NOTICE PAPER

Monday 4 February 2013 at 7:00 p.m.

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

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

PRAYER

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

NOTE

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

Page 2 Council Meeting Notice Paper 4 February 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 0546/12 – CHADSTONE SHOPPING CENTRE- 1341 DANDENONG ROAD, MALVERN EAST – STAGE 2A - NEW BUS INTERCHANGE, VARIATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE MYER CAR PARK INCLUDING A NEW CAR PARKING DECK, A NEW KMART TYRE AND AUTO, ADVERTISING SIGNAGE AND ROAD WORKS TO ALTER THE EXISTING ACCESS FROM THE PRINCES HIGHWAY...... 6

1.2. PLANNING APPLICATION 0547/12 - CHADSTONE SHOPPING CENTRE – 1341 DANDENONG ROAD, MALVERN EAST – STAGE 2B - CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW MULTI LEVEL BASEMENT CAR PARK AND ROAD WORKS TO THE PRINCES HIGHWAY...... 46

1.3. PLANNING APPLICATION 0783/12 - 1341 DANDENONG ROAD - STAGE 3A - CHADSTONE SHOPPING CENTRE , MALVERN EAST – DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING CAR PARK AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BASEMENT AND MULTI LEVEL CAR PARK TO INCLUDE A NEW RETAIL TENANCY ON THE LOWER GROUND FLOOR LEVEL AND LOADING BAY TO THE NORTH-WEST OF THE MAIN SHOPPING CENTRE...... 66

1.4. PLANNING APPLICATION 0475/12 - 47 CLAREMONT STREET, SOUTH YARRA – MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT FOR 60 DWELLINGS IN A MIXED USE ZONE, DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY, LAND SUBJECT TO INUNDATION OVERLAY AND ASSOCIATED WAIVER OF PARKING...... 100

2. AMENDMENT C153: 590 ORRONG ROAD / 4 OSMENT STREET, ARMADALE – CONSIDERATION OF PANEL REPORT...125

3. AMENDMENT C163 – CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS FOR HERITAGE PROTECTION OF RESIDENTIAL FLATS...... 133

4. AMENDMENT C167 –SUBMISSIONS - REVIEW OF HERITAGE OVERLAY 138 - HORNBY & MCILWRICK STREETS, WINDSOR PRECINCT...... 137

5. AMENDMENT C170 - CHAPEL STREET PRECINCT HERITAGE REVIEW – CONSIDER SUBMISSIONS...... 141

6. PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT TO REZONE RAILWAY LEASE LOT 1, 2 & 9 PRAHRAN – AMENDMENT C169...... 144

7. ACTIVITY CENTRE PLANNING...... 147

8. TOORAK VILLAGE – SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT...... 152

9. STONNINGTON CYCLING REFERENCE GROUP...... 157

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 10. APPLICATION TO APPEAL A DECISION FOR REFUSAL OF A REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF A SIGNIFICANT TREE AT 8/17 SORRETT AVENUE, MALVERN...... 159

11. REPORT ON THE STREET TREES IN GLADSTONE AVENUE, ARMADALE FOLLOWING PRESENTATION OF A PETITION REQUESTING COUNCIL REPLACE THE EXISTING LILLY PILLY STREET TREES...... 163

12. REPORT ON THE STREET TREES IN LAWNHILL ROAD, MALVERN FOLLOWING PRESENTATION OF A PETITION REQUESTING COUNCIL REPLACE THE RECENTLY PLANTED STREET TREES AT 2A LAWNHILL ROAD...... 167

13. CHAPEL STREET AREA TAXI ZONE PROJECT - UPDATE...... 171

14. CITY OF STONNINGTON ROAD MANAGEMENT PLAN – FORMAL REVIEW AS REQUIRED BY ROAD MANAGEMENT ACT 2004...... 177

15. REPORT ON THE CONDUCT OF THE 2012 COUNCIL ELECTIONS BY ATTENDANCE VOTING...... 181

16. REVIEW OF COUNCILLOR ALLOWANCES...... 187

17. AUDIT COMMITTEE – COUNCILLOR MEMBER...... 189

18. AUDITED FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS FOR SPECIAL RATED PRECINCTS...... 190

19. RISK REPORT TO COUNCIL FOR THE YEAR 2012...... 192

20. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF FEE FOR MALVERN TOWN HALL: SECOND BITE...... 197

21. COUNCIL COMMITTEES...... 198

m) Urgent Business; and n) Confidential Business. 1. PRAHRAN (HORACE PETTY) PUBLIC HOUSING ESTATE MASTER PLAN………………………………….202 2. SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY PROGRESS UPDATE………………….……..…..……………202 3. OFFICE ACCOMMODATION INVESTIGATION UPDATE…………………………………………….…………..202 4. AUDIT COMMITTEE CHAIR/INDEPENDENT MEMBER – APPOINTMENT……………………….…..…………202 5. REQUEST TO NAME A LANE…………………………………………………………………….……………202

Page 4 ADOPTION AND CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council confirms the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 17 December 2012 and Minutes of the Confidential Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 17 December 2012 as an accurate record of the proceedings.

Page 5 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

1. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

1.1. PLANNING APPLICATION 0546/12 – CHADSTONE SHOPPING CENTRE- 1341 DANDENONG ROAD, MALVERN EAST – STAGE 2A - NEW BUS INTERCHANGE, VARIATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE MYER CAR PARK INCLUDING A NEW CAR PARKING DECK, A NEW KMART TYRE AND AUTO, ADVERTISING SIGNAGE AND ROAD WORKS TO ALTER THE EXISTING ACCESS FROM THE PRINCES HIGHWAY

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

PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for use of the land for a new bus interchange and motor repairs, buildings and works for an upper level car parking deck and motor repairs (Kmart Tyre and Auto), alterations to the access arrangement from a Road Zone, Category 1, advertising signs, and waiver of the statutory car parking requirement for motor repairs under Clause 52.06 at 1341 Dandenong Road, Malvern East (Chadstone Shopping Centre).

Executive Summary

Applicant: Urbis C/- Colonial First State Global Asset Management Ward: East Zone: Business 1 Overlay: Special Building Overlay Incorporated Plan Overlay (Schedule 2) Date lodged: 14/08/2012 Statutory days: (as at council 108 meeting date) Trigger for referral to Application of local significance Council: Number of submissions: Four (4) Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on Tuesday18 December 2012 Officer Recommendation: Issue a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

Chadstone Shopping Centre requested Council to prepare and exhibit Amendment C154 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme to allow for the expansion and redevelopment of the Chadstone Shopping Centre in October 2011. The Amendment sought, amongst other things, to modify the schedule the Business 1 Zone to increase the maximum combined leasable floor area for shop at Chadstone Shopping centre from 146,000 m² to 160,000 m² and delete reference to minimum of 10,000 m² of restricted retail floor space. It also sought to amend the Incorporated Plan to allow for variations to the building envelope to the north and south of the site.

The Amendment was adopted by Council on 13 August 2012 and was gazetted on 15 November 2012 following approval by the Minister of Planning. The Amendment has now been included in the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

Page 6 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Throughout the Amendment process, an Indicative Development Concept was provided to illustrate how the Amendment could facilitate development as part of future planning permit applications. Due to the location of development on the site, the expansion of the Shopping Centre is proposed to take place in several stages and a series of planning applications have now been lodged with Council. The stages of development currently with Council are summarised below:

Stages of Proposals (summarised) development Stage 2A A new bus interchange to the south of the 'fresh food' entrance to the shopping centre; a new motor repairs (K-Auto) within the south-east corner of the site; variations to the Myer car park including a new first floor car parking deck; and road works to the intersection of Eastern Access Road and Dandenong Road. Stage 2B A new multi level basement car park and road works to the intersection of the Central Access Road and Dandenong Road. Stage 3A Full demolition of the existing multi level car park to the north-west of the main shopping centre building to be replaced by a new basement, a retail tenancy (Target) at lower ground and two car parking levels above. The proposal includes a new loading dock to the north of the Target tenancy. Stage 3B The main redevelopment of the northern mall which involves demolition of the existing mall and construction of four new retail and entertainment floor levels. The works also include expansion of the Coles car park to the east of the main shopping centre building. Stage 3C Includes works for two cinema “boxes” (Cinemas 8 and 11) which sit outside of the building envelope shown on the Incorporated Plan (August 2012).

Stage 4 Proposes to construct a new ten storey office building and new eleven storey residential hotel to contain 240 hotel rooms. The hotel will include an ancillary restaurant and conference centre. The development will amend the basement car park approved under Planning Permit 0547/12 (Stage 2B) to provide a total of 512 car spaces. 72 car spaces will be for the exclusive use of the hotel and 440 car spaces will be shared between the office on weekdays and the retail centre on weekends and public holidays. A reduction in the standard car parking rate for the office is also sought.

Notably, some of the above proposals (Stage 3A and Stage 3C) include works that are not generally in accordance with the Incorporated Plan (August 2012). Where works are generally in accordance with the Incorporated Plan, these applications are exempt from third party notice and review rights under the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Further discussion on notice is provided later in this report (see Advertising).

An indicative programme for the staging of development has been provided to Council which suggests that development will commence in April 2013 with works to be completed in October 2015. The indicative staging sequence proposes that the office and hotel development (Stage 4) will be completed in April 2014, prior to the completion of Stage 3B in October 2015.

Page 7 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by The Buchan Group and are known as File No. 0546/12, Drawing No’s 00153, 00154, 00155, 00156, 00157, 00158 Rev 02, 00159 Rev 01, 00160 Rev 01, 00161 Rev 02, 00162 Rev 3, 00163 Rev 01, 00165, FS-I-01, FS-I-02, LC1.01 Rev C, LC1.02 Rev C, LC1.03 Rev C and Council date stamped 19 October 2012.

The submission also included the following additional documents in support of the application:

 A Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by GTA Consultants, document reference 12M1001000, Issue B dated 31/07/2012 and Supplementary Report known as 12M1001016 submitted to Council on 19 October 2012; and  An Acoustic Assessment from Marshall Day Acoustics Pty Ltd dated 2 August 2012.

In broad terms, the proposal includes the following works:

 Relocation and consolidation of the existing bus interchanges to a new centralised bus interchange.  Alterations to the Myer car park including an additional first floor level of car parking above.  Alterations to the existing intersection for south-east access to Princes Highway from Eastern Access Road.  Relocation of the existing Kmart Tyre and Auto Service (K-Auto) to a new location within the north-east of the southern car park. The new building will include advertising signage.

More specifically, key features of each component of this application include:

Bus Interchange

Chadstone Shopping Centre currently has three (3) bus interchanges at varying locations across the site which provide for fourteen (14) bus bays. The proposed new bus interchange will replace the existing bus interchanges and will provide a centralised boulevard to the south of the ‘fresh food’ entrance of the Shopping Centre.

The bus interchange will contain:

 Fifteen (15) bus bays  A centralised pedestrian walkway and waiting areas that will include overhead canopies for weather protection, integrated heating panels, seating and landscaping.  Signalised bus entry and exit to the interchange.  Signalised pedestrian crossings (zebra crossings) to the north, providing direct access to the entry of the Chadstone Shopping Centre.  A staged pedestrian crossing to the south of the interchange, providing access to the Castlebar Road residential area and the Princes Highway.

Relocated Kmart Tyre and Auto (K-Auto)

The proposal includes relocating the existing K-Auto from the ground floor level of the Coles car park to the southern car park towards the eastern site boundary. The new building will be constructed in place of existing car parking bays. The relocation of the K-Auto anticipates future works as part of Stage 3B (Planning Application 0784/12) which seeks to extend the Coles car park.

Page 8 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

The new K-Auto will provide eight (8) vehicle working bays and will involve activities such as car servicing and repairs, tyre replacement, and other general motor repairs. No panel beating is proposed. The premises will have a total floor area of 416 square metres, which is 122 square metres larger than the existing tenancy within the Coles car park.

The building is to have a maximum height of 7.1m above ground level and will be constructed from precast concrete panels with applied finish. Four roller doors are proposed to the north in addition to a pedestrian entry to the north-west. The proposed hours of operation are as follows:

Monday to Wednesday 8am to 5.30pm Thursday and Friday 8am to 9pm Saturday and Sunday 8am to 5pm

No designated car parking has been allocated for the exclusive use of staff or customers of the K- Auto.

In addition, the building includes four external advertising signs and painted graphics. The painted graphic to the concrete panels is characteristic of the K-Auto branding and will be evident on all elevations. The plans also make reference to a “sign written graphic direct on wall” on the north and south elevations which include words (i.e. servicing, tyres, brakes etc). The total area designated for “sign written graphic” equates to 39.9 square metres.

Of the signs to be affixed to each facade of the building, three of the four signs are to be illuminated. The sign on the eastern elevation is to be illuminated and is located 48 metres from the residential properties to the east. Details of the proposed signs are as follows:

 North facade Business identification sign to be internally illuminated with dimensions of 10.5 metres by 1.43 metres, equating to an overall sign are of 15.06 square metres.

 East and west facades Business identification signs to be internally illuminated with dimensions of 7.125 metres by 0.975 metres with each sign to have an area of 6.94 square metres.

 South facade Business identification sign which will not be illuminated with dimensions of 10.5 metres by 1.143 metres, equating to an overall sign are of 15.06 square metres.

The total area of illuminated signage is to be 28.9 square metres. Total signage area (including the written graphic on the wall) is to be 83.9 square metres.

Variations to the existing Myer car park

The proposal includes variations to the existing Myer car park including the reconfiguration of the existing ground floor level and the addition of a new car parking deck above. The works to the ground floor level are proposed to allow for the new bus interchange to the east. The ground floor level car park currently contains 1183 car spaces and the proposed reconfiguration and construction of the bus interchange to the east will reduce the number of car spaces to 967. Although a reduced numbers of car spaces are proposed, the modifications to the car park will facilitate a new bus interchange, a designated pedestrian path through the car park, and a bicycle storage cage within the car park that will integrate with the shared path to the south and along Dandenong Road (Princes Highway).

Page 9 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

A new upper floor car parking deck is to sit directly above the ground floor Myer car park. The new structure is to have a height of approximately 3 to 4 metres above ground. The height varies due to the slope in the land. The upper level car parking deck will provide for an additional 313 car spaces. The structure will consist of a new slab floor with balustrades around the perimeter. External lighting is also proposed which is not dissimilar to other multi-deck car parking facilities on the Chadstone Shopping Centre site.

Additionally, a covered pedestrian walkway is proposed to the west of the car parking aisles and will provide access to the stairs and lift which are to be extended from the ground floor level car park.

Road works

The application includes variations to the current point of access to the site from the Princes Highway. The works are proposed to facilitate efficiency of movement to the bus interchange and to generally improve traffic conditions at the intersection of the Princes Highway and Eastern Access Road. In accordance with the Incorporated Plan Overlay, Schedule 2 prior to the closure of any existing bus bays or prior to the occupation of any additional shop floor area above 146,000 square metres and other floor area up to 65,000 square metres, whichever occurs first, the following works are required:

 The new centralised bus interchange (generally in accordance with the Chadstone Shopping Centre Bus Interchange Works Concept Design, drawing number 12M1001005-102P3 prepared by GTA Consultants but subject to the preparation of detailed construction plans).

 Creation of an additional dedicated left turn slip lane at the Princes Highway Eastern Access (generally in accordance with Chadstone Shopping Centre Bus Interchange Works Concept Design, drawing number 12M1001005-107P1 prepared by GTA Consultants but subject to the preparation of detailed construction plans).

 Creation of a bus queue jump lane on Princes Highway eastbound at the intersection with Chadstone Road and Poath Road (generally in accordance with Chadstone Activities Area Princes Highway/Poath Road/Chadstone Road Concept Layout Plan, drawing number 12M1001005-103P3 prepared by GTA Consultants but subject to the preparation of detailed construction plans).

The road works as listed above, in addition to the new bus interchange, form part of this application.

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 a combination of 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 has 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.

Page 10 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

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.

Previous Planning Application(s)

This site has an 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. This application is known as Stage 1 in the sequencing of development as put forward by the applicant.

 Lodged concurrently with the current application is Planning Permit Application 0547/12 which seeks to construct a new four level basement car park and undertake road works to the Princes Highway / Middle Access Road intersection. This application is known as Stage 2B and no determination has been made on this application to date.

 Planning Permit Application 0783/12 was lodged with Council on 26 October 2012 and proposes the full demolition of the existing multi level car park to the north-west of the main shopping centre building to be replaced by a new basement level car park, a retail tenancy (Target) at lower ground level and two car parking decks above. The proposal includes a new loading bay to the north. This application is known as Stage 3A and no determination has been made to date.

 Planning Permit Application 0784/12 was lodged with Council on 26 October 2012 and includes the main redevelopment of the northern mall which involves demolition of the existing northern 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. This application is known as Stage 3B and no determination has been made to date.

 Planning Permit Application 0785/12 was lodged concurrently with Stage 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 no determination has been made to date.

Page 11 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

 Planning Permit Application 0905/12 was lodged with Council on 12 December 2012 for works to the southern building envelope for a new office and hotel development. Preliminary assessment of this application is currently being undertaken by Council. This application is known as Stage 4.

Planning Scheme Amendments

The most recent Planning Scheme Amendment for this site is known as Amendment C154 and was gazetted on 15 November 2012. The Amendment allowed for larger developable areas along the northern and southern boundaries of the Chadstone Shopping Centre site. More specifically, the Amendment:

 modified the Schedule to the Business 1 Zone to increase the maximum combined leasable floor area for shop at Chadstone Shopping centre from 146,000 m² to 160,000 m² and deleted the reference to minimum of 10,000 m² of restricted retail floor space;  amended Schedule 2 to the Incorporated Plan Overlay including to replace the existing Chadstone Shopping Centre Incorporated Plan June 2005 with Chadstone Shopping Centre Incorporated Plan August 2012; and  amended the Schedule to Clause 81.01 to refer to the updated ‘Chadstone Shopping Centre Incorporated Plan, August 2012’.

The Amendment also varied Schedule 2 of the Incorporated Plan Overlay to include numerous requirements for road works and new design guidelines.

The redevelopment of the Chadstone Shopping Centre as anticipated by Amendment C154 is to be achieved through numerous Planning Permit Applications of which this application forms one (hereafter known as Stage 2A).

Prior to Amendment C154, another Planning Scheme Amendment known as C32 was gazetted on 21 December 2005 and which most notably amended the Schedule to the Business 1 Zone to increase the maximum combined leasable floor area for Shop from 106,000sqm to 146,000sqm.

The Title:

The site is described as Lot 1 on Title Plan 824914 (Volume 11259, Folio 101) 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 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.

Page 12 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

 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.

The applicant has declared that whilst encumbrances affect the site, the works as proposed under this Planning Permit Application will not contravene or breach the restrictions on the Certificate of Title. It is considered that the proposal will not breach the restrictions listed above.

Page 13 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Planning Controls

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

Zone:

Clause 34.01 Business 1 Zone

Uses

Pursuant to Clause 34.01-1, a permit is required to use the land for a transport terminal and motor repairs which are both unlisted uses at Section 2 (permit required).

Buildings and works

Pursuant to Clause 34.01-4 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works. This includes the internal rearrangement of a building if the maximum leasable floor area specified in the schedule to this zone is exceeded. The schedule specifies a maximum combined leasable floor area of 160,000 square metres for shop within Chadstone Shopping Centre. The maximum combined leasable floor area is not being exceeded by this application.

Advertising signs

Pursuant to 34.01-6, advertising sign requirements are at Clause 52.05. This zone is in Category 1.

Overlays:

Clause 43.03 Incorporated Plan Overlay (Schedule 2)

Schedule 2 of Clause 43.03 relates to the Chadstone Shopping Centre Incorporated Plan (August 2012) and states that a permit may be granted to use or subdivide land, construct a building or construct or carry out works that is not generally in accordance with the Incorporated Plan.

Section 3 of the Schedule lists specific conditions and requirements for Planning Permits, of which some are applicable to this application.

It is important to note that the Incorporated Plan Overlay (Clause 43.03-2) exempts a planning permit application from third party notice and review rights if the application is generally in accordance with the approved Incorporated Plan. The works as part of this application are generally in accordance with the Incorporated Plan dated August 2012 and therefore is exempt from third party notice and review rights.

Clause 44.05 Special Building Overlay

A Special Building Overlay affects a portion of land to the south-east of the Chadstone Shopping Centre site. The proposed K-Auto falls within the Special Building Overlay and triggers the provisions of Clause 44.05. Pursuant to Clause 44.05-5 the application is to be referred to the relevant floodplain management authority under Section 55 of the Act, which in this case is Stonnington. Comments received are detailed below within the Referrals section of this report.

Page 14 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Particular Provisions

Clause 52.05 Advertising Signs

As noted within the Business 1 Zone requirements, advertising signs fall within Category 1. Category 1 relates to Business areas and suggests a low limitation with regard to signage. Within Category 1, a permit is required for business identification signs where the area exceeds 8 square metres. A permit is also required for internally illuminated signage which exceeds 1.5 square metres in area. Based on these figures, a permit is required for the proposed signs that will have an area of 83.9 square metres, including 28.9 square metres of illuminated signage.

Clause 52.06 Car Parking

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-2 prior to a new use commencing or a new building being occupied, the car 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 may be granted to reduce (including reduce to zero) the requirement to provide the number of car parking spaces required under this clause.

The table at Clause 52.06-5 states that motor repairs should provide 3 car spaces to each 100 square metres of floor area and 1 car space for each vehicle being serviced, repaired or fitted with accessories, including vehicles waiting to be serviced, repaired, fitted with accessories or collected by owners.

As the new K-Auto is proposing an increase in floor area by 122 square metres a minimum three (3) car spaces is required. The new tenancy will allow for eight vehicles to be serviced via the proposed eight working bays. All work bays are located within the new building. The proposal does not include any car parking spaces for the exclusive use of the K-Auto and as such a full waiver of the car parking requirement is sought.

No other increase in commercial floor is sought as part of this Planning Permit Application.

Clause 52.07 Loading and unloading of vehicles

The purpose of this provision is, “to set aside land for loading and unloading commercial vehicles to prevent loss of amenity and adverse effect on traffic flow and road safety”.

Clause 52.27 specifies that no building or works may be constructed for the manufacture, servicing, storage or sale of goods or materials unless:

 Space is provided on the land for loading and uploading for vehicles as specified in the table to Clause 52.07.  The driveway to the loading bay is at least 3.6 metres wide.  The road that provides access to the loading bay is at least 3.6 metres wide.

A permit may be granted to reduce or waive these requirements.

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

Page 15 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

A permit is required to create or alter access to:

 A road in a Road Zone, Category 1.  Land in a Public Acquisition Overlay if the purpose of acquisition is for a Category 1 road.

An application to create or alter access to, or to subdivide land adjacent to, a road declared as a freeway or arterial road under the Road Management Act 2004, land owned by the Roads Corporation for the purpose of a road, or land in a Public Acquisition Overlay if the Roads Corporation is the authority responsible for acquiring the land, must be referred to the Roads Corporation under Section 55 of the Act.

The application has been referred to VicRoads and comments received are detailed below within the Referrals section of this report.

Clause 52.34 Bicycle Facilities

Clause 52.34 seeks to encourage cycling as a mode of transport and provide secure, accessible and convenient bicycle parking spaces and facilities.

The table at Clause 52.34-3 requires that a service industry (motor repairs) provide 1 bicycle space to each 800 square metres of net floor area. The K-Auto proposes a total of 416 square metres of floor area and as such does not trigger a requirement for bicycle facilities.

Clause 52.36 Integrated Public Transport Planning

Pursuant to 52.36-1 an application to construct a building or to construct or carry out works for any alteration or development of public transport infrastructure or stops must be referred in accordance with Section 55 of the Act to the Director of Public Transport.

The application has been referred to Public Transport Victoria and comments received are detailed below within the Referrals section of this report.

For clarity a permit is required as follows:

 Use of the land for a transport terminal under the Business 1 Zone  Use of the land for motor repairs under the Business 1 Zone  Buildings and works in the Business 1 Zone  Buildings and works in a Special Building Overlay  Advertising signage under Clause 52.05  Waiver of the car parking requirements under Clause 52.06  Altering access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1 (Princes Highway) under Clause 52.29

General Provisions

Clause 65 - Decision Guidelines

The Decision Guidelines of Clause 65 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme are relevant to this application and require consideration to be given to a variety of matters including the Planning Scheme policies, the purpose of the zone, orderly planning and the impact on amenity.

Page 16 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Relevant Planning Policies

In the State Planning Policy Framework:

 Clause 11 - Settlement  Clause 15 - Environment and Heritage  Clause 17.01 - Commercial  Clause 18 – Transport  Clause 19 - Infrastructure

In the Municipal Strategic Statement:

 Clause 21.01 Vision for the City of Stonnington  Clause 21.02-2 Urban Environment and Character  Clause 21.04 Economic Development  Clause 21.05-1 Transport

In the Local Planning Policy Framework:

 Clause 22.02 - Urban Design Policy  Clause 22.03 – Advertising Policy  Clause 22.09 - Retail Centres Policy  Clause 22.11 - Chadstone Commercial Centre Policy  Clause 22.12 - Traffic Policy  Clause 22.13 - Parking Policy  Clause 22.15 - Infrastructure Policy

Other considerations:

Amendment C161 which proposes to revise the Local Planning Policy Framework which includes Clause 21 - Municipal Strategic Statement and Clause 22 - Local Planning Policies is currently on exhibition. The new Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) updates Council's vision and policies for land use and development in the City. It consolidates policy from the existing Planning Scheme with new policy adopted as part of the 2010 Review and from other Council work. Several Local Policies are deleted and their policy positions included in the MSS.

Draft Clause 22.18 Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) Policy This is a seriously entertained document and applies to all new buildings. The objectives of this policy are:  To promote the use of water sensitive urban design, including stormwater re-use.  To mitigate the detrimental effect of development on downstream waterways, by the application of best practice stormwater management through water sensitive urban design for new development.  To minimise peak stormwater flows and stormwater pollutants to improve the health of water bodies, including creeks, rivers and bays.  To reintegrate urban water into the landscape

Advertising

Pursuant to Clause 43.03 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, an application that is generally in accordance with the Incorporated Plan is exempt from the notice and review rights of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Page 17 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

However, policy at Clause 22.11 (Chadstone Commercial Centre Policy) details that where an application is proposed in accordance with the Incorporated Plan, written notice of the display will be conducted and public comment will be sought. This requirement allows for discretion as to the extent of notification required based on the scale of development.

This application was made available to members of the public between Monday 19 November 2012 and Monday 3 December 2012.

The site is located in East Ward and four submission raised concern with the proposal, with the concerns generally relating to:

 Increased noise from new bus interchange  Increased air pollution from new bus interchange and Myer car park deck  Minimal landscaping proposed  Devaluation of property  Adverse impacts on health, sleep, amenity and well being  Damage to property during construction  Environmental impacts during construction activity

A Consultative Meeting was held on Tuesday 18 December 2012. The meeting was attended by Councillors Davie, McMorrow and Stubbs, representatives of the applicant, submitters and Council planning officers. Additional concerns that were raised at the meeting included:

 Security at the bus interchange during the night and early morning periods.  No meaningful landscaping at the bus interchange.  Amenities at the bus interchange for passengers.

The meeting did not result in any changes to the proposal.

Referrals

VicRoads

VicRoads have reviewed the plans and do not object to the grant of a planning permit subject to conditions. The referral from VicRoads does make the following noteworthy comment:

“The layout of the Princes Highway / Eastern Access Road and the proposed signalised intersection at the Eastern Access Road and the Bus Interchange, in particular the inclusion of the pedestrian crossing at the Bus interchange was subject of intense discussions between the parties. VicRoads was of the view that, inclusion of the pedestrian crossing facility across the Eastern Access Road at the Bus Interchange will increase the delays for all road users including buses. However, based on advice from the Council that there is no alternative location for the pedestrian crossing, VicRoads has accepted the functional layout with the pedestrian crossing”.

Public Transport Victoria

The initial plans lodged as part of this application were referred to Public Transport Victoria (PTV) who responded on 2 October 2012. PTV confirmed that they had no objection to the proposal as shown on plans Council date stamped 14 August 2012 subject to conditions.

Page 18 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Following receipt of these comments, amended plans were lodged with Council on 19 October 2012 in response to Council’s request for further information. The revised plans showed variations to the bus interchange including a staged pedestrian crossing to the south.

The plans were re-referred to Public Transport Victoria who confirmed that they have no objection to the proposal subject to conditions. Importantly, Public Transport Victoria also made mention of the pedestrian crossing to the south, sharing a similar view to VicRoads and their comment is included below:

“Council should be aware that the interchange has been designed to provide the best possible bus priority and improved services for customers. The introduction of the signals at the interchange will deteriorate bus priority and may reduce service reliability which PTV will have limited control to resolve should it become an issue in the future”.

Following the above, Public Transport Victoria issued a revised set of conditions received by Council on 21 December 2012 which removed reference to the Princes Highway road works as these are addressed by VicRoads conditions.

Yarra Valley Water

Yarra Valley Water consents to the granting of a town planning permit subject to conditions relating to sewerage and water supply.

Council’s Transport and Parking Unit

The plans dated 14 August 2012 were referred to Council’s Transport and Parking Unit and O’Brien Traffic (Council’s external traffic consultant) for preliminary review. Additional details were requested on parking floor layouts, ramp grades, swept paths and numerous other details requested to be shown on the plans. Importantly, concern was raised towards the absence of a pedestrian crossing to the south of the bus interchange which was shown on the Indicative Concept Plans throughout the Amendment C154 process. The loss of the pedestrian crossing was raised as a fundamental concern by Council in the Request for Further Information (RFI) dated 7 September 2012.

Amended plans were received on19 October 2012 and included a staged pedestrian crossing to the south of the bus interchange. This inclusion resulted from lengthy discussions between Vic Roads, Public Transport Victoria, Council’s Traffic Engineers and the applicant. The staged crossing provides direct access from the bus interchange to Castlebar Road and the wider residential area to the south and east.

Additionally, the initial comments from Council’s Transport Unit raised concern with the lack of provision made for share paths as envisioned by the Integrated Transport and Access Plan (ITAP) triggered by future development at Stage 3B under the Incorporated Plan Overlay, Schedule 2. While this application does not trigger the submission of an ITAP, the works as foreshadowed by Amendment C154 need to be considered holistically and early provision of share path infrastructure should be provided for in the design of all stages of development.

In the preliminary comments from O’Brien Traffic, several share paths were raised as being important to a functional and connected bicycle network for the activity centre which would also serve the wider community. Details of the suggested share paths were provided to the applicant who made some adjustments to the proposal (shown on plans Council date stamped 19 October 2012) as follows:

Page 19 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

 Inclusion of a 2.5 metres wide share path along the Princes Highway frontage and western side of the Eastern Access Road with the path terminating within the new ground floor Myer car park;  The inclusion of a long term bicycle parking facility within the Myer car park catering for 50 bicycles; and  Bicycle racks at the two main southern entrances of the Shopping Centre providing an additional 28 bicycles spaces.

The inclusion of the share path provision along the northern side of the Princes Highway in conjunction with the bicycle storage facilities is considered to be an improvement on the initial design. However, another link known as share path M1 (refer to Appendix 1 – O’Brien Share path recommendations) was not included. This link would allow for cyclists to enter the site from Middle Road via a share path which would run along the western side of the new Myer ground level car park and terminate at the Shopping Centre entrance.

The applicant provided a basic plan of an alternative proposal and a “final” version of the Integrated Transport and Access Plan (ITAP) on 16 January 2013. The latest version of the ITAP has suggested that an alternative to Council’s recommended share path M1 can be achieved through the mid-basement level (below ground floor of the Myer car park). Comments back from Council’s Transport and Parking Unit have noted that this path cannot be achieved due to level differences in the land and due to sizable columns being located in the centre of the share path. It is the view of Council’s Transport and Parking Unit that this path is not realistically achievable and does not achieve Council’s objective for an integrated share path network.

O’Brien Traffic’s design for share path M1 will run through the ground floor level car park and requires minimal infrastructure due to level changes in the land. It will also result in a loss of approximately 11 car spaces. It is considered that the implementation of the M1 share path should be included by way of a condition of the permit as per Council’s objectives for an ITAP on this site. Therefore, the layout of the ground floor level of the Myer car park will need to be amended prior to the endorsement of the plans to include the M1 share path as put forward by O’Brien Traffic in their advice to Council dated 01 September 2012 (refer to Figure 11 – Stage 2A – Ground Level Plan).

In addition to the above, the amended plans dated 19 October 2012 were again referred to Council’s Transport and Parking Unit who noted that there were still some areas of concern with the proposed car parking layout being:

 the access to the parking bays at the split parking aisle at the northern end of the Myer car park at ground floor level; and  the loading arrangements for the K-Auto.

The applicant responded to the K-Auto loading concerns on 21 December 2012 with additional information on the proposed loading arrangement. The applicant confirmed that the frequency of loading is expected to be low and deliveries are likely to take place outside of peak traffic times. It is suggested that loading can be appropriately managed to limit impacts on general traffic within the public car park. This information was forwarded onto Council’s Transport and Parking Unit who maintained their concern as manoeuvring within the parking aisle requires travel into the path of oncoming traffic, and there does not appear to be any management proposed while this is occurring.

The Transport and Parking Unit have confirmed that the loading arrangement is only acceptable if a permit condition requires that deliveries occur outside of peak times (for example before 9am on weekdays and after 5pm Monday-Wednesday).

Page 20 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

It has also been requested that a traffic management plan be required by way of condition which details management for the use each time deliveries occur. It is noted that if the deliveries are as infrequent as predicted, then the impact should be minimal.

The split parking aisle at the northern end of the ground floor Myer car park will be addressed via a condition of approval. Conditions relating to traffic management devices in car parking aisles longer than 100 metres in length and approval of major traffic devices by VicRoads will also be required.

Urban Design

The development plans were referred to Council’s Urban Designer who noted that the works for the K-Auto and Myer car parking deck were reasonable. Concern has been raised with the treatment of the public realm surrounding the bus interchange. It is the view of Council’s Urban Designer that greater consideration should be given to the strategic implications of the proposed works, particularly the bus interchange. It is also the view of Council’s Urban Designer that, “there has been little consideration given to the design and development of the ‘public realm’ to improve the external pedestrian experience and enjoyment of the place”. This is further due to the lack of a new ‘public’ space’ (or mini-town square) as was raised as being desirable by Council as part of the Amendment C154 process.

Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd on behalf of Council

In addition to the comments from Council’s Urban Designer, comments were also sought from Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd who provided expert evidence on behalf of Council as part of the Amendment C154 process. Hansen’s review of the application plans (dated 19 October 2012) also note disappointment at the lack of a new public space/square around the proposed bus interchange which was discussed during the Amendment C154 process. Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd has also raised the following concerns with regard to the bus interchange:

 No defined kiss and ride facilities;  Several pedestrian pinch points throughout the bus interchange due to reduced size from that shown in the Indicative Concept Plans (tabled as part of the Amendment C154 process);  Pedestrian paths within the bus interchange should be widened; and  The use of glazing for windbreaks is excessive.

Additionally, Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd recommended that the landscaped area to the east of the bus interchange and north of the taxi ranks could be converted to a small “pocket park” as an additional waiting area for commuters and shoppers at the cost of eleven car spaces.

The location of the K-Auto was said to be positive in realising a street at the southern edge of the Centre. Notwithstanding the positive location, the following improvements are suggested by Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd:

 Provide screening to the rear of the building through a 1.5m wide garden bed; and  Increase glazing to the western elevation to improve activation and animation to the wider car park.

Concern was not raised with the design of the Myer car park deck; however it was noted that the development would benefit from screening along the southern side of the deck to improve the presentation to the Princes Highway.

Page 21 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Infrastructure

Council’s Infrastructure Unit reviewed the plans Council date stamped 14 August 2012 and 19 October 2012 and advised that the works are unlikely to impact on or be impacted by infrastructure related issues, subject to conditions relating to the legal point of discharge and no reduction in the available above ground temporary storage that is currently available for stormwater in the car park. Floor levels of the K-Auto are also to be raised above the flood level in this area.

Landscape / Open Space

Council’s Arborist reviewed the initial plans dated 14 August 2012 and requested further details on some landscape treatments and also noted that previous suggestions had been made for large canopy trees within the bus interchange as part of the Amendment C154 process. The interchange now proposes shade sails and reduces the number of palm trees to be retained. The applicant provided the additional information as requested on plans dated 19 October 2012. These plans were then re-referred to Council’s Arborist who confirmed that general shrub species are appropriate and that a Tree Management Plan must be required by way of a condition of the permit. Concern was raised with the Landmark Peppercorn tree to the east of the bus interchange and more information was requested to establish the likely impact on this tree. The applicant did not provided this information, however details will be required by way of a condition for a Tree Management Plan.

Council’s Arborist has also made comment on providing additional canopy trees in and around the bus interchange and has advised that clearance of vegetation is dependent on pruning the trees as they grow. More specifically, the following comments were provided:

To get six metres clearance would require a large, relatively upright tree species. Any of the following species would be appropriate however it must be noted that large trees require large volumes of soil to develop into quality trees.  Corymbia citriodora (Lemon Scented Gum)  Corymbia maculate (Spotted Gum)  Eucalyptus viminalis (Manna Gum)  Eucalyptus mannifera (Brittle Gum)

Burton Acoustic Group on behalf of Council

The Burton Acoustic Group on behalf of Council have reviewed the Marshall Day Acoustic Report provided by the applicant and has confirmed that the monitoring locations for Stage 2A are acceptable for post development testing. It was also confirmed that the assessment criteria for potential noise emissions is acceptable.

KEY ISSUES

Strategic Justification

Chadstone Shopping Centre is defined as a Principal Activity Centre (PAC) by State and local policies and is renowned as Australia’s largest stand alone shopping centre. The Centre contains approximately 130,000 square metres of shop floor area and approximately 500 tenancies. As discussed in the earlier sections of this report, the proposed works as part of this application were considered in a conceptual format during the Amendment C154 process. The Indicative Development Concept showed a new northern mall for the shopping centre, new hotel and office towers along the southern portion of the site and a new centralised bus interchange.

Page 22 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

The approval of Amendment C154 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme facilitates the expansion and redevelopment of the Centre, reinforcing the expectations of growth and investment within this commercial precinct.

Council’s strategic visions as defined in the Municipal Strategic Statement of Clause 21 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme seeks (inter alia) to encourage a mix of uses within principal activity centres which strengthen commercial viability and provide increased opportunities for employment. In this regard, Chadstone Shopping Centre plays a vital role in providing opportunities for employment within the municipality.

Supported by both State and local strategic objectives as evidenced by the recent approval of Planning Scheme Amendment C154, the proposed expansion of the commercial centre is considered to be acceptable to the future aspirations of Chadstone Shopping Centre as a Principal Activity Centre (PAC). While the proposal is supported in principle, assessment of the detailed design is undertaken below.

Bus Interchange

The objective of Clause 21.05-1 (Integrated Transport) seeks, “to integrate land use planning and development with the transport network, car parking facilities, and traffic management for the benefit of all users”.

Some of the strategies recommended to achieve this objective include:

 Plan and manage the transport network by supporting the existing hierarchy of roads and promoting safe and efficient movement.  Maximise the use of public transport, bicycles and pedestrian travel.  Improve accessibility into and within commercial areas.

This application proposes a new bus interchange for a Principal Activity Centre which will improve the efficiency of services to and from the site; promote sustainable modes of personal transport; and improve bus facilities for the wider community. Chadstone Shopping Centre currently provides bus services via three bus interchanges known as the Eastern bus interchange, Middle Road interchange and the Northern bus interchange. The interchanges at present cater for fourteen bus bays and the eastern bus interchange includes a designated transit lounge for passengers. The transit lounge in its current form is considered to offer a poor level of amenity for public transport users. The existing interchanges are spread across the site and are located in back of house locations with limited visibility from within the Centre. The current situation is less than ideal for safety, access and promoting sustainable modes of transport. Wayfinding of public transport facilities is also poor.

The location of the new bus interchange has been positioned to the south of the main Chadstone Shopping Centre building and will be directly accessible from the ‘fresh food’ entrance of the building. The design has incorporated a pedestrian (zebra) crossing from the Shopping Centre entry to a central pedestrian walkway and waiting areas for each of the bus bays. The central walkway will include weather protection, seating, landscaping and will be covered by canopies. The canopies are to generally have a clearance of 6m in height and will include overhead panel heating. Glazed wind breaks have also been proposed around the bus interchange and within the designated pedestrian waiting areas to reduce environmental impacts such as wind and rain. While advice from Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd suggested that the use of glazing was excessive, it is considered that the glazing will allow for suitable wind protection and surveillance for safety.

Page 23 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

The provision of an exclusive transit lounge for bus passengers has been purposefully avoided due to feedback from Public Transport Victoria (PTV), who has expressed a preference for improved facilities at the bus bays, as opposed to a separate lounge. The rationale behind this is due to the fact that passengers generally prefer to wait at the bus stops. During site visits to the Centre it has been confirmed that a low number of bus passengers currently utilise the transit lounge. To achieve high levels of amenity for future bus users, the proposal has incorporated seating at each bus bay/stop, canopies and glazed screens for weather protection, radiant heating panels on the underside of all canopies and landscaping. These facilities are considered to provide an acceptable level of comfort for passengers, in lieu of a designated transit lounge.

It is also noted that the new bus interchange will be clearly visible from within the Shopping Centre, therefore passengers who wish to remain indoors are able to wait inside the building until such time as they need to walk to the respective bus bay. It is Council’s understanding that real time signage is to be incorporated within the Shopping Centre in the near future (subject to Public Transport Victoria specifications). This type of signage will also assist passengers waiting within the building to determine accurate timeframes for bus arrivals and departures. This will be required by way of a condition of the permit.

The bus interchange also integrates a taxi rank to the east of the bus lanes, providing direct access between the bus interchange and taxi services. Bicycle parking facilities are also provided within close proximity of the bus interchange and are proposed to the north and north-west with fourteen (14) spaces provided adjacent to the Myer entrance and fourteen (14) spaces adjacent to the ‘fresh food’ entrance. Additional long term bicycle parking for 50 bicycles has also been proposed within the south-east corner of the ground floor Myer car park which links with the share path from the Princes Highway.

Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd made note that the design of the bus interchange includes several pinch points for pedestrians and that the design would be benefit from wider footpaths. These points are noted however, as the design of the interchange has been assessed by Public Transport Victoria and is required to be compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, it is considered that the pedestrian access ways will be a sufficient width.

