him for his service to the Committee over the past twelve years.

14. ABS CENSUS DATA USED FOR ASSESSMENT OF EMPIRICAL PARKING PROVISION RATES

Author: Damir Agic / Jordan Allan Manager: Ian McLauchlan General Manager: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

To inform Council of a resident’s submission to the Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) Planning Panel ‘Car Parking Advisory Committee 2011’ regarding the use of Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Census data by planning permit applicants, in particular their traffic consultants, as empirical evidence to justify reducing parking provision requirements associated with residential developments.

BACKGROUND

Correspondence was received by North Ward Councillors in November 2011 from a resident, requesting Council consider their submission to the DPCD Planning Panel ‘Car Parking Advisory Committee 2011’. Cr Chandler has requested that this submission be brought to Council’s attention.

# The report from the above Committee was released in June 2012. A copy of the resident’s submission to the Committee is attached.

The resident suggests the use of ABS Census data to justify lower parking rates in the City of Stonnington, in particular Prahran, may not be appropriate. The argument used is that the ABS Census data includes all residential developments within the city, including the Office of Housing (OOH) developments, which have lower levels of car ownership than other more affluent residential developments in areas such as Prahran, Toorak, and South Yarra.

The Committee’s report did not mention the issues raised in the resident’s submission, and he has requested the matter be reported to Council for consideration.

DISCUSSION

In order for Council to consider arguments to justify lower parking rates for a proposed residential development, Council’s Transport and Parking Unit generally requires empirical evidence of the use and operation of similar developments located in a similar area. This is mostly undertaken by independent traffic consultants, engaged by developers, who survey existing developments and provide evidence to support lower parking rates for the development proposed.

In instances where specific empirical evidence, requested by Council, was not available, applicants and their traffic consultants have used the ABS Census data to demonstrate lower residential parking rates for specific suburbs, and thus to justify the proposed shortfall in car parking provisions. However, the ABS Census data includes all developments within an area, including all OOH developments, which can have a lower car ownership when compared to other developments in the area, specifically new developments in Prahran, Toorak and South Yarra.

As such, the use of ABS Census data is generally not accepted by Council’s Transport and Parking Unit in the assessment of proposed developments and associated parking provision requirements.

Planning Scheme Requirements The planning scheme identifies a two part assessment process as follows;

With regard to reducing the statutory parking requirement, the Planning Scheme indicates the following:

Clause 56.06-6 Reducing the requirement for car parking Before a requirement for car parking is reduced (including reduced to zero), or car parking is permitted to be applied on another site, the applicant must satisfy the responsible authority that the provision of car parking is justified having regard to an assessment of the following:  The car parking demand likely to be generated by the use.  Whether it is appropriate to allow fewer spaces to be provided than the number likely to be generated by the use.

An assessment of the car parking demand likely to be generated by the use must have regard to the following factors, as appropriate:  Multi-purpose trips within an area.  The variation of car parking demand over time.  The short-stay and long-stay car parking demand.  The availability of public transport in the locality.  The convenience of pedestrian and cyclist access to the site.  The provision of bicycle parking and end of trip facilities for cyclists.  The anticipated car ownership rates of likely or proposed occupants (residents or employees). An assessment of the appropriateness of allowing fewer spaces to be provided than the number likely to be generated by the use must have regard to the following, as appropriate:  Any relevant local planning policy or incorporated plan.  The availability of car parking including: o Efficiencies gained from the consolidation of shared car parking spaces. o Public car parks intended to serve the land. o On street parking in non residential zones and streets in residential zones specifically managed for non-residential parking. o On street parking in residential zones for residential use.  Any adverse economic impact a shortfall of parking may have on the economic viability of an activity centre.  The future growth and development of an activity centre.  Any car parking deficiency associated with the existing use of the land.  Any credit that should be allowed for car parking spaces provided on common land or by a Special Charge scheme or cash-in-lieu payment.  Local traffic management.  The impact of fewer car parking spaces on local amenity including pedestrian amenity and the amenity of nearby residential areas.  The need to create safe, functional and attractive parking areas.  Access to or provision of alternative transport modes.  The equity of reducing the car parking requirement having regard to any historic contributions by existing businesses.

 The character of the surrounding area and whether reducing the car parking provision would result in a quality/positive urban design outcome.  Any other relevant consideration.

As outlined above the assessment criteria for reducing car parking requirements are much wider than ‘car ownership’ alone. As such ABS census data is typically used together with other reasons to demonstrate the appropriateness of reduced parking rates, rather than being used as the sole determinant.