The lack of defined “kiss and ride” facilities is of concern given that there are several places within or around the interchange which may be used as quasi kiss and ride drop off points which may hinder the movement of traffic or reduce pedestrian safety. As raised by Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd the pedestrian crossing to the south of the bus interchange is a logical point in which vehicles will stop to drop off passengers if no alternative designated drop off zone is provided. This particular scenario would see delays on the internal ring road and may delay bus movements. The introduction of kiss and ride facilities is considered to be an important provision for the bus interchange and therefore, a designated drop off zone for the bus interchange will be required by way of a condition of the permit.

Further to this point, Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd suggested that the small green space (containing the Landmark Peppercorn tree) to the east of the bus interchange could be converted to a “pocket park” for shoppers and commuters waiting for buses and taxis. Hansen suggests that the park be included at a loss of eleven car spaces which would allow for approximately 250 square metres of soft landscaping. While this notion is supported, it is also considered that this area presents as an ideal location to incorporate a kiss and ride facility. A preferred outcome would be that landscaping be enhanced in conjunction with a designated drop off zone in this location. A condition of approval will require that a kiss and ride facility be provided for the bus interchange and the green space surrounding the Landmark Peppercorn tree be enhanced to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. Conditions will also require that additional canopy trees be incorporated as recommended by Council’s Arborist, to further improve the pedestrian experience around the bus interchange.

Page 24 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

A pedestrian crossing to the south of the bus interchange provides access to Castlebar Road and the Princes Highway. This pedestrian link was considered to be necessary by Council in ensuring the integration of the new bus interchange for the wider local community. The staged crossing connects to an existing access point to the site and allows for pedestrian access from the bus interchange across the internal ring road and into the residential streets to the south and east. The crossing has been designed and agreed to by all parties following lengthy discussions between VicRoads, Public Transport Victoria, Council’s Traffic Engineers and representatives for the applicant.

The functionality of the bus interchange has been confirmed by Public Transport Victoria, Council’s traffic engineers and VicRoads as being acceptable.

Overall the bus interchange is considered to provide an improved facility for the Principal Activity Centre which will offer a high level of amenity for public transport users. The bus interchange amenities will provide patrons with a comfortable environment in which to wait for bus services and its proximity to the front of the Shopping Centre will provide improved legibility and wayfinding. Future real time signage within the centre itself may assist with increasing usage of bus services which in turn may promote a modal shift away from private car trips to the Centre. It is noted that security at the bus interchange was raised as a concern by submitters at the Consultative Meeting. It is considered that the layout of the new interchange, along with external lighting and the proximity to the Shopping Centre entrance will allow adequate passive surveillance and personal security. Subject to the changes as required above, the new bus interchange is considered to achieve an acceptable design outcome and can be supported.

Road works

The application seeks to alter access arrangements from the subject site to the Princes Highway. The works were referred to Vic Roads who are supportive of the proposal subject to conditions. It is considered that the variations to access from the Princes Highway (Road Zone, Category 1) subject to VicRoads conditions are acceptable.

Integrated share paths

Importantly, as part of Amendment C154, the Report of the Panel (dated 17 July 2012) made note on the need for a modal shift to be addressed in a serious way via an Integrated Transport and Access Plan. The Panel found that “the share of walking and cycling needs to grow” and that “a well connected network of paths, including share paths, are integral to increasing the mode share for walking and cycling” (Report of the Panel, p. 53). The amended Schedule 2 to the Incorporated Plan Overlay includes specific requirements for an Integrated Transport and Access Plan (ITAP) where an application proposes an increase in floor space by more than 10,000 square metres. While this Stage of development does not trigger the need for an Integrated Transport and Access Plan (ITAP), future works as part of Stage 3B (Planning Permit 0784/12) will require that the recommendations of an approved ITAP be incorporated.

It is considered that the infrastructure works required by the ITAP should be considered for all stages of development to reduce rectification works or multiple amendments at a later stage which may delay development. The result is also that a holistic approach is taken so that an integrated network of share paths can be realistically achieved as each stage is undertaken.

As mentioned earlier in this report, a 2.5m wide share path has been proposed along the northern side of the Princes Highway which will extend along the Eastern Access Road and into the new ground floor Myer car park where it will terminate at a bicycle storage facility.

Page 25 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

It is expected that this share path and storage facility will be used by bus passengers as well as patrons and staff of the Chadstone Shopping Centre. This connection is supported.

As noted within the Transport Referral Section of this report, another significant link known as share path M1 has been omitted from the development plans and is to be included by way of a condition. While the requirement for the M1 share path will result in some loss of car parking, the loss in this instance will serve to promote sustainable modes of personal transport which may assist with a modal shift away from private vehicles. Given the emphasis placed on sustainable transport as part of the Panel Report for Amendment C154, It is considered that some loss of car parking to provide an improved share path network is supportable. However, it is expected that any car parking deficits are a result of the inclusion of share paths and not simply from a lack of car parking provision provided by the development.

Myer Car Park

The reconfiguration at the ground floor level of the existing Myer car park is proposed to facilitate the bus interchange to the east and will result in a loss of 216 car spaces. However, the works will include new designated pedestrian walkways within the car park and bicycle storage facilities. To compensate for the loss of car spaces, an upper floor car parking deck will provide an additional 313 car spaces, resulting in an overall surplus of 97 car spaces in this location.

The car parking layouts of the ground and upper floor level car parks have been reviewed by Council’s Traffic Engineers and it has been confirmed that the layouts are generally acceptable and will provide safe and functional arrangements in accordance with the relevant standards. There are concerns with access to parking bays at the split parking aisle at the north end of the car park which are not considered to be satisfactory. This access arrangement must be amended and will be addressed via a condition of the permit.

The other concern relates to the setback of the pedestrian door from the stairs in the southern parking aisle at the upper floor level. It is considered that this setback does not provide adequate protection for emerging pedestrians. This arrangement is to be improved upon via a condition of the permit.

The ground floor car park has been designed to include a separate pedestrian path to the east to improve pedestrian safety when traversing through the car park to the entry of the Shopping Centre. The car park has also integrated a share path from the Princes Highway which terminates at a bicycle storage facility within the south-east corner of the car park. The bicycle facility will cater for 50 bicycles. Those who do not wish to use this storage facility will be required to dismount at the storage facility and walk their bicycle through the car park, along the pedestrian path to the bicycle parking facilities outside of the Shopping Centre building. A further 28 bicycle racks are within close proximity of the new bus interchange.

The new upper car parking deck will be raised above ground level and as such will be visible when entering the site from the Princes Highway. The visibility of the southern elevation was raised as an area for improvement by Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd. It is acknowledged that the future development of an office and hotel tower as part of Stage 4 is likely to obscure views of the car park. While a temporary screen could be installed, the parking deck is located a substantial distance from the southern boundary and the land falls away from the Princes Highway, minimising views of the car park from the public realm. Therefore, it is not considered necessary to screen this car park as part of this application.

The Buchan Group Plan for the upper level car parking deck includes reference to a covered pedestrian path along the western side of the deck.

Page 26 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

This has been confirmed by the applicant as an error on the plans, albeit a covered pedestrian walkway is proposed at Stage 4 as part of the office and hotel development. As such the plans are to be updated, via a condition, to remove reference to the covered walkway as part of this application. A delineated access for pedestrians to the lifts and stairs located to the north-west of the car park will remain as per the location on the plans. The design of the pedestrian walkway as proposed is acceptable.

External lighting is proposed and this will be discussed under ‘Amenity impacts’ later in this assessment.

Kmart Tyre and Auto (K-Auto)

The existing K-Auto currently sits to the north of the site on the western side of the Coles car park. It is proposed to relocate the K-Auto to the south-eastern corner of the site within the existing car park to allow for the expansion of the Coles car park as proposed under Stage 3B (Planning reference: 0784/12). The new K-Auto will be accessible from the internal ring road along the eastern boundary of the site and will be located approximately 48 metres from the residences which front Capon Road. The new K-Auto will contain eight servicing bays and the hours of operation are to be 8am to 5.30pm Monday to Wednesday, 8am to 9pm Thursday and Friday, and 8am to 5pm on Saturday and Sunday.

Motor repairs is an existing use at the Centre and therefore has been previously considered appropriate for this Principal Activity Centre. While the K-Auto is being increased in floor area by 122 square metres, this is not considered to be a substantial intensification from the existing motor repairs use. The K-Auto will continue to operate in the same manner as the existing tenancy and will not introduce panel beating.

The proposed K-Auto building is to have a total floor area of 416 square metres and the building will have an overall height of 7.1m above natural ground level. The building will contain eight (8) servicing bays, storage and an office and reception area. The building has been orientated to have a frontage to the north.

The introduction of the new K-Auto will not disrupt the existing streetscape along the southern side of the Shopping Centre which includes clearly delineated pedestrian and vehicle access ways accompanied by landscaping. As noted by Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd the works will help realise a new streetscape to the south of the main building. Pedestrian access will be maintained to the east of the K-Auto via the existing footpath alongside the bus layover bays. The plans demonstrate that the footpath to the east will maintain a minimum width of 1.5m and the new building will not encroach within the existing bus layover bays.

The eastern wall of the K-Auto will be constructed with a hard edge to the eastern footpath. The interface to the east will be of a blank wall with signage and this is considered to be appropriate as the use is not one in where an active facade is warranted, particularly given that there is a sensitive interface (residences) approximately 48 metres to the east.

The northern facade will contain roller doors and a reception entry for customers, which is deemed to be acceptable to identify the business and provide for a safe and active frontage. The building will be orientated to face internally to the site, looking toward the existing Shopping Centre building, thereby concentrating vehicle and pedestrian activity to the main pedestrian thoroughfares along the front of the Shopping Centre building.

The southern facade of the building will present as a solid wall of 7.1m in height and will be visually imposing from within the existing car park. As suggested by Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd, the southern facade of the building should be softened or screened via vegetation.

Page 27 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

The Buchan Plans dated 19 October 2012 show a garden bed to the south of the building which extends to the eastern footpath. However, the Landscape Plan does not include any details of the vegetation to be planted in this location. Therefore, vegetation is required which is capable of providing a soft screen to the K-Auto building and this will be addressed via an updated Landscape Plan as a condition of approval.

Designated car parking for the K-Auto will not be provided and this will be discussed later in this assessment. Notwithstanding that no specific car parking is to be provided, the K-Auto is located within the existing southern open air car park which is surrounded by ample parking bays. It is considered that a Principal Activity Centre such as Chadstone Shopping Centre provides car parking that services shared visits for multiple uses.

The storage of rubbish and materials for recycling

The plans show that the K-Auto will include storage areas to the eastern end of the building. The provision of storage is a relevant and important consideration for what is essentially a light industrial type use within close proximity of a residential zone. A Waste Management Plan has not been provided as part of this application and it will be required by way of a condition to ensure that adequate measures are in place to manage waste and limit any adverse impacts on residences.

Loading and unloading

Loading and unloading requirements have been considered for the new use and the arrangement as proposed is considered to be problematic. Council’s Transport Unit have assessed the turning templates provided by the applicant and have advised that large vehicles would be required to undertake multiple movements in a main circulation aisle which cannot be supported. Furthermore, large vehicles are required to travel into the path of oncoming traffic. The applicant provided additional information in support of the loading arrangement on 21 December 2012. The additional details were reviewed by Council’s Transport Unit who maintained their concerns with the loading arrangement. Based on the comments from Transport and the potential safety issues with the loading arrangement it is considered that the loading arrangement can be accepted subject to conditions that require that loading does not occur during peak periods. Council’s Transport Unit also recommended that a traffic management plan be required by way of condition which details management for the use each time deliveries occur. Therefore, to ensure that the use operates safely and effectively a traffic management plan which details how loading and unloading will be managed outside of peak periods will be required by way of a condition.

Amenity Impacts

Light spill

External lighting is proposed on the new Myer car park deck and the bus interchange which is not dissimilar to existing light poles on surrounding car parks within the Centre. Lighting is essential to ensure pedestrian safety and to reduce pedestrian and vehicle conflict. As such it is important that adequate lighting is provided. Notwithstanding the above, lighting from the Centre should avoid unreasonable amenity impacts on the surrounding residents. Residential properties to the south- east (within Castlebar Road and Woodlands Grove) are situated a minimum distance of approximately 60 metres from the new car park deck and bus interchange. To ensure that the impact does not degrade existing amenity to an unreasonable extent, a condition of any permit that issues will require that external lighting be designed, baffled and located so as to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Page 28 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Furthermore, the plans make reference to “light pole (typical)” but they do not provide any details of the height of the poles, levels of illumination (lux levels) or measures to be undertaken to baffle the lights. It is considered that a Lighting Management Plan should be provided which outlines how lighting will be managed and addressed to reduce impacts on the surrounding residents in Castlebar Road and Woodlands Grove. This will be addressed by way of a condition.

Light spill from the proposed K-Auto advertising signage is discussed below.

Noise

The new K-Auto (motor repairs) is proposed within 48 metres of the dwellings to the east, while the bus interchange is approximately 60 metres from residences to the south. The existing internal ring road provides a physical buffer between the new K-Auto and bus interchange and the residences bordering the site. The applicant has submitted a preliminary acoustic report undertaken by Marshall Day Acoustics which highlights areas for pre-development and post-development noise monitoring.

Pre-development and post-development noise monitoring locations have been highlighted as follows:

Bus Interchange  4 Woodlands Grove  1B Woodlands Grove  12 Castlebar Road

K-Auto  One of four properties directly to the east of the K-Auto development fronting Capon Street being either, 1/10 Capon Street, 1/12 Capon Street, 8 Capon Street or 6 Capon Street.

Noise monitoring will be required as part of a condition of approval. Standard requirements with regard to acoustic testing will be required by way of a condition in accordance with state noise regulations set by the Environment Protection Authority so that noise levels must be in accordance with SEPP-N1 once the development has been completed.

The above locations have been confirmed as being suitable by Burton Acoustic Group, external noise consultant assisting Council.

It is also noted that at the time of Amendment C154, Burton Acoustic Group provided expert advice to Council against the Marshall Day Acoustic Report submitted to the Panel for the Indicative Development Concept. The peer review undertaken by Burton Acoustic Group (dated 7 May 2012) found that the noise criteria for traffic noise and sleep disturbance were acceptable.

It is noted that the design and operation of the bus interchange had not been fully resolved at the time of the Panel Hearing. As such, it is considered reasonable that a condition of the permit require that an acoustic report be submitted to Council for approval. Given the potential noise impacts on the surrounding area a condition will require that an acoustic report be submitted which details noise mitigation measures to protect residents from noise impacts of the bus interchange and motor repairs.

Advertising signage

Advertising signage has been proposed for the new K-Auto tenancy which will include three (3) internally illuminated signs and one (1) non-illuminated sign.

Page 29 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

The total area of the signage proposed equates to 83.9 square metres and illuminated signage is proposed on the north, east and west facades of the new building. As the signage is to be fixed to the building facades the signs will sit no higher than 7.1m above ground level.

Signage for this site falls within Category 1 (Business areas) at Clause 52.05 and the purpose of this category is to, “provide for identification and promotion signs and signs that add vitality and colour to business areas”. Consideration of signage must be assessed against the decision guidelines of Clause 52.05-3 and Council’s local Advertising Policy (Clause 22.03).

The site is identified as a Principal Activity Centre and therefore outdoor advertising signage is prevalent. Chadstone Shopping Centre sits directly north of the Princes Highway and as such seeks to maximise advertising potential to passing traffic. In this regard, signs are often large, internally illuminated and clearly visible to passing vehicle traffic.

The new K-Auto building is located within the south-east corner of the site and will be located 48 metres to the nearest residential properties to the east. The building is situated approximately 300 metres from the Princes Highway. As the land slopes down to the north, the building and signage will not obscure any significant views on surrounding lots and will not dominate the skyline when viewed from beyond the subject site.

While internally illuminated signage is common for this commercial centre, there are concerns with the illuminated sign on the eastern facade which faces the residences on Capon Street. It is considered that signage of this nature is not justified in this location as it principally presents to residential properties. The internally illuminated signage to the north and west is acceptable as these signs do not have a sensitive interface and face the Shopping Centre and existing car parks. Subject to the sign on the eastern facade being converted to a non-illuminated sign by way of a condition, the signage is acceptable for the following reasons:

 The signs are to be fully integrated on the facades and will not project above the building.  The total signage area at 44 square metres is proportionate to the host building.  The signs are proposed within the site boundaries of the Chadstone Shopping Centre which is identified as a Principal Activity Centre.  The purpose of Category 1 as listed at Clause 52.05 is that signs should seek to add vitality and colour to the business area. The signs add to the complexity of the existing signage in the area without dominating the subject site.  The signs will not be floodlight or have flashing or intermittent lights that will affect road safety.  The internally illuminated signs on the north and west elevations will be primarily visible within the car park and to vehicles travelling along the Princes Highway.

Subject to conditions, the proposed signs are well suited to the context of the area being within the confines of a major Shopping Centre. The placement, size and style of the signs will not detract from any sensitive views or vistas. The only concern with the signage is the illumination to the east. As previously discussed, it is considered unnecessary to provide an illuminated sign which primarily faces residences.

It is noted that Buchan Group drawing CFP-TBG-ZA-00-DR-ATP-00162 Revision 03, Council date stamped 19 October 2012, incorrectly notes that four signs are to be illuminated. The applicant has confirmed that this plan is incorrect and the Diadem Plans dated 19 October 2012 show the correct proposal, being three illuminated signs and one non-illuminated sign (southern facade). A condition will require that the Buchan Plans be updated to reflect the Diadem Plans and both sets of plans be amended to show a non-illuminated sign on the eastern elevation of the building.

Page 30 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Landscaping

Concept landscape plans dated 19 October 2012 have been provided which show landscape responses for the bus interchange and garden beds surrounding the K-Auto.

Bus interchange

The landscaping works will involve removing the existing palm trees to the south of the Shopping Centre and transplanting them to new locations on the edges of the bus interchange. The central walkway in the middle of the bus interchange will include garden beds and low massed planting. Council’s Arborist has reviewed the Landscape Plan for the bus interchange and has confirmed that the shrub species are generally acceptable. Concern has been raised with the Landmark Peppercorn tree to the east of the interchange and a permit condition will require that a Tree Management Plan be provided and approved prior to the commencement of the works in this location.

Council’s Arborist also made note of the lack of canopy trees around the bus interchange which would improve the pedestrian experience and would assist in providing natural shading. Canopy trees are considered to be a positive addition to the design of the bus interchange and are further justified given the lack of a public park or plaza space. As mentioned earlier, the notion of a “pocket park” presented by Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd is considered to be a positive suggestion and greater emphasis on greening the eastern side of the bus interchange is to be pursued. This will be addressed by way of conditions.

It is noted that there are difficulties in providing canopy trees within the bus interchange due to the clearance required for the buses and soil volumes capable of maintaining large species. Council’s Aborist has provided a list of species which could be considered, albeit these do require large volumes of soil. It is considered that new canopy trees can be achieved for the bus interchange subject to appropriate species and locations.

K-Auto

Council’s Arborist has reviewed the plans dated 19 October 2012 and is generally satisfied with the landscaping response proposed. Urban design advice from Hansen has suggested that an increased landscaping buffer to the southern wall of the K-Auto should be incorporated to soften the bulk of this structure. Therefore, it is recommended that the landscape plan is to be updated to show an improved landscaping response to the south of the K-Auto where a garden bed has been proposed. In the event that the garden bed cannot be achieved an alternative treatment may be submitted to Council for approval which must articulate the wall to reduce impacts of visual bulk. Any new landscaping will require that details of the type of species to be planted in this location will be required by way of a condition.

Waiver of the Car Parking Requirements (Clause 52.06)

Chadstone Shopping Centre currently offers 9,390 car spaces in the form of multi-deck, basement and at-grade car parks. The proposed works associated with the new bus interchange do not trigger a statutory requirement for car parking. The new Kmart Auto triggers a specific requirement for three (3) car spaces as specified by the table at Clause 52.06-5. While no exclusive car parking is provided for the K-Auto, the overall works for Stage 2A will result in a net increase of 97 car spaces. The additional car spaces that will result from the new Myer car deck are considered to adequately absorb the three car spaces required by the K-Auto.

Based on the net increase in car parking as a result of this application, the waiver of the car parking for the exclusive use of the K-Auto is accepted.

Page 31 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD)

The proposal has not included a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response for the development in accordance with Council’s draft Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) Policy. Given the extent of development there does not appear to be any reason why the proposal cannot incorporate some water sensitive urban design initiatives into the streetscape layout, piping reconfigurations, storage tanks and the use of different paving as suggested by Council’s draft policy, Clause 22.18. Therefore, it is considered reasonable that the applicant provide a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response via a condition of approval.

Special Building Overlay

The plans provided as part of this application include stormwater drainage and pavement plans which have been referred to Council’s Infrastructure Unit for review. Comments back from Infrastructure have confirmed that there is no concern with the proposed works subject to conditions. These conditions include that any stormwater run off from the new development must not be directed to any existing storage tanks which may reduce capacity of the existing tanks. It was also noted that as the K-Auto is located within the Special Building Overlay, the building is required to be elevated so that any flooding can pass underneath. The applicant provided confirmation on 15 November 2012 that no additional stormwater runoff will be discharged into existing rainwater tanks and the Kmart Auto floor level will be the required 300mm above the flood level for this area.

Disability Discrimination Act

The applicant has advised that the bus interchange design has been reviewed by Architecture and Access to ensure compliance with the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 (DSAPT) and Disability (Access to Premises – Buildings) Standards 2010 (DAPBS), as well as ‘best practice’ measures. As per the conditional requirements of Public Transport Victoria, the bus interchange will be required to meet all relevant DDA standards. As this has been addressed by Public Transport Victoria, it is not necessary for Council to repeat this requirement by way of a condition of approval.

It is noted that the ground and first floor Myer car park has not included disabled car parking bays. The existing ground floor car park presently provides ten (10) disabled parking spaces directly outside the Myer entry. These spaces have been removed on the proposed car parking layouts. It is considered that disabled car parking bays at convenient locations should be shown on the plans which meet the relevant standards for a public car park. This will be achieved via a condition of approval. It is acknowledged that this may result in some loss of general parking spaces and in addition to the plans being updated for disabled parking, a revised schedule of parking spaces is to be provided. The plans are also to include notations as to the number of car spaces proposed at the ground and first floor levels of the Myer car park. These requirements will be addressed via conditions.

Construction Management and Waste Management Plans

The preparation and implementation of Construction Management Plans is an important aspect in ensuring that development approval does not degrade existing residential amenity to an unreasonable degree. Construction Management Plans will be required by way of a condition for each stage of development and will require that these plans be prepared in consultation with Council’s Planning, Building and Transport Departments.

Page 32 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

As part of any permit that issues, a condition will require that a comprehensive Construction Management Plan be developed which will require details on, but not limited to, staging, parking, hours of construction, notification to residents, noise and vibration controls, traffic and waste management, monitoring and key contacts.

In conjunction with a Construction Management Plan, a car parking management strategy is also required which outlines how car parking will be managed over the various stages of development to minimise shortfalls of parking on site during construction. This will also be required via a condition of approval.

As mentioned earlier in this report, a Waste Management Plan will also be required by way of condition of the permit which will relate to the new K-Auto and the bus interchange. The Waste Management Plan will outline how waste will managed including collection and storage, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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 development is in accordance with the Incorporated Plan (August 2012) and allows for the expansion of the Centre as envisioned by Amendment C154.  The design of the bus interchange will provide an improved outcome for public transport users in terms of accessibility, connectivity and amenity.  The new Myer car park deck will provide for an additional 97 car spaces on the site.  Subject to conditions, appropriate management of noise, light and traffic can be achieved to ensure that surrounding residential amenity is not adversely affected.

It is again reiterated that under the provisions of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and the Stonnington Planning Scheme (Clause 43.03) there is no statutory provision for third party appeal rights of this application. Therefore, no appeal can be made by submitters against the decision made by Council at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).

Page 33 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

RECOMMENDATION

That a Planning Permit No: 0546/12 for the land located at 1341 Dandenong Road, Malvern East be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for use of the land for a new bus interchange and motor repairs, buildings and works for a new bus interchange, upper level car parking deck and motor repairs, alterations to the access arrangement from a Road Zone, Category 1, advertising signs, and waiver of the statutory car parking requirement for motor repairs under Clause 52.06 subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development, three (3) copies of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application prepared by the Buchan Group and Council date stamped 19 October 2012 but modified to show:

a) Dimensions and ramp gradients for the Myer car park deck to be shown on plans; b) The setback of the pedestrian doors from the parking aisle from the stairs in the southern parking aisle at the upper floor level is to be amended to provide adequate protection for emerging pedestrians; c) Access to parking bays at the split parking aisle at the north end of the ground floor Myer car park to be amended; d) Plans to be updated to remove reference to a covered pedestrian walkway to the west of the upper level Myer car parking deck; e) Plans to be updated to include details of parking for people with disabilities, including layout, dimensions and total number needed for the development; f) Details of the bicycle storage facility within the ground floor Myer car park to be in accordance with Australian Standards or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; g) A designated “kiss and ride” zone for no less than four (4) car spaces to be provided in close proximity of the bus interchange; h) Details of “light pole (typical)” to be annotated on the plans, including height above finished floor level and details of how the lights will be baffled to prevent any adverse impact on adjoining land; i) Buchan Group drawings and Diadem Plans all Council date stamped 19 October 2012 are to be updated to show the proposed signage on the south and east elevations of the Kmart Tyre and Auto building as non-illuminated; j) Plans to be updated to include notations as to the specific number of car spaces proposed at the ground and first floor level of the Myer car park, including disabled and small car parking bays; k) The plans to be updated to show the location of Share Path M1 within the Myer ground floor level car park as per O’Brien Traffic advice to Council dated 01 September 2012, Figure 11 – Stage 2A – Ground Level Plan, or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; l) Share paths as required by the approved Integrated Transport and Access Plan (ITAP) are to be shown on the plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; m) Lighting Management Plan as required by Condition 17; n) Water Sensitive Urban Design Response required by Condition 21; o) Waste Management Plan as required by Condition 23; p) Acoustic Report as required by Condition 39; q) Revised Landscaping Plan in accordance with Condition 42; r) Tree Management Plan as required by Condition 44;

Page 34 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

All of the above requirements must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. For items l) and n) a request may be made to the Responsible Authority for the provision of such information at a later date to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

3. Prior to the commencement of the use of the bus interchange, details of real time signage to be placed at the interchange and within the vicinity of the Shopping Centre are to be provided to Council for endorsement. The signage is to be to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria and the Responsible Authority.

4. Prior to the closure of any existing bus bays or prior to the occupation of any additional shop floor area above 146,000 square metres and other floor area up to 65,000 square metres, whichever occurs first, the following works must be completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority in consultation with the Roads Corporation and Public Transport Victoria as appropriate, and at the owner’s cost:

a) The new centralised bus interchange (generally in accordance with the Chadstone Shopping Centre Bus Interchange Works Concept Design, drawing number 12M1001005-102P3 prepared by GTA Consultants but subject to the preparation of detailed construction plans).

b) Creation of an additional dedicated left turn slip lane at the Princes Highway Eastern Access (generally in accordance with Chadstone Shopping Centre Bus Interchange Works Concept Design, drawing number 12M1001005-107P1 prepared by GTA Consultants but subject to the preparation of detailed construction plans).

c) Creation of a bus queue jump lane on Princes Highway eastbound at the intersection with Chadstone Road and Poath Road (generally in accordance with Chadstone Activities Area Princes Highway/Poath Road/Chadstone Road Concept Layout Plan, drawing number 12M1001005-103P3 prepared by GTA Consultants but subject to the preparation of detailed construction plans).

5. Any transitional arrangements to make provision for the temporary relocation of the bus bays along the north-west building facade, must be submitted to and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The temporary location must be agreed and constructed at the cost to the permit holder and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6. The Chadstone Road entrance is to be closed between midnight and 6.00am, except on ten (10) days every year. The operation of the entrance is to allow for efficient access during extended trading over the Christmas period and for special trading events. It is a requirement that the specific dates and times when the entrance is to be left open are advised to the occupiers of properties in Chadstone Road, at least one month prior to the first of these special trading days, in each year.

7. Prior to occupation, access for persons with disabilities must be provided in compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and such access must be maintained at all times the building is occupied or in use.

Page 35 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

8. A report for the legal point of discharge is to 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 (Infrastructure condition).

9. Before the use starts, areas set-aside for parked vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be:

a) Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. b) Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans. c) Surfaced with an all-weather sealcoat or surfaced with crushed rock or gravel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. d) Drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. e) Line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times.

10. Prior to the commencement of the use of the bus interchange, the car spaces hereby approved must be made available and used by customers and staff of the Shopping Centre at all times.

11. The use and development must be managed so that the amenity of the area is not detrimentally affected through the:

a) Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land b) Appearance of any building, works or materials c) Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil d) Presence of vermin

12. 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.

13. Any Major Traffic Control Items, as defined in the Victorian Road Rules, proposed to be installed must be accompanied by an appropriate Memorandum of Consent from VicRoads, prior to the use of the new roads and car parks allowed by this permit unless a devolution agreement has been entered into between VicRoads and the applicant or its representative.

14. Traffic management devices are to be installed in parking aisles that are greater than 1OOm long as per section 2.3 of AS 2890.1 Australian Standards, or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Car Parking Management Strategy

15. Prior to the commencement of any buildings and works, a Car Parking Management Strategy is required to be prepared. This strategy is to identify management measures to be put in place to minimise the impact of the shortfall in parking spaces across the centre during the construction period.

Page 36 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Construction Management Plan

16. Prior to the commencement of any buildings and works, a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority for endorsement. The CMP must include the following to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

a) Staging of construction of the buildings and an indication of when completed stages are intended to be occupied; b) Parking Plan showing where parking will be provided as stages of the development become occupied; c) Public and worker access and safety control mechanisms to be instituted for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles; d) Hours of construction activity (including any proposed out-of-hours work) with details of the type of work proposed to be conducted outside normal hours. e) An estimate of critical periods of construction work, such as demolition of buildings, site clearance, excavation, concrete pour and deliveries of cranes, pre-cast panels and other voluminous materials/equipment. f) A notification process for residents in the vicinity of the subject site; advising of critical processes associated with construction of the extension. g) Noise and vibration control and attenuation measures to be implemented for transport, construction and other activities relevant to the development. h) The preferred location of public and workers zones, loading zones, hoisting zones and construction zones, including the location of gantries, cranes, hoists, site sheds, workers parking areas, worker’s amenities, material storage areas, vehicle storage and large machinery accommodation areas. i) Traffic Management Plan showing: . Entry and exit points for construction vehicles . Entry and exit points for workers . Typical entry and exit timetable for workers and deliveries . Temporary and permanent vehicle crossings and . Anticipated road closures, road occupation and footpath closures and local traffic interruptions j) Measures to be implemented to protect public infrastructure k) Waste Management Strategy for waste generated from the demolition, site preparation and construction stages of the development l) Environment Protection Measures that will be implemented to control pollutants produced from the site during construction such as contaminated soil, silt, sediment, concrete washes, spills on roadways, stormwater run-off, placement of rubbish skips, dust etc m) Monitoring and inspection program for all of the above n) Identification and contact details of the responsible person for managing all of the above measures, as appropriate, for the proposed development to be carried out in accordance with Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (EPA publication 275) and EPA Noise Control Guidelines (tg302/92 – Guideline No 12 Construction and Demolition Site Noise); and o) Notification process in the event that significant contamination of the land or groundwater occurs during works, such notification being provided to Council and the EPA immediately upon detection

Page 37 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Lighting Management Plan

17. Concurrent with the endorsement of the plans or otherwise if agreed to in writing by the Responsible Authority, a Lighting Management Plan prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will form part of the permit. The plan must show:

a) the location of all external lighting as part of the proposed works; b) the layout and design of all external lighting to achieve the recommended maximum values of illuminance in the vertical plane for “Dark Surrounds Residential Areas” specified in Table 2.1 of Australian Standard 4282-1997, applied in respect of the dwellings at 4 Woodlands Grove, 1B Woodlands Grove and 12 Castlebar Road; c) designed to limit impacts of external lighting within the car park to the residential areas to the south and east.

18. Within 3 months of the commencement of lighting under the Lighting Management Plan, an inspection of the lighting and compliance with the Lighting Management Plan (inspection report) is to be carried out by a suitably qualified expert and a report of the results including any recommendations for lighting management is to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any recommendations in the inspection report are to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

19. All external lighting of the site, including car parking areas and buildings, must be located, directed, baffled and shielded and of such limited intensity that no nuisance or loss of unreasonable amenity is caused to any person beyond the site.

20. The development must be provided with external lighting capable of illuminating access to each car parking space, bicycle parking space, store, refuse areas, pedestrian walkways, stairwells and lifts. Lighting must be located, directed, shielded and of limited intensity so that no nuisance or loss of amenity is caused to any person within and beyond the site, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Water Sensitive Urban Design

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

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

Waste Management Plan

23. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans or otherwise if agreed to in writing by the Responsible Authority, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must include:

a) Dimensions of waste areas

Page 38 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

b) The number of bins to be provided c) Method of waste and recyclables collection d) Hours of waste and recyclables collection NB. These should correspond with our Local Laws e) Method of presentation of bins for waste collection f) Sufficient headroom within the basement to allow the passage of waste collection vehicles g) Sufficient turning circles for the waste collection vehicles to drive out in forward gear from within the basement NB. This subsection only to be used for collection from basement h) Strategies for how the generation of waste and recyclables from the development will be minimised

24. 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.

Kmart Auto Conditions

25. The proposed works must not result in a reduction in the available above ground temporary storage that is currently available for stormwater in the car park.

26. All floor levels must be located at least 300mm above the applicable flood level.

27. Unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority in writing, the motor repairs use hereby permitted must operate only between the hours of:

Monday to Wednesday 8am to 5.30pm Thursday and Friday 8am to 9pm Saturday and Sunday 8am to 5pm

28. 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.

29. No panel beating is to take place on the site at any time.

30. Adequate provision must be made for the storage and collection of wastes and recyclables within the site prior to the commencement of use or occupation of the building. This area must be appropriately graded, drained and screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

31. Prior to the commencement of the use of the motor repairs, a Traffic Management Plan which details how loading and unloading will be managed for the Kmart Tyre and Auto, including that deliveries will only take place between 7am and 9am Monday to Saturday, and between 5pm and 10pm Monday to Wednesday, is to be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.

Advertising Signage Conditions:

32. The location and details of the signs, including those of the supporting structure, must be in accordance with the endorsed plans, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority.

Page 39 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

33. The signs must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

34. The signs must not contain any flashing or moving light.

35. Lighting of the signs must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

36. This permit, as it relates to signage, expires 15 years from the permit issue date.

37. This permit will expire if the sign is not erected within 2 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.

Noise Conditions:

38. Noise emanating from the subject land must not exceed the permissible noise levels when determined in accordance with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N-1, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any works required to ensure and maintain the noise levels from any plant and equipment, bus interchange, motor repairs and loading bay are in compliance with this policy must be completed prior to the commencement of the use or occupation of the site and maintained thereafter, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

39. Before the plans are endorsed, an acoustic report prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic engineer must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The report must prescribe the form of any acoustic treatment to protect nearby dwellings with an interface to the site from commercial noise sources, including but not limited to the bus interchange, Kmart Tyre and Auto and plant and equipment, where appropriate.

The recommendations contained in the approved acoustic report must be implemented and completed and where there are recommendations of an ongoing nature, these must be implemented and maintained all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority

40. Post Construction Noise monitoring must be undertaken by the owner of the centre to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority from approved external monitoring locations which must include but are not limited to the following properties:

 4 Woodlands Grove;  1B Woodlands Grove;  12 Castlebar Road;

And one of the following four properties directly to the east of the motor repairs development:

 1/10 Capon Street;  1/12 Capon Street;  8 Capon Street; or  6 Capon Street.

Page 40 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Monitoring shall be in accordance with the methodology contained in “State Environment Protection Policy No.1: Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade (SEPP N-1). Monitoring shall be taken as follows:

a) Prior to the commencement of any buildings and works allowed by the permit over at least 3 days in order to benchmark existing noise conditions environments;

b) Following completion of the development, commencement of the use and once traffic flows have stabilised to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

c) At the above locations on a twice yearly basis for a period of one year and then every two years unless further monitoring is requested to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority where monitoring has revealed a requirement to implement further measures to ensure compliance.

41. In the event that noise emission readings exceed the specified levels, the owner of the shopping centre must carry out noise mitigation works to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Landscape Plans:

42. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, 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 in accordance with the landscape concept plans Council dated 19 October 2012 prepared by Formium and known as Drawing References LC1.01, LC1.02 and LC1.03, dated 19 October 2012 but modified to show: a) Increase in the number of canopy trees in or near the bus interchange or a suitable alternative to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; b) Enhanced landscaping to the north of the taxi rank and east of the bus interchange surrounding the Landmark Peppercorn Tree; c) Landscaping treatment to be provided to the south of the Kmart Auto building or a suitable alternative to reduce impacts of visual bulk; d) A survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be retained and/or removed; e) Details of surface finishes of pathways and access ways; f) 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; and g) Recommendations of the arborist as required by Condition 44;

all to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

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

Page 41 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Tree management plan

44. Concurrent with the endorsement of development 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 Landmark Peppercorn Tree located to the east of the bus interchange.

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

45. 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.

46. Before the development (including excavation and demolition) starts, a tree protection fence must be erected around the Landmark Peppercorn Tree to define a ‘Tree Protection Zone’. The fence must be constructed 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.

47. 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.

VicRoads Conditions (Conditions 48 through to 50)

48. Before the commencement of the use approved by this permit the following road works must be completed at no cost to and to the satisfaction of the VicRoads:

i. Improvement works at Princes Highway/ Chadstone Road/ Poath Road intersection to provide a bus lane at the western approach and associated works generally in accordance with functional layout prepared by GTA Consultants drawing number: 12Ml001200.02-10 Issue P2 dated 1 August 2012 (date of revision 10 October 2012).

Page 42 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

ii. Improvement works at Princes Highway/ Eastern Access Road intersection and construction of the signalised intersection at the Eastern Access Road and the Bus Interchange intersection generally in accordance with the functional :layout plan prepared by GTA Consultants, drawing number: 12 M'1001200-02-02 Issue P7 dated 19 June 2012 (revision date: 24 October 2012).

49. Before the commencement of any road works required by VicRoads under this permit, a detailed engineering design generally in accordance with the accepted functional layout plan and design stage road safety audit must be prepared to the satisfaction of VicRoads.

50. The preparation of the detailed engineering design and the construction and completion of all work must be undertaken in a manner consistent with current VicRoads' policy, procedures and standards and at no cost to VicRoads. In order to meet VicRoads' requirements for these tasks the applicant will be required to comply with the requirements documented as "Standard Requirements - Developer Funded Projects" and any other requirements considered necessary depending on the nature of the work.

Public Transport Victoria Conditions (Conditions 51 through to 58)

51. Unless otherwise agreed in writing before the development starts, detailed construction / engineering plans and computations must be submitted to and approved by Public Transport Victoria for the entire bus interchange and all associated infrastructure including landscaping, the canopy cover and deemed compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act – Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application prepared by GTA Consultants Proposed Bus Interchange / Eastern Access Road / Princes Highway Function Layout Drawing Number 12M1001200-02-02 Issue P5.

52. The bus interchange must be constructed at the full cost to the permit holder prior to the closure of any bus bays at the existing bus facility to the satisfaction of the Public Transport Victoria and deemed compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act – Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002.

53. During the construction period, as required, and prior to the completion of the works associated with the bus interchange the permit holder must ensure that an operational “bus trial” is conducted for the bus terminal and any alterations needed are completed to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria.

54. Prior to the completion of the bus interchange the amenities facility for bus drivers within the shopping centre must be fitted with locks and / or keys compatible with the bus operators requirements to ensure access during bus operating hours to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria.

55. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with Public Transport Victoria the existing bus layover bays located on the site must be retained for the use of bus operators to the satisfaction of the Public Transport Victoria.

Page 43 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

56. Prior to the completion of the bus interchange all bus access routes within the centre that have traffic calming devices must be replaced with bus friendly speed cushions or other suitable design to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria at the full cost to the permit holder.

57. Prior to the completion of the bus interchange the permit holder must update / install internal and external signage to indicate the new location of the interchange and undertake any necessary promotion / works identified in any approved Integrated Transport Plan to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria.

58. Once completed, the permit holder must take all reasonable steps to ensure the bus terminal and all infrastructure is maintained and any damage repaired to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria.

Yarra Valley Water Conditions (Conditions 59 through to 60)

59. The owner of the subject land must enter into an agreement with Yarra Valley Water for the provision of water supply.

60. The owner of the land must enter into an agreement with Yarra Valley Water for the provision of sewerage.

Permit Expiry

61. 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.

NOTES:

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

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.

Page 44 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

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

VICROADS NOTES:

Advice to the Applicant

As a condition of this permit VicRoads requires design and construction activities to be undertaken in a manner consistent with current policy, procedures and standards. In order to meet VicRoads' requirements for these tasks the applicant will be required to comply with the requirements documented as "Standard Requirements - Developer Funded Projects" and any other requirements considered necessary.

In general, the applicant will be required to comply with the following terms and conditions:

 The applicant takes full responsibility for the adequacy, implementation and completion of its design and construction activities  The use of prequalified consultants and contractors unless otherwise approved  Detailed designs are_ required to be reviewed and may require proof engineering  Certification Audits on the work are required (surveillance and inspection)  Payment of all related charges, costs and fees as they apply to the development, including a performance retention  The undertaking and incorporation of road safety audits at various stages of the project  Work will only be permitted under approved traffic management arrangements which may incorporate restrictive working times  The provision of insurances and warranties as required  Other special requirements that may be necessary due to the nature of the work

Should the applicant require a copy of the Standard Requirements or clarification of these matters it is encouraged to contact VicRoads.

Page 45 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

1.2. PLANNING APPLICATION 0547/12 - CHADSTONE SHOPPING CENTRE – 1341 DANDENONG ROAD, MALVERN EAST – STAGE 2B - CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW MULTI LEVEL BASEMENT CAR PARK AND ROAD WORKS TO THE PRINCES HIGHWAY

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

PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for buildings and works for the construction of a basement car park and alterations to the access from a Road Zone, Category 1.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Urbis C/- Colonial First State Global Asset Management Ward: East Zone: Business 1 Overlay: Incorporated Plan Overlay (Schedule 2) Special Building Overlay Date lodged: 14/08/2012 Statutory days: (as at council 108 meeting date) Trigger for referral to Application of local significance Council: Number of objections: Not applicable Consultative Meeting: No Officer Recommendation: Issue a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

Chadstone Shopping Centre requested Council to prepare and exhibit Amendment C154 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme to allow for the expansion and redevelopment of the Chadstone Shopping Centre in October 2011. The Amendment sought, amongst other things, to modify the schedule the Business 1 Zone to increase the maximum combined leasable floor area for shop at Chadstone Shopping centre from 146,000 m² to 160,000 m² and delete reference to minimum of 10,000 m² of restricted retail floor space. It also sought to amend the Incorporated Plan to allow for variations to the building envelope to the north and south of the site.