The second part of the process particularly requires an assessment of the appropriateness of meeting the parking demand on site e.g. in the context of the local environment whether it is appropriate to provide parking at the level the proposed development is expected to generate. This is a strategic consideration, for example in areas such as Prahran where traffic congestion is already evident, it may be prudent to reduce parking on-site in an effort to encourage future owners to mitigate their reliance on private cars in favour of sustainable transport options. This type of approach is typically only considered in areas where the on- street parking is covered by existing restrictions, so as not to simply push the residents to park on-street.

Role of ABS Data In the context of this two-stage approach to the provision of parking, the ABS Census data presented by an applicant plays a relatively minor role in the assessment process. The proximity to alternative travel modes or major activity centres for example play a more significant role in a decision to allow a reduction in parking than what the ABS Census data may demonstrate. Similarly, it may be as a result of a strategic approach, such as that currently in place for the Forrest Hill Precinct, which seeks to reduce parking provision to attempt to manage existing traffic congestion issues in the face of increased development.

VCAT Decisions History suggests that VCAT is unlikely to reject a development based on insufficient parking alone and as such, Council decisions to reject a development on parking grounds can often be overruled. More specifically there have been a number of cases in Prahran where parking provision rates considered too low by Council have been upheld by VCAT the appeal based on ABS data, in conjunction with the other assessment criteria outlined above.

Precedent may be considered by VCAT when assessing planning appeals. Generally applications will not be refused where ABS Census data is used by an applicant as part of the argument to justify lower parking rates.

Resident Submission The resident has provided tables which show the difference in car ownership rates when the OOH residences are removed from the analysis. The analysis shows that in one, two, and three storey blocks the effect of removing the OOH residences is negligible (average 0.01 cars per household difference in one and two storey blocks, approximately 0.02 cars per household difference for three storey blocks). A greater difference for larger blocks (4+ storeys) is demonstrated, particularly for bedsit (68% difference), 1-bedroom (39% difference), and 3-bedroom units (42% difference). It should be noted there is a negligible difference for 2-bedroom units.

A more detailed analysis of the 4+ storey blocks is included, with a further breakdown by suburb for Prahran and South Yarra. The analysis for South Yarra shows a variance for bed-sits, however the relatively small sample size of bed-sits in South Yarra is too small for a reliable analysis. There is no significant difference for 1-bedroom or 2-bedroom apartments. These apartment sizes are by far the most prevalent within newer developments, and as such the effect in South Yarra of the ABS Census data is considered likely to be negligible.

The analysis for Prahran again shows that whether OOH residences are included or not makes no real difference for 2-bedroom apartments, which again are the most prevalent. The most significant difference is experienced in the 1-bedroom category, with the removal of OOH residences doubling the average cars per household figure.

In consideration of the detailed analysis prepared by the resident, there is a demonstrated need to acknowledge that the ABS Census data may underestimate average car ownership for 3-bedroom dwellings in larger developments throughout Stonnington, and for 1-bedroom dwellings in Prahran in particular, but as a general approach, considering the relatively minor role which ABS Census data plays in the overall analysis, it is unlikely this will make a material difference in future development assessments.

The resident is also concerned that applicants may be, in effect, double counting the impact of local transport amenity, such as the proximity to heavy rail services, in terms of providing a basis for reduced rates. The ABS Census data includes developments already located near public transport services, and therefore a further reduction may not be reasonable. However, as previously stated, the assessment of parking provision is a holistic analysis based on the provisions of the Planning Scheme, and both the demonstration of existing car ownership and the provision of public transport are separate items. Council also considers the appropriateness of parking provision in terms of future traffic generation, and as such where alternate sustainable modes are available, reduced parking provision is generally considered appropriate.

CONCLUSION

Under the planning scheme the assessment of parking requirements associated with a development application involves the assessment of a broad range of criteria.

Council’s Traffic and Transport unit require provision of empirical evidence in support of any application for reduced parking provision. Some development applications rely on ABS data in terms of the assessment of car ownership as part of the argument for reduced parking provision. VCAT generally accept the use of ABS data for calculation of car ownership rates for this purpose.

The resident’s submission shows that using ABS data, particularly in census areas which include public housing will tend to understate the car ownership ratios in certain circumstances.

Where ABS Census data is used for car ownership, it forms only part of the overall analysis of the suitability or otherwise of reduced parking provision, and therefore it is not considered to make a material difference regarding the assessment of development proposals from a parking perspective.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the advice be noted.

2. Correspondence be sent to the submitter including a copy of the Council report considering the matter.

GENERAL BUSINESS 8 APRIL 2013 n) Confidential Business

1. MILTON GRAY SCOUT HALL – 216 WATTLETREE ROAD MALVERN LEASE

(Author / General Manager: Connie Gibbons/Geoff Cockram)

Confidential report circulated separately.

2. AUDIT COMMITTEE INDEPENDENT MEMBER/DEPUTY CHAIR - APPOINTMENT

(Author / General Manager: Geoff Cockram)

Confidential report circulated separately.