The Amendment was adopted by Council on 13 August 2012 and was gazetted on 15 November 2012 following approval by the Minister of Planning. The Amendment has now been included in the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

Throughout the Amendment process, an Indicative Development Concept was provided to illustrate how the Amendment could facilitate development as part of future planning permit applications. Due to the location of development on the site, the expansion of the Shopping Centre is proposed to take place in several stages and a series of planning applications have now been lodged with Council. The stages of development currently with Council are summarised below:

Page 46 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Stages of Proposals (summarised) development Stage 2A A new bus interchange to the south of the 'fresh food' entrance to the shopping centre; a new motor repairs (K-Auto) within the south-east corner of the site; variations to the Myer car park including a new first floor car parking deck; and road works to the intersection of Eastern Access Road and Dandenong Road. Stage 2B A new multi level basement car park and road works to the intersection of the Central Access Road and Dandenong Road. Stage 3A Full demolition of the existing multi level car park to the north-west of the main shopping centre building to be replaced by a new basement, a retail tenancy (Target) at lower ground and two car parking levels above. The proposal includes a new loading dock to the north of the Target tenancy. Stage 3B The main redevelopment of the northern mall which involves demolition of the existing mall and construction of four new retail and entertainment floor levels. The works also include expansion of the Coles car park to the east of the main shopping centre building.

Stage 3C Includes works for two cinema “boxes” (Cinemas 8 and 11) which sit outside of the building envelope shown on the Incorporated Plan (August 2012).

Stage 4 Proposes to construct a new ten storey office building and new eleven storey residential hotel to contain 240 hotel rooms. The hotel will include an ancillary restaurant and conference centre. The development will amend the basement car park approved under Planning Permit 0547/12 to provide a total of 512 car spaces. 72 car spaces will be for the exclusive use of the hotel and 440 car spaces will be shared between the office on weekdays and the retail centre on weekends and public holidays. A reduction in the standard car parking rate for the office is also sought.

Notably, some of the above proposals (Stage 3A and Stage 3C) include works that are not generally in accordance with the Incorporated Plan (August 2012). Where works are generally in accordance with the Incorporated Plan, these applications are exempt from third party notice and review rights under the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Further discussion on notice is provided later in this report (see Advertising).

An indicative programme for the staging of development has been provided to Council which suggests that development will commence in April 2013 with works to be completed in October 2015. The indicative staging sequence proposes that the office and hotel development (Stage 4) will be completed in April 2014, prior to the completion of Stage 3B in October 2015.

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Bates Smart and are known as File No. 0547/12, Drawing No.s: TP000, TP001, TP003 Rev D, TP00 Rev E, TP01 Rev E, TP02 Rev E, TP03 Rev E, TP04 Rev E, TP601 Rev E and Council date stamped 17 October 2012. The plans are also accompanied by a Transport Impact Assessment and swept paths undertaken by GTA Consultants, Council dated 14 August 2012 and 17 October 2012.

Page 47 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Multi level basement car park

The proposal includes the construction of a new four level car park to consist of three levels of basement and one mezzanine floor level. The podium ground floor level will form a ‘lid’ over the basement below. The new car parking facility will provide a total of 461 car spaces, including an array of small car parking bays and disabled car parking spaces. The basement will be accessed from a new ramp from the Central Access Road from the Prince Highway and the existing Myer car park to the north.

Car parking on each level of the basement is to be as follows:

 Basement mezzanine level 51 car spaces, including 2 DDA spaces and 6 small spaces  Basement Level 01 118 car spaces, including 3 DDA spaces and 7 small spaces  Basement Level 02 139 car spaces, including 3 DDA spaces and 8 small spaces  Basement Level 03 153 car spaces, including 3 DDA spaces and 8 small spaces

The basement has been proposed as a precursor to the future use and development of the land as a hotel and office above as depicted in the development plans for Stage 4 (Planning Application 0905/12). As future development is foreshadowed directly above the basement car park, the ground floor level has not been fully resolved as part of this application. The ground floor level as proposed contains a pedestrian path with interim hand rails which allow for access to a lift and stairwell to the north. Access is also provided to the south, toward the Princes Highway. Additionally, interim landscaping is proposed to the perimeter of the ground floor level.

No increase in commercial floor area is proposed as part of this application.

Road works to Princes Highway / Central Access Road

The proposal also includes road works to the Princes Highway and Central Access Road which will include a new signalised intersection onto the Princes Highway. These works were developed at length during the Amendment C154 process by GTA, Cardno and O’Brien Traffic (on behalf of Council). The new signalised intersection has been proposed and modelled on the following arrangement:

 2 right-turn lanes out of the site;  1 left-turn slip lane out of the site; and  2 entering lanes into the site.

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 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. Page 48 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

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.

Previous Planning Application(s)

This site has an 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. This application was known as Stage 1 in the sequencing of development as put forward by the applicant.

 Lodged concurrently with this application is Planning Application 0546/12 which seeks permission 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 K-Auto (motor repairs). This application, known as Stage 2A, is currently being considered by Council and no decision has been made to date. The proposal is generally in accordance with the Chadstone Shopping Centre Incorporated Plan (August 2012).

 Planning Application 0783/12 was lodged with Council on 26 October 2012 and proposes the full demolition of the existing multi level car park to the north-west of the main shopping centre building to be replaced by a new basement level car park, a retail tenancy (Target) at lower ground and two car parking levels above. The proposal includes a new loading bay to the north. This application is known as Stage 3A and no determination has been made to date.

 Planning Application 0784/12 was lodged with Council on 26 October 2012 and includes the main redevelopment of the northern mall which involves demolition of the existing 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. This application is known as Stage 3B and no determination has been made to date.

 Planning Application 0785/12 was lodged concurrently with Stage 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) which forms part of the IPO2. This application is known as Stage 3C and no determination has been made to date.

 Planning Application 0905/12 was lodged with Council on 12 December 2012 for works to the southern building envelope for a new office and hotel development. Preliminary assessment of this application is currently being undertaken by Council. This application is known as Stage 4. Page 49 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Planning Scheme Amendments

The most recent Planning Scheme Amendment for this site is known as Amendment C154 and was gazetted on 15 November 2012. The Amendment allowed for larger developable areas along the northern and southern boundaries of the Chadstone Shopping Centre site. More specifically, the Amendment:

 modified the Schedule to the Business 1 Zone to increase the maximum combined leasable floor area for shop at Chadstone Shopping centre from 146,000 m² to 160,000 m² and deleted the reference to minimum of 10,000 m² of restricted retail floor space;  amended Schedule 2 to the Incorporated Plan Overlay including to replace the existing Chadstone Shopping Centre Incorporated Plan June 2005 with Chadstone Shopping Centre Incorporated Plan August 2012; and  amended the Schedule to Clause 81.01 to refer to the updated ‘Chadstone Shopping Centre Incorporated Plan, August 2012’.

The Amendment also varied Schedule 2 of the Incorporated Plan Overlay to include numerous requirements for road works and new design guidelines.

The redevelopment of the Chadstone Shopping Centre as anticipated by Amendment C154 is to be achieved through numerous Planning Permit Applications of which this application forms one (hereafter known as Stage 2B).

Prior to Amendment C154, another Planning Scheme Amendment known as C32 was gazetted on 21 December 2005 and which most notably amended the Schedule to the Business 1 Zone to increase the maximum combined leasable floor area for Shop from 106,000sqm to 146,000sqm.

The Title

The site is described as Lot 1 on Title Plan 824914 (Volume 11259, Folio 101) 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 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.

Page 50 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

 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.

The applicant has declared that whilst encumbrances affect the site, the works as proposed under this Planning Permit application will not contravene or breach the restrictions on the certificate of title. It is considered that the proposal will not breach the restrictions on the title.

Page 51 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Planning Controls

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

Zone

Clause 34.01 Business 1 Zone

Pursuant to Clause 34.01-4 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works. The use of a basement car park in association with the existing Shopping Centre does not trigger a permit under the use requirements of Clause 34.01-1.

NB Assessment of the use of the car park in conjunction with the future hotel and office uses will form part of the assessment for Stage 4 (Planning Application 0905/12).

Overlay(s)

Clause 43.03 Incorporated Plan Overlay (Schedule 2)

Schedule 2 of Clause 43.03 relates to the Chadstone Shopping Centre Incorporated Plan (August 2012) and states that a permit may be granted to use or subdivide land, construct a building or construct or carry out works that is not generally in accordance with the Incorporated Plan. Subsection 3 of the Schedule lists the conditions and requirements for permits.

Specifically, Schedule 2 (Section 3.1) states that:

If a permit will increase the amount of shop floor area above 146,000 square metres or other floor area above 65,000 square metres, then prior to the occupation of any of the new or redeveloped floor area the following works must be completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and the Roads Corporation:

 Completion of traffic management and roadworks to the Princes Highway “Central Access” (generally in accordance with Chadstone Activities Area Princes Highway/Proposed Access Concept Layout Plan, Drawing Number 12M1001005-106P3 prepared by GTA Consultants but subject to the preparation of detailed construction plans).

While the floor area is not being increased as part of this proposal the road works referenced above form part of this application.

The Incorporated Plan Overlay exempts a planning permit application from third party notice and review rights if the application is generally in accordance with the approved Incorporated Plan. The works as part of this application are generally in accordance with the Incorporated Plan (August 2012) and therefore are exempt from third party notice and review rights.

Clause 44.05 Special Building Overlay

A Special Building Overlay partially affects this site. Works associated with the construction of the new basement car park are not located within the Special Building Overlay and therefore the provisions of Clause 44.05 do not apply to this application.

Page 52 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Particular Provisions

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

A permit is required to create or alter access to:  A road in a Road Zone, Category 1.  Land in a Public Acquisition Overlay if the purpose of acquisition is for a Category 1 road.

An application to create or alter access to, or to subdivide land adjacent to, a road declared as a freeway or arterial road under the Road Management Act 2004, land owned by the Roads Corporation for the purpose of a road, or land in a Public Acquisition Overlay if the Roads Corporation is the authority responsible for acquiring the land, must be referred to the Roads Corporation under Section 55 of the Act.

The application has been referred to VicRoads and comments received are listed below under the “Referrals” section of this report.

General Provisions

Clause 65 - Decision Guidelines

The Decision Guidelines of Clause 65 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme are relevant to this application and require consideration to be given to a variety of matters including the Planning Scheme policies, the purpose of the zone, orderly planning and the impact on amenity.

Relevant Planning Policies

In the State Planning Policy Framework:

 Clause 11 - Settlement - including Activity Centres  Clause 15 - Environment and Heritage  Clause 17.01 - Commercial  Clause 18 – Transport  Clause 19 - Infrastructure

In the Municipal Strategic Statement:

 Clause 21.01 - Vision for the City of Stonnington  Clause 21.02 -2 - Urban Environment and Character  Clause 21.04 - Economic Development  Clause 21.05 -1 Transport

In the Local Planning Policy Framework:

 Clause 22.02 - Urban Design Policy  Clause 22.09 - Retail Centres Policy  Clause 22.11 - Chadstone Commercial Centre Policy  Clause 22.12 - Traffic Policy  Clause 22.13 - Parking Policy  Clause 22.15 - Infrastructure Policy

Page 53 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Other considerations:

Amendment C161 which proposes to revise the Local Planning Policy Framework which includes Clause 21 - Municipal Strategic Statement and Clause 22 - Local Planning Policies is currently on exhibition. The new Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) updates Council's vision and policies for land use and development in the City. It consolidates policy from the existing Planning Scheme with new policy adopted as part of the 2010 Review and from other Council work. Several Local Policies are deleted and their policy positions included in the MSS.

Draft Clause 22.18 Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) Policy This is a seriously entertained document and applies to all new buildings. The objectives of this policy are:  To promote the use of water sensitive urban design, including stormwater re-use.  To mitigate the detrimental effect of development on downstream waterways, by the application of best practice stormwater management through water sensitive urban design for new development.  To minimise peak stormwater flows and stormwater pollutants to improve the health of water bodies, including creeks, rivers and bays.  To reintegrate urban water into the landscape

Advertising

Pursuant to Clause 43.03 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, an application that is generally in accordance with the Incorporated Plan is exempt from the notice and review rights of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Local policy Clause 22.11 (Chadstone Commercial Centre Policy) allows for Council to informally notify surrounding residents where it is considered an application may be of interest. This requirement allows for discretion as to the extent of notification required based on the scale of development.

This application was not displayed as it was considered that no material detriment would result from the application given the majority of works are proposed below ground and adjacent to the Princes Highway. Therefore, no consultative meeting was required.

Referrals

VicRoads

The plans were referred to VicRoads for comment and a response was received on 17 December 2012. VicRoads has no objection to the grant of a planning permit subject to conditions. The conditions relate to the road works being constructed in accordance with the functional layout prepared by GTA Consultants, drawing number: 12M1001200-12-03 Issue P4 dated 19 June 2012 (date of revision 9 November 2012).

Following receipt of the above, Council approached VicRoads about the potential to improve the intersection at Central Access Road and the Princes Highway to improve the facilities for cyclists and pedestrians. NB The application plans provided to VicRoads for review make no reference to share paths at this intersection. VicRoads advised that they are not in a position to make comment on whether the variations sought by Council are acceptable or otherwise. It was noted that Council may wish to stipulate a condition requiring amendments to the functional layout to improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities where possible and practicable to the satisfaction of VicRoads and the Responsible Authority.

Page 54 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Council’s Transport and Parking Unit have advised that they are supportive of the above requirement being included as a condition of approval.

Internal

Transport and Parking Unit

Initial review of the plans dated 14 August 2012 was undertaken by Council’s Traffic Engineers and O’Brien Traffic. Concerns were raised with the level of plan detail for the basement including the dimensions of car parking bays, functionality of access ways and ramps, insufficient swept paths and line markings. Concern was also raised with plan discrepancies in terms of the number of car spaces provided and notations referencing loading bays. There was also concern with the ground floor level due to safety and pedestrian access.

The applicant amended the plans in accordance with Council’s comments as part of the lodgement of the further information on 17 October 2012. The amended plans addressed some of the matters raised by the Transport and Parking Unit with the exception of the two lane ramp which has not been centralised within the three lane ramp cross-section for structural reasons.

The changes to the plans generally included clarification of car parking dimensions, including the small car parking spaces; disabled car parking spaces and line marking and deletion of some small car parking spaces due to constrained locations. The plans also sought to demonstrate that access for a 10m long truck can be gained for future loading and unloading. The ground floor level was also amended to show multiple exit points in the event of an emergency.

The amended plans were reviewed by Council’s Transport and Parking Unit who noted that many of the issues initially observed have been addressed. Some outstanding matters have been noted which relate to column locations, ramp grades and blind aisles which will be addressed by way of conditions.

As there is no use proposed as part of this application the adequacy of the basement for loading has not been assessed. Future development of this land that triggers the requirement for loading facilities must ensure that the layout allows for separate truck access from public parking aisles and that loading areas are accessible for 12.5m rigid trucks. These considerations will be required to be met by the loading arrangements proposed at Stage 4 (Planning Application 0905/12), currently with Council for assessment.

Infrastructure

Council’s Infrastructure Unit has reviewed the plans and advised that they do not have concerns with the proposal. A condition relating to the legal point of discharge is required on any permit that issues.

Urban Design and Landscaping considerations

Urban Design and Landscaping comments have not been sought at this time due to the fact that the ground floor level is an interim proposal which is to be replaced by the office and hotel development above once approved by Stage 4. The applicant has confirmed that the basement will not be used prior to the construction of the office and hotel above. This is to be confirmed via a staging plan which will detail the sequence of works and impacts on car parking. Should the office and hotel development above fail to gain planning approval at Stage 4, a revised scheme for the ground floor level will be required by way of condition. Comments will be sought at such time from Council’s Urban Designer and Council’s Arborist.

Page 55 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

KEY ISSUES

Strategic Justification

As discussed in the earlier sections of this report, the proposed works as part of this application were considered in a conceptual form during the Amendment C154 process. The approval of Amendment C154 by the Minister of Planning reinforces the expectations for growth and investment within this Principal Activity Centre as promoted by state and local planning policies, notwithstanding that development is expected to meet the design guidelines contained within the Incorporated Plan Overlay (Schedule 2).

Council’s own strategic vision as reflected in Clause 21 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme seeks to encourage a mix of uses within principal activity centres which strengthen commercial viability and provide increased opportunities for employment.

Supported by both State and local strategic objectives for this site, the works are considered to be acceptable to the future aspirations of Chadstone Shopping Centre which will allow for intensified development within an existing commercial precinct, subject to appropriate design detail as will be discussed below.

Urban Design

The proposed works seek to excavate a portion of the land to the south of the existing Myer car park and adjacent the Princes Highway to allow for the construction of a four level basement car park including a mezzanine level. Currently, this area is used as an at-grade car park providing 210 car spaces. The construction of the basement is anticipated for the future office and hotel development above, which is subject to future planning approval. The basement construction will be contained below ground level and as such will not impact on the streetscape or on views and vistas within the area. Given the land abuts the Princes Highway there are no sensitive interfaces, such as residences, within close proximity of the basement.

The ground floor level of the basement car park forms an interim podium that is expected to be developed to accommodate a commercial use as proposed by Stage 4 (Planning Application 0905/12), which is currently being considered by Council. Stage 4 proposes a hotel and office development constructed as two towers with public spaces at the ground floor level with linkages to the Shopping Centre. The applicant has stated that the current basement application has been lodged ahead of the envisioned office and hotel development due to the staging of construction. It has been asserted that this application is required to allow for excavation works to commence in this location in early 2013.

The relevant objectives of Clause 15.01-2 (Urban Design Principles) have been considered with regard to the new works in addition to the urban design principles listed at Section 3.7.2 and 3.7.3 within Schedule 2 of the Incorporated Plan Overlay. The design guidelines for the southern precinct of the site will be considered in greater detail as part of the assessment of Stage 4 (Planning Application 0905/12) where works are proposed above ground level.

Public realm and pedestrian spaces

With regard to the public realm, the current design of the podium (ground floor) level has not been fully resolved as it is not anticipated that this space will be used by pedestrians. It has been asserted by the applicant that the development above (Stage 4) will be completed prior to the commencement of the use of the basement car park. This is to be outlined in a staging plan which will be required by way of condition and will also form part of the Construction Management Plan.

Page 56 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Notwithstanding the above, consideration must be given to the possibility that future development will not take place at this location and the basement may indeed function in its own right. As such a condition of approval will require that prior to the commencement of the use of the basement car park, should a development not be approved above ground floor level at this location, a revised ground floor plan must be submitted for endorsement which provides a fully resolved urban design response which includes, but is not limited to, safety, landscaping, lighting and access, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Light and shade

The basement car park will not impact on existing light and shade to the south given that the majority of the works are to be contained below ground level. The slight protrusion of the mezzanine above ground level will not result in appreciable impacts on light or shade within the public realm. This further due to the appreciable fall in the land in a northerly direction and as such the works where they sit above natural ground level will not be appreciated from the Princes Highway.

Safety, landscaping and external lighting

A landscaping plan has not been provided as part of this application as it is not expected that the ground floor as depicted on the plans will ever be constructed as shown. As there is an expectation of future development, the absence of a full landscape plan and external lighting is considered to be acceptable. However, should the envisaged future development above ground level not go ahead, a condition of any approval will require that revised plans be submitted for endorsement that show an appropriate urban design response addressing safety, landscaping and accessibility. Revised plans will be required prior to the use of the basement car park. As proposed the ground floor level provides an unsatisfactory outcome with regard to safety and access and cannot be utilised by the public.

Design objectives and guidelines within the Stonnington Planning Scheme generally seek to achieve improved safety, connectivity and visual attractiveness of the activity centre and public realm. While the new multi level basement car park fails to achieve a satisfactory response to the design guidelines at the ground floor level (as proposed), it is not intended to be used for the purpose as shown on the plans. It is intended that the development proposed by Stage 4 will supersede this application and achieve an appropriate design response in accordance with the guidelines in the Schedule 2 of the Incorporated Plan Overlay.

Notwithstanding, as this development relies on the approval of Stage 4 (Planning Application 0905/12) of which no decision has been made to date, measures must be taken to ensure that an appropriate design response is provided for the ground floor level in the event that a the office and hotel development does not proceed. An appropriate response can be achieved by way of a condition.

Car parking layout

As there is no increase in commercial floor area as part of this application, no statutory requirement for car parking applies. The basement is intended to be used for the future commercial development above it and as such an assessment with regard to car parking provision will be carried out as part of the Planning Permit application for the commercial uses at Stage 4.

The basement will remove 210 at-grade car spaces to make way for 461 new car spaces, equating to a surplus of 251 car spaces.

Page 57 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

The layout of the car spaces to each level of the basement and mezzanine car park have been reviewed by Council’s Transport and Parking Unit and it has been confirmed that the layout is generally acceptable subject to conditions. The required variations relate to column locations, blind aisles and ramp grades.

To further ensure that the basement can operate effectively in its own right should development above not proceed, a Car Parking Management Plan will be required by way of condition prior to the commencement of the use of the basement. This condition will require details such as designating car spaces to a use, provides details of signage, car parking bays, cleaning, security, wayfinding and share paths.

Loading and unloading

As previously discussed, the basement anticipates the future use of the site for a commercial building as proposed at Stage 4 (PL0905/12). Consideration of loading bays will occur as part of the Stage 4 application. Stage 2B does not introduce a new commercial use and therefore the provision of loading and unloading facilities cannot be considered at this stage. Notwithstanding this technicality, it is anticipated that the basement will be required to cater for loading. Council’s Transport and Parking Unit has noted that any future loading associated with the basement must provide separate truck access and loading from parking areas and the loading areas must be accessible for 12.5m rigid trucks.

Importantly, approval of this application does not imply that the basement layout as proposed is suitable for loading and unloading of commercial vehicles. A full assessment will be carried out at Stage 4 (under Planning Permit Application 0905/12) and changes to the basement arrangement may be required to meet Council expectations should a permit issue. This has been communicated to the applicant.

Road works

The application seeks to alter the ingress and egress arrangements from the subject site to the Princes Highway via a new signalised intersection which will involve the addition of a slip lane for east-bound traffic. The works were referred to Vic Roads who are supportive of the proposal subject to conditions. Council takes no issue with the variations to the Princes Highway (Road Zone, Category 1) subject to VicRoads conditions.

Integration of share paths

Importantly, as part of Amendment C154, the Report of the Panel (dated 17 July 2012) made note on the need for a modal shift to be addressed in a serious way via an Integrated Transport and Access Plan. The Panel found that “the share of walking and cycling needs to grow” and that “a well connected network of paths, including share paths, are integral to increasing the mode share for walking and cycling” (Report of the Panel, p. 53). The amended Schedule 2 to the Incorporated Plan Overlay includes specific requirements for an Integrated Transport and Access Plan (ITAP) where an application proposes an increase in floor space by more than 10,000 square metres. While this Stage of development does not trigger the need for an Integrated Transport and Access Plan (ITAP), future works as part of Stage 3B (Planning Application 0784/12) will require that the recommendations of an approved ITAP be incorporated.

It is considered that the infrastructure works required by the ITAP should be considered for all stages of development to reduce rectification works or multiple amendments at a later stage which may delay development. The result is that a holistic approach is also taken so that an integrated network of share paths can be realistically achieved.

Page 58 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

The provision of share paths was raised by O’Brien Traffic on behalf of Council during the preliminary review of the plans dated 14 August 2012. Since this time, the ITAP has been the subject of ongoing discussions between Public Transport Victoria, VicRoads, Council and the applicant.

Following Council’s initial comments as part of the Request for Further Information, the applicant included a 2.5m wide share path along the Princes Highway that will connect to the proposed bicycle parking enclosure within the south-east corner of the Myer car park. The bicycle enclosure is proposed as part of the Stage 2A application (refer to Planning Application No. 0546/12).

However, another link known as share path M1 (refer to Appendix 1 – O’Brien Share path recommendations) was not included as part of the Stage 2B proposal. The applicant provided a basic plan of an alternative proposal and a “final” version of the Integrated Transport and Access Plan (ITAP) to Council on 16 January 2013. The latest version of the ITAP suggests that an alternative to Council’s recommended share path M1 can be achieved through the mid-basement level (below ground floor of the Myer car park). Comments back from Council’s Transport and Parking Unit have noted that this path cannot be achieved due to level differences in the land and due to sizable columns being located in the centre of the share path. It is the view of Council’s Transport and Parking Unit that this path is not realistically achievable and does not achieve Council’s objective for an integrated share path network. Therefore, the M1 path as recommended by O’Brien Traffic is required to be shown on the plans and forms a conditional requirement for Stage 2A (Planning Permit Application 0546/12).

On the basis that the M1 share path is required by Council, it is considered that the new signalised intersection at Central Access Road and Princes Highway does not provide a suitable arrangement for cyclists and pedestrians. Comments have been sought from VicRoads on this matter and it has been suggested that a condition of approval may include requirements to amend the intersection to improve facilities for pedestrians and cyclists to the satisfaction of VicRoads and the Responsible Authority. It is considered that a condition to this effect be included as part of any approval.

Water Sensitive Urban Design

A rainwater tank has been proposed on the lower level of the basement car park (Basement Level 3). The capacity of this tank has not been specified. The inclusion of a new rainwater tank is a positive addition to the site which will serve to reduce stormwater run-off. The use of the tank is to be further explored at Stage 4 (Planning Permit 0905/12) at which point a full Water Sensitive Urban Design Response will be required which details the capacity and use of the tank within the anticipated hotel and office development.

Construction Management Plan

Given the extent of works that are proposed on this site and the potential impacts on the surrounding properties and roadways, a condition of the permit will require the submission of a Construction Management Plan prior to any works being carried out. The Construction Management Plan will need to be prepared in consultation with Council’s Building and Transport Units.

Disability Discrimination Act

The plans dated 17 October 2012 detail eleven (11) DDA compliant disabled car parking bays within the new basement car park. The disabled spaces are conveniently located to the proposed lifts allowing for access to the main entrances via the existing pedestrian routes.

Page 59 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

A standard condition of approval will require that access for persons with disabilities be provided in compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.

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 works will allow for the future expansion of the Chadstone Shopping Centre Activity Centre as envisioned by Amendment C154, gazetted on 15 November 2012.  The works are predominantly contained below ground level and as such will not result in adverse amenity impacts on the surrounding properties.  The road works to the Princes Highway are appropriate subject to VicRoads conditions and will seek to improve traffic conditions and access to the site.  While the proposed ground floor level of the basement car park is not satisfactory with regard to safety or urban design, additional approval will be required by way of condition in the event that the development as proposed by Stage 4 does not proceed.

RECOMMENDATION

That a Planning Permit No: 0547/12 for the land located at 1341 Dandenong Road, Malvern East be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for buildings and works for the construction of a basement car park and alterations to the access from a Road Zone, Category 1, subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development, three (3) copies of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application prepared by the Buchan Group and Council date stamped 17 October 2012 but modified to show: a) Plans to be updated so that columns are located in a 1m area at least 0.25m and not more than 1.25m from the front of the parking bays on all basement floor levels; b) The ramp from the Basement 01 Level to the Ground Level, with a landing at approximately the Mezzanine Level is to be revised so that the ramp grade meets the Australian Standard requirements; c) Plans to be updated to show full details and location of Share Path M1 alongside Central Access Road as per O’Brien Traffic advice to Council dated 11 December 2012, or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; d) Amendments to the functional layout plan referenced at Condition 17, to improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities where possible and practicable to the satisfaction of VicRoads and the Responsible Authority; e) All share paths as required by the approved Integrated Transport and Access Plan (ITAP) are to be shown on the plans; f) An indicative Staging Plan of construction including an indication of when completed stages are intended to be occupied; Page 60 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority

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

3. In the event that a commercial development is not approved or constructed above ground floor level of the basement car park hereby approved, prior to the commencement of the use of the basement car park a revised ground floor plan must be submitted for endorsement which provides a fully resolved urban design response which includes, but is not limited to, safety, landscaping, lighting and access, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

4. In the event that a commercial development is not approved or constructed above ground floor level of the basement car park hereby approved, prior to the commencement of the use of the basement car park a revised set of plans must be submitted to the Responsible Authority which amends/defines all areas of the basement which are noted as being for future works to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

5. In the event that a commercial development is not approved or constructed above ground floor level of the basement car park hereby approved, prior to the commencement of the use of the basement car park a revised set of plans must be submitted to the Responsible Authority which amends the Basement Mezzanine Level as shown on the plans dated 17 October 2012 to provide a layout which allows for customer access, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6. In the event that a commercial development is not approved or constructed above ground floor level of the basement car park hereby approved, prior to the commencement of the use of the basement car park, a Car Parking Management Plan prepared by an appropriately qualified traffic consultant must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the car parking management plan will be endorsed and form part of this permit. The car parking management plan must address, but is not necessarily limited to, all of the following:

(a) the number and location of the car parking spaces to each use; (b) the number and location of car spaces for shared use, including management of the scheme; (c) the number and location of ‘small car’ spaces, including provision of line marking; (e) details of wayfinding, cleaning, security of end of trip bicycle facilities; and (f) signage marking of share paths or paths for bicycle access only.

The car parking management plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations may be made without the prior written approval of the Responsible Authority.

7. Prior to occupation, access for persons with disabilities must be provided in compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 and such access must be maintained at all times the building is occupied or in use.

Page 61 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

8. Prior to the commencement of the use for the basement car park, areas set-aside for parked vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be:

a) Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. b) Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans. c) Surfaced with an all-weather sealcoat or surfaced with crushed rock or gravel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. d) Drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. e) Line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times.

9. Prior to the commencement of any buildings and works, a Car Parking Management Strategy is required to be prepared. This strategy is to identify management measures to be put in place to minimise the impact of the shortfall in parking spaces across the centre during the construction period.

10. Prior to the commencement of any buildings and works, a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority for endorsement. The CMP must include the following to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

a) Staging of construction of the buildings and an indication of when completed stages are intended to be occupied; b) Parking Plan showing where parking will be provided as stages of the development become occupied; c) Public and worker access and safety control mechanisms to be instituted for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles; d) Hours of construction activity (including any proposed out-of-hours work) with details of the type of work proposed to be conducted outside normal hours. e) An estimate of critical periods of construction work, such as demolition of buildings, site clearance, excavation, concrete pour and deliveries of cranes, pre-cast panels and other voluminous materials/equipment. f) A notification process for residents in the vicinity of the subject site; advising of critical processes associated with construction of the extension. g) Noise and vibration control and attenuation measures to be implemented for transport, construction and other activities relevant to the development. h) The preferred location of public and workers zones, loading zones, hoisting zones and construction zones, including the location of gantries, cranes, hoists, site sheds, workers parking areas, worker’s amenities, material storage areas, vehicle storage and large machinery accommodation areas. i) Traffic Management Plan showing: . Entry and exit points for construction vehicles . Entry and exit points for workers . Typical entry and exit timetable for workers and deliveries . Temporary and permanent vehicle crossings and . Anticipated road closures, road occupation and footpath closures and local traffic interruptions j) Measures to be implemented to protect public infrastructure k) Waste Management Strategy for waste generated from the demolition, site preparation and construction stages of the development

Page 62 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

l) Environment Protection Measures that will be implemented to control pollutants produced from the site during construction such as contaminated soil, silt, sediment, concrete washes, spills on roadways, stormwater run-off, placement of rubbish skips, dust etc m) Monitoring and inspection program for all of the above n) Identification and contact details of the responsible person for managing all of the above measures, as appropriate, for the proposed development to be carried out in accordance with Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (EPA publication 275) and EPA Noise Control Guidelines (tg302/92 – Guideline No 12 Construction and Demolition Site Noise); and o) Notification process in the event that significant contamination of the land or groundwater occurs during works, such notification being provided to Council and the EPA immediately upon detection

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. Any Major Traffic Control Items, as defined in the Victorian Road Rules, proposed to be installed must be accompanied by an appropriate Memorandum of Consent from VicRoads, prior to the use of the new roads and car parks allowed by this permit unless a devolution agreement has been entered into between VicRoads and the applicant or its representative.

14. 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.

15. The development must be managed so that the amenity of the area is not detrimentally affected through the: a) Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land, b) Appearance of any building, works or materials, c) Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil, d) Presence of vermin.

16. Any external lighting must be designed and located so as to prevent any adverse impact on adjoining land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Page 63 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

VicRoads Conditions (17 to 19)

17. Before the permitted use of the basement car park commences the following road work must be completed at no cost to and to the satisfaction of the VicRoads:

i. Construction of the Princes Highway/ Middle Access Road signalised intersection generally in accordance with functional layout prepared by GTA Consultants, drawing number: 12M1001200-12-03 Issue P4 dated 19 June 2012 (date of revision 9 November 2012).

18. Before the commencement of any road works required by VicRoads under this permit, a detailed engineering design generally in accordance with the accepted functional layout plan and a design stage road safety audit must be prepared to the satisfaction of VicRoads.

19. The preparation of the detailed engineering design and the construction and completion of all work must be undertaken in a manner consistent with current VicRoads' policy, procedures and standards and at no cost to VicRoads. In order to meet VicRoads' requirements for these tasks the applicant will be required to comply with the requirements documented as ‘Standard Requirements - Developer Funded Projects" and any other requirements considered necessary depending on the nature of the work.

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

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

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

NOTES:

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

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

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.

Page 64 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

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.

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

VicRoads notes:

Advice to the Applicant As a condition of this permit VicRoads requires design and construction activities to be undertaken in a manner consistent with current policy, procedures and standards. In order to meet VicRoads' requirements for these tasks the applicant will be required to comply with the requirements documented as "Standard Requirements - Developer Funded Projects" and any other requirements considered necessary. In general, the applicant will be required to comply with the following terms and conditions:

 The applicant takes full responsibility for the adequacy, implementation and completion of its design and construction activities  The use of prequalified consultants and contractors unless otherwise approved  Detailed designs are required to be reviewed and may require proof engineering  Certification Audits on the work are required (surveillance and inspection)  Payment of all related charges, costs and fees as they apply to the development, including a performance retention  The undertaking and incorporation of road safety audits at various stages of the project  Work will only be permitted under approved traffic management arrangements which may incorporate restrictive working times  The provision of insurances and warranties as required  Other special requirements that may be necessary due to the nature of the work

Page 65 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

1.3. PLANNING APPLICATION 0783/12 - 1341 DANDENONG ROAD - STAGE 3A - CHADSTONE SHOPPING CENTRE , MALVERN EAST – DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING CAR PARK AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BASEMENT AND MULTI LEVEL CAR PARK TO INCLUDE A NEW RETAIL TENANCY ON THE LOWER GROUND FLOOR LEVEL AND LOADING BAY TO THE NORTH-WEST OF THE MAIN SHOPPING CENTRE

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

PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for buildings and works within a Business 1 Zone and Special Building Overlay, and a use generally not in accordance with the Incorporated Plan (August 2012) at 1341 Dandenong Road, Malvern East (Chadstone Shopping Centre).

Executive Summary

Applicant: Colonial First State Global Asset Management C/- Urbis Ward: East Zone: Business 1 Overlay: Incorporated Plan Overlay (Schedule 2) Special Building Overlay Date lodged: 26/10/2012 Statutory days: (as at council 101 meeting date) Trigger for referral to More than six (6) objections Council: Number of objections: Ten objections from nine properties Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on Tuesday 18 December 2012 Officer Recommendation: Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

Chadstone Shopping Centre requested Council to prepare and exhibit Amendment C154 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme to allow for the expansion and redevelopment of the Chadstone Shopping Centre in October 2011. The Amendment sought, amongst other things, to modify the schedule the Business 1 Zone to increase the maximum combined leasable floor area for shop at Chadstone Shopping centre from 146,000 m² to 160,000 m² and delete reference to minimum of 10,000 m² of restricted retail floor space. It also sought to amend the Incorporated Plan to allow for variations to the building envelope to the north and south of the site.

The Amendment was adopted by Council on 13 August 2012 and was gazetted on 15 November 2012 following approval by the Minister of Planning. The Amendment has now been included in the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

Throughout the Amendment process, an Indicative Development Concept was provided to illustrate how the Amendment could facilitate development as part of future planning permit applications. Due to the location of development on the site, the expansion of the Shopping Centre is proposed to take place in several stages and a series of planning applications have now been lodged with Council. The stages of development currently with Council are summarised below:

Page 66 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Stages of Proposals (summarised) development Stage 2A A new bus interchange to the south of the 'fresh food' entrance to the shopping centre; a new motor repairs (K-Auto) within the south-east corner of the site; variations to the Myer car park including a new first floor car parking deck; and road works to the intersection of Eastern Access Road and Dandenong Road. Stage 2B A new multi level basement car park and road works to the intersection of Central Access Road and Dandenong Road. Stage 3A Full demolition of the existing multi level car park to the north-west of (The subject of this the main shopping centre building to be replaced by a new report) basement, a retail tenancy (Target) at lower ground and two car parking levels above. The proposal includes a new loading dock to the north of the Target tenancy. Stage 3B The main redevelopment of the northern mall which involves demolition of the existing mall and construction of four new retail and entertainment floor levels. The works also include expansion of the Coles car park to the east of the main shopping centre building. Stage 3C Includes works for two cinema “boxes” (Cinemas 8 and 11) which sit outside of the building envelope shown on the Incorporated Plan (August 2012).

Stage 4 Proposes to construct a new ten storey office building and new eleven storey residential hotel to contain 240 hotel rooms. The hotel will include an ancillary restaurant and conference centre. The development will amend the basement car park approved under Planning Permit 0547/12 to provide a total of 512 car spaces. 72 car spaces will be for the exclusive use of the hotel and 440 car spaces will be shared between the office on weekdays and the retail centre on weekends and public holidays. A reduction in the standard car parking rate for the office is also sought.

Notably, some of the above proposals (Stage 3A and Stage 3C) include works that are not generally in accordance with the Incorporated Plan (August 2012). Where works are generally in accordance with the Incorporated Plan, these applications are exempt from third party notice and review rights under the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Further discussion on notice is provided later in this report (see Advertising).

An indicative programme for the staging of development has been provided to Council which suggests that development will commence in April 2013 with works to be completed in October 2015. The indicative staging sequence proposes that the office and hotel development (Stage 4) will be completed in April 2014, prior to the completion of Stage 3B in October 2015.

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by The Buchan Group and are known as File No. 0783/12, Drawing No.s: ATP 200, ATP 201, ATP 202, ATP 203, ATP 204, ATP 205, ATP 206, ATP 207, ATP 208, ATP 209, ATP 220, ATP 221, ATP 222, ATP 223 and ATP 224, Council date stamped 26 October 2012.

Page 67 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

The submission also included the following additional documents in support of the application:

 Landscape Plans prepared by Formium known as plans LC2.01, LC2.02, LC2.03, LC2.04 all Revision B and dated October 2012;

 A Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by GTA Consultants, document reference 12M1001017 and dated 23 October 2012;

 An Acoustic Assessment from Marshall Day Acoustics Pty Ltd known as ‘Target Loading Bay Relocation – Noise Assessment’, document reference RP001 R01 201 2357 ML and dated 26 September 2012; and

 Updated Town Planning Report undertaken by Urbis received by Council on 14 November 2012.

Key features of the proposal are:

 Demolition of the existing multi level car parking deck to north-west of the main Shopping Centre building to make way for a new basement (future car park), retail tenancy at lower ground and two levels of car parking above.  The demolition of the existing car parking deck will remove 950 car spaces from the site.  620 new car spaces are proposed over the two car parking decks above the lower ground floor level. The car spaces to be provided within the basement car park will form part of the planning application for Stage 3B (Planning Permit Application No. 0784/12).  The Target tenancy will introduce an additional 7,179 square metres of shop floor area to the Centre. Due to the reconfiguration of other tenancies, the new Target will have a total floor area of 8,268 square metres.  The works will include a new enclosed Target loading dock to the north-west of the building adjacent to the internal ring road. The loading dock will include vehicle openings on the north and north-west sides to the ring road and as such vehicles will not be required to reverse out of the loading dock.  The new retail tenancy encroaches beyond the area shown for retail purposes on the Incorporated Plan for the Chadstone Shopping Centre (August 2012) and falls within an area nominated as being for non-shop uses. Therefore, the retail tenancy as part of this application is not in accordance with the Incorporated Plan (August 2012) as approved by Amendment C154 on 15 November 2012.  The works for this stage are fundamentally linked to the works as part of Stage 3B, with regard to the built form and car parking. The works as part of Stage 3B are required to integrate the new northern mall to the new upper level car parking deck. Stage 3A and Stage 3B are to be constructed consecutively.

The works as part of this application will also involve variations to the internal ring road and the current pedestrian and cyclist path to the site from Treyvaud Memorial Park to the north.

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. Page 68 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

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.

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 Application 0546/12 seeks permission 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 K-Auto (motor repairs). This application, known as Stage 2A, is currently being considered by Council and no decision has been made to date. The proposal is generally in accordance with the Chadstone Shopping Centre Incorporated Plan (August 2012).

 Planning Application 0547/12 seeks to construct a new four level basement car park and undertake road works to the Princes Highway / Middle Access Road intersection. This application is known as Stage 2B and is generally in accordance with the Incorporated Plan for the Chadstone Shopping Centre. No determination has been made on this application to date.

 Planning Application 0784/12 was lodged concurrently with the subject application (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 no determination has been made to date.

 Planning Application 0785/12 was lodged concurrently 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) which forms part of the IPO2. This application is known as Stage 3C and no determination has been made to date. Page 69 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

 Planning Application 0905/12 was lodged with Council on 12 December 2012 for the construction and use of a 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 being considered by Council.

Planning Scheme Amendments

The most recent Planning Scheme Amendment for this site is known as Amendment C154 and was gazetted on 15 November 2012. The Amendment allowed for larger developable areas along the northern and southern boundaries of the Chadstone Shopping Centre site. More specifically, the Amendment:

 modified the Schedule to the Business 1 Zone to increase the maximum combined leasable floor area for shop at Chadstone Shopping centre from 146,000 m² to 160,000 m² and deleted the reference to minimum of 10,000 m² of restricted retail floor space;  amended Schedule 2 to the Incorporated Plan Overlay including to replace the existing Chadstone Shopping Centre Incorporated Plan June 2005 with Chadstone Shopping Centre Incorporated Plan August 2012; and  amended the Schedule to Clause 81.01 to refer to the updated ‘Chadstone Shopping Centre Incorporated Plan, August 2012’.

The Amendment also varied Schedule 2 of the Incorporated Plan Overlay to include numerous requirements for road works and new design guidelines.

The redevelopment of the Chadstone Shopping Centre as anticipated by Amendment C154 is to be achieved through numerous Planning Permit Applications of which this application forms one (hereafter known as Stage 3A).

Prior to Amendment C154, another Planning Scheme Amendment known as C32 was gazetted on 21 December 2005 that notably amended the Schedule to the Business 1 Zone to increase the maximum combined leasable floor area for Shop from 106,000sqm to 146,000sqm.

The Title

The site is described as Lot 1 on Title Plan 824914 (Volume 11259, Folio 101) 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 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.

Page 70 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

 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.

The applicant has declared that whilst encumbrances affect the site, the works as proposed under this Planning Permit application will not contravene or breach the restrictions on the certificate of title. It is considered that the proposal will not breach the restrictions on the title.

Page 71 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Planning Controls

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

Zone

Clause 34.01 Business 1 Zone

Uses

Pursuant to Clause 34.01-1, a permit is not required to use the land for a shop if the combined maximum leasable floor area, as specified in the schedule, is not exceeded. Based on information presented as part of Amendment C154 the Centre currently has 129,924 m² of shop floor area. The new Target tenancy will increase shop floor area by 7179 m² bringing the total to 137,103 m². This falls below the 160,000 m² maximum specified by the Schedule to the zone and therefore no permit is required for the shop use.

The introduction of additional car parking associated with the existing Shopping Centre does not require a planning permit under the use requirements of the Business 1 Zone.

Buildings and works

Pursuant to Clause 34.01-4 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works. This includes the internal rearrangement of a building if the maximum leasable floor area specified in the schedule to this zone is exceeded. The schedule specifies a maximum combined leasable floor area of 160,000 m² for a shop within Chadstone Shopping Centre. The maximum combined leasable floor area is not being exceeded by this proposal.

Overlays

Clause 43.03 Incorporated Plan Overlay (Schedule 2)

Pursuant to Clause 43.03-1 a permit granted must:  Be generally in accordance with the incorporated plan, unless a schedule to this overlay specifies otherwise.  Include any conditions or requirements specified in a schedule to this overlay.

Schedule 2 of Clause 43.03 relates to the Chadstone Shopping Centre Incorporated Plan (August 2012) and states that a permit may be granted to use or subdivide land, construct a building or construct or carry out works that is not generally in accordance with the incorporated plan.

Additionally, Schedule 2 includes numerous requirements and conditions for permits. Consideration must be given to the following subsections of Schedule 2 as part of this application:

3.5 Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) Framework

A permit which results in an increase in any floor space by more than 5,000 square metres must give effect to the recommendations contained in an ESD Framework for the approved development prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority prior to the grant of the permit. The ESD Framework must set out principles and initiatives to achieve environmental a high level of environmental sustainability in energy/carbon including energy efficiency, waste, sustainable transport, products and materials and water.

Page 72 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

3.6 Car Parking

Unless otherwise permitted by the responsible authority, car parking must be provided at the minimum rates set out in the table below:

Shop (excluding 6.5 spaces per 100 square metres Restricted Retail of leasable floor area RestrictedPremises) Retail Premises 2.7 spaces per 100 square metres of leasable floor area Food and Drink Premises 6.5 spaces per 100 square metres of leasable floor area

3.7 Design Guidelines

3.7.1 Northern Precinct  Moderate the perceived bulk, mass and visual impact of buildings and works on the adjoining residential area and achieve a sensitive interface between built form in the Chadstone Activity Area and the adjoining residential area.  Achieve a high degree of articulation and division of building form at the upper level as presenting to the north, east and west.  Moderate new development by landscaping or screening to soften the impact and presence of built form.  Avoid sheer walls on a single vertical plane where practicable.

3.7.3 Public Realm  Improve the visual attractiveness and user experience of the Chadstone Activity Area for visitors, both indoors and outdoors.  Improve the legibility and orientation for visitors to enable them to easily navigate the Chadstone Activity Area.  The public realm should be safe.  The pedestrian journey from car parking areas, taxi ranks and bus stops to buildings in the Chadstone Activity Area should be safe and convenient.  Create a vibrant and attractive external public environment that integrates the centralised bus interchange, the main southern pedestrian entry to the centre and activities in the new Princes Highway Precinct.  The external public realm should be of a high quality by including measures such as increasing the extent of active frontages to buildings and opportunities for outdoor eating and drinking.  Provide a strong connection between the outdoor and indoor environments by design measures to enable people indoors to look out of the Chadstone Activity Area and people outside to look in.

Discussion on the design guidelines above will be provided later in this report.

Furthermore, the Incorporated Plan Overlay exempts a planning permit application from third party notice and review rights if the application is generally in accordance with the approved Incorporated Plan. Importantly, this proposal includes a new retail tenancy outside of the envelope shown on the Incorporated Plan, August 2012. Therefore, this application is not considered to be in accordance with the Incorporated Plan and is not exempt from third party notice and review rights.

Clause 44.05 Special Building Overlay

Page 73 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

A Special Building Overlay falls over the land affected by this proposal and therefore the provisions of Clause 44.05 are applicable to this application. Pursuant to Clause 44.05-5 the application was referred to the relevant floodplain management authority under Section 55 of the Act, being Stonnington. Comments received are detailed below within the Referrals section of this report.

Particular Provisions

Clause 52.06 Car Parking

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-2 prior to a new use commencing or a new building being occupied, the car 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 may be granted to reduce (including reduce to zero) the requirement to provide the number of car parking spaces required under this clause.

While 52.06-5 specifies a rate of 4 spaces to each 100 m² of leasable floor area for a shop use, Schedule 2 to the Incorporated Plan Overlay includes a car parking rate of 6.5 spaces to each 100 m² of shop floor area. Any permit that issues must meet the requirements specified in the Schedule to the Overlay.

The new Target tenancy will introduce 7179 m² of shop floor area which requires 466 car spaces. This development proposal will remove 950 car spaces to make way for 620 new car spaces over two open car parking decks which sit above the new Target tenancy. Therefore, this application will remove 330 car spaces from the overall shopping centre. It is however proposed that these car spaces will be partially compensated for at Stage 3B (Planning Application 0784/12) when 1288 car spaces are proposed within the basement below Target and within the existing Coles car park.

NB: While a portion of the basement falls within Stage 3A, parking within this space forms part of Stage 3B (Planning application 0784/12). The entire basement when constructed will provide 620 car spaces. These spaces have not been considered in the car parking calculations for this application.

Clause 52.07 Loading and unloading of goods

The purpose of this provision is, “to set aside land for loading and unloading commercial vehicles to prevent loss of amenity and adverse effect on traffic flow and road safety”.

No building or works may be constructed for the manufacture, servicing, storage or sale of goods or materials unless:  Space is provided on the land for loading and uploading for vehicles as specified in the table to Clause 52.07.  The driveway to the loading bay is at least 3.6 metres wide.  The road that provides access to the loading bay is at least 3.6 metres wide.

A permit may be granted to reduce or waive these requirements. A loading dock has been proposed for the new shop tenancy and will be discussed later in this report.

Clause 52.34 Bicycle Facilities

Clause 52.34 seeks to encourage cycling as a mode of transport and provide secure, accessible and convenient bicycle parking spaces and facilities. The requirements of this Clause stipulate the following rates of bicycle facilities for Shop:

Page 74 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Based on the above the proposal is required to provide 11 employee bicycle spaces and 14 shopper bicycle parking facilities given the overall shop floor area of the Shopping Centre exceeds 1000 m². The proposal includes 14 bicycle spaces at the new north-east entrance to the Centre which does not satisfy the requirement.

Clause 52.36 Integrated Public Transport Planning

Pursuant to 52.36-1 an application to construct a building or to construct or carry out works for any alteration or development of public transport infrastructure or stops and a new retail premises of 4000 or more square metres of leasable floor area, must be referred in accordance with Section 55 of the Act to the Director of Public Transport.

The application was required to be referred to Public Transport Victoria and the comments received are detailed within the “Referrals” section of this report.

General Provisions

Clause 65 - Decision Guidelines

The Decision Guidelines of Clause 65 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme are relevant to this application and require consideration to be given to a variety of matters including the Planning Scheme policies, the purpose of the zone, orderly planning and the impact on amenity.

Relevant Planning Policies:

In the State Planning Policy Framework:

 Clause 11 - Settlement - including Activity Centres  Clause 15 - Environment and Heritage  Clause 17.01 - Commercial  Clause 18 – Transport  Clause 19 - Infrastructure

In the Municipal Strategic Statement:

 Clause 21.01 Vision for the City of Stonnington  Clause 21.02-2 Urban Environment and Character  Clause 21.04 Economic Development  Clause 21.05-1 Transport

In the Local Planning Policy Framework:

 Clause 22.02 - Urban Design Policy  Clause 22.03 – Advertising Policy  Clause 22.09 - Retail Centres Policy  Clause 22.11 - Chadstone Commercial Centre Policy  Clause 22.12 - Traffic Policy Page 75 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

 Clause 22.13 - Parking Policy  Clause 22.15 - Infrastructure Policy

Other considerations:

Amendment C161 which proposes to revise the Local Planning Policy Framework which includes Clause 21 - Municipal Strategic Statement and Clause 22 - Local Planning Policies is currently on exhibition. The new Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) updates Council's vision and policies for land use and development in the City. It consolidates policy from the existing Planning Scheme with new policy adopted as part of the 2010 Review and from other Council work. Several Local Policies are deleted and their policy positions included in the MSS.

Draft Clause 22.18 Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) Policy This is a seriously entertained document and applies to all new buildings. The objectives of this policy are:  To promote the use of water sensitive urban design, including stormwater re-use.  To mitigate the detrimental effect of development on downstream waterways, by the application of best practice stormwater management through water sensitive urban design for new development.  To minimise peak stormwater flows and stormwater pollutants to improve the health of water bodies, including creeks, rivers and bays.  To reintegrate urban water into the landscape

Advertising

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

As mentioned previously, the Incorporated Plan Overlay exempts a planning permit application from third party notice and review rights if the application is generally in accordance with the approved Incorporated Plan. Importantly, this proposal includes a new retail tenancy outside of the envelope for retail uses as shown. Therefore, the use is the only component of this proposal which is not in accordance with the Incorporated Plan (August 2012).

The site is located in East Ward and objections from nine (9) different properties have been received. The concerns raised can be summarized as:

 Works fall outside of the building envelope  Impacts of loading dock on residents  Noise  Damage to property during construction  Privacy  Safety and security  Flooding  Loss of existing landscaping  Overlooking  Visual bulk  Light pollution  Sleep disturbances  Not a sustainable design

Page 76 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

A Consultative Meeting was held on Tuesday 18 December 2012. The meeting was attended by all East Ward Councillors, representatives of the applicant, objectors and Council planning officers. The meeting did not result in any changes to the plans. Clarification of the intended hours of the loading dock was sought from the applicant following this meeting and it was confirmed that “there are no set hours for the existing Target loading bay however, it typically would not operate outside the hours of 7am to 10pm. As such, it is anticipated that the proposed loading bay would also not operate outside these hours (this is to be confirmed with Target)”.

Referrals

Director of Public Transport (Public Transport Victoria)

Public Transport Victoria responded to Council on 21 December 2012 and confirmed that they have no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions relating to the relocation of the existing bus bays and adherence to any approved Integrated Transport and Access Plan.

Yarra Valley Water

Yarra Valley Water consents to the granting of a town planning permit subject to conditions relating to sewerage and water supply.

Council’s Transport and Parking Unit

Council’s Transport and Parking Unit in conjunction with O’Brien Traffic (Council’s external traffic consultant) have reviewed the development plans and have noted that there are concerns with several areas of the design.

Principally, the concerns relate to the layout of the upper car parking layout; ramp grades; swept path assessments and adjustments to constrained parking spaces on the ground floor level. Other details relating to the number of car spaces provided, column locations, setbacks from pedestrian stairs and dimensions on the plans to show compliance with Australian Standards, were also raised by Council.

Notably, O’Brien Traffic also raised lack of share paths and parking shortfalls as concerns in their advice to Council.

The concerns were provided to the applicant who responded on 21 December 2012 with revised swept path assessments undertaken by GTA. In addition to the revised swept paths, GTA also noted that a broad level car parking sequence based on staging of construction is being developed and a revised car parking schedule to reflect layout changes including share paths, is expected to be provided to Council in early 2013. There were several items that were omitted and these details consist of:

 Detailed ramp grade assessment of the ramp from the perimeter roadway to the ground and mezzanine level parking decks.  A response to address the sight line concerns that have been raised including the sight lines to the south-west round-about (OBT recommend a cap deck).  Details of the share path arrangement through the ground floor level Target car park for assessment.  Location and expected loss of car parking to allow for trolley bays, bike cages, plant rooms and general servicing requirements.  A revised car parking schedule.

Page 77 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

The plans received by Council on 21 December 2012 were re-referred to Council’s Transport and Parking Unit and O’Brien Traffic. It was noted that the revised mezzanine level layout and ramp entry are not in accordance with the O’Brien Traffic plans. The arrangement as shown will not be accepted as it raises safety concerns. The plans must be amended to reflect the O’Brien Traffic arrangements shown as either Figure 4 or Figure 5 in the advice to Council dated 27 November 2012.

The remaining information was provided to Council on 21 January 2013. The updated plans were referred to Council’s Transport and Parking Unit who made the following observations:

 The mezzanine level car parking floor again has not been updated as per O’Brien Traffic recommendations shown as Figure 4 or Figure 5 dated 27 November 2012.  The Target ramp level T-junction sightlines have not been evaluated.  Council believes that the sight distances at the western roundabout continue to be unsatisfactory.  The proposed share path which runs through the car park (OBT Reference: Share Path B2) is not satisfactory as limited detail has been provided. Notably, an undefined structure falls along this path which may hinder access. Future connections are noted as being “subject to further investigation” and have not been defined or resolved at this time.  The ramp grades are acceptable.

The Transport and Parking Unit have stated that they cannot support this application as there remain significant concerns with material submitted to date by the applicant and their consultants.

Given the works will alter the internal roadway via new roundabouts and realignment of the road along the north of the development (to make way for the new share path), it has been confirmed by the Transport and Parking Unit that a condition be required that a road safety audit is to be undertaken prior to approval of the works. It was also confirmed that traffic management devices are to be installed in parking aisles that are greater than 1OOm long in accordance with the Australian Standard to reduce the potential for pedestrian, cyclist and vehicle conflict.

It is noted that no assessment of the basement parking level has been undertaken as it forms part of Stage 3B (0784/12).

Parks Unit

Council’s Arborist has reviewed the development plans dated 26 October 2012 and has noted that the landscaping response is acceptable for this site. The works will result in the loss of four (4) Populus simonii trees and some hedging which will alter the appearance of the northern fence line. However, the proposed planting will provide a satisfactory screen when mature. It is has been suggested that the development of the site poses an ideal opportunity to incorporate landscaping to the roof top of the new car parking deck. It is also noted that the introduction of the new pedestrian path to the north will result in the loss of two (2) Populus yunanensis trees which is not considered to be problematic due to the replacement planting that is proposed.

Infrastructure Department

Council’s Infrastructure Unit has reviewed the proposal and has advised that the works can be accepted subject to conditions relating to the legal point of discharge and protection from flooding. It was also noted that there may be private drains at the rear of the properties fronting Chapman Street and these may be affected. Conditions regarding the above will be required as part of any approval. Note was also made on the inclusion of rain water tanks for the site and that recycling of water should be implemented.

Page 78 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd - Urban Design advice

Urban design comments were also sought from Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd who provided expert evidence on behalf of Council as part of the Amendment C154 process. Hansen’s review of the application plans (dated 26 October 2012) noted that the inclusion of a share path to the north is a positive outcome although it is disappointing that the path has not been continued to the east to follow the ring road and to improve way-finding.

With regard to the new structure it was noted that the paneling of the walls with perforated screens is acceptable although more effort should be made to screen the bare edges of the deck with additional climbing screens and in ground planting.

It was also noted that while the inclusion of a timber pergola at the point where the shared path makes a connection with the mall is a positive gesture, the new entrance to the north provides poor presentation as the entrance is barely discernible in the provided elevation drawings. A more meaningful entrance which promotes a sense of arrival should be pursued.

Concern was also raised with pedestrian access to the Centre within the ground floor level car park. It is acknowledged that this situation is rectified at Stage 3B.

Council’s Urban Designer

Council’s Urban Designer reviewed the proposed development and advised that they had no concerns subject to shading being incorporated on the exposed upper deck of the car-park. It was suggested that this be achieved with vegetation (canopy-trees) or with fabric sails.

Burton Acoustic Group

The Burton Acoustic Group (on behalf of Council) reviewed the Marshall Day Acoustic Report provided by the applicant and confirmed that the monitoring locations for Stage 3A are acceptable for post development noise testing. It was also confirmed that the assessment criteria for potential noise emissions is acceptable.

An acoustic report will be required by way of a condition of the Planning Permit which will be required to identify noise attenuation measures to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

KEY ISSUES

Strategic context

Chadstone Shopping Centre is defined as a Principal Activity Centre (PAC) by state and local policies and is renowned as Australia’s largest stand alone shopping centre. The Centre contains approximately 130,000 square metres of shop floor area and approximately 500 tenancies. As discussed in the earlier sections of this report, the proposed works as part of this application were considered in a conceptual format during the Amendment C154 process. The Indicative Development Concept showed a new northern mall for the shopping centre, new hotel and office towers along the southern portion of the site and a new centralised bus interchange. The approval of Amendment C154 facilitates the expansion and redevelopment of the Centre, reinforcing the expectations of growth and investment within this commercial precinct.

Council’s strategic visions as defined in the Municipal Strategic Statement of Clause 21 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme seeks (inter alia) to encourage a mix of uses within principal activity centres which strengthen commercial viability and provide increased opportunities for employment.

Page 79 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

In this regard, Chadstone Shopping Centre plays a vital role in providing opportunities for employment within the municipality.

Supported by both state and local strategic objectives as evidenced by the recent approval of Planning Scheme Amendment C154, the proposed expansion of the commercial centre is considered to be acceptable to the future aspirations of Chadstone Shopping Centre as a Principal Activity Centre (PAC). While the proposal is supported in principle, an assessment of the detailed design and amenity impacts is undertaken below.

Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) Framework

As mentioned previously in this report, Section 3.5 of Schedule 2 to the Incorporated Plan Overlay requires that an Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) Framework be approved prior to the issue of a permit for a development which increases the floor area by more than 5,000 square metres.

Following consultation with Council’s Planning Department and Council’s Environmental Sustainable Design Officer, an Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) Framework was approved by Council on 25 January 2013. This document was prepared by Colonial First State Global Asset Management (CFSGAM) dated January 2013, and Council date stamped 22 January 2013. The Framework outlines the overarching sustainability objectives which are sought by future development works for this site. The ESD Framework sets out a strategic vision for the Centre which is to be reflected in each development application via a Sustainability Management Plan (SMP). These plans outline the measures to be incorporated into the development to address things such as energy/carbon, waste, sustainable transport, products and materials and water.

A detailed Sustainability Management Plan (SMP) has not been provided as part of this application and is to be required by way of a condition of approval.

Built Form

The application has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the Stonnington Planning Scheme including Clause 15.01-2 (Urban Design Principles) and the design guidelines at Section 3.7 of Schedule 2 to the Incorporated Plan Overlay. Urban design and built form considerations are discussed below.

Section 3.7.1 (Northern Precinct) at Schedule 2 to the Incorporated Plan Overlay includes the following design guidelines for new development located in the area denoted as the “Northern Precinct” (shown at Figure 1 at Section 3.7):

 Moderate the perceived bulk, mass and visual impact of buildings and works on the adjoining residential area and achieve a sensitive interface between built form in the Chadstone Activity Area and the adjoining residential area.  Achieve a high degree of articulation and division of building form at the upper level as presenting to the north, east and west.  Moderate new development by landscaping or screening to soften the impact and presence of built form.  Avoid sheer walls on a single vertical plane where practicable.

The massing, height and form of the building as proposed is similar to that depicted in the Indicative Development Concept as part of the Amendment C154 process. While the outcome of the development is similar in terms of the built form, it is noted that substantial demolition works are now proposed which were not previously anticipated by the Amendment.

Page 80 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

It was understood as part of Amendment process that an additional floor level was to be constructed above the existing car park. The application now proposes full demolition of the existing car park to make way for a new basement, lower ground retail tenancy and two car parking floor levels above. It is considered that while the demolition works will be significant, the development once constructed will not be so out of character with the commercial centre to be incongruous. The proposed building will reflect the prevailing built form of the Shopping Centre, while the landscaping treatments will soften the building when viewed from the north and north- west.

As the entire structure is to be reconstructed, increased setbacks from the north and north-west title boundaries have been incorporated. The setbacks of between 17 metres and 19 metres, allow for increased landscaping opportunities for a green buffer along the southern side of the ring road to enhance the public realm and to soften the built form in accordance with the design guidelines at Section 3.7.1 of Schedule 2 to the Incorporated Plan Overlay. The plans show increased in-ground planting along the north and north-west sides of the building and perforated landscape screens to be affixed to these facades. The mesh screens allow for vegetation above ground floor level which will effectively provide the appearance of green walls. Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd raised concern with the sparse distribution of the mesh landscaping screens in their advice to Council. It is considered that further improvements can be made to the building through the increased use of these permeable landscaped screens. Furthermore, it is considered that the ‘green screens’ not only reduce impacts of visual bulk by softening the appearance of the structure, but they also provide some assistance in obscuring views from the car parking decks and may absorb noise and light pollution. Providing additional landscape screens are considered to be highly beneficial to the wider area given the interface to a residential zone and as such will be required by way of condition.

A new entry is proposed to the north-east of the new development which links directly to the new share path from the north. Presently, pedestrians accessing the site from the north utilise a zebra crossing across the internal ring road and into the lower level car park. The new arrangement will reduce pedestrian and vehicle conflict by directing foot traffic to a new entry, without entering the car park. While this layout is considered to be highly desirable, the plans show that the entry is barely evident on the plans. Advice from Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd noted that improvements are required to the northern ground floor entry to strengthen its integration with the share path network and to improve wayfinding. An accentuated entry also better responds to the design guidelines at Schedule 2 of the Incorporated Plan Overlay. In this regard, a condition will require that the ground floor northern entrance be emphasised through a varied use of materials and finishes. This is considered to not only result in an improved urban design outcome but it will also promote improved safety.

While a new entry is proposed to the north it is considered appropriate that glazing be avoided at the lower levels of the building. The lack of glazing at street level reduces the potential for activation and surveillance, however given the residential abuttal to the north, this is acceptable. This is a view shared by Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd.

Consideration of the shop use that is not generally in accordance with the Incorporated Plan

The building as proposed with regard to heights and setbacks is in accordance with the allowable heights and setbacks stipulated by the Incorporated Plan August 2012. However, the shop use to allow for the new Target store is not in accordance with the Incorporated Plan (August 2012) as it extends beyond the area shown for shop uses on the site. Importantly, the provisions of Clause 43.03 allow for a permit to be granted for a use that is not generally in accordance with the Incorporated Plan. Therefore, consideration for the shop use relates primarily to amenity impacts to the north. The new tenancy has been proposed at lower ground floor level and will sit partially below the internal ring road.

Page 81 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

There is no glazing proposed on this floor level and therefore it is not expected to generate excessive noise or light emissions to the surrounding residences. No public access to the shop will be provided from the north as access is to be provided internally, from the proposed northern mall.

The potential for noise impacts is increased by the location of the loading dock to the north of the site which is an ancillary requirement of the shop use. It is considered that through stringent conditions, amenity impacts on the surrounding residents can be minimised. A detailed assessment of potential off-site amenity impacts is provided below.

Amenity Impacts

Overshadowing

The new development will not increase shadows to the surrounding residential properties due to the development being located to the east and south of the residences along Midlothian and Chapman Streets. While shadowing may increase in a westerly direction, the development is setback approximately 17 metres from the rear of the properties fronting Chapman Street. Therefore, overshadowing impacts will not be unreasonable on areas of private open space to the north-west.

Overlooking

Overlooking from the new northern upper floor car parking deck has been raised as a concern by objectors and has been said to impact on safety and security for the dwellings to the north. The car park deck is to be setback between 17 metres and 19 metres from the north and north-west boundaries and will be raised approximately 9 metres above the internal ring road. While the existing car park allows for some overlooking to the north, the new development is considered to increase the potential for overlooking due to the increase in height of the upper level deck. A 1.1 metre high balustrade is proposed along the edge of the car park on the north and north-west edges. This is not considered to be adequate to screen views of the private open spaces to the north and north-west. While ResCode recommends that views within 9 metres be screened against overlooking, this is a standard applied to residential areas and anticipates overlooking between individual dwellings. In this case the new upper floor level provides the potential for any member of the public to view a private residence from a commercial car park. The potential for unreasonable overlooking is far more apparent in this instance. In an effort to reduce the impacts of perceived overlooking, a condition will require that screening devices be located along the north and north- west edge of the upper floor car park to limit overlooking.

It is acknowledged that there are multiple techniques available to obscure views and as such it is not considered conducive to the development to require a screen of 1.7 metres in height. Rather the condition will allow the designer flexibility in achieving an appropriate response to Council’s satisfaction. The objective of reducing visibility to the private open spaces on the properties to the north and north-west must be achieved.

Light spill

External lighting is proposed within the car parking levels, including new light poles at the upper car parking deck. The light poles are not dissimilar to existing lighting on surrounding car parks within the Centre, albeit no details have been provided on the plans. While lighting is essential to ensure pedestrian and vehicle safety, the proposed lighting is within close proximity of residences and habitable rooms. Therefore, any lighting from the Centre should avoid unreasonable amenity impacts on the surrounding residential properties.

Page 82 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

As residences are located between 17 and 19 metres form the open deck car park, it is reasonable that a Lighting Management Plan be submitted by way of a condition which outlines how lighting will be managed and addressed to reduce impacts on the surrounding residents in accordance with Australian Standards.

In addition to the Lighting Management Plan other design modifications will be required by way of condition, including increased green screening to the north and north-west walls of the development which may also assist in reducing the impacts of light pollution.

Noise

The Marshall Day Acoustic Report provided by the applicant has been reviewed by Council’s Acoustic Consultant, Burton Acoustic Group (BAC). The report details potential noise impacts to the surrounding residences from the new loading dock.

Pre-development and post-development noise monitoring locations have been highlighted as follows:

 10 Chapman Street  12 Chapman Street  14 Chapman Street  20 Chapman Street  22 Chapman Street  2 Midlothian Street  4 Midlothian Street

The above locations have been confirmed as being suitable by Burton Acoustic Group.

Noise monitoring will be required as part of a condition of approval. Standard requirements with regard to acoustic testing will be required by way of a condition in accordance with State noise regulations set by the Environment Protection Authority so that noise levels must be in accordance with SEPP-N1 once the development has been completed.

Other considerations with regard to noise are addressed below:

Loading Dock

Given that a bedroom window is located approximately 20 metres from the new loading dock (at No. 20 Chapman Street), it is considered necessary to further limit noise impacts through management and control of the operation of the loading dock. Conditions of approval for any permit that issues will require that the loading dock must only operate in accordance with Council’s Local Laws. Council’s Local Law (Part 7 – Protection of the amenity of the municipal district, Noise 702 - Clause 5) states:

A person must not deliver or pick up goods to or from land used for commercial purposes if noise from that activity is audible in a habitable room of any residential dwelling between:

(a) 10.00pm and 7.00am (Monday to Saturday) (b) 10.00pm and 9.00am (Sunday or a public holiday)

In addition to limiting the operation of the loading dock to reasonable daytime hours, a condition of approval will require the submission of a Loading Dock Management Plan which details management of loading and unloading of goods, driver management, loading dock signage and information sessions for users of the loading dock. Page 83 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

This Plan is to be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must address how adverse amenity impacts are to be mitigated through the management of the loading dock. This has been confirmed as a positive notion by Marshall Day who makes the following note in their report:

“...consultation between the council and the planners acting for the developer has included discussions on the noise management of the loading dock. These discussions included topics such as driver management, loading dock signage and information sessions for users of the loading dock. These measures have not been taken into account in the following noise predictions but may reduce noise to nearby residences if successfully implemented”.

Importantly, management of the loading dock is to include details of where trucks will queue, including layover bays, to avoid vehicles idling along the internal ring road and adjacent to residences.

Car Park

Objectors have raised concern with the extent of noise that is audible from the existing car parking decks. Noise sources are said to be associated with both vehicles and patrons. While it is expected that some intermittent noise is to be generated from a car park which forms part of a major Shopping Centre, where development allows for improvements on existing conditions, it is reasonable to expect that new development seek to reduce existing impacts. In this regard it will be required by way of a condition that an acoustic report be provided to Council for approval which outlines measures to be taken to reduce the impacts of noise on the surrounding residents. Noise attenuation measures are to be outlined within this report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Pedestrian spaces and share paths

Variations to the pedestrian path and the internal ring road will facilitate improved pedestrian and cyclist access via a new share path from the north of the site from Chapman Street.

Importantly, as part of Amendment C154, the Report of the Panel (dated 17 July 2012) made note on the need for a modal shift to be addressed in a serious way via an Integrated Transport and Access Plan. The Panel found that “the share of walking and cycling needs to grow” and that “a well connected network of paths, including share paths, are integral to increasing the mode share for walking and cycling” (Report of the Panel, p. 53). The amended Schedule 2 to the Incorporated Plan Overlay includes specific requirements for an Integrated Transport and Access Plan (ITAP) where an application proposes an increase in floor space by more than 10,000 square metres. While this Stage of development does not trigger the need for an Integrated Transport and Access Plan (ITAP), future works as part of Stage 3B (Planning Permit 0784/12) will require that the recommendations of an approved ITAP be incorporated.

Initial comments from Council’s Transport Unit raised concern with the lack of provision made for share paths as envisioned by the Integrated Transport and Access Plan (ITAP) along the northern perimeter of the Centre.

While the plans dated 26 October 2012 show the inclusion of an improved share path link from the north via Chapman Street, Council’s recommended share path “B1” (refer to Appendix 1: O’Brien Share path recommendations) has not been included. Following lengthy discussions with the applicant, O’Brien Traffic varied their initial advice to replace share path B1 with a share path that extends through the new ground floor car park to link with the share path to the north. Details of this new path were circulated to the relevant parties and a revised Integrated Transport and Access Plan (ITAP) was submitted to Council on 21 December 2012 for review.

Page 84 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

It included reference to a share path running along the northern side of the main shopping centre building and through the new ground floor car park. Detailed design of this path has not been provided to Council to date, although a basic plan (GTA Drawing No.: 12M1001005-93P2, dated 14 January 2013) was submitted to Council on 17 January 2013 which showed an approximate location of the share path. As confirmed by Council’s Transport and Parking Unit there are concerns with this path and the level of detail that has been provided to date. As this path will be included in the approved Integrated Transport and Access Plan (ITAP), the architectural plans will be required to show the design of this path via a condition.

Additionally, the layout of the ground floor level of the car park will require further amendments to facilitate the share path referenced above. The addition of the share path is likely to result in the loss of an estimated 16 car parking spaces. However, it is considered that a share path which provides a link from the north of the Centre to the west is a highly desirable outcome and therefore a loss of car parking spaces to allow for the share path is accepted.

The applicant has noted that an additional loss of car parking is expected at the detailed design phase to allow for trolley bays, bicycle cages and plant rooms, of around 50 car spaces for the overall development. The indicative location of these ancillary services has not been provided to Council. The loss of parking for trolley bays and the like is not acceptable and these services must be factored in to the design with minimal loss of car parking. This will be addressed by way of a condition.

It is noted that the required number of bicycle parking facilities for this development is 25 and the application proposes 14 at the new northern entrance. It is anticipated that additional bicycle parking facilities will be provided within the basement as part of Stage 3B. Notwithstanding, it is considered necessary for this application to provide adequate bicycle parking provision in accordance with the Stonnington Planning Scheme and therefore additional bicycle parking will be required by way of condition.

Car Parking and Traffic

Car parking rates set out at Section 3.6 of Schedule 2 to the Incorporated Plan Overlay require that 6.5 car spaces be provided to each 100 square metres of Shop floor area. The new Target tenancy will increase the shop floor area by 7,179 square metres which triggers a requirement for 466 car spaces. This stage of development will remove 950 car spaces and provide 620 new car spaces. Therefore, technically the development not only removes 330 car spaces it also fails to provide the additional 466 car spaces required by Schedule 2 of the Incorporated Plan Overlay. This application alone results in a cumulative shortfall of 909 car spaces for the overall site (including the deficit as a result of Stage 2B).

For clarity, an overview of the car parking variances for each stage of development is listed below:

 Stage 2A will result in a surplus of 97 car spaces.  Stage 2B will result in a deficit of 210 car spaces.  At the conclusion of Stage 2A and 2B there will be a deficit of 113 car spaces.

As part of Stage 3A a deficit of 796 car spaces will result. This is due to removing existing car spaces and increasing the Shop floor area by 7,197 square metres. Therefore, at the conclusion of Stage 2A, 2B and 3A the cumulative shortfall of car spaces will be 909.

Based on the plans as part of Stage 3A, a combined total of 620 car parking spaces are proposed on the ground and mezzanine (upper) levels. These car spaces are to be accessed from the existing internal ring road and via a new ramp to the south-west of the car park.

Page 85 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

A ramp down to the basement has also been shown to the north-east, however this provides access to the basement and forms part of Stage 3B (Planning Application 0784/12).

The proposal for Stage 3B (Planning Permit Application 0784/12) requires that 1112 car spaces be provided. The works will result in the provision of 1288 car spaces on the site. This application is currently being considered by Council and no decision has been made to date.

Based on the figures above, the car parking provision for this stage of development does not satisfy car parking rates for the Centre. This development relies on additional car spaces being provided as part of Stage 3B. It is noted that the provision of 1288 car spaces at Stage 3B will not fully satisfy the car parking rates as specified by Schedule 2 to the Incorporated Plan Overlay and as such additional car parking for the Centre has been proposed at Stage 4. Car parking shortfalls will be addressed in greater detail throughout the assessment of Stage 3B (Planning application 0784/12).

The applicant has stated that Stage 3A is required to facilitate the movement of Target from their existing location within the Centre (within the area affected by Stage 3B). It has been suggested that when the development allowed by Stage 3A is occupied, the total floor area associated with Stage 3B will be removed (approximately 38,500 square metres of floor area). While the above scenario has been put forward by the applicant, this planning permit application (Stage 3A) allows for additional floor area in its own right and is contingent upon the provision of additional parking provided in Stage 3B.

Therefore, a condition of approval will require that the floor area associated with the new Target tenancy may not be occupied until the closure of the equivalent floor area within Stage 3B. This condition seeks to ensure that should a permit not issue for Stage 3B, the new retail tenancy cannot operate concurrently with the existing northern mall. A condition will also require that should a Planning Permit not proceed for Stage 3B, the application plans are to be amended to define the use of all floor areas and the required number of car spaces are to be provided in accordance with Schedule 2 of the Incorporated Plan Overlay.

Internal road works

This application includes internal road works to facilitate improved access to the new development. The works can be broadly summarised as the realignment of the internal road to facilitate the share path to the north, a new roundabout to the west of the development and a new roundabout to the east. The roundabout to the west of the new car park provides access to a ramp to the mezzanine (upper) car parking deck. The report by GTA Consultants (on behalf of the applicant) asserts that access in this location to the new car parks will operate safely with manageable delays. O’Brien Traffic (on behalf of Council) confirmed that the roundabout layout and traffic impacts are supported.

It is noted that the loading dock for the new Target tenancy is likely to sit lower than the existing internal ring road. Therefore a condition of the permit will require more detailed plans of the road realignment. Sections will also be required which detail any gradient changes to facilitate access to the loading dock.

The roundabout to the east provides access to the basement level car park and forms a point of access for the Stage 3B application. This access will be considered in greater detail as part of the car parking and traffic assessment at Stage 3B (Planning application 0784/12).

Page 86 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Loading and unloading

A new loading dock for the exclusive use of the new Target tenancy is proposed at the northern- most point of the building envelope, adjacent to the dwellings fronting Chapman and Midlothian Streets. The new arrangement includes a partially enclosed loading area that will be open to the north and west, allowing vehicle ingress and egress from the internal ring road. The dock has been designed to cater for up to two 12.5 metre heavy rigid vehicles at any one time or a 19 metre semi trailer and a 12.5 metre heavy rigid truck. This allowance exceeds the requirements of the Planning Scheme and provides an improved outcome to that seen at the existing Target loading dock. Council’s Transport Unit has assessed the proposed loading dock and has confirmed that the loading bays can function safely and effectively.

Notably, the loading dock is located approximately 20 metres from the residence at No. 20 Chapman Street. Notwithstanding that the loading bay will provide adequate provision for loading and unloading of goods, impacts on surrounding residential amenity has been considered and conditions to limit these impacts are required (see Noise section of this report).

Landscaping

Landscape plans provided by the applicant have been reviewed by Council’s Arborist who confirmed that the landscape response is generally acceptable. It was noted that the development provides an opportunity to integrate landscaping to the upper floor level deck. Council’s Arborist confirmed that landscaping around the perimeter of the car parking deck to be viewed from afar and some planting on the deck to provide shade, would be an ideal outcome. These comments were provided to the applicant who responded on 28 November 2012. The response noted that the benefits of providing additional planting are not sufficient “to overcome the loss of car parking spaces and potential additional strengthening of the structure required to accommodate landscaping”. It was suggested that the vertical landscape screens will provide an appropriate landscape response to soften the appearance of the structure. It is considered that an increase in the number of landscape screens to be required by conditions, will achieve an appropriate outcome without requiring additional planting on the car parking deck itself.

A standard condition will require that all plants are to be maintained in good health and replaced if they fail to thrive. This condition will seek to ensure that vegetation within the vertical screens are maintained.

The lack of shading provided at the mezzanine level car parking deck was raised as a concern by Council’s Urban Designer and it was suggested that shading be provided in the form of fabric sails or landscaping. It is not considered justified to require shading of the upper level car parking deck as this is not a common feature seen on the site at present.

Special Building Overlay

The development plans have been referred to Council’s Infrastructure Unit for review. Comments back from Infrastructure have confirmed that there is no concern with the proposed works subject to conditions relating to the legal point of discharge, protection of existing drains and design for flooding. These points can be adequately addressed via conditions.

In addition to the requirements of Council’s Infrastructure Unit, Council’s draft policy Clause 22.18 Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design), seeks to promote the use of water sensitive urban design, including stormwater re-use, for all new developments. This is a seriously entertained document and the policy has been considered as part of this application. While the proposal will not increase hard surfaces on the site, the works will create increased opportunity for soft landscaping and opportunities to incorporate water sensitive urban design initiatives.

Page 87 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Given the extent of development proposed it is considered that a water sensitive urban design response which addresses Clause 22.18 be required by way of a condition.

Disability Discrimination Act

The upper floor car park deck as part of this application does not include lift access or disabled parking bays for those with limited mobility. As noted previously, Stage 3B is intrinsically linked to Stage 3A in that future development to the northern mall will seek to create a new pedestrian entry from the upper floor car park. This will also result in changes to the layout of the proposed upper floor car parking deck, including the provision of disabled car parking spaces. A temporary stairwell is proposed to allow access to the ground floor level from the car park in the interim. As disabled parking is not provided at the upper floor level car park deck it has been recommended by O’Brien Traffic that measures be taken to notify customers that disabled parking facilities are not available on the upper floor car parking deck until such time as Stage 3B is constructed. This is to be addressed by way of a condition.

The ground floor level car park includes disabled car parking bays which are conveniently located to the entry of the Centre. However, it is noted that changes will be required to the layout of the ground floor car park to facilitate the new share path and may result in changes to the location of disabled car spaces. Nonetheless, a condition will require that the plans be updated to show parking for people with disabilities, including layout, dimensions and total number needed for the development in accordance with the relevant standard.

Given that changes may result from the inclusion of disabled spaces, a revised schedule of the car parking spaces is to be provided on the plans via notations on the ground and first floor level plans. This will be addressed via conditions.

Construction Management Plan

The preparation and implementation of Construction Management Plans is a crucial aspect in ensuring that development approval does not degrade existing residential amenity to an unreasonable degree. Construction Management Plans will be required by way of a condition for each stage of development and will require that these plans be prepared in consultation with Council’s Planning, Building and Transport Departments. As part of any permit that issues, a condition will require that a comprehensive Construction Management Plan be developed which will require details on, but not limited to, staging, parking, hours of construction, notification to residents, noise and vibration controls, traffic and waste management, monitoring and key contacts.

Furthermore, the Construction Management Plan will require that construction activity only occur between the hours of 7am and 8pm Monday to Friday, 9am to 8pm on Saturday and no works are to be carried out on Sunday or public holidays. This is generally in accordance with Council’s local laws. It is noted that these hours are not in accordance with the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) guidelines. However, legal advice has been sought who has confirmed that local laws take precedence over EPA guidelines.

In conjunction with a Construction Management Plan, a car parking management strategy is also required which outlines how car parking will be managed over the various stages of development to minimise shortfalls of parking on site during construction. This will also be required via a condition of approval.

Page 88 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Objections

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

 Damage to property during construction

The concern of damage to property during construction has been raised by objectors to this development. Property damage is not a relevant consideration of the Stonnington Planning Scheme as it is addressed under Building Regulations and Codes as part of the Building Permit process. The Building Act 1993 sets out the legislation to protect adjoining residences from damage during construction.

Notwithstanding that the planning process cannot address this matter, the requirement for a Construction Management Plan as a part of any permit that issues will assist in regulating and managing construction activity to reduce adverse amenity impacts on the surrounding residents.

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 development is generally in accordance with the Incorporated Plan (August 2012) and allows for the expansion of the Centre as envisioned by Amendment C154.  The introduction of a new shop use beyond the boundaries of the Incorporated Plan (August 2012) is considered to be acceptable as the use will not result in unreasonable amenity impacts to the surrounding area.  The new share paths proposed will improve access, safety and wayfinding to the Centre.  Although car parking is to be reduced to the centre, a condition of approval requires that car parking rates are to be provided in accordance with Schedule 2 of the Incorporated Plan Overlay, prior to the occupation of the new shop tenancy.  Subject to conditions, appropriate management of noise, light and traffic can be achieved to ensure that surrounding residential amenity is not adversely affected.

Page 89 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 0783/12 for the land located at 1341 Dandenong Road, Malvern East be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for buildings and works within a Business 1 Zone and a Special Building Overlay and a use generally not in accordance with the Incorporated Plan (August 2012) subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development, three (3) copies of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application prepared by the Buchan Group and Council date stamped 26 October 2012 but modified to show:

a) All elevations to include the overall wall heights of the development above ground level in accordance with the application plans; b) Plans to show an increase in the use of landscape screens along the north and north-west walls of the new development to assist in reducing visual bulk, absorbing noise and light pollution and screening from overlooking or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; c) Screening devices, or the like, to reduce visibility to the private open spaces on the properties to the north and north-west from the upper level mezzanine car park; d) Emphasis of the new ground floor northern entrance from the proposed new northern share path is to be achieved through a varied use of materials and finishes to accentuate the entry, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; e) The location of trolley bays, bike cages, plant rooms and general servicing requirements are to be shown on the plans, ensuring that minimal reductions in the number of car spaces result; f) Plans updated to show the bicycle parking provision to comply with the requirements of Clause 52.34; g) All bicycle parking facilities are to be shown on plans, including dimensions in accordance with Australian Standards or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; h) The mezzanine plan is to be updated so that the access ramp and car parking layout are as per Figure 4 or Figure 5 of the O’Brien Traffic advice dated 27 November 2012; i) Plans to be updated to include details of parking for people with disabilities, including layout, dimensions and total number needed for the development; j) Details of the measures to be taken to notify patrons that no disabled access is provided at the upper floor level car parking deck as part of this application. This requirement is only valid until such time as disabled parking is provided at the mezzanine floor car parking deck; k) A plan notation that details the proposed light poles on the plans, including height above finished floor level and details of how the lights will be baffled to prevent any adverse impact on adjoining land; l) Detailed plans and sections to show the proposed variations / realignment of the internal ring road to facilitate the new northern share path and gradient changes for the loading dock. The plans must ensure that landscaping areas along the site boundary are maintained with the minimum widths as per the requirements of the Incorporated Plan, August 2012; m) Dimensions and ramp grades to be shown on plans to comply with Australian Standards as per the Buchan Group Plans ATP 203 Rev 1, ATP 205 Rev 01, ATP 207 Rev 01 and ATP 209 Rev 01, Council date stamped 18 January 2013. This is to be further demonstrated by a longitudinal section of the proposed ramps;

Page 90 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013 n) Plans to clearly state the number of parking spaces proposed on each level of the proposed car park. o) Plans are to show the setback of the pedestrian stairs from the parking aisle to ensure emerging pedestrians are adequately separated from through traffic in the access aisle. p) Plans to dimension the three parallel parking bays on the mezzanine level. q) Plans to show all dimensions of parking bays abutting walls/solid structures in accordance with the Australian Standard or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. r) Plans to show the dimensions of column setbacks from front of parking bays in accordance with the Australian Standard or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. s) Plans to be updated to show all sight distances for the new western roundabout in accordance with AustRoads Guide to Road Design, Part 4B, Table 3.1, via a new cap deck or a suitable alternative to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; t) The ground level car park ramp T-junction sightlines are to be designed to provide sight distances adequate for a speed of 20km/h or design treatments are to be shown to reduce speed to correspond with the sight distances available. u) Detailed design of the share path to be shown on the plans as proposed by GTA Drawing 12M1001005-93P2 dated 14 January 2013 and Council date stamped 16 January 2013 but further modified to show: a. Share path to be shown clear of all fixed obstacles. b. Revised pedestrian entry treatment to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; c. Plans to show the connections to the wider share path network; v) All share paths and bicycle facilities as required by the Integrated Transport and Access Plan approved by and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, are to be shown on the development plans; w) Independent Road Safety Audit relating to the internal roadworks as required by Condition 10; x) Lighting Management Plan as required by Condition 17; y) Sustainability Management Plan as required by Condition 20; z) Water Sensitive Urban Design Response as required by Condition 25; aa) Loading Dock Management Plan as required by Condition 27; bb)Car Parking Management Plan as required by Condition 29; cc) Acoustic Report in accordance with Condition 31;

All of the above requirements must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. For items x), z), aa) and bb) a request may be made to the Responsible Authority for the provision of such information at a later date to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

3. The retail tenancy hereby approved is not to commence use prior to the closure of the equivalent floor area within the existing Shopping Centre, as anticipated by Stage 3B (Planning Application 0784/12) or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Page 91 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

4. In the event that Stage 3B (Planning Application 0784/12) is not approved or constructed, a revised plan is to be provided for assessment which detail uses of all floor levels and access arrangements, including the basement level hereby approved. The revised plan must show an adequate number of car parking spaces in accordance with Section 3.6 of Schedule 2 of the Incorporated Plan Overlay to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

5. Prior to the closure of any existing bus bays or prior to the occupation of any additional shop floor area above 146,000 square metres and other floor area up to 65,000 square metres, whichever occurs first, the following works must be completed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority in consultation with the Roads Corporation and Public Transport Victoria as appropriate, and at the owner’s cost:

a) The new centralised bus interchange (generally in accordance with the Chadstone Shopping Centre Bus Interchange Works Concept Design, drawing number 12M1001005-102P3 prepared by GTA Consultants but subject to the preparation of detailed construction plans).

b) Creation of an additional dedicated left turn slip lane at the Princes Highway Eastern Access (generally in accordance with Chadstone Shopping Centre Bus Interchange Works Concept Design, drawing number 12M1001005-107P1 prepared by GTA Consultants but subject to the preparation of detailed construction plans).

c) Creation of a bus queue jump lane on Princes Highway eastbound at the intersection with Chadstone Road and Poath Road (generally in accordance with Chadstone Activities Area Princes Highway/Poath Road/Chadstone Road Concept Layout Plan, drawing number 12M1001005-103P3 prepared by GTA Consultants but subject to the preparation of detailed construction plans).

6. Any transitional arrangements in accordance with Condition 37 to make provision for the temporary relocation of the bus bays along the north-west building facade, must be submitted to and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

7. The Chadstone Road entrance is to be closed between midnight and 6.00am, except on ten (10) days every year. The operation of the entrance is to allow for efficient access during extended trading over the Christmas period and for special trading events. It is a requirement that the specific dates and times when the entrance is to be left open are advised to the occupiers of properties in Chadstone Road, at least one month prior to the first of these special trading days, in each year.

8. A report for the legal point of discharge is to 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.

9. If any private drains discharging into the subject are impacted by the proposed works, these drains must be re-directed and constructed at the owner’s cost to provide an effective legal point of discharge to the satisfaction and under the supervision Council’s Infrastructure Unit.

Page 92 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

10. Concurrent with the endorsement of the plans, any works which include roadworks on internal roads which will carry circulating traffic must be accompanied by an independent road safety audit relating to the roadworks to the satisfaction of the responsible authority prior to the approval of the works.

11. Traffic management devices are to be installed in parking aisles that are greater than 1OOm long as per section 2.3 of AS 2890.1 Australian Standards or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

12. Any Major Traffic Control Items, as defined in the Victorian Road Rules, proposed to be installed must be accompanied by an appropriate Memorandum of Consent from VicRoads, prior to the use of the new roads and car parks allowed by this permit unless a devolution agreement has been entered into between VicRoads and the applicant or its representative.

13. Before the use starts, areas set-aside for parked vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be:

a) Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. b) Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans. c) Surfaced with an all-weather sealcoat or surfaced with crushed rock or gravel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. d) Drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. e) Line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times.

14. Prior to the commencement of use / occupation of the building, the car spaces hereby approved must be made available and used by customers and staff of the Shopping Centre at all times.

15. 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.

16. The use and development must be managed so that the amenity of the area is not detrimentally affected through the: a) Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the land b) Appearance of any building, works or materials c) Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil d) Presence of vermin

Lighting Management Plan

17. Concurrent with the endorsement of the plans or otherwise if agreed to in writing by the Responsible Authority, a Lighting Management Plan prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will form part of the permit. The plan must show:

a) the location of all external lighting as part of the proposed works; b) the layout and design of all external lighting to achieve the recommended maximum values of illuminance in the vertical plane for “Dark Surrounds Page 93 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Residential Areas” specified in Table 2.1 of Australian Standard 4282-1997 applied to the dwellings abutting the site located on the southern side of Chapman and Midlothian Streets; c) designed to limit impacts of external lighting within the car park to the residential areas to the south and east.

18. Within 3 months of the commencement of lighting under the Lighting Management Plan, an inspection of the lighting and compliance with the Lighting Management Plan (inspection report) is to be carried out by a suitably qualified expert and a report of the results including any recommendations for lighting management is to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any recommendations in the inspection report are to be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

19. The development must be provided with external lighting capable of illuminating access to each car parking space, bicycle parking space, store, refuse areas, pedestrian walkways, stairwells and lifts. Lighting must be located, directed, shielded and of limited intensity so that no nuisance or loss of amenity is caused to any person within and beyond the site, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Sustainability Management Plan

20. Concurrent with the endorsement of the plans, a Sustainability Management Plan prepared by a suitably qualified person must be submitted and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will form part of the permit. The plan must be in accordance with the Chadstone Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) Framework to satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

21. The sustainable management plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations may be made without the prior written approval of the Responsible Authority.

22. Prior to the occupation of the building approved under this permit, a report from the author of the Sustainability Management Plan (SMP) 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 SMP have been implemented in accordance with the approved plan.

Car Parking Management Strategy

23. Prior to the commencement of any buildings and works, a Car Parking Management Strategy is required to be prepared. This strategy is to identify management measures to be put in place to minimise the impact of the shortfall in parking spaces across the centre during the construction period.

Construction Management Plan

24. Prior to the commencement of any buildings and works, a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority for endorsement. The CMP must include the following to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

Page 94 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

a) Staging of construction of the buildings and an indication of when completed stages are intended to be occupied; b) Parking Plan showing where parking will be provided as stages of the development become occupied; c) Public and worker access and safety control mechanisms to be instituted for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles; d) Hours of construction activity are to be between 7am and 8pm Monday to Friday, 9am to 8pm on Saturday and no works are to be carried out on Sunday or public holidays. Any works outside of these hours are prohibited unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Responsible Authority. e) An estimate of critical periods of construction work, such as demolition of buildings, site clearance, excavation, concrete pour and deliveries of cranes, pre-cast panels and other voluminous materials/equipment. f) A notification process for residents in the vicinity of the subject site; advising of critical processes associated with construction of the extension. g) Noise and vibration control and attenuation measures to be implemented for transport, construction and other activities relevant to the development. h) The preferred location of public and workers zones, loading zones, hoisting zones and construction zones, including the location of gantries, cranes, hoists, site sheds, workers parking areas, worker’s amenities, material storage areas, vehicle storage and large machinery accommodation areas. i) Traffic Management Plan showing: . Entry and exit points for construction vehicles . Entry and exit points for workers . Typical entry and exit timetable for workers and deliveries . Temporary and permanent vehicle crossings and . Anticipated road closures, road occupation and footpath closures and local traffic interruptions j) Measures to be implemented to protect public infrastructure k) Waste Management Strategy for waste generated from the demolition, site preparation and construction stages of the development l) Environment Protection Measures that will be implemented to control pollutants produced from the site during construction such as contaminated soil, silt, sediment, concrete washes, spills on roadways, stormwater run-off, placement of rubbish skips, dust etc m) Monitoring and inspection program for all of the above n) Identification and contact details of the responsible person for managing all of the above measures, as appropriate, for the proposed development to be carried out in accordance with Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (EPA publication 275) and EPA Noise Control Guidelines (tg302/92 – Guideline No 12 Construction and Demolition Site Noise); and o) Notification process in the event that significant contamination of the land or groundwater occurs during works, such notification being provided to Council and the EPA immediately upon detection

Water Sensitive Urban Design

25. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans or otherwise if agreed to in writing by the Responsible Authority, the applicant must provide a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response addressing the Application Requirements of the draft Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) Policy to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Page 95 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

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

Loading Dock Management Plan

27. Concurrent with the endorsement of the plans or otherwise if agreed to in writing by the Responsible Authority, a loading dock management plan prepared by an appropriately qualified traffic engineer must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the loading dock management plan will be endorsed and form part of this permit. loading dock management plan must address, but is not necessarily limited to, all of the following:

(a) management of loading and unloading of goods; (b) details of driver management; (c) details of information sessions for users of the loading dock; (d) details of vehicle queuing arrangements; (e) details of waste collection if this is to occur in the loading dock NB hours of waste collection must accord with Council’s Local Laws; (f) loading dock hours of operation in accordance with Council’s local laws; and

All of the above must seek to reduce amenity impacts on the surrounding residences to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

The loading dock management plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations may be made without the prior written approval of the Responsible Authority.

28. The loading and unloading of goods must only be undertaken between the following hours, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority:

Monday to Saturday 7.00am and 10.00pm Sunday or a public holiday 9.00am to 10.00pm

Car Parking Management Plan

29. Concurrent with the endorsement of the plans or otherwise if agreed to in writing by the Responsible Authority, a car parking management plan prepared by an appropriately qualified traffic consultant must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the car parking management plan will be endorsed and form part of this permit. The car parking management plan must address, but is not necessarily limited to, all of the following:

(a) the number and location of the car parking spaces; (c) the number and location of ‘small car’ spaces, including provision of line marking; (d) details of disabled parking bays including locations and signage markings; (e) details of wayfinding, cleaning, security of end of trip bicycle facilities; (f) details of directional signage within the car park; (g) markings of bicycle and pedestrian routes and any ramps; and (g) car park hours of operation;

all to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Page 96 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

The car parking management plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations may be made without the prior written approval of the Responsible Authority.

30. Adequate provision must be made for the storage and collection of wastes and recyclables within the site prior to the commencement of use or occupation of the building. This area must be appropriately graded, drained and screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Noise

31. Before the plans are endorsed, an acoustic report prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic engineer must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The report must prescribe the form of any acoustic treatment to protect nearby dwellings with an interface to the site from commercial noise sources, including but not limited to the loading dock, new car park and plant and equipment, where appropriate.

The recommendations contained in the approved acoustic report must be implemented and completed and where there are recommendations of an ongoing nature, these must be implemented and maintained all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

32. Post Construction Noise monitoring must be undertaken by the owner of the centre to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority from approved external monitoring locations which must include but are not limited to the following properties:

 10 Chapman Street  12 Chapman Street  14 Chapman Street  20 Chapman Street  22 Chapman Street  2 Midlothian Street  4 Midlothian Street

Monitoring shall be in accordance with the methodology contained in “State Environment Protection Policy No.1: Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade (SEPP N-1). Monitoring shall be taken as follows:

a) Prior to the commencement of any buildings and works allowed by the permit over at least 3 days in order to benchmark existing noise conditions environments;

b) Following completion of the development, commencement of the use and once traffic flows have stabilised to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

c) At the above locations on a twice yearly basis for a period of one year and then every two years unless further monitoring is requested to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority where monitoring has revealed a requirement to implement further measures to ensure compliance.

Page 97 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

33. Noise emanating from the subject land must not exceed the permissible noise levels when determined in accordance with State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N-1, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any works required to ensure and maintain the noise levels from the (plant and equipment area and loading bay or specify other as relevant) are in compliance with this policy must be completed prior to the commencement of the use or occupation of the site and maintained thereafter, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

34. In the event that noise emission readings exceed the specified levels, the owner of the shopping centre must carry out noise mitigation works to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Yarra Valley Water Conditions (Conditions 35 through to36)

35. The owner of the subject land must enter into an agreement with Yarra Valley Water for the provision of water supply.

36. The owner of the land must enter into an agreement with Yarra Valley Water for the provision of sewerage.

Public Transport Victoria Conditions (Conditions 37 through to 38)

37. Prior to the commencement of works approved by this permit the existing 5 bus bays along the building frontage must be relocated to a temporary location if the new bus interchange is not completed. The temporary location must be agreed and constructed at the cost to the permit holder and to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria.

38. Unless otherwise approved in writing with the Responsible Authority prior to the occupation of the development approved by this permit the recommendations must be implemented as set out in the approved Integrated Transport and Access Plan required by the Chadstone Shopping Centre Incorporated Plan 2012 (Clause 3.4 to Schedule 2 Incorporated Plan Overlay Stonnington Planning Scheme).

Landscaping

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

40. Landscaping must at all times be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.

Permit Expiry

41. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit. b) The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

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

Page 98 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

NOTES:

Nothing in this permit allows the display of advertising signage which would otherwise require a permit under the requirements of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

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.

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.

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

Page 99 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

1.4. PLANNING APPLICATION 0475/12 - 47 CLAREMONT STREET, SOUTH YARRA – MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT FOR 60 DWELLINGS IN A MIXED USE ZONE, DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY, LAND SUBJECT TO INUNDATION OVERLAY AND ASSOCIATED WAIVER OF PARKING

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

PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for the use and development of the land for a multi dwelling development and reduction in car parking requirement in a Mixed Use Zone, Design and Development Overlay and Land Subject to Inundation Overlay at 47 Claremont Street, South Yarra.

Executive Summary

Applicant: David Earl Architects and Project Coordinators Ward: North Zone: Mixed Use Overlay: Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 8), Environmental Audit Overlay, Land Subject to Inundation Overlay Date lodged: 19/07/2012 Statutory days: 176 Trigger for referral to Four or more storeys and number of objections Council: Number of objections: 9 properties Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on 4 December 2012 Officer Recommendation: Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by David Earle Architects and Project Coordinators entitled “47 Claremont Street South Yarra” Drawing No’s TP01, TP02, TP03, TP04, TP05, TP06, TP07, TP08, TP09, TP10, TP11-1, TP11-2, TP11-3, TP12, TP13, TP14, TP15, TP16, TP17 and Council date stamped 19 July 2012 and 26 September 2012.

Key features of the proposal are:

 The construction of a sixteen storey building for sixty (60) dwellings comprising 36 x 1 bedroom and 24 x 2 bedroom dwellings.  Forty (40) car parking spaces are to be provided in a car stacker arrangement at the rear of the ground 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th floor with entry via Claremont Street and exit via the rear right of way.  The dwellings vary in size from 48m² to 67m² and all balconies are a minimum of 6m².  The building will be contemporary in design and is proposed to be finished in coloured concrete panels, various colours of alucobond and glass balustrading.  The building will have a maximum height of 53 metres (top of the lift overrun) designed with a 3 storey (12.5m) street wall and a tower rising to 49.7m. The building is configured as follows:

Basement Page 100 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

A small basement level is proposed to provide a service room, water tanks and a lift over run pit.

Ground Floor The ground level has a pedestrian entry to Claremont Street along the northern side of the building which provides access to the central foyer and lift / stairway area. An internal vehicle access way is provided on the southern side of the building which accesses the car lift / parking system at the rear of the building. Vehicle access is one way, with an entry point from Claremont Street and an exit point to the rear laneway. Parking spaces for 12 scooters and 17 bicycles is also provided at the rear and a bin room is also provided on the ground floor.

First Floor The first floor is designed with three (3) x 1 bedroom dwellings at the front of the floor with the car lift / parking system at the rear. The three dwellings are provided with 6sqm of private open space in 1.5m wide balconies orientated to Claremont Street.

Mezzanine Between the first and second floors is a mezzanine level which contains a pump room and 29 storage cages.

Second Floor The second floor mimics the first floor with three (3) x 1 bedroom dwellings at the front of the floor with the car lift / parking system at the rear. The three dwellings are again provided with 6sqm of private open space in 1.5m wide balconies orientated to Claremont Street.

Third Floor The third floor is designed with two (2) x 2 bedroom dwellings at the front of the floor with the car lift / parking system at the rear. At this level the building is setback from the front boundary by a minimum of 4.5m in an angled wall. A 22sqm balcony orientated to Claremont Street is provided for each of the two dwellings.

Fourth Floor The fourth floor has a similar layout to the third floor with two (2) x 2 bedroom dwellings at the front of the floor with the car lift / parking system at the rear. An angled wall is also provided at this level which matches the floor below with a minimum 4.5m setback. 6sqm balconies are provided for the two dwellings orientated towards Claremont Street.

Fifth Floor - Fourteenth Floor Floors five to fourteen have an identical layout with five (5) dwellings provided comprising two x 2 bedroom dwellings at the front and three x 1 bedroom dwellings at the rear.

An angled wall is designed at the front which is setback between 4.5 and 5.5 m from the front boundary. Balconies are provided within the front setback which provides 6sqm of private open space for the dwellings which are orientated towards Claremont Street.

The three dwellings at the rear are setback a minimum of 4 metres from the rear boundary (10m from the walls of the adjacent building that has been approved at 18 Yarra Street). 6sqm balconies are provided within the rear setback, set a minimum 2.45m from the rear boundary.

A central void is provided along the northern elevation which measures 1.18m x 7.4m. A central void is also provided along the southern elevation measuring 3.45m x 3.5m.

Page 101 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Fifteenth Floor / Roof Terrace On the top level is a 148sqm communal roof terrace which includes a small roofed area for seating and an open planted area. A service area (solar panels, water tanks and HWS storage) is also provided on this level.

Amended Plans

Following the original referral comments from Melbourne Water the applicant provided a set of amended plans on 26 September 2012 which raised the ground floor level to 4.80 AHD (from 4.50 AHD), the bin room floor to 3.49 AHD (from 2.63 AHD) and the car access floor to 3.49 AHD (from 3.37 AHD). The following plans were amended TP06, TP07, TP12, TP13, TP14, TP15, TP16 and TP17. The plans were amended by way of formal declaration before advertising and were included in the set of plans that were advertised for the application. The amended plans were sent to Melbourne Water and a revised referral response was provided by Melbourne Water in response to the amended plans. The plans dated 26 September 2012 are the plans discussed in this report.

Plans for Consideration

Following the consultation meeting the applicant submitted a set of plans for consideration to address some of the concerns raised by objectors, particularly as they relate to the adjoining See building at 45 Claremont Street.

The plans are entitled “47 Claremont Street South Yarra” Plan No’s Consultative Drawing C1 (4th Floor), Section Y-Y (4th Floor), Consultative Drawing C2 (5th to 14th Floor Plan), Consultative Drawing C3 (3rd Floor) and Consultative Drawing C4 (Terrace), Council date stamped 10 December 2012.

The plans make the following changes:

 Third Floor (Drawing C3) The front of the third floor has been redesigned to address concerns that were raised about the visual bulk created by the difference in levels between the proposed building and the See building, directly to the south. The concrete balustrade on the southern boundary has been lowered and the screen that was proposed to the terrace has been redesigned so that it is no longer on the boundary but setback further, designed on an angle.

 Fifteenth Floor / Roof Terrace (Drawing C4) On the top floor, the southern boundary wall (on the boundary with the See building) has been reduced by 400mm. The letter submitted with the plans also indicates that the vegetation planted in the planter boxes will be of similar plants to that which is planted on the roof terrace of the See building to provide a consistent landscaping treatment on both terraces.

 Fourth Floor (Drawing C1 and Section Y-Y) The rear of the fourth floor (top of the podium level) has been redesigned through cutting out a 3.9 x 2.6m section of this floor in the south western corner. The revised design would allow a 2.6m setback between the proposed building and the balcony on level 4 of the See building. The redesigned floor results in the reduction of 1 car parking space (from 40 to 39 spaces).

The plans were not formally amended but lodged as plans for consideration and therefore were not readvertised. The plans are considered in the below assessment

Site and Surrounds Page 102 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

The site is located on the west side of Claremont Street, approximately 300m north of Toorak Road. The site has the following significant characteristics:

 The site is regular in shape and has a 12.19m frontage to Claremont Street, a depth of 38.71m and a total site area of approximately 472m².  To the rear of the site is a laneway measuring 3.05m wide that extends from the east-west leg of Claremont Street and continues south to the rear of 33 Claremont Street.  There is a slight fall in the land from the south west corner to the north east corner of approximately 0.9m.  The subject site is currently occupied by a three storey office building with vehicle access provided on the ground floor with entry provided via Claremont Street.

The subject site is located within the Prahran/South Yarra and Windsor Activity Centre. It is zoned Mixed Use and affected by Design and Development Overlay Schedule 8 (Forrest Hill Precinct), Land Subject to Inundation Overlay and Environmental Audit Overlay. The site is strategically located within close proximity to Toorak and Chapel Street shopping precincts, trams along Toorak Road and Chapel Street and the South Yarra Railway Station.

To the north of the site, are three properties, two that directly abut the site, and are known as 49, 51 and 55 Claremont Street. These buildings are 2 storey office buildings. Beyond Claremont Street to the north, is Melbourne High School.

To the south, at 43 - 45 Claremont Street, a 16 storey residential building known as the See building, has recently been constructed as approved by Planning Permit 977/08. The building incorporates vehicle access from Claremont Street and exit via the rear laneway. It has a street wall of 12.2m and an overall height of 50.2m. The building features dwellings that have an outlook to the east and west. The dwellings for the tower element have their glass lines and balconies slanted to face in a north-easterly and north-westerly direction. The setbacks vary to Claremont Street from 2m - 3.1m to the balconies and 3.7m - 6.5m to the glass line. Similarly, the setbacks to the rear laneway vary from 2m - 4.7m to the balconies and 3.6m - 6.4m to the glass line. Further south are 1 and 2 storey office/warehouse buildings.

To the west of the site, beyond the laneway, are properties that have a Yarra Street frontage. At 17 Yarra Street is a two storey office building and at 18 Yarra Street is a two storey mechanic workshop. On the corner of Yarra and Claremont Street is a 3 storey apartment building.

A planning permit has recently been approved for a 26 storey (80.10m) high building at 18 Yarra Street. Planning Permit 447/11 was approved on 6 September 2012 at the direction of VCAT. The permit allows for the development of 133 dwellings and 76 car spaces.

To the east, at 50-54 Claremont Street, a 21 storey residential building measuring 63m (65.8m AHD) has recently been constructed. The building at this site also incorporates the construction of a communal open space area on the roof of the existing four storey office building at 56-58 Claremont Street. To the south of this site are a mixture of 2 and 3 storey office/warehouse buildings and a two storey apartment building at 34-36 Claremont Street. Beyond these buildings are the sports grounds of Melbourne High School.

The broader Forrest Hill Precinct is in the process of substantial change. Older buildings are 1-2 storey warehouses, while newer developments are a mix of office, shop and residential uses in buildings of up to 20 storeys in height. The western side of Claremont Street has been largely developed, while properties to the south and east are currently experiencing a degree of change.

Previous Planning Applications Page 103 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

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

 Planning Application 991/10 was refused under delegation on 15 June 2011. An application for review was made to VCAT who affirmed Council’s refusal and directed that that no permit be issued.

The permit sought the development of an 18 storey, 61m high building for 84 dwellings. 39 car spaces were to be provided in a car stacker system with two way access from the rear right of way.

The VCAT order for the application is referenced as David Earl Architects v Stonnington CC [2012] VCAT 83 (19 January 2011). In their decision VCAT members Rundell and Grey directed that a permit should not be issued for a raft of reasons as summarised in paragraph 76 of the order.

76. Our decision requires changes to the building envelope including the reduction of height, increased setbacks and changed traffic arrangements. These changes will consequentially enable the designer to review the amenity and the façade issues we have also identified.

The order provides a detailed analysis of each of these matters and specific guidance of the changes sought in regard to height, setbacks, design, access and internal amenity.

In summary, the order directs the following:

 The height of the building should be reduced in line with the DDO height of 50m,  A larger setback to Claremont Street should be provided for the tower element as provided for the See building at 45 Claremont Street,  A larger setback should be provided from the rear laneway with a minimum separation of 7 metres between the balustrades of dwellings and 9 metres between the external walls to habitable rooms considered a preferable separation,  The Claremont Street frontage should be redesigned to better reflect the excellence in architecture and urban design that is sought by Design and Development Overlay 8. In this regard the adjoining See building was described as a more successful design that dealt with the street level issues and service requirements in a more sensitive manner that has greater architectural merit.  The two way access arrangement via the laneway replaced with a one way access arrangement (entry from Claremont Street, exit to the laneway) in line with that which is provided for in other recently approved development on adjoining lots.  The internal layout of the 2 bedroom units redesigned with no windows proposed on the boundary and the southern light court realigned to match up with the light court that is provided for the See building.

The order notes that discussions were held at the hearing about the possibility of conditions to modify the building to address the particular issues identified by VCAT.

Page 104 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

However, it was determined that the extent of changes that would need to be made required a thorough review of the way the building is planned, the on and off-site amenity impacts, how it looks and how it interfaces with its neighbours which could not be done through conditions.

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 4397 Folio 239 as Lot 15 on Plan of Subdivision 4308. 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:

Zone

Clause 32.04 - Mixed Use Zone Pursuant to Clause 32.04-5 a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot.

Overlay

Clause 43.02 - Design and Development Overlay Pursuant to Clause 43.02-2 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works. Schedule 8 to the overlay relates to the Forrest Hill Precinct. Development in Claremont Street should:  Have a street wall parapet height of a minimum of 7.5m and a maximum of 12m.  Have a preferred building height of 50 metres.  Have an active frontage at ground level with clear glazing.

Clause 44.04 - Land Subject to Inundation Overlay Pursuant to Clause 44.04-1 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works. Pursuant to Clause 44.04-5 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 (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 certificate of environmental audit must be issued for the land in accordance with Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970, or  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.

Particular Provisions

Clause 52.06 – Car Parking Pursuant to Clause 52.06-1 car spaces should be provided in accordance with the table at Clause 52.06-5. A permit may be granted to reduce or waiver the number of car spaces required. Hence, 1 space is required for 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings and 1 visitor space for every 5 dwellings (total 72 spaces). Page 105 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Clause 52.34 - Bicycle Parking 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 residential space for 5 dwellings (12 spaces) and 1 visitor space per 10 dwellings (6 spaces). A permit may be granted to vary, reduce or waive these requirements. 17 bicycle spaces are provided.

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 and Design Response.

Clause 52.36 – Integrated Public Transport Planning Pursuant to Clause 52.36-1 an application for a residential development comprising 60 or more dwellings or lots must be referred to the Director of Public Transport.

Relevant Planning Policies

Clause 11.01 Activity Centres Clause 11.04 Metropolitan Melbourne Clause 15.01 Urban Environment Clause 15.02 Sustainable Development Clause 16.01 Residential Development Clause 18.01 Integrated Transport Clause 18.02 Movement Networks Clause 19.03-3 Stormwater Clause 21 Municipal Strategic Statement Clause 22.02 Urban Design Policy Clause 22.05 Residential Development in Commercial Areas Policy Clause 22.06 Residential Character, Amenity and Interface Policy Clause 22.12 Traffic Policy Clause 22.13 Parking Policy Clause 22.17 Forrest Hill Policy

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 2 signs on the site. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

The site is located in North Ward and objections from 9 different properties have been received.

They can be summarized as follows:

 Overdevelopment  Excessive height  Overlooking of the adjoining roof top terrace  Overshadowing the adjoining roof top terrace  Height of podium level does not match adjoining building resulting in amenity impacts  Too many 1 bedroom dwellings  A minimum 3m setback should be provided from the rear laneway  Car parking  Traffic  Noise and odour Page 106 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

 Lack of private open space provided for the development  Construction impact  Property values

A Consultative Meeting was held on 4 December 2012. The meeting will be attended by Councillors Koce and Klisaris, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer.

Following the consultative meeting the applicant submitted revised plans (plans for consideration) to address the issues raised by objectors.

Referrals

Melbourne Water

Melbourne Water provided comments (31 August 2012) that they objected to the proposal as it was inconsistent with the purpose and decision guidelines of the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay, created an inappropriate flood risk and was contrary to Melbourne Water’s guidelines for development in Flood prone areas core requirement regarding freeboard.

In response to these comments the applicant amended the plans to increase the floor levels of the ground floor, bin area and car access floor. The amended plans were submitted to Melbourne Water who provided comments (26 September 2012) that they had no objection to the amended plans subject to the inclusion of conditions. The conditions specify the following requirements:

 No polluted and / or sediment laden runoff is to be discarded directly or indirectly into Melbourne Waters drains or water courses.  The ground floor entry, foyer, lift and all lifts stairwells, openings vents or other entry points be a minimum 600mm above the applicable flood level.  Flood resistant materials must be used for construction of floor levels and walls below the flood level, all electrical and plumbing fittings must be of the standards for areas subject to inundation.  A floor response plan must be submitted to the Responsible Authority and Melbourne Water by an accredited risk management professional.  The landowner must enter into a S173 agreement with Melbourne Water prior to the completion of works to identify floor levels below flood level, ensure land owners are aware of potential flood impacts and identify the use of the flood response plan.

Department of Public Transport

Comments have been received that the Department of Public Transport does not object to the proposal subject to conditions requiring the preparation of a Green Travel Plan.

Urban Design

Comments have been received that the revised application drawings appear to reflect the requirements established by VCAT in its Order of 19 January, 2011.

Transport and Parking

Comments have been received that the number of spaces that are provided at 0.66 spaces per dwelling meets the parking provision rate adopted by Council for the Forrest Hill area. It is noted that residents of the development will not be eligible for residential parking permits.

Page 107 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

The referral comments highlight the previous VCAT order which did not support two way access arrangement for the previous scheme. The revised access to the site with entry from Claremont Street and exit via the right of way is similar to other recently approved developments within the area and is considered an acceptable arrangement.

In regard to access and manoeuvring, more information has been requested in regard to head room clearance for the car lift which needs to be a minimum clearance of 2.2 metres, confirmation of the widths of car spaces, minimum gradients of parking floors, ramp grades and widths, a longitudinal section showing the headroom provided at the entry point of the lift, site distances at the property boundary and dimensions of the vehicle crossing.

Comments have been provided that the number of bicycle parking spaces exceeds the statutory requirement. However, no details of how bicycle parking has been provided. It is understood that previous proposals for this site involved the provision of “Ned Kelly” bicycle facilities and it needs to be confirmed if this is still the case.

Infrastructure

Comments have been received from Council’s Infrastructure Unit that if the Melbourne Water requirements are satisfied in regard to flooding then Council requirements relating to the (potential) Special Building Overlay will be satisfied. Conditions have been recommended in regard to flooding but the referral comments state that these will need to be modified to suit the conditions of Melbourne Water. In regard to flooding Council’s Infrastructure Unit have suggested the following conditions:

 All flood levels of all storage areas including the bin room must be at least 3.49m AHD  The basement must be protected from flooding to a level at least 3.49 AHD. An apex must be provided at the entrances of at least 3.49m AHD. All openings, doors, windows, vents etc must be at least at or above 3.49m AHD  The drainage system for the basement must be isolated from the internal drainage system to ensure flooding does not enter the basement through the drainage system

Council’s Infrastructure Unit has also required a condition that the footpath levels in Claremont Street and the right of way must not be lowered or altered (to facilitate the vehicular ramps) and that a condition be included for a report for the legal point of discharge be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development be prepared by a suitably qualified engineer. The installation of water tanks for re-cycling and to address WSUD have also been encouraged.

Waste Management

Comments have been provided from Council’s Waste Management Coordinator that the standard allocation of waste bins for the development would be 60 x 240 litre bins. Comments were provided that for a residential development of this magnitude it is highly recommended that the developer contact Council’s Waste Management Department to discuss the possible alternatives to a weekly 240 litre MGB style collection which would be to the benefit of the proposed development, neighbourhood amenity and Council.

The application was lodged with a Waste Management Plan prepared by Leigh Design Pty Ltd dated 28 May 2012. Council’s Waste Management Coordinator is satisfied that the document responded well to the waste management challenges presented in the plans. It has been asked that any permit that is issued include a clause specifically requiring the submission and approval of a Waste Management Plan (similar to the plan that was submitted with the application).

Page 108 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Environmental Sustainable Design

Council’s ESD officer has provided comments that some measures have been taken to ensure sustainability outcomes are incorporated within the development but that a full assessment cannot be done as further information is required on a number of sustainability categories. Council’s ESD officer has stated that a Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) is required which addresses the 10 key sustainability categories in the Sustainable Design Assessment

KEY ISSUES

Strategic Justification

There is strategic justification for the redevelopment of the subject site, through State and Local planning policies. Melbourne 2030 encourages new development to be concentrated within activity centres, near current infrastructure. With the proximity of South Yarra Railway Station and the Toorak Road/Chapel Street shopping strip, the site is well positioned to take advantage of increased residential density. Clause 21.03 (Housing) states that prospects for housing growth are limited but there are opportunities for mixed use, higher density housing in a limited number of areas such as the Forrest Hill Precinct. Within activity centres, a compatible mix of land uses, including residential is encouraged.

Most critical however, is the Forrest Hill Precinct Policy at Clause 22.17. The area bounded by Chapel Street, Toorak Road, Alexandra Avenue and the railway line is identified as an area suitable for redevelopment into a vibrant, high density, mixed use precinct. The area is changing dramatically with recent approvals and commencement of construction on various sites. In essence, Clause 22.17 seeks to foster redevelopment of the area in a well-designed manner that will provide active frontages at ground level, minimise amenity impacts at upper levels and encourage design innovation and excellence that will reinforce the identity of Forrest Hill as a distinctive, creative place.

Specifically, Clause 22.17 includes the following applicable policy requirements:

 Encourage a mix of land uses, across the precinct, and layered horizontally within multilevel development, including high density residential and office development.  Encourage active land uses (such as shops, galleries, cafes and restaurants) at ground level.  Create a new precinct character based on a built form typology of podiums built to the street edge with tower elements set back to maintain sunlight access and sky views.  Provide for a variation of building heights between sub-precincts, to respond to their urban context and the desire to create a distinctive built form character for each area. In particular: o Encourage mid-rise buildings, along Claremont, Daly and Almeida Streets.  Ensure that the public domain is clearly defined by the street wall alignment, with projections permitted on the building façade provided they are maintained within the title boundary.

The proposal measures favourably against these policy requirements. The proposed building is designed with a tower that has a height to Claremont Street of 49.7 with a maximum height of 53m. The building has been designed in a podium and tower form with a tower element that is now more pronounced from the previous application that was refused by VCAT. The setbacks above the podium on levels 5 - 15 have been increased from 2.3m to 4.5m and have been designed to align with the setback that is provided for the See building. This increased setback will create a more defined podium and tower which will relate to the other buildings that have been recently developed nearby.

Page 109 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Building Height & Street Wall

Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 8) includes the following design standards for Claremont Street, where development should:

 Have a street parapet wall height of a minimum of 7.5m and a maximum of 12m.  Have a preferred building height of 50m.  Have an active frontage at ground level with clear glazing.

The maximum building height is 53 metres measured to the top of the lift overrun. This has been reduced significantly from the 61 metre high building that was previously refused by VCAT for Planning Application 991/10. In the VCAT order for 991/10, VCAT members Rundell and Grey were not persuaded that there was any compelling reason or reasonable justification why a building on the subject site should exceed the preferred 50 metre height. Paragraph 31 of the order summarises the decision of the Tribunal in regard to height:

31. We were not provided with any compelling reason for this building to exceed the referred 50 metre height limit. We think it is constrained by its particular context and has failed to respond as required by the planning policy framework. We are not persuaded it should exceed the preferred height.

The revised design has adhered to the VCAT decision reducing the building to a height that is in line with the Design and Development Overlay. Part of the building exceeds 50m but this is only a small section to the lift overrun. As it presents to the street, the building has a tower that rises to 49.7m. The lift over run and service area which is over 50m in height is located in the middle of the building, a minimum 13.6 m from Claremont Street. This setback distance would ensure that the lift over run area which is higher than 50m would not visible from the street. At this height the building will compliment other buildings in this section of Claremont Street and reflect the preferred character that is sought for the Forrest Hill precinct. It is further noted that the See building at 45 Claremont Street is slightly over the 50m height with a height to the top of the lift overrun of 50.2m and that the building at 50 - 54 Claremont Street is 63m.

The building includes a podium street wall height of 12.5m which only slightly exceeds the 12m suggested by the design standards for the overlay. Given the slope of the land and the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay that affects the site, the street wall height is considered acceptable. It is noted that the See building has a podium street wall height of 12.2m and the building at 50 – 54 Claremont Street has a podium street wall height of 12.2m.

Built Form and Design

The general design objectives of DDO8 seek to encourage a “precinct where new buildings are of a pedestrian friendly scale and design at ground level, with upper levels setback...so as to minimise off site amenity impacts”. Further to this, it is imperative that architectural quality is of a high standard and that design responds to the locality so as to avoid unreasonable bulk and adverse amenity impacts on the locality.

As discussed above, the proposed building will have an approximate height of 50 metres designed in a podium and tower form that aligns with the design outcomes sought for this section of the Forrest Hill precinct.

Page 110 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

The new application has also redesigned the Claremont Street frontage in line with concerns raised by VCAT about the street frontage that was proposed in the earlier application. The VCAT order highlighted the tension on this particular site between the objectives of the Design and Development Overlay to create active and attractive street frontages and the requirements for raised floor levels in order to address flooding issues of the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay. However, it was found that the use of a canopy and yellow gridded panel for the earlier application was an overly simplistic solution which did not achieve excellence in Urban Design.

For the new application the street level has been redesigned to have a greater articulated form through the provision of a mesh screen to the pedestrian entry area and a more interesting mix of materials and building forms. This revised design greatly improves on the simplistic design of the earlier proposal with a form at street level that is far more visually interesting. The application has been referred to Council’s Urban Designer who has provided comments that they are satisfied that the revised application reflects the requirements established in the VCAT order.

With the changes that have been made to the height of the building, the increased setbacks that create a more pronounced podium and tower form and the more articulated street frontage the new application corresponds with the specific requirement identified in the Design and Development Overlay. The new building is a significant improvement on the earlier design which would result in a building that would make a positive contribution to the Forrest Hill precinct.

Amenity Impacts

The VCAT order identified two areas where the earlier proposal would create adverse amenity impacts on the adjoining properties, those being overshadowing of the roof terrace of the adjoining See building at 45 Claremont Street and the lack of a sufficient degree of separation from the rear laneway. Both of these issues have been addressed in the revised design through the reduction in the height of the building and increased setbacks from the laneway. The specific changes that have been made in regard to these two issues are discussed below.

Overshadowing

The earlier application proposed a 61m high building that extended 11 metres above the roof terrace of the See building at 45 Claremont Street. VCAT found that the 11 metres of additional height would have an unreasonable impact on the roof terrace as detailed in paragraphs 26 - 28 of the VCAT order.

26. Mr Biles opined the difference in height is significant and unacceptable as it would have adverse impacts on the amenity of the roof terrace. Shadow diagrams indicate that over half the roof terrace area on the western side of the roof of No. 45 Claremont Street would be overshadowed in the morning and early afternoon by the proposed building. Mr Cicero submitted the extent of overshadowing would be reasonable as few residents would use the rooftop when it would be overshadowed. He submitted the relevant amenity test in the DDO8 is amenity within dwellings rather impacts on balconies or communal spaces.

27. On balance, we concur with Mr Biles and think his expert advice better reflects the entirety of policies and reference documents in the planning scheme. We give particular weight to design suggestions 2.6.3 and 2.6.4 in the Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (2004) and design objectives and standards in the Forrest Hill Structure Plan (2005) that encourage communal spaces with ‘optimised’ access to sunlight.

Page 111 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

We think the entirety of policies and reference documents provides a consistent emphasis that buildings should be cognisant of their neighbours and the public realm, and be designed to minimise their impacts on these spaces. Design is not to be completed without such consideration.

28. This precinct already has an intense built form and residents of the apartments in No. 45 Claremont Street will have limited views and limited access to sunlight from their apartments. Their private balconies are very small. The amenity of the rooftop communal area is important to augment the limited amenity of their apartments. They can enjoy this greater amenity from the rooftop. It is more about the balancing of these points, rather than just sun and shade. We think weight should be given to reasonable sharing of development opportunities and designing to enhance the amenity of all residents in the vicinity of the review site, not only those of the subject development.

The new application has reduced the building height in line with the VCAT order with a height of 49m to the main tower and 51m to the roof parapet. The lift over run in the middle of the building has a height of 53m but this is well setback from the front and sides of the building. As indicated in the shadow diagrams that have been submitted with the application, the adjoining terrace area would not be significantly overshadowed by the proposed building. The submitted shadow diagrams show that a small area of the northern edge would be overshadowed but importantly the section of the terrace area that is to be used for communal open space will not be overshadowed. It is therefore considered that the revised building design has responded to the overshadowing problem identified by VCAT and will now not create unreasonable overshadowing of the roof terrace of 45 Claremont Street.

Separation from the Rear Laneway

The earlier application was designed with only small setbacks from the rear laneway. The levels above the podium level (Levels 5 - 17) were designed with walls setback 3m from the laneway and balconies setback 1m from the laneway. VCAT did not consider that this setback was sufficient to ensure that the amenity of properties on either side of the laneway would be adequately catered for. Paragraph 47 sets out VCAT’s concerns that the dwellings that face on the laneway need to be provided with acceptable privacy and access to sunlight.

47. We acknowledge the amenity of dwellings facing the right-of-way will be of a lesser quality than those facing Claremont Street, and this is more reason to ensure that their ultimate amenity is acceptable. West facing apartments that may ultimately interface with tall, imposing buildings fronting Yarra Street should, in our view, be designed to enjoy acceptable privacy and access to daylight. Again, it is about reasonable sharing of opportunity and amenity.

VCAT provided specific guidance that at a minimum a setback should be provided which provides a separation of 7 metres between the balustrades of dwellings on opposite sides of the laneway and 9 metres between the external walls to habitable rooms. This minimum setback is specifically addressed in paragraph 50 of the order:

50. We think a minimum separation of 7 metres between the balustrades of dwellings and 9 metres between the external walls to habitable rooms is the preferable separation. This removes the need for screening that increases visual bulk and encloses the habitable spaces within the dwellings. Greater separation at the upper levels increases access to light and sky views for those below. If this approach is not established, the ultimate outcome for residents facing the lane will be bleak.

Page 112 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

The new application was designed to comply with the VCAT order with the new building proposing a minimum setback of walls (above the podium level) from the rear boundary of 4 metre and the balconies setback a minimum 2.45 metres from the boundary.

The site that is located behind the subject site at 18 Yarra Street has recently been granted a planning permit (447/11) for the development of a 26 storey building. Plans have not yet been endorsed for this development though a combined plans to comply / secondary consent application is currently being assessed by Council. The plans that have been submitted show that the rear walls of the 18 Yarra Street building will be setback 3.0 m from the boundary with no balconies facing the laneway.

The proposed building on 47 Claremont Street has been designed so that the walls to the apartments on the fifth to fourteenth floor that face onto the laneway have a minimum setback of 4 metre with balconies setback a minimum 2.45 metres. When you include the 3.0 width of the laneway this means that floors five to fourteen would be separated from the walls of this building by 10m, which is compliant with the separation distance required in the VCAT order.

It is noted that the secondary consent amendment application that is currently being assessed for 18 Yarra Street seeks approval to delete one level of car parking to be replaced with a level of residential dwellings on level 6. The creates a situation where the residential level 6 of 18 Yarra Street (17.95RL) would be adjacent (across the laneway) to the top car parking level proposed for 47 Claremont Street identified as Level 4 (17.95RL). Given that the car park level will be built to the boundary this would provide a 6m separation between the wall of the dwelling on level 6 at 18 Yarra Street and the building at 47 Claremont Street.

Should the amendment for 18 Yarra Street be approved, level 4 of the proposed development would not strictly meet the 9m setback that should be provided between walls of dwellings that is highlighted in the VCAT order. Because this is a new change that has only recently been put forward by the applicant of 18 Yarra Street, after the plans for the subject site were advertised, it is not considered necessary for the 9m setback to be provided at this level. The application was advertised directly to 18 Yarra Street and no objection has been received from this address. The owner of 18 Yarra Street was aware of what was proposed for the development at 47 Claremont Street and still chose to modify their proposal through the addition of a residential level that would only be provided with a 6m separation gap. In regards to the potential amenity impact the 6m separation gap is considered satisfactory given that the dwelling that would be affected at 18 Yarra Street is orientated towards the north where it would receive its main source of light and views.

Traffic and Parking

The access arrangement has been redesigned in line with the VCAT order which was critical of the originally proposed two way access arrangement onto the laneway. VCAT directed that one way access should be provided, with entry from Claremont Street and exit out to the laneway. This type of arrangement is similar to other developments that has been recently approved including that for 45 Claremont Street and 18 Yarra Street and will minimise conflict within the laneway. The application has been referred to Council’s Transport and Parking Unit who have provided comments that this is an acceptable arrangement.

The development was lodged with the provision of 40 car spaces for the proposed 60 dwellings. This equated to 0.66 spaces per dwelling which is in accordance with the parking rate adopted by Council for the Forrest Hill precinct. It is noted that the plans lodged for consideration would result in the loss of one of the car parking spaces and the application would no longer strictly meet the 0.66 space rate that has been adopted for the Forrest Hill precinct. This reduced rate of 0.65 spaces per dwelling is still considered appropriate.

Page 113 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

It is far greater than that which has been provided for a number of developments in Forrest Hill including the 0.25 space per dwelling rate provided for the See building at 45 Claremont Street. Given the rate is higher than other approved developments, it is considered appropriate to require one of the car spaces to be allocated to a car share scheme. This would provide an alternative transport option to residents of the dwellings and will assist in reducing private car ownership within the precinct. To further promote alternative transport options, the applicant has advised that further bicycle parking could be accommodated within the development. The applicant has advised that a minimum of 3 additional spaces could be provided. As such, a condition to this effect should be included on any permit that issues.

Council’s Transport and Parking Unit have provided comments that more information is required in regard to head room clearance for the car lift (a minimum clearance of 2.2 metres), confirmation of the widths of car spaces, minimum gradients of parking floors, ramp grades and widths, a longitudinal section showing the headroom provided at the entry point of the lift, site distances at the property boundary, details of bicycle facilities and dimensions of the vehicle crossing.

It is recommended that specifications for the access requirements such that they are generally in accordance with the Australian Standards or to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority be included as conditions should a permit be issued for the development.

Internal Amenity

Internal amenity was also considered by VCAT for the previous application. The order describes how VCAT was satisfied with the arrangement that was provided for the one bedroom dwellings. Some degree of borrowed light was accepted for these one bedroom dwellings which were described to be typical of a new breed of compact one bedroom style apartments. However, VCAT were concerned about the reliance that a high percentage of the two bedroom dwellings had on borrowed light given that these could be occupied by a small family or shared by singles or couples co-habituating rather than in relationships.

The VCAT decision also suggested that the floor layout of the building should be redesigned so that the southern light well is aligned with the northern light well of the See building and that all of the windows that were to be constructed on the northern boundary be removed as these could likely be built out in the future should the sites to the north be developed.

The layout of the apartments has been redesigned in the new application to respond to the issues identified by VCAT. No windows are now to be provided on the northern boundary and the southern light court has been realigned to match up with the light court provided for the See building at 45 Claremont Street. The reliance of borrowed light in the two bedroom dwellings has also been significantly reduced with only one of the two bedroom units on levels 5 - 14 (10 units) now designed with a bedroom that has to rely on borrowed light.

The revised layout is considered to be a significant improvement from the earlier application. The floor layout for all levels is a far more sensible design. The building now benefits from aligning with the light court of the See building which provides far more opportunity for dwellings to access natural light.

Land Subject to Inundation Overlay

The application has been referred to Melbourne Water and comments have been received that they do not object to the amended application (26 September plans). Melbourne Water required a number of conditions to be included should a planning permit be approved and it is recommended these are included.

Page 114 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Infrastructure

Council’s Infrastructure Unit provided comments that if the Melbourne Water requirements are satisfied in regard to flooding then Council requirements relating to the Special Building Overlay will be satisfied. The amended plans (26 September 2012) satisfy Melbourne Water’s requirements and as such the comments from Council’s Infrastructure Unit in regard to flooding have been satisfied.

Comments have been received from Council’s Infrastructure Unit that a condition be included on any permit for a report for the legal point of discharge be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development be prepared by a suitably qualified engineer. A condition has also been requested that the existing footpath levels must not be lowered or altered. It is recommended that these be included as conditions should a permit be issued.

Waste

The submitted plans show that a waste storage area is to be provided on the ground floor with rubbish chutes provided to allow convenient access by residents. Waste is to be collected by private services. A Waste Management Plan was submitted with the application which was referred to Council’s Waste Management Coordinator and it was found that the plan responded well to the waste management challenges presented by the development.

It has been asked that any permit that is issued include a clause specifically requiring the submission and approval of a Waste Management Plan (similar to the plan that was submitted with the application).

Environmental Sustainable Design

An ESD report was submitted with the application (Ark Resources 17 July 2012) which was referred to Council’s ESD officer. Comments have been received that while some measures have been taken to ensure sustainability outcomes are incorporated within the development a full assessment cannot be done as further information is required on a number of sustainability categories. No fundamental issues have been identified by Council’s ESD officer and it is therefore recommended that a condition is included which requires an updated ESD report.

Water Sensitive Urban Design

Council has a seriously entertained draft policy (Clause 22.18) entitled Stormwater Management (Urban Design). The Policy requires a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response be submitted for any application that involves either the construction of a new building or the extension of an existing building which is 50m2 or greater in floor area.

The application was lodged with a STORM report which shows that a STORM rating of 118 % will be achieved through the provision of 10,000 litre water tanks. The submitted plans show that a 10,000 litre water tank will be provided in the basement. It is considered that this satisfies the WSUD requirements.

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 and these must be included as conditions of the planning permit.

Page 115 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Objections

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

 Impact on the adjoining roof top terrace of the See building

The roof terrace of the proposed building will be slightly higher than the roof terrace of the See building at 45 Claremont Street with a difference between the levels of 0.7m. However, as shown on section diagrams (Section FF Plan No TP16) in the application plans, the provision of planting along the southern edge of the terrace will restrict overlooking. Given that the terrace areas are both common open space areas and not secluded private open space the provision of planting is considered a sufficient measure to reasonably protect the privacy of anyone using the terrace on 45 Claremont Street. Concerns were also raised about the visual impact the higher terrace would have on people enjoying the terrace of 45 Claremont Street particularly as the boundary wall between the two terraces had a height that was 1200mm above the 47 Claremont Street terrace. Following the consult meeting the applicant provided a revised set of plans which have reduced the southern boundary wall (on the boundary with the See building) by 400mm in order to reduce some of the perceived bulk of the boundary wall. While there were no significant concerns about the impact that a 1.2m high wall would have on a communal open space area, the changes would provide some reduction in visibility of the wall and therefore it is recommended that this modification be made, by way of condition, should a permit be issued.

 Height of podium level does not match adjoining building at 45 Claremont Street resulting in visual bulk impacts

The podium level of 47 Claremont Street exceeds the podium level of 45 Claremont Street at both the front and the rear. At the front, the submitted plans show that the levels of the proposed building at 47 Claremont Street are 0.75m higher than the levels of the See building. The additional height created by the level difference and the boundary walls that are proposed above each of the floors is perceived as visual bulk that would unreasonably impact occupiers of the north eastern and north western units of See.

Following the consultation meeting the applicant has addressed the potential impact on the front unit (unit 302) on the third floor of the See building by lowering the boundary wall height by 1m. This would result in a difference between the two floors being just the 0.75m level difference. The revised plans also have relocated the screen to the terrace so that it is no longer on the boundary but angled away so as to not be directly visible. The changes that have been proposed at the third floor are considered successful measures which would significantly reduce the additional built form that would be visible from the balcony of the north eastern (unit 302) of the See building. It is recommended that a condition be included on the permit to incorporate the changes to the front of the third floor that are shown in the submitted plans for consideration (Plan C3).

No changes have been made to the floors above the third floor. Floors 5 to 14 of the proposed development are set further forward of the front wall of the See building. As a result the northern perimeter of the balconies of the north eastern units for See will be set against a section of wall. It is not considered necessary that a front setback that matches the front units of See needs to be adopted for the proposed development. A setback in line with See would make it very difficult to provide units of sufficient size at the front of Claremont Street unless they were amalgamated to provide only one unit at the front of each level.

Page 116 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

At the rear there is also a difference between levels of See and the proposed development. At the fourth floor this difference is particularly pronounced where the balcony for the unit 404 on See will be built opposite a large wall that forms the last level of car parking for the proposed development. Following the consultation meeting the applicant has revised the design of the building at the rear of the fourth floor by providing a 2.6 x 3.9m cut out to the south western corner. This cut out will provide a 2.6m setback of the wall from the balcony and importantly ensure that the views from this balcony that are angled out towards the northwest would be retained as shown on the plan Section Y-Y. The proposed redesign of the rear of the fourth floor would significantly reduce the visual bulk that would have been created by a large wall directly on the boundary of unit 404. This modification is therefore supported. It is recommended that a condition is included on the permit to incorporate the changes to the rear of the fourth floor that have been forward in the plans for consideration.

At the levels above the fourth floor no changes have been made by the applicant but a plan has been submitted which shows that the views from the rear balconies of See towards the northwest on levels 5 to 14 will be retained. The level of built form as it relates to the units on levels 5 to 14 is considered appropriate.

 Overlooking created by the level differences between the proposed development and 45 Claremont Street

Given the difference in levels between the two buildings there is a possibility that the balconies of the subject development may overlook the terrace/balconies of units at 45 Claremont Street without appropriate screening measures. In this regard the plans show that provision has been made to screen views towards the south with the balconies for the front dwellings on levels 5 to 14 positioned behind the southern edge of the building; the balconies at the rear on floors 5 to 14 provided with 1.7m high screens and the southern unit on the 3rd floor designed with a 1.7m high screen along the southern perimeter. No details of the screens have been provided with the application and it is recommended that should a permit be issued a condition is included which provides details of the screens that are to be provided for the southern unit on floor 3 and all west facing units on levels 5 to 14.

 A minimum 3m setback should be provided from the rear laneway

An objection has been received which has suggested that the building should be setback 3m from the rear laneway. Given the specific direction of VCAT in the decision for the earlier application for the subject site a 3m setback is not considered necessary. VCAT directed that separation of 7 metres should be provided between the balustrades of dwellings and 9 metres between the external walls to habitable rooms. The application has been designed in accordance with the VCAT decision.

 Noise and Odour

Given the use of the site for dwellings is an as of right use in this zone some noise is considered reasonable on this site. Any unreasonable noise from residents would be controlled by general state EPA provisions to control noise in residential settings. It is not anticipated that the use of the site for residential dwellings will create any significant odour problems.

 Lack of private open space provided for the development

Page 117 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

All dwellings of the development are to be provided with a minimum 6sqm of private open space which is similar to that provided for other developments in the Forrest Hill precinct and which would provide for the reasonable service and recreation needs of residents.

 Property Values

This is not a relevant planning consideration

Human Rights Consideration

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

CONCLUSION

Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons:  The proposal is consistent with the strategic direction outlined by the Stonnington Planning Scheme and in particular the strategic framework for the Forrest Hill Precinct.  The new building has been designed in accordance with the specific requirements of a previous VCAT order for the site. The height, setbacks, design, access and internal amenity have all been modified in line with the VCAT decision.  The building has been designed in line with the design standards set out in the Design and Development Overlay and the resulting building would make a positive contribution to the Forrest Hill precinct.  Adequate provision is made for on and off site amenity.  The provision of car parking is generally in accordance with the parking rate adopted by Council for the Forrest Hill precinct.

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No 475/12 for the land located at 47 Claremont Street, South Yarra be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for the development of the land for a multi dwelling development and reduction in car parking requirement in a Mixed Use Zone, Design and Development Overlay and Land Subject to Inundation Overlay subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the development starts, 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 advertised plans Council date stamped 19 July 2012 and 26 September 2012 but modified to show:

a) The changes to the front of the third floor including the reduction of the boundary wall and relocation of the screen to the balcony as depicted on the plan lodged for consideration referenced as “Consultative Drawing C3”, Council date stamped 10 December 2012.

b) The changes to the rear of the fourth floor involving a new 3.9 x 2.6m cut out section in the south western corner as depicted on the plan lodged for consideration referenced as “Consultative Drawing C1”, Council date stamped 10 December 2012.

Page 118 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

c) The changes to the roof terrace involving the reduction of the boundary wall by 400mm as depicted on the plan lodged for consideration referenced as “Consultative Drawing C4”, Council date stamped 10 December 2012.

d) Details of the screens on the southern perimeter of the southern unit on level 3 and the south elevation of all west facing units on levels 5 to 14. All screening devices must be permanently fixed and be no more than 25 percent transparent.

e) A revised western elevation plan that includes details of screening devices (to a height of 1.7m) for all balconies which are located within 9m of neighbouring habitable room windows. All screening to be permanently fixed and be no more than 25 percent transparent.

f) Further details of the roof terrace on the proposed building and its relationship with the roof terrace at 45 Claremont Street including treatment between the two terraces to prevent unreasonable overlooking.

g) Head room clearance for the car lift (a minimum clearance of 2.2 metres), confirmation of the widths of car spaces, minimum gradients of parking floors, ramp grades and widths, a longitudinal section showing the headroom provided at the entry point of the lift, site distances at the property boundary, details of bicycle facilities and dimensions of the vehicle crossing generally in accordance with the Australian Standards or to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

h) Allocation of one car space to a car share scheme to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

i) A minimum of 3 additional bicycle parking spaces to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

2. The development allowed by this permit and shown on the drawings and/or schedules endorsed to accompany the permit shall not be amended for any reason without the consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must be generally in accordance with the Waste Management Plan submitted with the application by Leigh Design Pty Ltd dated 28 May 2012.

4. Prior to the commencement of any buildings or works, an Environmentally Sustainable Development Management Plan (ESD Management Plan) must be prepared by a suitably qualified person. The ESD Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The ESD Management Plan must address the following: d) Energy Management;

e) Water Conservation and Re-use; f) Demolition and Construction Waste Management. g) Identify relevant statutory obligations, strategic or other documented sustainability targets or performance standards. h) Document the means by which the appropriate target or performance will be achieved. Page 119 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

i) Identify responsibilities and a schedule for implementation, and ongoing management, maintenance and monitoring. j) Demonstrate that the design elements, technologies and operational practices that comprise the ESD management plan can be maintained over time.

5. Prior to the occupation of the building, a Parking Management Plan is to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority that must: a) Allocate one car parking space to a car share scheme; b) Designate car parking spaces to the individual dwellings; c) Detail the signing and line marking of car parking spaces; d) Detail access controls such as boom gates securing access to the car park; and e) Demonstrate the access arrangements for the bicycle facilities.

6. Prior to the commencement of any buildings and works, the owner / developer of the land must enter into an agreement with the Responsible Authority pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (prepared and executed at the owner / developers cost) in which it shall be agreed that the owner / developer must make to Council a Development Contribution in accordance with the Forrest Hill Precinct Development Contribution Plan (March 2010) (plus any GST and Price Index applicable at the time of payment) to enhance the Forrest Hill Precinct. The amount must be paid to Council by an agreed time specified in the 173 Agreement or prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance.

7. Within six (6) months of the commencement of buildings and works, or by an agreed time in writing, a landscape plan developed in consultation with Council must form part of the endorsed plans for the development. The plans must include streetscape and public realm improvements to Claremont Street directly fronting the site. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies provided. The landscape plan must be developed in consultation with and/or by Council’s Public Space Design and Development Unit and should be in line with the current Forrest Hill Precinct Masterplan and/or Style Guide for the area to the satisfaction of the Reasonable Authority.

8. 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.

9. The use and development allowed by this permit must comply with the directions and conditions of any statement of environmental audit issued for the land.

Page 120 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

10. All the conditions of the Statement of Environmental Audit must be complied with to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, prior to commencement of use of the site. Written confirmation of compliance must be provided by a suitably qualified environmental professional or other suitable person acceptable to the responsible authority. In addition, sign off must be in accordance with any requirements in the Statement conditions regarding verification of works.

11. Before the occupation of the building, 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.

12. Before the occupation of the building, areas set aside for parked vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be: a) Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. b) Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans. c) Drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. d) Line marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. e) Made available for their intended purposes at all times

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

Melbourne Water Conditions

14. No polluted and or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water’s drains or watercourses

15. The ground floor area including the entry, foyer and lift area must be constructed with finished floor levels a minimum 600mm above the applicable flood level.

16. All lifts and stairwells, windows, openings, vents or other entry points that may allow for entry of floodwaters to the basement must be a minimum of 600mm above the applicable flood level.

17. Flood resistant materials must be used for the construction of floor levels and walls below the applicable flood level.

18. All electrical and plumbing fittings must be to the standards of the relevant Authority for areas subject to inundation, for all services contained within the ground floor and basement.

19. Prior to the commencement of works, a Flood Response Plan must be submitted to the Responsible Authority and Melbourne Water by an accredited risk management professional

Page 121 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

20. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by Melbourne Water, the Flood Response Plan must be binding to successors in title to provide for ongoing effective management of flood risks.

21. Prior to completion of works, the landowner/s must enter into a Section 173 Agreement with Council and Melbourne Water that is attached to the title. All costs associated with the setting up of the agreement must be borne by the permit holder. The agreement must be registered on title and run with the land, and must provide, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and Melbourne Water for:

a) Identify floor levels below flood level; b) Land owners being aware of potential flood impacts; and c) Identify the use of the Flood Response Plan

End Melbourne Water Conditions

22. The drainage system for the basement must be isolated from the internal drainage system to ensure that flooding does not enter the basement through the drainage system.

23. The existing footpath levels in Claremont Street and the rear right of way levels at the property line must not be lowered or altered (to facilitate vehicular ramps)

24. 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.

Public Transport Victoria Conditions

25. Before the use of the land commences, a Green Travel Plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority following consultation with Public Transport Victoria. The plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and must encourage the use of non private vehicle transport modes by the occupiers of the land. The Plan must include the following:

a) A description of the location in the context of alternate modes of transport and objectives for the Green Travel Plan;

b) Outline Green Travel Plan measures for the development including, but not limited to:

i. Household welcome packs – tram, train and bus timetables relevant to the local area must be included in the pack of information provided to purchases upon a purchasers occupation of an apartment; ii. Include a Myki Pass within the household welcome pack to the value of one week pass zone 1 and registration information; iii. Bicycle parking and facilities available on the land; iv. Pedestrian routes to key destinations

26. The Green Travel Plan must not be amended without written consent of the Responsible Authority following consultation with Public Transport Victoria.

Page 122 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

27. Once approved the Green Travel Plan must form part of the planning permit and any ongoing Management Plan for the land to ensure the Green Travel Plan continues to be implemented by residents/ owners to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

End Public Transport Victoria Conditions

28. 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.

29. 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.

30. Prior to occupation, all screening devices designed to limit overlooking herby approved must not have more than 25% openings or they must be of solid translucent panels, permanent, fixed and durable and designed and coloured to blend in with the development to the satisfaction of the Reasonable Authority.

31. External lighting must be designed, baffled and located so as to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

32. All walls on or facing an exposed boundary of the site must be cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

33. To minimise environmental problems associated with sediment run-off, any clearing or construction activity associated with development in the subject land, shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Environment Protection Authority.

34. All wastes generated from demolition, site preparation and construction stages shall be disposed appropriately in accordance with the requirements of the Environment Protection Authority.

35. 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.

Notes

The applicable flood level for the property is 4.2 metres to Australian Height Datum

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 189626

Page 123 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

The owners and occupiers of the dwellings herby approved are not eligible to receive “Resident Parking Permits”.

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.

Page 124 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

2. AMENDMENT C153: 590 ORRONG ROAD / 4 OSMENT STREET, ARMADALE – CONSIDERATION OF PANEL REPORT

Manager: Stephen Lardner Executive Manager: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of the report is for Council to consider the recommendations of the Planning Panel on Amendment C153 – 590 Orrong Road and 4 Osment Street Armadale, and decide whether to adopt the amendment with or without changes.

It is recommended that this report is considered over two briefings to allow additional information to be provided to Councillors including a map, and allow the community an adequate level of time to consider the Panel’s recommendations and provide Council with feedback.

BACKGROUND

# The site at 590 Orrong Road and 4 Osment Street is a significant site with an area of approximately 2.5 hectares. It is located on the eastern side of Orrong Road immediately to the north of Toorak Park and Victory Square Reserve, between Malvern Road and High Street in Armadale (refer map in Attachment 1). The north-eastern boundary of the site adjoins the Pakenham railway line and has direct access to the adjacent Toorak Station.

The site was originally a railway siding. This was converted to State Government offices and a Council Parks Depot. The former Council Parks Depot was sold in 2002 to part fund the redevelopment of the new Tooronga Depot. Improvements on the site include office buildings of up to five (5) levels, associated car parking, the disused depot, and other lower scale structures. The site has been occupied for many years as commercial offices by Sinclair Knight Mertz (SKM). All previous occupiers ceased activity on the site by the end of 2010. There are currently minimal temporary commercial tenants using parts of the existing buildings.

The Applicant, Lend Lease has entered into a joint venture with the owner of the land (Larkfield Holdings Pty Ltd) to redevelop the site for primarily residential use.

The site is currently in three zones: Business B5, Residential 1 and Public Use Zone 6 and is the last remaining “large redevelopment site” identified in the City of Stonnington Strategic Framework Plan (at Clause 21.01-2 of the existing Planning Scheme). # A detailed outline of the recent planning history for the site including planning scheme amendments and planning permit applications is located in Attachment 2

A briefing was provided in December 2012 to update Councillors on the progress of the Amendment.

Planning Scheme Amendment C153

Page 125 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Authorisation and Exhibition

In May 2012, Council received authorisation to prepare Amendment C153 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme to introduce permanent controls to the site as requested. A request for intervention from the Minister for Planning to introduce interim controls (via Amendment C152) was however refused. Exhibition for Amendment C153 ran during June and July 2012, and Council held a drop-in information session at Malvern Town Hall. Eighteen submissions were received. Some submitters objected to the level of development and indicated that proposed building heights were too high and 250 units was too many. Others agreed that an appropriate level of development could be achieved within the design guidelines. There was no conclusive position from the general submissions.

The developer for the land (Lend Lease) made a submission agreeing that the DPO is the best planning tool for managing the development of this site over time and with certainty. However, Lend Lease does not support the form of the Urban Design Framework Plan, and submits that a rezoning should occur with the Amendment. Lend Lease also submitted that development in the form proposed in Amendment C153 would not result in a good development outcome. In August 2012, Council adopted its position for the Panel hearing which included removing the 250 dwelling restriction and reinstating the overall maximum height of 24 metres (8 storeys). This height limit established previously reflected extensive consultation during the Urban Design Framework stage. The removal of the maximum density reflected the need to consider and assess the overall impacts, particularly built form impacts. The Officer report considered that a height of 12 storeys (approx 36m) established in the planning application and 17m (approx 5 storeys) adopted by Council were too high and too low respectively. It was considered these changes would provide a better balance between submissions from the local community, state and local policy, and the submission from the developer. The changes also addressed concerns raised in the VCAT decision on the planning application.

Panel Hearing

At the Directions Hearing for Amendment C153, the developer sought an adjournment requesting that the Amendment had changed substantively since it was exhibited and that it needed to be exhibited again. The Panel determined that it did not need to be exhibited again as the changes proposed sought to address issues raised by submitters. The Panel Chair requested that Council circulate a revised version of DPO2 that reflected the changes outlined in the August 2012 Council report in advance of the Panel Hearing to allow submitters the opportunity to review the changes. This was done in September 2012. The Panel Hearing was held over three days from 30 October to 2 November 2012 and 3 submitters appeared before the Panel in addition to Council and the developer. The developer’s position was to object to the DPO2 outright. Council was represented by legal Counsel including Stuart Morris QC, and two urban design expert witnesses appeared for Council – Craig Czarny and Andrew Hutson.

Council’s legal Counsel sought to find common ground on many of the clauses in DPO2 from the developer’s two expert witnesses. At the end of the Panel hearing, Stuart Morris QC offered on behalf of Council to circulate a revised version of DPO2 which collated the comments made during cross-examination in a single document. The Panel suggested that if Council circulated the document, the other parties would have an opportunity to reply in one week. Chris Canavan QC, on behalf of the developer advised that they were not interested in this process (given their outright objection to DPO2).

Page 126 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

On behalf of Council, Stuart Morris agreed to provide a revised circulated document identifying where the developer’s witnesses agreed with the revised DPO2, and if Council agreed to any suggested wording changes. Directions were circulated by the Panel to this effect.

In many instances, the experts suggested minor wording changes or clarifications. Council conceded on some wording changes that would not compromise Council’s overall objectives or its resolution of 13 August 2012. Other changes which altered the intent of DPO2 were not agreed to by Council. All parties were given a week to make any further comments. No further comments were submitted to the Panel

Panel Report

# The Panel Report (refer attachment 3) was received by Council on 20 December 2012. Under the provisions of section 26 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Council has 28 days from its receipt to release the report to the public. Letters were sent to all submitters to the amendment on 15 January 2013, advising them of the availability of the Panel report on Council's website. Planning Permit and Appeals Independent of the planning scheme amendment process, the applicant lodged a town planning application to develop the site in September 2011. In January 2012, Council resolved to refuse a planning application for 475 units with buildings up to 12 storeys. Subsequently, the applicant appealed to VCAT. Council continues to pursue an appeal to the Supreme Court based on ‘an error of law’ for the granting of Lend Lease’s permit VCAT for 466 dwellings on the site, a convenience shop, cafe and maternal and child health centre.

In October 2012, the Supreme Court heard the leave application, and Justice Emerton delivered her determination the same day granting the Stonnington City Council leave to appeal to present its full arguments as to why it believes an error of law has been made by the Tribunal in its decision to grant the planning permit. The Supreme Court will be heard in April 2013.

DISCUSSION

Council must now formally consider the Panel's recommendations before deciding how to proceed with the Amendment. The Panel report recommends that Amendment C153 be adopted as presented at Panel, subject to the following key changes:  Removal of overall height limit of buildings over the site (either mandatory or discretionary), with the exception of buildings on Osment Street (discretionary - 2 storeys). On the basis of the removal of overall height limits on the site, if Council accepts this recommendation by the Panel, Council should consider re-exhibiting the Amendment in the context of it being materially different to that which was previously exhibited.  Removal of the Urban Design Framework Plan from DPO2.  Change from a maximum site coverage of 50% to 60%.

The Panel also recommended Council consider a future rezoning for the site.

In general, the Panel has recommended set-backs as proposed by Council and has retained design objectives of transitioning to surrounding low built form.

Page 127 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Panel Report

Officers have considered the Panel Report in light of Council’s resolution (13 August 2012) with its position following exhibition. Generally the form of DPO2 recommended by the Panel is supported by officers, with variations outlined below, the key variation being height controls.

Height Controls

Council’s position has been to include mandatory height controls to offer a level of certainty that reflects a balance of views of key stakeholders including the community and the developer. Extensive community consultation has taken place since 2010 with more than 600 members of the community participating throughout the consultation processes. The weight that should be given to the community views is pending consideration at the Supreme Court.

Development plan overlays in other Council Planning Schemes typically include height controls. In the case of 590 Orrong Road and 4 Osment Street, the purpose of the Amendment C153 DPO2 allows a permit to be issued prior to the preparation of a development plan. The absence of specified heights in the DPO will provide no guidance, no certainty and no effective control, and no strategic position for Council to be able to argue a case at VCAT, who will be the final arbiter of any application for development.

Adopting a DPO with no height controls does not offer any certainty. The extensive consultation undertaken sought to find a balance between all stakeholders and this was identified as a maximum of eight storeys on the site, including lower heights to transition to the surrounding residential areas.

In addressing the Practice Note on mandatory height controls in relation to this development, it is noted that:

The mandatory provisions are founded on strategically sound (and pragmatic) principles, being essentially the Hansen Urban Design Framework.

The mandatory provisions are appropriate for the site as:  The mandatory provisions would provide for the preferred outcome as they are a direct translation of the Council’s preferred outcome, and follow extensive consultation with all stakeholders.  There could be substantial administrative costs associated with discretionary controls which would be avoided if the mandatory controls clearly set the objectives.

It was appropriate to avoid a constantly adversarial approach to site development as might arise with discretionary controls.

In relation to the provision in Practice Note 59, it is noted that ‘... there will be circumstances where a mandatory provision will provide certainty and ensure a preferable and efficient outcome’.

Given officers consider the retention of mandatory height controls is key, and in line with the exhibited Amendment C153 documents and changes made to address submissions for Council’s position to Panel, it is not necessary to consider re-exhibiting the Amendment.

Page 128 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

The Panel has accepted that Council did not need re-exhibit Amendment C153 in response to the changes proposed as a result of the submissions (and adopted by Council in August 2012).

It is considered that the DPO2 should include an overall maximum height of 24 metres, which reflects an eight storey building. . In addition, it is considered that the height controls on Osment Street (retained by the Panel) of a maximum of two storeys should also be mandatory, rather than discretionary. Further objectives within the DPO as supported by the Panel provides for the transition to lower built forms.

Urban Design Framework Plan

The diagram was exhibited and included the requirement to provide an outline on how a development could address the principles outlined in DPO2. It was not a mandatory requirement that a development plan and / or permit application be designed in the format outlined in the Urban Design Framework Plan. With the retention of wording with DPO2 to include mandatory height controls, and the objective regarding the location of open space, it is considered that the Urban Design Framework Plan can be removed from DPO2 for adoption in line with the Panel’s recommendations. The wording in the text provides sufficient guidance.

It is noted that the Practice Note for the Development Plan Overlay suggests that a map is included to show clearly the area that the plan applies to and some basic context / framework information. It is considered that a basic map showing this be prepared and included in the DPO2 for submission to the Minister for approval.

Open Space

Stonnington has the second lowest amount of open space at 6.7% (20m2 per person) of any Victorian Municipality. In comparison the average area set aside for open space across Metropolitan Melbourne is 17.9%. Stonnington’s population is increasing so the current average rate of 20m2 of open space per person is increasingly eroding. The population increase is part of more intensive redevelopment which reduces existing private landscaping and recreational space and puts increasing pressure on the existing low levels of open space. Open space is a highly valued community priority. Increasing scarcity of open space and population pressure will continue to drive this priority higher. As a fully developed municipality, the potential to acquire additional open space is very difficult. The redevelopment of large sites presents a unique opportunity to add to existing open space. Armadale has one of the lowest percentages of public spaces in Stonnington, with approximately nine parks. Armadale’s demographics are not likely to change extensively. Residents have identified that there is not enough open space within walking distance. The Panel has recommended that Council remove the ‘designated’ area of open space from DPO2 but retains the objectives detailed in the text. It is acknowledged that Council cannot seek more than 5% public open space onsite. However it is important that any communal open space is located to best serve the site and link and buffer surrounding public land.

Page 129 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

It is suggested that Council accepts the Panel’s recommendations regarding open space, with the inclusion of the words ‘significant publicly accessible’ regarding the open space adjacent to Toorak Park to ensure that the new occupiers (residents) at the site are afforded a level of open space more consistent with the higher density development of the site. Site Coverage The Panel has recommended the site coverage is raised from 50% to 60%. This position was not advocated for by the Council or any other submitters (rather raised by one expert witness). This is not considered appropriate. 60% site coverage reflects ResCode which applies to sites less than 4 storeys, it is not considered appropriate to raise the amount. Higher density developments require a lower site coverage to provide more compensating public realm and landscaping at ground level. In addition, given the size of the site, there is a need to also include access (via internal roads) making 60% unworkable. The existing permit (currently the subject of review) includes approximately 40% site coverage which reinforces the above concerns.

Development Plan Overlay (DPO) and Development Plan

Prior to the preparation of a development plan, the provisions of the DPO apply. The purpose of a DPO is to identify areas which require the form and conditions of future use and development to be shown on a development plan before a permit can be granted to use or develop the land. This provides a framework for future decision making in relation to development of the site. A DPO can provide a degree of certainty by addressing a wide range of aspects to including development design, use, subdivision layout, heights, development, yield, tree retention, vehicle and pedestrian access, infrastructure management and open space.

Rather than include a yield, Council adopted a position in August 2012 to present to the Panel which focused on building form and heights. Without the heights there very little else to provide any control of development yield or certainty that reflects all stakeholders considerations for the site.

Once a development plan has been approved by the responsible authority, in this case – Council, any permit must also be generally in accordance with this development plan. This would remain the case unless the Minister for Planning amended the Planning Scheme to make himself the responsible authority. Before a development plan can be approved, it must include those matters specified in the DPO schedule. Any application for use that is not generally in accordance with an approved development plan must be refused or the Plan must be changed with changes approved by Council. The DPO2 schedule proposes to include a minimum of 4 weeks of consultation on any Development Plan – this has not been contested. If Council does not approve the Development Plan within the statutory time period, the Developer can appeal to VCAT.

It is noted that the Panel’s recommended DPO2 retains the requirement that any development plan must be consulted on for 4 weeks before a decision can be made.

Rezoning

Officers note the discussion in the Panel Report regarding a potential future rezoning of the site as part of a separate amendment. Given the current zoning reforms being undertaken by the State Government, any change to the zones on the site should consider the implications of the proposed zoning reforms. The site is located in an established residential area, and any rezoning should be considered in this context.

Page 130 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Next steps

It is important that an appropriate outcome is found for the site at 590 Orrong Road and 4 Osment Street. The Planning Scheme Amendment has been pursued to ensure appropriate controls are in place for any future development proposal.

# A revised version of DPO2 is included in Attachment 4 that includes the Panel’s recommended version and changes outlined in this report (shown as tracked changes). It is recommended this version is generally adopted subject to the inclusion of a map.

Under recently introduced Ministerial Directions, Council must decide the matter within 40 business days. In this instance 40 business days is Wednesday 20 February 2013.

The date of the Supreme Court hearing is 16 and 17 April 2013 and submissions are to be circulated two months in advance (ie mid February 2013).

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The policies in the Planning Scheme support proposed Amendment C153. The site is the last remaining “large redevelopment site” identified in the City of Stonnington Strategic Framework Plan (at Clause 21.01-2 of the existing Planning Scheme).

The Council Plan (2009-2013, Year 4) outlines the key objectives for the municipality. The proposal should address these key objectives, while looking to introduce new residential opportunities. Relevant key policies include:  Moving towards sustainable energy options by leadership and adoption of environmental design practices;  Continue to work with partners to find a balance between sustainable transport options and the lifestyle preferences of the community;  Valuing good urban design that maintains and enhances a quality lifestyle through the effective management of public open space including footpaths, walking tracks, parks, recreational facilities, access to dining and retail opportunities and access to parking;  Maintaining and enhancing the public realm to provide safe, accessible, usable, clean and attractive spaces and streetscapes; and  Encourage a culture that values community engagement.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

The costs associated with processing the Planning Panel for Amendment C153 have been in the order of $150,000. As there was no allocation in the 2012/13 Strategic Planning budget, Council agreed to an overspend of $150,000 at its meeting on 13 August 2012.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Notification for Amendment C153 and planning permit application 725/11 was circulated to approximately 13,000 residents and landowners surrounding the site to provide their feedback. In addition, stakeholders have had the opportunity to feed into the development of the planning controls through consultation on the Urban Design Framework. All submitters to Amendment C153 have had the opportunity to make submissions, and be heard by an independent Panel.

Page 131 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

CONCLUSION

590 Orrong Road and 4 Osment Street, Armadale represents one of the most important redevelopment sites in Stonnington. It is therefore important that the 'right balance' is achieved between all stakeholders to ensure any development response delivers a primarily residential development and avoids causing unreasonable impacts on the surrounding area including key open space Toorak Park, Victory Square and the nearby residential areas.

Amendment C153, which proposes permanent planning controls for 590 Orrong Road and 4 Osment Street Armadale, has recently been heard by an independent Panel. While the Panel supports Amendment C153 in the form of DPO2 generally, it is considered that the removal of general overall height controls is not appropriate. Some other minor changes are also suggested to be made to the version of DPO2 recommended by the Panel.

A planning application for the same site was recently considered by VCAT. VCAT has issued a permit for the site for 466 units. Council has appealed this decision to the Supreme Court with the hearing listed for April 2013.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION

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

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Notes the release of the report of the Planning Panel to the public on Amendment C153 – 590 Orrong Road and 4 Osment Street, Armadale.

2. Advocate for mandatory height controls for 590 Orrong Road and 4 Osment Street, Armadale.

3. On considering the Independent Panel report, adopts Amendment C153 – 590 Orrong Road and 4 Osment Street, Armadale to the Stonnington Planning Scheme with changes including mandatory height controls (pursuant to Section 29(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987) generally as attached.

4. Submits the adopted Amendment C153 – 590 Orrong Road and 4 Osment Street, Armadale to the Minister for Planning for approval, in accordance with Section 31(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

5. Advises all submitters of Council’s decision in relation to proposed Amendment C153 – 590 Orrong Road and 4 Osment Street, Armadale.

Page 132 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

3. AMENDMENT C163 – CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS FOR HERITAGE PROTECTION OF RESIDENTIAL FLATS

Manager: Stephen Lardner Executive Manager: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of the report is for Council to consider the submissions received on Amendment C163 following exhibition, and request that the Minister for Planning set up a Panel to consider the submissions and the Amendment.

This report was deferred from 17 December 2012 to 4 February 2013 so that a consultative meeting could be organised with submitters. This Report also identifies the progress of the heritage protection of all individual buildings.

BACKGROUND

The current stage of Council’s Heritage Strategy addresses individual buildings not currently under the Heritage Overlay. It is intended to progressively seek heritage controls for all A1 graded buildings in the Municipality and those A2 graded buildings meeting or exceeding the threshold of local significance. Officers have been compiling a list of places with potential individual heritage significance.

In implementing this part of the heritage strategy, individual buildings have been grouped thematically, linking to the themes contained in the Thematic Environmental History. Residential Flats with the potential to be individually listed form one of these important thematic groups. In addition to Residential Flats, Hotels, the ‘OT’ Chimney, Churches and Halls (Am C135) and Stables and Dairies (Am C145) have been approved by the Minister. Jam Factory Chimney (Am C141) and Shops (Am C158) have been adopted which are now pending approval by the Minister.

On 13 August 2012, Council resolved to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare Amendment C163 which proposes to introduce individual heritage controls for 27 Residential Flats in the City of Stonnington. The Minister for Planning granted authorisation in August 2012.

Amendment C163 was placed on public exhibition between 13 September 2012 and 15 October 2012. A full copy of the proposed Amendment C163 documents, heritage citations, and supporting documents were available for viewing at the Prahran Town Hall and on Council's and the Department of Planning and Community Development websites.

A notice of the preparation of Amendment C163 appeared in the Stonnington Leader and the Government Gazette on 11 September and 13 September 2012 respectively. Notice was sent to the owners and occupiers and prescribed authorities on 7 September 2012 offering the opportunity for one-on-one consultations.

Council officers and Council’s Heritage Advisor met with five (5) individual owners of five different properties and one Body Corporate as part of the one on one consultation process. An on-site meeting was held with the owners of Casa Panzo, 89 Alexandra Avenue, South Yarra on 9 October 2012.

Council also held a consultative meeting on 23 January 2013 for submitters to discuss their submission with Councillors. 8 submitters from 7 different properties attended on the night. Page 133 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

DISCUSSION

As a result of exhibition, Sixteen (16) submissions were received. Four (4) were submissions of support, ten (10) submissions objected to the Amendment and there were two (2) non objecting submissions. The submissions include:

 Submission 1 – Department of Sustainability and Environment – No objection  Submission 2 – Cambooya Flats, 1 Carmyle Avenue, Toorak - Objection  Submission 3 – Koonoona Flats, 754 High Street, Armadale – Support  Submission 4 – Grasden Hall, 28 Washington Street, Toorak – Support  Submission 5 – Denbigh Court, 6-8 Denbigh Road, Armadale – Objection  Submission 6 – Casa Panzo 89 Alexandra Avenue, South Yarra – Objection  Submission 7 – National Trust of Australia – Support  Submission 8 – Grange Lynne, 6 Grange Road, Toorak – Objection  Submission 9 – Duplex, 5 Stonnington Place, Toorak – Objection  Submission 10 & 11– Eden Kyle Flats, 30 Verdant Avenue, Toorak – Objection  Submission 12 – Glenunga Flats, 2 Horsburgh Grove, Armadale – Objection  Submission 13 – Fawkner Mansions, 250 Punt Road, Prahran – No objection  Submission 14 – Silverton Flats, 698 Orrong Road, Toorak – Objection  Submission 15 – Granada Flats (Former), 537 Orrong Road – Support  Submission 16 – Hillingdon Flats, 383 Glenferrie Road – Objection

Council’s Heritage Consultant (Context Pty Ltd) has considered the written submissions and, where appropriate, undertaken further external site inspections.

The ten objecting submitters have requested changes to the Amendment. Seven submissions specifically request their Residential Flat be excluded from the proposed heritage controls. Other general issues raised in the submissions relate to the accuracy of the heritage citations and the research, analysis, additional costs, property values and insurance and unfair restrictions.

## A summary of the submissions, comments and recommendations are in Attachment 1. Photos of each place and its heritage grading in relation to the submissions can be seen in Attachment 2.

On the basis of the responses prepared by Council’s Heritage Consultant and consideration of officers, it is recommended that Council make the following changes to the Amendment to accommodate the major concerns raised by submitters:

 Submission 2 - Cambooya Flats, 1 Carmyle Avenue, Toorak – As a result of the submission, it is recommended that Cambooya Flats not be included in the Heritage Overlay due to extensive external alterations to the fabric of the building. The points made in the submission and the officer response are summarised in the table in Attachment 1.

#  Submission 9 - Duplex, 5 Stonnington Place, Toorak - As a result of the submission, it is recommended that 5 Stonnington Place not be included in the Heritage Overlay as it has already been assessed as not significant by an independent Panel (see Attachment 3) and deleted from the Heritage Overlay in 2004. No new evidence has Page 134 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

been provided to justify a change to this property. The points made in the submission and the officer response are summarised in the table in Attachment 1.

 Submission 3 - Koonoona Flats, 754 High Street, Armadale – update schedule to include ‘garages/outbuilding’ and front fence.

 Submission 5 - Denbigh Court, 6-8 Denbigh Road, Armadale – update citation to note the position of the original gate posts and the pier on the south side. Specify the fencing, carports and rear building are not significant in the statement of significance.

 Submission 6 - Casa Panzo, 89 Alexandra Avenue, South Yarra - amend the heritage citation to specify in the description and the statement of significance that the c.1980s high front and side fences are not significant. Include reference to the small patio, original tiled panels, and the non-original window frame. Include the garages as a non significant element. Include specific reference to the c.1980s rear additions and the high rendered front and side fences as non-significant elements. Include reference to the aesthetic significance of the place.

 Submission 12 - Glenunga Flats, 2 Horsburgh Grove, Armadale - amend the heritage citation to refer to the alterations to the original fabric.

Council’s heritage consultant proposes that external paint controls be applied in the schedule given the importance of paint colour to the significance of a number of buildings. Given the concern raised by submitters and Council’s normal practice of not having paint controls, it is proposed this provision is deleted.

In addition to the above, several of the submissions document minor changes to the buildings. These will be used to correct and or add to the citations as required.

The submitters in their consultation meeting with Councillors raised a number of general concerns. They advised that their buildings require extra maintenance and upgrading due to age and type of construction. They also argued that in some cases the internal layout was potentially obsolescent and did not meet current housing expectations. In response, it is considered that these concerns, whilst valid do not reduce the architectural significance of the identified buildings. None of the buildings are proposed for demolition. The future issue of uneconomic maintenance costs and building obsolescence should be tested in the context of demolition and redevelopment applications if and when made.

Next Steps

Council must forward all sixteen submissions and the amendment to a Panel, if it is not prepared to vary Amendment C163 in accordance with the objections and 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. On receipt of the Panel report, a report will be put to Council to consider the Panel's recommendations.

Page 135 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The proposed Amendment C163 Residential Flats is part of the implementation of Council’s adopted Heritage Strategy Action Plan and 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'.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

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

LEGAL ADVICE AND IMPLICATIONS

All affected parties have been given the opportunity to make submissions on Amendment C163 and will be able to be heard by an independent Planning Panel.

CONCLUSION

Amendment C163 proposes to apply heritage protection to twenty seven (27) Residential Flats in the City of Stonnington. Eleven submissions seek changes to the Amendment. Council needs to request that the Minister for Planning appoint a Panel to consider the submissions and the amendment. It is proposed that Council's position as presented to the Panel is based on the response to the submissions in this report and the attachments.

Following submissions, it is recommended Council support individual heritage controls for twenty five (25) Residential Flats at Panel.

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 appoint a Panel pursuant to Section 23 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to hear all submissions and consider the proposed Amendment C163 Residential Flats to the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

2. In its submission to the Panel hearing, Council adopts a position in support of Amendment C163 Residential Flats, generally in accordance with the officer's response to the submissions as contained in this report and attachments.

3. Advises the submitters to proposed Amendment C163 Residential Flats of Council’s decision.

4. Refers all submissions and any late submissions to the Panel appointed to consider proposed Amendment C163.

Page 136 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

4. AMENDMENT C167 –SUBMISSIONS - REVIEW OF HERITAGE OVERLAY 138 - HORNBY & MCILWRICK STREETS, WINDSOR PRECINCT

Manager: Stephen Lardner Executive Manager: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of the report is for Council to consider the submissions received on Amendment C167 following exhibition and request that the Minister for Planning set up a Panel to consider the submissions and the amendment.

BACKGROUND

This Amendment is part of the ongoing implementation of Council’s Heritage Strategy adopted in 2006. The Strategy and implementation plan provides Council with a framework for a comprehensive and coordinated review of the existing heritage places and the assessment of new places. A review of existing heritage precincts and citation is progressively taking place. A review of the Hornby & McIlwrick Streets Precinct has now been completed.

The Hornby & McIlwrick Streets Precinct (HO138) is a residential area of late nineteenth century buildings developed adjacent to and incorporating the Presentation College and Prahran Windsor Primary School. Development in the area occurred through the 1870's and consolidation of the area to its current arrangement occurred into the 1880's and beyond.

The character and diversity of scale around McIlwrick Street is noted in the Prahran Character and Conservation Study 1992 as:

‘ Form[ing] an interesting contrast with the predominantly small scale of the surrounding area. Exceptions to this small scale are provided by a row of six double-storey terraces in Elm Grove(renamed since to Elm Place)...... the tight street layout and Victorian and Edwardian housing stock contribute to the character in the vicinity of Frederick Street reinforcing the working class situation’.

An assessment of the heritage value of the precinct and surrounds confirmed that additional areas outside the Heritage Overlay contribute to the heritage character and significance of the precinct.

Council previously endorsed a request to the Minister for Planning to authorise the preparation of Amendment C167 to extend the Heritage Overlay for the Hornby Street Precinct at its meeting on 27 August 2012.

# Amendment C167 was placed on public exhibition between 15 November and 17 December 2012. A full copy of the proposed Amendment C167 documents, heritage citations, and amendment documents were available for viewing at the Prahran Town Hall and on Council's and Department of Planning and Community Development websites. The new citation and a map showing the existing and extended are proposed can be found in attachment 1.

Page 137 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

A notice of the preparation of amendment appeared in the Stonnington Leader and the Government Gazette on 13 November and 15 November 2012 respectively.

Notice was sent to the affected owners and occupiers, prescribed authorities and public authorities on 9 November 2012.

A consultative meeting has been offered to submitters if they wish to discuss their submission with Councillors on Wednesday 23 January.

DISCUSSION

# As a result of exhibition, four (4) submissions were received. The submissions (refer to Attachment 2) included three objections to their properties being included in the HO and one supporting submission suggesting a number of changes to the citation.

# Attachment 3 shows the location of the properties of the submitters, a summary of the submissions and officer responses to the issues raised.

In summary, submission 1 provided an objection to any heritage classification of 8 McIlwrick Street, Windsor. The submission cited inconsistencies with broader planning policy for the area, the failure to consider a current planning permit for the site (0306/11), lack of justification to upgrade the heritage status from the previous citation and the varied character of McIlwrick Street particularly at the western end as reasons 8 McIlwrick Street should not be included in the extended HO. The submission suggests that the western boundary of the extended HO should be amended to align with 10 McIlwrick Street.

Submission 2 provided support for the amendment and suggests a number of changes to the heritage citation.

Submission 3 provided an objection to the HO extension to include 15 Elm Place. The submission cited the poor condition of the building and the desire to redevelop the site in the future as reasons the HO should not be extended to include 15 Elm Place.

Submission 4 provided an objection to the HO extension to include 17 Elm Place. The submission cited the varied character of dwelling in the street and the prevention of potential redevelopment of the site as reasons the HO should not be extended to include 17 Elm Place.

Recommendations

# A summary of Council’s Heritage Consultants comments and recommendations regarding each of the submissions follows. A full copy of the report prepared can be seen at attachment 4.

Submission 1: the building at 6/8 McIlwrick Street and its neighbour at 2/4 make a reasonably modest contribution to the precinct. This contribution would be substantially diminished by the construction of the additions described by the current permit. It is recommended that the buildings at 2/4 and 6/7 McIlwrick Street are removed from the proposed extension to HO138 and the Precinct boundary along the southern side of McIlwrick Street end at the western boundary of No. 10 McIlwrick Street.

Page 138 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Submission 2: it is recommended that most of the minor amendments provided by the submitter are incorporated into the final citation. It is not proposed to elevate the status of interwar factory buildings within the Precinct be referring to these in the Statement of Significance. It is recommended that the tree on the Presentation College site should be assessed by a suitably qualified arborist as part of a future review of that site.

Submission 3: it is recommended the building is a significant building under the terms of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. It is located within a precinct of early buildings of local significance. On this basis, it is recommended that the building at 15 Elm Place be retained in the extended Heritage Overlay area.

Submission 4: it is recommended the building is a significant building under the terms of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. It is located within a precinct of early buildings of local significance. On this basis, it is recommended that the building at 17 Elm Place be retained in the extended Heritage Overlay area. Further, Council’s Heritage Consultant has recommended a future review of the Presentation College site be conducted, this review will be added to the list of future investigation areas.

Recommended changes for Panel

The following changes are recommended to be made to the Heritage Citation prior to being submitted to panel:

 The proposed extended Precinct boundary is to be amended to end at the western boundary of No. 10 McIlwrick Street. As shown in Att. 1.  Minor amendments suggested in Submission 2 are to be incorporated in the final submission.

Council must forward all four submissions and the amendment to a Panel, if it is not prepared to vary the amendment to address unresolved issues that have not been addressed by the recommended changes 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. Pre-set panel dates for a directions hearing during the week beginning 4 March 2013 and a panel hearing during the week beginning 1 April 2013 were set with Panels Victoria prior to exhibition. On receipt of the Panel report, a report will be taken to Council to consider the Panel's recommendations.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The proposed Amendment C167 is part of the implementation of Council’s adopted Heritage Strategy Action Plan and 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”.

The proposed amendment is consistent with Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement at Clause 21.02-3 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme which seeks to:

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

Page 139 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

The amendment has been included in the budget of Council’s Strategic Planning Unit for 2012/13.

LEGAL ADVICE AND IMPLICATIONS

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

CONCLUSION

Amendment C167 reviews HO138 and seeks to amend the heritage overlay area and update the heritage citation for the precinct. Four submissions have been received for the Amendment and 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 submissions 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 C167 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

2. In its submission to the Panel hearing, Council adopts a position in support of Amendment C167, generally in accordance with the officer's response to the submissions as contained in this report and attachments.

3. Advises the submitters to proposed Amendment C167 of Council’s decision.

4. Refers all submissions and any late submissions to the Panel appointed to consider proposed Amendment C167.

Page 140 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

5. AMENDMENT C170 - CHAPEL STREET PRECINCT HERITAGE REVIEW – CONSIDER SUBMISSIONS

Manager: Stephen Lardner Executive Manager: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of the report is for Council to consider the submissions received on Amendment C170 Chapel Street Heritage Review following exhibition, and request that the Minister for Planning set up a Panel to consider the submission and the amendment.

BACKGROUND

This amendment is part of the ongoing implementation of Council’s Heritage Strategy adopted in 2006. The Strategy and implementation plan provides Council with a framework for a comprehensive and coordinated review of 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.

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 aims 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 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.

### Council’s heritage advisor has prepared new citations and schedules of building gradings for the Chapel Street Precinct. He recommends that HO126 should be modified and reduced as described in Attachment 1 and the areas removed placed in two new Heritage Overlays. The two new Heritage Overlay areas to be known as the Greville Street Residential Precinct (Attachment 2) and Medley Place Precinct (Attachment 3). Two new buildings would be introduced to the Heritage Overlay; their previous omission appears to be an error. A very small number of buildings would be removed from heritage control and no building gradings have been altered.

# Attachment 4 details the extent of HO126 boundary and the location of the two new precincts.

Amendment C170 was placed on public exhibition between 15 November 2012 and 17 December 2012. Full copies of the proposed Amendment C170 document and heritage citations 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 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.

Page 141 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

DISCUSSION

# As a result of exhibition one submission was received on behalf of Swinburne University. The submission:

 Contends that the land to the east of the Prahran Mechanics Institute, at 142-160 High Street, should be removed from the new HO126 and that there is no satisfactory justification for the proposed changes.

Prahran Mechanics Institute is in its own HO, HO53. The land to the immediate west also owned by Swinburne at 126 High Street which is all the land from the Mechanics Institute to Thomas Street is a carpark and also an ungraded post war institutional building.

The amendment proposes to remove this land and building. The submitter supports this change although they incorrectly identify this land as 144 High Street.

The land to the immediate east sought by the submitter to be removed from the existing HO includes at 144 High Street an A2 two storey Victorian Villa, at 152 High Street an A2 single storey Victorian Villa, at 160 High Street a carpark and at 160A an A2 Two storey interwar shop former Maples carpet store. These are important buildings linking back to Chapel Street. There is no change proposed to these and they are all in the existing HO. The submitters argument that there is no satisfactory justification for the changes proposed is manifestly unclear and unjustified given the only changes that are being made they support and their opposition is to changes which are not being made.

It is recommended that it is essential that these 3 significant buildings are retained as set out in the Prahran Character and Conservation Study 1993 and as recommended by the revised HO126 citation.

Next Steps

Council must forward the submission and the amendment to a Panel, if it is not prepared to vary Amendment C170 in accordance with the objection and 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, a preliminary Panel date has been set for May 2013. On receipt of the Panel report, a report will be put to Council to consider the Panel's recommendations.

Councillors have made no request to allow the submitter to be heard on this amendment and HO C167 Hornby Street.

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.”

Page 142 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

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

LEGAL ADVICE AND IMPLICATIONS

All affected parties have been given the opportunity to make submissions on Amendment C170 and will be able to be heard by an independent Planning Panel.

CONCLUSION

Amendment C170 Chapel Street Heritage Review has completed exhibition. The Amendment splits the existing Chapel Street Precinct (HO126) into three different 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. Officers will have discussions with the submitter with a view to having their objection withdrawn.

It is recommended that Council formally request that the Minister for Planning appoint a Panel to consider the submission and the amendment. It is proposed that Council's position to the Panel 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 C170 Chapel Street Heritage Review to the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

2. In its submission to the Panel hearing, Council adopts a position in support of Amendment C170 Chapel Street Heritage Review and generally in accordance with the officer's response to the submissions as contained in this report and attachments.

3. Advises all submitters to proposed Amendment C170 Chapel Street Heritage Review of Council’s decision.

4. Refers all submissions and any late submissions to the Panel appointed to consider proposed Amendment C170. Page 143 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

6. PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT TO REZONE RAILWAY LEASE LOT 1, 2 & 9 PRAHRAN – AMENDMENT C169

Manager: Stephen Lardner Executive Manager: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider endorsing the request from VicTrack to prepare Amendment C169 to rezone land in Prahran from Public Use Zone – Schedule 4 to Mixed Use Zone and apply an Environmental Audit Overlay to the land.

BACKGROUND

# In July 2012 Council received a written request from VicTrack to rezone the land known as Railway Lease Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 9, herein referred to as 'the land'. The three lots form part of a single title legally described as Lot 1 on TP700515J (refer attachment 1). Council Officers requested that VicTrack prepare the amendment to the Planning Scheme.

# VicTrack has provided the following information in support of the proposed changes to the Planning Scheme:

- The Department of Transport has declared the site is no longer required for future public transport purposes under the existing PUZ4 (Transport) (refer attachment 2);

- The land has been built on and leased to adjoining landowners for some time. VicTrack has declared its intent to sell this parcel of land to adjoining owners. Therefore it will no longer be used for transport purposes or be in public ownership.

DISCUSSION

‘The land’ is currently accessed and being used by the adjoining owners at 9- 21 Thomas Place and 122-126 Commercial Road Prahran. The land is being used for residential and a range of commercial uses.

Planning Controls

# The land is currently zoned Public Use Zone Schedule 4 (PUZ4) (refer attachment 3) and is not affected by any overlays. PUZ4 facilitates use relating to transport. VicTrack has proposed that the land be rezoned to Mixed Use Zone (MUZ). The stated purpose of the MUZ is to provide for a range of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses which complement the mixed-use function of the locality.

The land is already being utilised for residential and commercial purposes and is no longer required for future public transport uses. As such it is considered the application of the Mixed Use Zone would better reflect the current and future land uses of the site and is consistent with adjoining land use in Thomas Place.

Page 144 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

The land adjoining Railway Lease Lot 1, 2 & 9 is affected by an Environmental Audit Overlay. The purpose of this overlay it to ensure that potentially contaminated land is suitable for a use (such as residential) which could be significantly adversely affected by any contamination. Given the land use history of potentially contaminating uses of Railway Lease Lot 1, 2 & 9 it is considered appropriate that it also be subject to Environmental Audit Overlay.

Amendment Process

Officers consider that VicTrack should request the amendment under s20(2) of the Act which requires the notification of adjoining owners only, due to the localised nature of the Amendment. Council will facilitate the required notification on behalf of VicTrack.

As proposed, VicTrack will become the Planning Authority for the amendment. If VicTrack receives objecting submissions a panel hearing would be requested by VicTrack following the notification period, Council would be required to consider a position for submission to the Panel.

VicTrack will be responsible for processing the Amendment including consideration for any submissions made regarding the amendment, requesting a panel be appointed to resolve any submissions and submitting the Amendment for approval.

It is proposed that the Amendment be exempt from part of the normal notification and exhibition requirements. Adjacent owners and occupiers will be notified by letter and have the opportunity to view the amendment in full and make submissions on the amendment. Notice of the amendment would not be placed in the Government Gazette or the Leader for any period of time. Relevant authorities such as Council and the Department of Transport will be notified for comment.

Given the minor nature of the amendment it is considered appropriate that notice requirements are reduced to include only adjoining owners. It is therefore considered appropriate that Council support VicTrack’s request that this amendment be authorised under s20(2) of the Act.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Amendment C169 is consistent with policy direction in the Stonnington Planning Scheme. The amendment supports the following clauses contained within the Planning Scheme.

State Planning Policy Framework;  13.03-1 – Use of contaminated and potentially contaminated land – which has the objective of ensuring that potentially contaminated land is suitable for its intended future use and development, and that contaminated land is used safely.  15.02-1 – Energy and Resource Efficiency which promotes urban consolidation and integration of land use and transport.

Local Planning Policy Framework;  22.05 – Residential Development in Commercial Areas Policy - encourages residential development, including medium density housing, to locate in commercial areas as components of new development, as shop tops through renovation and re- use of upper floors of existing buildings, or as freestanding residential development in mixed-use areas.

Page 145 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

Amendment C169 will have very little impact on the resource and administrative costs of the Council as the amendment process will be undertaken and paid for by VicTrack.

LEGAL ADVICE AND IMPLICATIONS

Council may become a party to the Amendment through the preparation of a submission regarding the amendment when notification is undertaken. All adjacent owners and occupiers will have the opportunity to make submissions during the exhibition period.

CONCLUSION

VicTrack owns land in a railway reserve in Prahran that is no longer required for future public transport purposes and is already used for residential and commercial purposes. The current zoning of the Railway Reserve does not reflect the current and future land uses.

Amendment C169 proposes to rezone the land from Public Use Zone 4 to Mixed Use Zone. The MUZ will better reflect the current and future land uses. Amendment C169 will also apply the Environmental Audit Overlay to ensure that any sensitive development to occur on the site will not be significantly adversely affected by any potential contamination.

VicTrack is the Planning Authority for the Amendment and will process the Amendment. Given the notification proposed by VicTrack of the adjoining owners and occupiers it is considered appropriate that Council support VicTrack’s request for authorisation to prepare an amendment in accordance with s9 (1, 3) of the Act and provide notice under s20(2) of the Act. Council will be notified and have the opportunity to make a submission on the amendment during the notification period.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION

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

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Endorse VicTrack’s application to the Minister for Planning in accordance with section 9 (1,3) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to obtain authorisation to prepare Amendment C169 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme to rezone the land known as Railway Lease Lot 1, Lot 2 and Lot 9 to Mixed Use Zone and apply an Environmental Audit Overlay generally in accordance with this report.

2. Endorse VicTrack’s request to exhibit the amendment in accordance with section 20(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

3. Advise VicTrack of Council’s decision in relation to VicTrack’s application to the Minister for authorisation to prepare Amendment C169.

4. Authorise council officers to make a submission in support of Amendment C169 as proposed by VicTrack and detailed in this report.

Page 146 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

7. ACTIVITY CENTRE PLANNING

Manager: Stephen Lardner Executive Manager: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to provide a briefing on the current work plan for Activity Centre planning and the benefits and implications of the structure planning program and indicative costs.

BACKGROUND

# The City of Stonnington has five large and 18 smaller commercial activity centres. Attachment 1 shows the classification and general location of these centres on the one plan (known as the Strategic Framework Plan that forms part of the existing Municipal Strategic Statement). Attachment 2 shows a snapshot of each of the centres.

Activity Centre Planning Activity Centre planning is currently progressively being undertaken and existing structure plans are in place for Chapel Street, Forrest Hill and Toorak Village. An Urban Design Framework Plan (UDF) for Waverley Road has been completed, and a new UDF is underway for the corner of Dandenong Road (Tooronga Road to Bates Street). A draft structure plan is being prepared for Punt Road, Windsor to address development pressure in the area. A UDF is also progressing for 590 Orrong Road/4 Osment Street (detailed report at this briefing). The Chapel Street structure plan (Chapel Vision) is currently being reviewed and updated (Chapel reVision) with the aim of developing permanent planning controls for the centre.

Interim planning controls apply to Chapel Street. Permanent planning controls apply to Forrest Hill and Waverley Road. Permanent planning controls have been adopted for Toorak Village (Amendment C77) and are pending approval by the Minister for Planning.

Activity Centre planning and the development of structure plans is a key area of concern for the surrounding affected community. Issues arising from a development application at 1196-1200 High Street Armadale and correspondence from residents requesting a structure plan, led to a report to Council on 23 July 2012 addressing this concern.

At its meeting on 13 August 2012, Council considered the Chadstone Panel Report, including issues around the need for a Structure Plan to be developed for the centre. Council adopted Amendment C154 to enable the current stage of expansion and refurbishment of Chadstone Shopping Centre, recognising the need to undertake this further work. Strategic planning for Chadstone needs the support and participation of Chadstone Shopping Centre, the State Government and adjoining Councils. Historically, Chadstone Shopping Centre and the State Government have not been interested in supporting the development of a plan. This position appears more recently to have changed and support and participation from the owners of Chadstone Shopping Centre and State Government would be anticipated.

Page 147 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Draft internal discussion paper on structure planning At its Meeting of 28 August 2012, Council considered a report on the options for progressing structure plans based on a draft internal discussion paper prepared by Aecom Australia Pty Ltd which reviewed the five activity centres of:

 Chadstone (Principal)  High Street and Glenferrie Road (Major)  Hawksburn Village (Large neighbourhood)  Glen Iris Village (Small neighbourhood)  East Malvern Village (Small neighbourhood)

# A summary of the issues and opportunities for each of the five activity centres reviewed is outlined in attachment 3. The analysis identifies strategic long and short term benefits for structure planning and priority activity centres.

The review was in accordance with guidelines set out by the Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) and principles guided by a working group of officers across Council. State Government is seeking a boundary to be defined for all principal and major centres with a view to expand and provide greater opportunities for higher density commercial and residential redevelopment.

Activity Centre Study # Council has commissioned Hill PDA Consulting to conduct a study on all of Stonnington’s activity centres to guide the development of a future Activity Centre Strategy. The Activity Centre Study will use Council’s adopted “Building Prosperity Economic Development Strategy 2012-2016” as its base. The Study will analyse, draw conclusions and make recommendations on the existing and future activity centre hierarchy, supply and demand of commercial land uses, and determine mechanisms to improve the performance of Stonnington’s activity centres. It will also provide a basis for prioritising structure plan work for particular centres. An overview of this project is outlined in attachment 4.

DISCUSSION

Structure Plans Structure plans are the preferred method for developing activity centre policy in Melbourne. They set out an integrated vision for the future development of a centre and provide for changing community needs. They define the preferred direction of future growth and outline how this change will be managed. Structure plans can inform planning policy and guide important aspects of the centre including transport, open space/public realm, strategic opportunities, economic development, sustainability, liveability and amenity.

Each activity centre is unique and Council needs to work with the surrounding residential and commercial communities to determine exactly how an activity centre should grow taking into consideration population trends, economic growth and sustainability.

DPCD has released some information on its proposed new zones for consultation in 2012. Council considered the implications of the new zones at its meeting on 10 September 2012 and adopted a submission to the zones. The new zones intend to provide greater flexibility and propose to encourage economic development through a reduced level of regulation over land use and development. This approach could be at a significant cost to existing activity centres and surrounding residential areas. Despite the potential cost of this ‘flexibility’ in terms of residential and commercial impacts, this is not addressed in DPCD information to date.

Page 148 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

By developing structure plans for activity centres, Council will be better placed to respond to the State Government zone reforms by having background analysis and strategic work.

This will be particularly important in the two key areas of state policy expectation, being expansion of existing boundaries to include adjacent residential areas for high density development, and provision for higher density 4-6-10 storey commercial/residential redevelopment across all centres.

Structure plans can help to:  Provide as an outcome greater certainty to the community and investors about the expectations for the future form and function of centres.  Strategically plan for a whole centre and identify expectations and conflicts upfront, rather than looking at a single development application on its own.  Manage change to ensure activity centres are attractive, vibrant areas to live, work, shop and remain sustainable.  Ensure that economic and social factors are adequately considered.  Enable the community and other stakeholders to actively participate in planning for activity centres and coming up with ideas on how to manage growth.

As part of the implementation of the Metropolitan Strategy, DPCD encourages the preparation of structure plans to achieve higher levels of redevelopment, usually more than Council and the community would prefer to support or considers appropriate for long term planning. A risk in developing structure plans is that to get DPCD/ Ministerial approval, the outcome could lead to higher density development opportunities. In Stonnington, where structure plans have been prepared, Council has been able to restrict the boundaries to existing business zoned land, with some minor extensions in the Chapel Vision area, and to specify preferred heights. In centres where structure plans have not been prepared, developers use State policy to justify large developments in and beside centres.

The advantages and disadvantages of structure planning will be further considered and reported to Council as part of the current Activity Centre Study that has been commissioned.

Activity Centre Planning Key priorities for activity centre planning in Stonnington include:  Progressing the Activity Centre Study. This has an economic focus and expands on Council’s Economic Development Strategy.  Developing an Activity Centre Strategy. This will follow from the above and provide the strategic context for individual structure plans including the interrelationships between centres and levels of growth required for sustainable centres that serve their local and broader catchment. It is also expected to highlight the importance of improving public realm with landscaping and other streetscape works, and improvements to access by walking and cycling.  Structure Planning for Chadstone and High Street/Glenferrie Road.

Page 149 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

There are benefits in commencing structure planning for Chadstone as soon as possible. The latest Panel (Amendment C154) supported structure planning commencing “as soon as possible...even if development applications are subsequently lodged”. Structure planning for Chadstone should be made a priority because:

 The position of State Government and Chadstone Shopping Centre appears to have changed more recently and support and participation would be anticipated.  There is ongoing pressure for expansion, and a structure plan can take into consideration the shopping centre’s inter-relationship with surrounding areas, pedestrian and bicycle linkages, drainage and infrastructure provision, public transport improvements and consequential traffic limitations in the surrounding area.  The proposed new MSS (Amendment C161) identifies the need to develop and implement Structure Plans for principal, major and large neighbourhood activity centres, commencing with Chadstone and Malvern/Armadale.  The proposed new zone controls could allow increased development around the activity centre. Structure planning could lead to planning policy that determines how future development within and around the shopping centre takes place.  A structure plan for this area would raise the importance of the adjacent commercial areas on Dandenong Road, east of Warrigal Road (within the City of Monash). It would also identify the potential importance of Holmesglen Tafe and railway station to the north, and Oakleigh Shopping Centre and railway station to the south. Consistent with the current and future Metropolitan Strategy, it could also identify, and provide parameters for, the higher density residential redevelopment opportunity and constraints for the existing residential areas around Chadstone particularly to the east and south (within the City of Stonnington).

In bringing forward the structure planning for Chadstone, it may be complicated by the building process associated with the current stage of expansion. It is also anticipated that the new Metropolitan Strategy will provide some strategic direction for this area, however this is yet to be confirmed. It is also expected that any structure plan for Chadstone will generate significant concern from surrounding residential areas which may be identified for higher density development.

The importance of planning for High Street/Glenferrie Road includes documenting community expectations around future redevelopment. The current Metropolitan Strategy would encourage at least 4-6 storey development in both the existing commercial areas and adjacent residential areas, of a major activity centre. As seen by the recent response to development applications in High Street, this level of development would not be locally acceptable.

Structure Planning for Glen Iris Village and East Malvern Village could also commence in the short to medium term. Hawksburn Village is fairly well established and currently subject to less development pressure and could be a longer term project. The Activity Centre Study and Strategy will provide further guidance on activity centre planning priorities and opportunities.

Community Benefit Developing structure plans can help to provide greater certainty to the community about the future of a centre and how growth will be managed. Forward planning for a whole centre rather than considering a single site application on its own, provides the opportunity for genuine social impact assessment and identifying expectations and conflicts up front.

Page 150 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

A summary of key policy implications include:  Building Prosperity Economic Development Strategy 2012–2016  Amendment C161, revised Municipal Strategic Statement and Local Planning Policy  Council Plan - Community, Prosperity, Liveability.

# A more detailed assessment on policy implications associated with Activity Centre Planning is outlined in attachment 5.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

# Strategic Planning has existing budget within the Strategic Resource Plan (SRP) for a range projects including neighbourhood character and higher density guidelines and guidelines for specific strategic sites. $250k is included annually in the SRP for structure plan development over the next 5 years. Attachment 6 outlines this current work plan.

If Council wishes to bring forward and accelerate the structure planning program further, then additional funding will be required.

CONCLUSION

Stonnington has five large and 18 smaller commercial activity areas. Planning for activity centres has been completed for Forrest Hill, Toorak Village, Waverley Road, and is ongoing for Chapel Street. Structure plans can deliver a shared vision for how activity centres could manage change over time. Council could bring forward structure planning for priority centres in the next two years and a complete package over five years. This is considered to be an important action to take given the impact of the proposed new zones which could be implemented this calendar year.

The current Metropolitan Strategy supports and encourages higher density and levels of development as a matter of principle in all activity centres. As a consequence there could be significant conflict with the community around future development outcomes. Structure plans will help address these issues.

Chadstone and High Street/Glenferrie Road Activity Centres are presently considered the highest priorities with Glen Iris Village and East Malvern Village as the next important centres to progress.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION

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

RECOMMENDATION

That Council notes the report on Activity Centre Planning and considers structure planning priorities and the associated indicative costs.

Page 151 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

8. TOORAK VILLAGE – SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Manager: Stephen Lardner Executive Manager: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the findings of the Toorak Village – Late Night Liquor Trading Social Impact Assessment (SIA) and recommended mitigation options.

BACKGROUND

Residents and community groups have a long standing concern about the amenity impacts of licensed premises in the Toorak Village Precinct. This concern has included an approach to Council to consider installing safety cameras in the centre. In response to these concerns Council engaged a consultant (Akin Planning) to undertake preliminary investigations into the current impacts of licensed premises on the surrounding residential community. This included meetings with residents groups, traders and the Police.

The concerns from the resident's groups and traders included littering, noise from cars and people talking late at night in residential areas, people pre-loading with alcohol in their cars prior to entering venues and other littering associated behaviours. Council and the Trak Showroom (being the largest late night venue operator in Toorak Village) have developed processes for cleaning up the worst messes before day trading commences, and this minimises the impact for residents and traders. Trak Showroom has initiated several actions to minimise risk and harm.

Subsequent to the preliminary investigations, Akin Planning were engaged to undertake an SIA to collect data and undertake research to quantify and manage the issues associated with late night licensed premises in Toorak Village.

DISCUSSION

# The objective of the SIA for Toorak Village is to assess the impacts of late night liquor licenses and alcohol and establish what mitigation measures might be available to address community concern about this issue. The overall aim of the SIA is to make Toorak Village both a safe and attractive place to visit for entertainment purposes and for residents to live near. See Attachment 1 for the SIA Background paper (Licensed Premises in Toorak Village).

The purpose of the research was to collect data which can be used to make an objective measure of the impacts of late night liquor licenses in Toorak Village. The SIA Background paper also considered the operating hours of the venues, type of venues and market, patron capacity, access to public transport, patron queuing arrangements and car parking facilities.

A number of data collection activities were undertaken including:  Stakeholder meetings.  Resident diaries to report incidents near Toorak Village.  Collation of police statistics on crime in the Stonnington Police Service Area.  Liquor Licences in Toorak Village.  Collation of information on patronage provided by Trak Showroom to Council.

Page 152 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Stakeholder meetings Council met with the Victoria Police, the Toorak Village Traders Association (including representation from the Trak Showroom), Toorak Village Residents Action Group, Stonnington Concerned Citizens Association and a night-time site visit to Trak Showroom was also conducted.

The issues raised by representatives of the community groups mostly revolved around the issue that late night entertainment venues cater for non-local residents, specifically young adults, bringing large numbers of people into the residential areas surrounding the Village. Concerns raised included those relating to people pre-loading (drinking prior to entering venues), noise from cars and people talking, rubbish, noise from party buses and issues of pedestrian safety on Toorak Road.

The Traders group acknowledged the ongoing issues relating to people urinating on the street and littering however the Trak Showroom have adopted the practise to clean up the worst messes before day trading commences. Trak Showroom also conducts amenity patrols in surrounding streets and uses security cameras within the nightclub.

An inspection of the Trak Showroom on a Friday night revealed that crowd control measures were in place for the long waiting line and at the close of the evening the patrons appeared to disperse fairly quickly. Many patrons returned to vehicles parked in the Toorak Village car park at the rear of the shops where the impact on residents is minimal.

Resident Diaries Council and the consultant met with Toorak Village residents action groups to discuss the diaries and data collection. An invitation to complete the diaries was sent to approximately 1800 residents close to Toorak Village in March 2012. Residents were asked to record incidents that disrupted them over a period of six weeks from Thursday 22 March to Monday 30 April 2012.

At the conclusion of this recording period, Council received close to sixty diary responses. The incidents recorded can be categorised into disturbance, litter, property damage and concerns for safety. The two main issues recorded included disturbances (47.2% of incidents) and litter (37.3 % of incidents). Disturbances include noise from cars, motorbikes, people yelling, urinating and vomiting. Litter includes general rubbish and discarded alcohol containers.

The largest proportion of incidents was reported in Toorak Road (31.7%). Wallace Avenue, Jackson Street and Tintern Avenue all had a significant number of incidents over the diary period. The highest proportion of incidents was reported on Saturday night and Sunday morning (a total of 39.7%), suggesting that this night is when the majority of disturbance is created by night club patrons. The majority of reports on Monday are of litter left behind over the weekend, as the reports are of alcohol containers and associated rubbish. The majority of the noise incidents are in the early hours of the morning, between 1am and 4am.

Page 153 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Crime reports Police statistics on crime are available at the Stonnington Police Service Area (PSA) level. The PSA covers Prahran, Armadale, Malvern, Malvern East, South Yarra, Toorak, and sections of Chadstone, Glen Iris and Windsor. The crimes most likely to be associated with the consumption of alcohol (and hence licensed premises) include assault, drug offences and property damage. Some traffic incidents may also be alcohol-related. The number of assaults (excluding family violence) decreased by 8.2% between 2010-11 and 2011-12. However drug offences increased by 14.1% and property damage increased by 11.4% over the same period.

Late night licensed premises are associated with increased rates of assault. According to a study in Western Australia rates of assaults increased when Hotel trading hours were increased from midnight to 1.00 am. Studies in Melbourne have linked growing rates of violence with the increasing density of alcohol outlets. International studies have also demonstrated that there is a link between rates of violence and the density and trading hours of licensed premises.

Liquor Licences and Trak Showroom Patronage There are forty-two (42) businesses with a liquor licence in the suburb of Toorak, of which 16 are restaurants and two are late night venues or nightclubs (Trak Showroom and Sugar). The function centre Lincoln of Toorak was also considered in investigations. If the allowable patron numbers are collated the maximum number of patrons in the Trak Centre (Trak Showroom, Sugar and Lincoln of Toorak) at one time is 1280 patrons.

The Trak Showroom has obtained an amendment to a planning permit to increase patron numbers on a Saturday night from 300 to 600 patrons. This increase in patron numbers was granted on 13 July 2012 and included the adoption of a Neighbourhood Amenity Protection Plan (NAPP). The NAPP is a highly comprehensive document that imposes obligations upon the Trak Showroom at all times of operation to manage impacts on amenity within a designated area around the Trak Showroom. This designated area extends far into the surrounding residential streets. The NAPP requirements cover crowd control staff, queuing, CCTV, security, cleaning, amenity complaint handling, meetings with residents groups and parking.

The various data collected has informed the key findings of the SIA.

Key Findings Key findings of the Social Impact Assessment project include:  If the allowable patron numbers for three venues in the Trak Centre are combined, a maximum of 1280 patrons could be in the venues at one time.  The number of people within and around the centre is not limited by the licence conditions and there may be several hundred more people waiting to enter venues.  If the growth trend increases at the current rate there could be over 2000 people passing through the Trak Showroom every Saturday night.  The nuisance diary collection period coincided with a period of high patronage at the Trak Showroom and the noise disturbances recorded by local residents reflect this.  The Trak Centre is a congregation area where there is a risk of alcohol-related violence or other harm, given the large number of people coming and going while venues are operating.

Page 154 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Impact Minimisation Options There are a number of options for mitigating the social impacts of the late night licensed premises. They include actions that could be taken by Council, the venue operators, Victoria Police and the venue patrons. Mitigation options generally fall under the following categories:  Planning permit controls  Liquor license controls  Business management and operational practices  Council initiatives  Community initiatives  Broader cultural change

# The Toorak Village Community Safety Mitigation Plan is attached (Attachment 2).

It is proposed that this project build on the previous saturation research carried out for Chapel Street and add to the previous report and body of evidence on clustering late-night venues.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The SIA for Toorak Village is consistent with the following Council Plan strategy: Strengthening the Licensed Premises Policy to better manage amenity and safety impacts related to alcohol fuelled harm.

The SIA for Toorak Village is consistent with the following strategy from the Municipal Public Health Plan. Identify areas of crime, anti-social behaviour and binge drinking and work to deliver safer outcomes.

This project builds on the previous saturation research carried out for Chapel Street and will add to a body of evidence on clustering late-night venues. This evidence has the potential to inform change in policy for Toorak Village relating to licensed venues.

COMMUNITY BENEFIT

The community has long standing concerns with the amenity impacts of licensed premises in Toorak Village. The Social Impact Assessment (SIA) Background paper addresses these concerns and identifies potential mitigation measures. Implementation of the mitigation measures through the Toorak Village Community Safety Mitigation Plan will assist in improving the amenity in Toorak Village for traders, nearby residents and patrons of the licensed venues.

CONCLUSION

A number of amenity issues relating to the night late entertainment venues have been identified. These mostly relate to noise impacts and litter. The findings of the SIA for Toorak Village has identified a number of impact minimisation options to be investigated.

Page 155 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

It is proposed that Council initially investigate the following Stage 1 options of the Toorak Village Community Safety Mitigation Plan:

 Liaise with venue operators and taxi operators to advocate for improved patron conduct and use of the taxi zone.  Install advisory signage to direct people to the taxi ranks.  Install illuminated signage and lights on the road to identify the taxi rank.  Review transport/parking arrangements in area (including car park location signage)for residents, patrons, traders and other users of the Village to contain late night venue traffic in the commercial area of Toorak Village.  Encourage venues to post maps of preferred parking locations on web-sites/social media etc.  Encourage venue staff to continue to give customers ongoing verbal messages about being considerate of residents, availability of local car parks etc.  Continue to invite all operators to join the Stonnington Liquor Accord.  Monitor/support/maintain/review effectiveness of enforcement of the NAPP.  Encourage use of Planning Practice Note 61 in Council’s planning permit decisions.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION

This recommendation complies with the generally with the human rights, relating to Property rights and Entitlement to participate in public life, within the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Note the findings of the Toorak Village – Late Night Liquor Trading Social Impact Assessment. 2. Pursue investigation of the Stage 1 options in the Toorak Village Community Safety Mitigation Plan.

Page 156 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

9. STONNINGTON CYCLING REFERENCE GROUP

Author / Manager: Melissa Rethje General Manager: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the Cycling Strategy currently being prepared, and the establishment of a Stonnington Cycling Reference Group.

BACKGROUND

Work commenced on the preparation of a new cycling strategy in September 2012. The Strategy will replace an existing Cycling Strategy and is due for completion in March 2013. A draft of the Strategy will be presented to Council for consideration prior to release for public exhibition and feedback.

Given the level of community interest in cycling it would also be timely to consider establishing a reference group to provide input into the planning and provision of cycling infrastructure in Stonnington. The following report briefly sets out the roles and responsibilities, and Terms of Reference for the proposed Group.

DISCUSSION

A draft Terms of Reference for the Group has been prepared (attached). Careful consideration has been given to the focus and roles of the Stonnington Cycling Reference Group, so as to represent a partnership between Council and the community, and to ensure that it is appropriately tasked to add greatest value to the work of Officers and Council’s decision making.

The proposed purpose of the Stonnington Cycling Reference Group is to:  Provide the opportunity for input into the planning and provision of cycling infrastructure in Stonnington.  Inform Council on issues to assist decision making in relation to policy, program and service delivery for cycling.

The Group is not a formally delegated committee of Council and as such has no formal authority or decision making powers.

Assisting with the implementation of the new Cycling Strategy will be one of the main tasks of the Group. Others include:  Providing input into specific cycling initiatives, including programs and infrastructure planning and development;  Providing information on general issues pertaining to the achievement of cycling objectives within the City of Stonnington; and  Ensuring that cycling initiatives and programs are developed that achieve a balanced outcome having regard to Council Plan priorities, other stakeholder and community interests, with respect to the current urban environment.

The Group will include up to three community representatives who are ratepayers of the City of Stonnington, a Councillor and Council Officers (from the City Works Division).

Page 157 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

It is important to strike a reasonable balance in representation that is appropriate to the Stonnington urban context. To this end it is proposed to seek three community members, representing; the interest of local cycling groups, the interests of the commercial/business community, and the interests of the community more generally. The criteria for selection of the community representatives will include; having an interest and some experience in cycling, and/or experience / expertise in traffic management / planning (e.g. relevant skills, knowledge, experience).

Membership is suggested as being a two-year term.

It is proposed that the nominated Councillor will be Chairperson.

An Officer from Council’s Transport and Parking Department will administer the Group.

# Other operational details proposed for the Stonnington Cycling Reference Group are provided in the draft Terms of Reference attached.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

The resource implications for the Stonnington Cycling Reference Group will be largely be in-kind, in the form of Councillor and Officer time, meeting room use.

CONCLUSION

This report provides Councillors with an overview of two major initiatives pertaining to cycling in the City of Stonnington that are emerging. In particular, the proposal for establishing a Cycling Reference Group is outlined, with more detail of the proposed operations of the Stonnington Cycling Reference Group in the draft Terms of Reference.

The formation of such a group is timely with the preparation of a new cycling strategy which will provide opportunity for the Stonnington Cycling Reference Group to contribute to, and be involved in implementing from the outset.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION

The formation of the Stonnington Cycling Reference Group fits with the Right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief; and Entitlement to participate in public life, themes of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Endorse the Terms of Reference for the formation of the Stonnington Cycling Reference Group; 2. Nominations be sought from residents and/or business owners who are ratepayers of the City of Stonnington for membership of the Stonnington Cycling Reference Group; and 3. A further report outlining the proposed membership of the Stonnington Cycling Reference Group be presented to Council once nominations close. Page 158 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

10. APPLICATION TO APPEAL A DECISION FOR REFUSAL OF A REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF A SIGNIFICANT TREE AT 8/17 SORRETT AVENUE, MALVERN.

Author: Mark Phillips General Manager: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

The purpose of the report is to consider further evidence relating to an appeal against a Council decision not to grant a permit under Council’s General Local Law 2008 (No.1) for removal of a tree (Sequoia sempervirens - Coast Redwood) on private property at 8/17 Sorrett Avenue, Malvern.

BACKGROUND

An application was received by Council on 20 May 2010 from the owner of the above mentioned property for removal of a large tree Sequoia sempervirens (Coast Redwood).

# Council officers arranged for the tree to be assessed on 27 May 2010, by an independent arborist from Tree Logic P/L. (Tree Logic P/L undertake a number of arboricultural inspections on behalf of Council). Photographs of the subject tree are included as Attachment 1. The report found that the tree was in good health and that ‘no damage to drains or property walls was seen or noted’.

On 31 May 2010 Council’s arborist responded to the owner advising that based on the above inspection the application for removal of the tree was refused.

A letter was subsequently received by Council on 25 June 2010, signed by the owner of the above property appealing the decision to refuse the request for tree removal. A letter was also received from the managing agent (Ross-Hunt Real Estate Pty Ltd) for the Owners’ Corporation of 17 Sorrett Avenue, Malvern.

The ‘Appeal’ cited the following grounds for appeal:

 Drainage and ongoing problems which affect all residents of 17 Sorrett Avenue.

 Flooding of the courtyard and interior of the dwelling.

In response to the letter of appeal, a further inspection of the site was undertaken by a Council arborist who further confirmed the above arboricultural advice.

On 23 July 2010 Council’s arborist responded to the owner advising that based on the above inspection the application for removal of the tree was refused.

A letter was received by Council on 6 July 2011, signed by the owner of the above property appealing the decision to refuse the request for tree removal.

The ‘Appeal’ letter was accompanied by a report from Robert Brotchie and Associates Pty Ltd, Consulting Structural and Civil Engineers which cites the following grounds for appeal:

 Possible damage to dwelling at 8/17 Sorrett Avenue.  Fire risk. Page 159 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

 Damage to paving and associated tripping risk.

Council then organised for Stuart Wallace from consulting engineers Pitt & Sherry Pty Ltd to inspect the dwelling at 8/17 Sorrett Avenue. (attached). The summarised report findings were:

 The building is in good condition, no obvious distress or cracking.  The pavers in the have been lifted and should be re-laid.  The tree roots show signs of being constricted against the building foundation.  The tree will eventually cause uplift and could cause damage.

A report (copy attached) was prepared by Council officers and put to Council at its meeting on 4 June 2012. At that meeting Council carried the following motion.

That:

1. The action not to issue a permit for removal of the subject tree (Sequoia sempervirens - Coast Redwood) at 8/17 Sorrett Avenue, Malvern; in accordance with Council’s General Local Law 2008 (No.1), Division 4 – Protection of Trees, be endorsed.

2. The applicant be advised accordingly.

On 9 October 2012 the owner of the subject site contacted Council indicated that a water leak had necessitated the removal of carpet. The removal of the carpet revealed a large crack in the concrete slab floor which the owner believed was caused by the Sequoia sempervirens (Coast Redwood) located in the courtyard.

The site was inspected by a Council arborist who observed some evidence of minor cracking in the floor slab where the carpet was removed.

Page 160 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Photo of cracking taken by Council arborist.

On 12 December 2012 a further report from Robert Brotchie and Associates Pty Ltd, Consulting Structural and Civil Engineers was supplied by the tree owner which states:

 I confirm my recommendation in previous report to remove the large tree near the entry wall.

DISCUSSION

In considering an application for a tree removal permit Under Council’s Local Law No.1, consideration needs to be given to a number of factors, one of the key assessment factors is ‘whether the tree is causing property damage’.

In this case current advice from the applicants engineer is that; ‘… floor slab cracking radiates directly from the closest large tree …’ ‘The cracking ... confirms the tree is damaging the structure.’

As outlined above Council’s Arborist confirms observation of minor cracking of the slab.

The tree has been the subject of longstanding concerns by the owner relating to drainage and damage to paving in the courtyard. The tree is in close proximity to the dwelling, as such there is potential in the long term for the tree to affect the foundations. There is evidence of some minor cracking of the floor in proximity to the tree; advice from the applicants’ structural engineer is that the cracking is related to the tree.

Page 161 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Having regard to the proximity of the tree to the structure, the current impact on the drainage and paving in the vicinity of the buttress, the advice from the applicants Structural Engineer that the tree is causing structural damage to the slab, and the more recent photographic evidence showing minor cracking of the floor slab in proximity to the tree it is recommended that a permit be issued for removal.

LEGAL ADVICE AND IMPLICATIONS

The application has been assessed properly in accordance with the provisions of the Local Law.

CONCLUSION

The subject tree is classified as a ‘significant tree’ under Councils General Local Law 2008 (No.1).

The application for removal of the tree was assessed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Local Law; Division 4 – Protection of Trees, and on the basis of the arboricultural and engineering advice the request for removal was denied.

This decision was upheld by Council on 4 June 2012.

The applicant seeks to appeal the decision because of the further property damage recently identified at 8/17 Sorrett Avenue, Malvern.

Based on the finding of the engineers report (10/12/2012) and the Council arborist inspection (9/10/2012) it is proposed that Council agrees to the removal of the Sequoia sempervirens (Coast Redwood).

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION

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

RECOMMENDATION

That;

1. A permit for removal of the subject tree (Sequoia sempervirens - Coast Redwood) at 8/17 Sorrett Avenue, Malvern; be issued in accordance with Council’s General Local Law 2008 (No.1), Division 4 – Protection of Trees.

2. The applicant be advised accordingly.

Page 162 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

11. 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 a petition from the residents of Gladstone Avenue, Armadale proposing the removal and replacement of 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.

Page 163 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

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 resident 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 Mark Sturge’s (Council Engineer) 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 mort appropriate replacement trees while the opportunity exists prior to the reconstruction.

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.

Page 164 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

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.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

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).

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).

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).

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

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION

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

Page 165 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

RECOMMENDATION

That;

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.

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

Page 166 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

12. REPORT ON THE STREET TREES IN LAWNHILL ROAD, MALVERN FOLLOWING PRESENTATION OF A PETITION REQUESTING COUNCIL REPLACE THE RECENTLY PLANTED STREET TREES AT 2A LAWNHILL ROAD.

Author: Mark Phillips General Manager: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

The purpose of the report is to consider a petition from the residents of Lawnhill Road, Malvern requesting the removal and replacement of the recently planted 3 x Elaeocarpus eumundii (Blueberry Ash) street trees outside 2a Lawnhill Road.

BACKGROUND

Lawnhill Road is a small dead-end street coming off Elizabeth Street, Malvern, approximately 100 metres in length. The street is residential with predominantly large dwellings on small blocks with little or no garden at the front.

The street is planted with 13 Malus ioensis ‘Plena’ (Bechtels Crabapple) of various ages and the 3 x Elaeocarpus eumundii (Blueberry Ash) planted during winter 2012. The trees are planted in the naturestrip along the street.

In winter 2012 the owners of a new dwelling at 2a Lawnhill Road, requested the replacement of the street trees at this address. Following an inspection of the site and discussions with the abutting residents, the Council arborist agreed to replace the 2 x Malus ioensis ‘Plena’ (Bechtels Crabapple) that were in very poor condition with 3 x Elaeocarpus eumundii (Blueberry Ash).

Following the planting of the new trees Council was contacted by another resident of the street who expressed concern about the planting of a tree species other than Malus ioensis ‘Plena’ (Bechtels Crabapple).

Council contacted the owners of 2a and informed them that there was opposition to the planting of the Elaeocarpus eumundii (Blueberry Ash) and that Council was considering replacing them with Malus ioensis ‘Plena’ (Bechtels Crabapple). Leon and Leah Mann requested the opportunity to put their case to Council.

On 26 September 2012 a group of property owners petitioned Council asking for the removal of the Elaeocarpus eumundii (Blueberry Ash) and their replacement with Malus ioensis ‘Plena’ (Bechtels Crabapple).

Lawnhill Road, Malvern, is abutted by 12 properties directly with 2 properties facing Henderson Avenue having access to the street. The properties are:  11 single dwellings abutting Lawnhill Road;  1 property with 8 units abutting Lawnhill Road;  2 single dwellings facing Henderson Avenue.

Residents from 8 of the single dwellings abutting Lawnhill Road have signed the petition asking for the ‘…. removal of these new trees …. replaced by the current crab-apple trees that have been a feature of this cul de sac for over five years and are in far more keeping with the same trees in the surrounding areas.’

Page 167 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

On 27 September 2012 the owners of the new dwelling at 2a wrote to Council expressing concern about the possible replacement of the Elaeocarpus eumundii (Blueberry Ash). The letter states ‘…. the aesthetics and environment of Lawnhill Road would improve significantly with some tall, native, evergreen trees with substantial canopy and flora to attract native birds.’ The letter also states that the owners of 2a believe at least one other resident is not opposed to the planting of the Elaeocarpus eumundii (Blueberry Ash).

Photograph 1 Lawnhill Road, Malvern

DISCUSSION

Petition

Residents have petitioned Council in the belief that the streets appearance would be enhanced by the removal of the new trees and their replacement with Malus ioensis ‘Plena’ (Bechtels Crabapple) therefore maintaining a uniform single species streetscape. The residents also express concern that the replacement planting occurred without any wider consultation or consideration of others wishes.

Resident Letter

The owners of 2a while acknowledging that Malus ioensis ‘Plena’ (Bechtels Crabapple) are the dominant tree species in the street believe the retention of the Elaeocarpus eumundii (Blueberry Ash) is appropriate for the following reasons.  ‘many streets in Stonnington have mixed tree species’;

Page 168 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

 ‘ evergreen trees, complement the deciduous Crab-apple’ especially during the colder months;  ‘ Tall evergreen trees are needed to soften and enhance the streetscape, and provide greater shade’  The ‘Blueberry Ash is consistent with Stonnington’s sustainable environment policy’

Street Tree Strategy (2005)

The suggested species in the Stonnington Street Tree Strategy (2005) for Lawnhill Road is Malus ioensis ‘Plena’ (Bechtels Crabapple).

Current Situation

There are 13 x Malus ioensis ‘Plena’ (Bechtels Crabapple) varying in age from recently planted to semi mature and 3 x Elaeocarpus eumundii (Blueberry Ash) planted this year.

Options

There are 3 options for Council: 3. Retain the Elaeocarpus eumundii (Blueberry Ash) in front of 2a Lawnhill Road. 4. Remove the Elaeocarpus eumundii (Blueberry Ash) and replacement them with Malus ioensis ‘Plena’ (Bechtels Crabapple) during winter 2013. 5. Survey the residents of Lawnhill Road to determine the extent of support for the replacement of the Elaeocarpus eumundii (Blueberry Ash).

CONCLUSION

The Elaeocarpus eumundii (Blueberry Ash) in Lawnhill Road will develop into appropriate street trees however there is a perception among the petitioning residents that the street would be improved by the replacement of these trees with Malus ioensis ‘Plena’ (Bechtels Crabapple).

As the Elaeocarpus eumundii (Blueberry Ash) have just been planted an opportunity exists to remove and replace them without incurring a large expense.

While the petition is signed by a majority of the streets residents it is not an independent survey. Council should give all residents in the street an opportunity to comment independently on the possible replacement of the Elaeocarpus eumundii (Blueberry Ash).

It is therefore proposed that a survey be conducted of the residents of Lawnhill Road to ascertain the level of support for the removal of the Elaeocarpus eumundii (Blueberry Ash) and their replacement with Malus ioensis ‘Plena’ (Bechtels Crabapple).

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

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION

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

Page 169 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The residents of Lawnhill Road, Malvern are surveyed to determine the level of support for the removal of the Elaeocarpus eumundii (Blueberry Ash) and their replacement with Malus ioensis ‘Plena’ (Bechtels Crabapple).

2. The author of the letter accompanying the petition and the owners of 2a Lawnhill Road to be advised accordingly.

Page 170 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

13. CHAPEL STREET AREA TAXI ZONE PROJECT - UPDATE

Manager: Ian McLauchlan General Manager: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

To advise Council of the progress to date in the installation and operation of the Chapel Street Area Taxi Zone project.

BACKGROUND

Cr. Chandler made a request for a progress report on this project at the Council meeting of 3 December, 2012. Specifically, the minutes of the meeting state,

“Cr Chandler noted that there were 18 new taxi zones in Chapel Street operating from 11pm, for which the City of Stonnington and the State Government had expended considerable funding. He asked that Council Officers prepare a progress report to be brought to Council early in the New Year which would consider the success of the initiative.”

The Chapel Street Area Taxi Zone project is a joint initiative of Council and the State Government which aims to:

 Provide safe evening taxi access to late night premises;  Assist in moving patrons out of the precinct are leaving licensed venues;  Be enforced effectively; and,  Assist in fulfilling Council’s responsibilities in delivering the Inner City Entertainment Precincts Taskforce recommendations regarding licenced premises.

# Prior to the installation of the project, Council considered a detailed report on the work undertaken prior in trialling static signage taxi zone zone sites, piloting a single illuminated site in Chapel Street, the evaluations and consultation undertaken. The report considered is attached for Councillors’ information and Council resolved on 19 September, 2011,

“That:

1. the installation of Evening Taxi Zones at sites in Chapel Street, Commercial Road and Greville Street at locations shown in Attachment B, excluding the Commercial Road site west of Osborne Street and the Albert Street site, be approved with hours of operation 11pm-6am commencing Friday and Saturday evenings.

2. all sites operate with Tow Away restrictions when installed and the necessary approvals be sought from the Minister for Transport

3. the expenditure of the capital allocation of $198,000 in 2011/2012 capital program be approved to commence installation.

4. the Victorian Taxi Directorate be advised of Council’s decision and funding sought.

Page 171 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

5. depending upon available funding, implementation commence in the following order: • sites in Chapel Street (High Street to Commercial Road); • site in Commercial Road; • site in Greville Street; • sites in Chapel Street (Dandenong Road to High Street); and, • sites in Chapel Street (Commercial Road to Toorak Road).

6. a Working Group consisting of representatives of Council, Prahran Police, the Victorian Taxi Association, the Stonnington Liquor Accord and Streets Ahead Promotions be formed to oversee the implementation of the project.”

Following the decision, officers sought and obtained State funding $283,850 from the Victorian Taxi Directorate (VTD) under their Taxi Rank Safety Program, which with Council funding available, enabled the full project to be implemented.

# A copy of the grant terms and conditions is attached for Councillors’ information and it can be seen that 2 reports are required to be submitted to the VTD, on completion of the initial infrastructure installation and 12 months after which “must detail the benefits the infrastructure has provided to taxi passengers and drivers, patronage of the taxi rank and other information to support the safety benefits provided to the community.”

Following the advice of the funding, Council officers developed plans and tender documents for the works required and the working group approved by Council was convened to conduct the project delivery and monitoring.

The project installed consists of the installation to 18 taxi zones of varying lengths which are defined by illuminated advisory signage, an illuminated totem sign at pedestrian eye height, illuminated pavement markers, and static parking signage, defining the Taxi Zone parking restriction. The illuminated signage and pavement markers flash during the hours of 10pm- 5am on a Friday and Saturday night, and are solar powered. The Taxi Zone restrictions come into effect at 11pm. The one hour prior illumination provides a 1 hour warning period to motorists the zones are about to commence operation.

# A plan showing the location of all the sites is attached for Councillors’ information. Sites are located nearby, but not adjacent to licensed late night venues so as taxi patrons move away from the venue entrance (and potential queuing patrons entering), to access a taxi.

Allied to the installation of the physical infrastructure, the working group agreed a communication program and an enforcement program. Essentially to get the taxi zones to work as intended, the spaces need to made available for taxis to use, the taxi drivers need to be encouraged to use them rather than illegally park, and patrons need to be willing to walk to a nearby taxi rank rather than just step onto the road pavement at the venue entrance they have attended.

In terms of communication the following has been undertaken to notify motorists, patrons and tax drivers.

 Newspaper advertisements used in both local newspapers;  Posters installed in licenced venues for a 3 month period;  Stonnington Liquor Accord advised at their regular meetings;  Articles placed in the “Taxi Talk” industry magazine;  Advice from 13CABS to their members; and  Tri-fold maps (in the process of being prepared) for use of licensed venue patrons. Page 172 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

# A copy of map used for the public communication and the “Taxi Talk” article is attached for Councillors’ information.

The enforcement program, as proposed, involved :

1. Issuing warning notices to motorists parking illegally in the taxi zones for a settling in period; 2. Issuing infringements only for a period of 4-6 weeks; 3. Towing any remaining illegally parked vehicles in the taxi zones to ensure spaces are available at sites for taxis; and, 4. Enforcing vigorously, by camera, taxis undertaking the obstructive and unsafe behaviour by illegally parking in “No Stopping” zones, double parking, blocking access etc. (with prior warning of the program).

Council’s Parking Services contractor has been issuing warning notices to motorists initially after installations were completed and commenced issuing infringement notices in November. The component of the enforcement program involving towing of vehicles was delayed by an administrative issue at VicRoads in seeking the required Ministerial approval. Approval was obtained on 9 December however it was felt inappropriate to commence this activity before Christmas.

The implementation working group believes the vigorous enforcement of the taxi driver offences cannot commence until the towing program is underway.

Therefore, any judgement of the success or otherwise is premature until the full project is implemented. The implementation working group expects a 6-9 month process to establish the behaviour change sought and there will be a detailed monitoring and evaluation undertaken once the full enforcement program gets underway.

DISCUSSION

O bservations to Date

Council officers have been regularly observing the operation of the zones since the 1st installation was completed. The results to date indicate some sites are being kept reasonably clear whiles others are still regularly partially occupied. An example of a taxi using a clear site north of Bride O’Reilly’s in Chapel Street is shown below.

Page 173 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

The more problem sites tend to be at the Windsor Station and Toorak Road end.

Observations also suggest patrons are starting to wait at some sites, but there is still significant numbers of patrons stepping onto the carriageway at the venue they have attended.

In terms of infringement numbers, Council’s Parking Services staff advise numbers are stabilising, but based on observations on site they are not able to enforce all offenders and this is expected to improve when the towing program gets underway.

Trader Concerns

Streets Ahead Promotions, who are represented on the implementation working group have expressed concern with the project in terms of the number of sites, hours of operation, consultation and enforcement program.

These issues were addressed in detail in the report submitted to Council on 19 September 2011, and it is not proposed to elaborate on them further except to say it is the view of the Police, VTD, Victorian Taxi Association and Council officers on the implementation working group that the model adopted in this project, rather than the safe city taxi rank model supported by Streets Ahead Promotions is appropriate for Chapel Street.

A copy of the correspondence received from Streets Ahead Promotions and the response forwarded is attached for Councillors’ information.

During the meeting of the implementation working group prior to Christmas the Liquor Accord member made some helpful suggestions - trial temporary fencing at some venues to encourage patrons to not step onto road pavement to hail taxis, and provide an incentive gift/voucher for taxi passengers using the taxi zones. These will be explored further by the working group as part of the implementation in the coming months.

Enforcement Program Page 174 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

The implementation working group members from the Police, Victorian Taxi Association (Taxi Owners Association) and the VTD requested towing occur early in the New Year however this has been deferred to await the preparation of this report.

At this stage, the towing program is now proposed to commence on the week-end of 9th and 10th of February and variable message boards will be in place at major entrances to the precinct for the 1st 2 week-ends advising motorists of the towing occurring.

The enforcement of the illegal behaviour of taxi drivers is proposed commence 2-4 weeks after the towing program, and taxi owners will be advised of the program ahead of it commencing.

Further Report to Council

In the preparation of the evaluation report required to be submitted to the VTD (required on 3 October 2013 – 12 months after installation), it is proposed to submit a draft of the evaluation report during the September meeting cycle seeking feedback on any changes which may be suggested at that time.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION

The above proposal complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006

CONCLUSION

The implementation of the Chapel Street Area Taxi Zone project infrastructure has been completed, but elements of the communication and enforcement program have yet to get underway due to a delay in towing approval.

It is now proposed to commence the rest of the enforcement and communication program in February 2013, together with a review of some suggestions made by the Liquor Accord member of the implementation working group to assist in encouraging the desired patron behaviour.

A detailed monitoring and evaluation of the project will not commence until the full enforcement and monitoring program has been implemented and any assessment of the success or otherwise of the project is premature.

A further report will be submitted to Council on the performance of the project prior to submission of a formal evaluation report to the State Government.

Page 175 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The report be noted

2. A further report be prepared for Council consideration in April/May 2012 on the progress of the Taxi Zone project and the success of the initiative.

Page 176 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

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

Author: Tze-Sian Hor Manager: Ian McLauchlan General Manager: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

To seek endorsement of the formal review process for Council’s Road Management Plan, as per the requirement in the Road Management Act (2004) and the timelines proposed.

BACKGROUND

Council has an established Road Management Plan (RMP) under the Road # Management Act (RMA) 2004 (copy attached). The RMP is an infrastructure asset management plan that details the inspection frequency, defect intervention levels and the defect repair response times for all road, footpath and kerb & channel assets in the Stonnington network.

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

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

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

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

Page 177 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

DISCUSSION

The RMP is a dynamic document that identifies the responsibilities, maintenance standards and inspection regimes implemented in order to manage Council’s Road assets. The RMP is supported by Council’s Road Register, which is a document that identifies the roads for which Council is responsible (the Road Register is not part of this review).

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

The review process is briefly described below and involves the following key steps in accordance with the RMA and subordinate regulations:

1. Review Notice Council must give a notice stating or describing:  The purpose of the review;  The roads and classes of road to which the RMP applies;  Where a copy of the current RMP may be obtained or inspected; and  That any person may make a submission on the proposed review to Council within the period specified in the notice, being not less than 28 days after the date on which the notice is given.

A notice under this regulation must be published in the Government Gazette and in a daily newspaper circulating in the area in which the RMP applies.

2. Public Submissions The Regulations state that a “submission” can be made by any person. Legal advice is that that written submissions be called pursuant to S223 Local Government Act to ensure a manageable process for the review. In this case, any person submitting a written submission would be given the right to speak to a submission at a properly convened meeting attended by at least one councillor.

3. Report to Council on the RMP review Having heard the submissions a further report will be prepared for Council consideration responding to the submissions and outlining any proposed changes to either the RMP or Road Register.

4. Review Timetable The proposed timeline for the review is presented in the below table

Process Time Road Management Plan Review of Current Completed Road Management Plan to commence Review meeting with key stakeholders: Completed Maintenance; Infrastructure; Development; Asset management; Transport. Develop an initial draft review of the RMP Meeting to receive legal advice regarding Completed the current RMP and the new RMP Review Council approval and release public notice 4 February 2013 Page 178 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Advertise Victorian Government Gazette 7 February 2013 Advertise and Publish Public notice of RMP 13 February2013 Review Public Submissions close 15 March 2013 Public Submissions considered – Council 22 April 2013 meeting Final Report to Council following 20 May 2013 consideration of submissions for adoption of the RMP 2013-2017 Advise submitters, and place RMP on 29 May 2013 Council website etc. RMP 2013-2017 comes into effect 1 July 2013

This proposed timeline will complete the review process within the governing time frame set out in the Road Management (General) Regulations 2005.

There are a number of requirements that need to be satisfied upon the Review completion.

After the Council has completed the review of its RMP it must:  Produce a written report summarising the findings and conclusions of the review; and  Make this report available for copying or inspection at the place where the RMP may be inspected or obtained.

Council’s RMP has been available on the website since its adoption in August 2004 and it is proposed to add this report to this same area on the website.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

The review of the RMP is part of Council’s ongoing operations.

LEGAL ADVICE AND IMPLICATIONS

By undertaking this review, Council meets its obligations under the Local Government Act (1989) and the Road Management Act (2004).

CONCLUSION

The review of the City of Stonnington’s RMP is a requirement of the Road Management (General) Regulations 2005 and is required to be completed by 30 June 2013.

The RMA requires a review of the RMP every 4 years, which coincides with the Council Plan review requirements. The review procedure requires Council to call for submissions from the public. Public submissions will be managed through a formal S223 process (Local Government Act). A formal report will be prepared for Council consideration following the submission process outlining and any proposed changes to the Plan.

It is proposed that the review process be commenced and the requisite notices be published in the Government Gazette, and The Age newspaper accordingly.

Page 179 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION

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

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1. The process for commencement of the review of the Road Management Plan in accordance with the requirements of the Road Management Act 2004 be noted.

2. In accordance with the requirements of the Road Management Act notices be published in the Government Gazette, and The Age newspaper advertising the review of Council’s Road Management Plan, and calling for public submissions.

3. The Local Government Act s223 process be implemented as required for the purpose of hearing submissions.

4. A further report to be prepared for Council consideration following the receipt of public submissions.

Page 180 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

15. REPORT ON THE CONDUCT OF THE 2012 COUNCIL ELECTIONS BY ATTENDANCE VOTING

Authors: Fabienne Thewlis/Judy Hogan General Manager: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to provide comment on the 2012 General Election.

BACKGROUND

The conduct of an election is controlled by the Local Government Act and Regulations. The Local Government Inspectorate monitors the conduct of Council elections.

Section 41A(2A) of the Local Government Act 1989 requires Council to determine at least 8 months before a general election if it is decided to change the means of conducting the election. The Council decided on 21 November 2011 to change to election by attendance voting. The 1996, 1999, 2002, 2004 and 2008 elections were conducted by post. Nine of the 78 Councils who had elections held attendance elections in 2012. Brimbank Council did not have an election.

Stonnington’s election was conducted by the Victorian Electoral Commission and an election report is required to be returned to the Chief Executive Officer by 25 January 2013.

DISCUSSION

# The report to Council of 21 November 2011 summarised the pros and cons of attendance and postal voting (attached). The last time an attendance election was held was 1993 prior to municipal restructure. The 1993 election resulted in a 52% participation rate. The ability to conduct elections by post was introduced following municipal restructure and certainly appears to have positively affected the voter participation as the table below demonstrates.

Year Voting Method Participation Rate 1993 Attendance 52% 1996 Postal (single wards) 64.2% 1999 Postal (only six wards 60% contested) 2002 Postal 63.2% 2004 Postal (multi wards) 65.31% 2008 Postal 65.10% 2012 Attendance 56.29%

For the 2012 attendance election Council Officers predicted a 60% attendance rate. It appears that the informal vote increases with attendance voting in multi-member wards. Additionally it appears that the number of candidates for the ward may influence the informal vote at an attendance election. The greater the number of candidates, the greater the informal vote.

Page 181 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Year Voting Method No. Informal Candidates 1993 Attendance N/A N/A 1996 Postal (single wards) N/A 2.15% 1999 Postal (only six wards N/A 2.82% contested) 2002 Postal 34 2.72% 2004 Postal (multi wards) 31 4.82% 2008 Postal 36 5.06% 2012 Attendance 36 10.40%

The following issues have emerged as part of the election process:

 Awareness of the council election Advertising – Council and VEC Advertising – candidates Media coverage – print media

 Received election information  Early voting - centres  Early voting – postal

 Candidate information – campaign materials Candidate information – press Candidate information – websites

 Comments on attendance voting Effect of racing season/holidays

 Voting centres  Count centres  Accommodation  Rolls

Awareness of Election

Council publicised the 2012 general election by attendance voting through its website and advertorials over the year. The VEC undertook the statutory advertising in the local, state and ethnic specific print media (12 nominated by Council) plus additional advertising in state wide papers –The Age and the Herald Sun as requested. Radio advertising (including Cultural and Linguistically Diverse - CALD) was regularly broadcast for Council elections. These broadcasts particularly highlighted the Councils with attendance voting. Information was also on the VEC website.

Despite The Leader News Group’s initial involvement with the launch of the Stand for Council campaign in conjunction with the MAV there was minimal coverage after that except that which was paid for. The only local print media that embraced it was the Stonnington Review which does not get to all Stonnington residents.

Page 182 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Election Information Pack

The Election Information Pack was mailed out commencing 12 October 2012 which advised voters of ward boundaries, candidate names, voting on election day, voting centres and early and postal voting options.

From anecdotal evidence it would appear that many voters assumed that this pack was the usual postal pack and they did not read it immediately. When they did they learned it was attendance voting and an influx of voters then applied for early voting (postal) or attended the two early voting centres. Officers consider this problem is unlikely to have been overcome even if additional election material had been mailed out.

Pre-election voting

Given that there was an increase in the number of persons attending or seeking postal votes the VEC Election Report will further expand on this, however it is known that on the last two days the two early voting centres each had around 1,500 people attend to cast their vote.

Candidates

Campaigning with attendance voting is hard work for all candidates and legislation has not caught up with technology.

The difficulties that Officers see is getting the information for each candidate to the voters. This is currently still by letter-box drop, or meet and greet, and hand-outs at the voting centres.

Section 55D of the Local Government Act prohibits Council from placing candidate information on its website or in other advertising.

The VEC website contained candidates names but no other information about the candidates.

Legislative change is required to enable information about candidates to be made available to voters.

Attendance Voting

Council was heavily criticised by a number of voters for having attendance voting as people were used to and accepting of postal voting. It has been especially beneficial for those voters who do not reside in the municipality but do like to keep informed. Unlike State and Federal elections voters cannot vote outside the municipality on election day. They either attend or apply for a pre-election (postal) vote.

Voters appear to have been under the impression that they would be getting, or should have got, candidate information by post prior to election day as they do with a postal election. Again there needs to be a change in current legislation to address this. The 150 word statement available under the postal election system at least gives voters some information.

Page 183 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

The problem for candidates is that they need to have people available on election day to attend voting centres to hand out ‘how to vote’ cards and possibly other election material.

This inability to get candidate information needs to be addressed legislatively as it is considered another reason why there was a higher informal vote based on comments from voters attending booths and correspondence received.

Further anecdotal evidence suggests that attendance voting during the racing season and in the period when many residents go away also contributes to greater pre-election voting numbers.

Voting Centres

Voting centre numbers were based on the State and Federal elections and generally location. Local Government has more voters on its rolls than State and Federal electoral rolls. Voters are generally of the view that voting centres should be located close to their homes and easily accessible – particularly for disability access.

Due to the reduced numbers of voters attending to vote the voting centres were probably over-staffed in many cases.

Stonnington does not enjoy sound internet coverage in all areas. At some of the sites electronic voters rolls (net books) were unable to be used for a period of time. This occurred on election day. Testing should have been carried out prior to election day by the VEC.

Count Centres

The Malvern Town Hall was used for the central centre on election night and operated as anticipated based on previous elections.

Council and the VEC were fortunate to get Homesglen TAFE for the computer count given that the school exam period overlapped with the election period.

However there were problems with the computer count. The issues for Council were that the connection of the VEC system was not tested in the days prior to the count. When the system did not fully connect at the start of the count day there were 24 data entry operators waiting to commence. The delay was some two hours and then the operators had to be trained. Delays also occurred with insufficient staff in the preparation room to check the batches before they went into the data entry room thus slowing the process. The VEC computer program itself is excellent, it is just getting it on- line and the information in, that was the issue.

Accommodation

Council provided the accommodation for the Returning Officer and staff in the Malvern Banquet Room and for a second early voting centre at the Prahran Town Hall Service Centre.

Page 184 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

The VEC later advised Council of its accommodation needs which were expanded for attendance voting requirements. Officers are of the view that the accommodation needs were two weeks too early and the area required too large. Regular users of the banquet room and the large hall were displaced for the election period. Officers managed to relocate these groups into other nearby halls with some degree of inconvenience for the hirers. Council lost income from external function hire as the rooms could not be used during the election period.

Rolls

Council met all the requirements of the voters roll preparation however were let down by the VEC who used some manual processes that did not work and required the CEO to re- certify a number of changes three times before the roll was correct. This was not a Council error but one that occurred at the VEC.

Declaration of the Result

The VEC took a long timeline for the declaration of the election with the Friday after the election originally proposed as the final possible time. While Council recognises the OHS considerations that must be adhered to, it would be worthwhile for an analysis to be undertaken of the attendance and postal vote counts to determine how long each took, and how long it took to declare the elections, for each Council. Council based its swearing in and training on the VEC timelines and found that the swearing in could easily have been accommodated in the immediate week following the election. If the computer delays in the count centre had not occurred and training of staff was held prior to the day the computer count would have been completed on the Sunday after the election.

VEC Officers

In respect to the Returning Officer and his staff and liaison with the VEC central office Council Officers found that they knew their responsibilities and the legislation and were very good to work with. They kept Officers regularly updated.

Cost

The cost to run the attendance election in 2012 was quoted at $606,000 plus $42,000 for enforcement of compulsory voting, a total of $648,000 (ex GST).

Council budgeted $418,000 in anticipation of a postal vote election.

Fines for failure to vote are likely to exceed budget. The budget for election fines was $110,000. It is estimated that around $247,000 may be raised.

CONCLUSION

Local Government is heavily legislated in the conduct of Council elections. Undertaking attendance voting caused some community concern due to the inability of Council and candidates to legally get information to voters quickly. Comments across many Councils with attendance voting were similar, and even with postal voting concern about the adequacy of the 150 word statement for each candidate. This needs to be addressed at a legislative level.

Page 185 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

The decision of Council to conduct the election by attendance voting would appear to have caused some concern to voters and likely an increase in failure to vote.

The timing of meetings to swear in Councillors and to elect the Mayor was also a little less certain due to uncertainty about when the election result would be declared.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Notes the report,

2. A summary of the points be forwarded to the Victorian Electoral Commission, and

3. Council write to the Minster for Local Government with comments on points that require legislative change.

Page 186 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

16. REVIEW OF COUNCILLOR ALLOWANCES

Author: Fabienne Thewlis General Manager: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to commence the review process of Councillor allowances as required under the Local Government Act 1989.

BACKGROUND Section 74(1) of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act) requires Councils to “review and determine the level of Mayoral and the Councillor allowances within the period of six months after a general election or by next 30 June, whichever is later.”

This review is a public process and any person has a right to make a submission under section 223 of the Act and is to determine the allowances that will be payable from the range available for the next four years.

DISCUSSION Councillor allowances are indexed annually under section 73B of the Act, having regard to movements in the levels of remuneration of executives within the meaning of the Public Administration Act 2004, with the most recent adjusted by the Minister for Local Government effective from the time of the new Council taking the Oath of Office after 27 October 2012. The Minister also advised that payment of allowances cannot exceed more than one month in advance.

Stonnington Council is a Category 3 –the highest level and the range for allowances are:

Part A Mayor up to $85,741 Councillors $11,204 - $26,843

Part B An amount equivalent to the superannuation guarantee – currently 9% with the rate to increase to 9.25% in 2013/14; to 9.5% in 2014/15, and then 0.5% increases annually to 12% in 2019/20.

To date, Stonnington Council has paid the maximum amount. A quick survey of a number of # other metropolitan Councils has revealed that they also pay the maximum level. See attachment.

Note: Part B is an equivalent of the superannuation guarantee contribution (currently 9%) (Part B is NOT superannuation) to be added to Part A unless a council has made a unanimous resolution under Commonwealth taxation legislation - to pay the Superannuation Guarantee Contribution. This Council determined in 2005 to not make the make a resolution under section 221B of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) (ITAA1936) to not be an “eligible local governing body” and, given this cannot withhold tax.

The Mayor is not entitled to receive a Councillor allowance if receiving the Mayoral allowance. Further Council does not have to pay an allowance to a Councillor or Mayor who does not want to receive an allowance.

Councillors can enter into an arrangement to effectively sacrifice their remuneration before they derive these amounts. Such sacrifice arrangements can be made into a complying superannuation fund and be designated before the payment is made.

Page 187 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Council must now determine what the limit of the allowances will be for the next four years and then commence the public consultation process, to receive and hear, if requested, any community comment on these limits. Council is then required to take into account any comments made by the public before confirming or changing the limit. Any such changes are effective from the date of the Council resolution. Submissions are open for a minimum period of 28 days under the Act. Given this, it is anticipated that submitters (if any) who wish to be heard may be heard on 25 March 2013 at the Councillor Briefing.

RECOMMENDATION

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.

Page 188 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

17. AUDIT COMMITTEE – COUNCILLOR MEMBER

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

PURPOSE

To consider the appointment of a Councillor to Council’s Audit Committee.

BACKGROUND

Council at its meeting on 19 November 2012 appointed Crs Melina Sehr and Adrian Stubbs as Councillor members of Council’s Audit Committee for 2013.

Subsequently, Cr Sehr indicated that she was prepared to not continue as an Audit Committee member in order to give the opportunity to another Councillor to assume this role.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council appoints Cr John McMorrow to the Audit Committee in place of Cr Melina Sehr.

Page 189 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

18. AUDITED FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS FOR SPECIAL RATED PRECINCTS

Manager: Jan Jacklin Executive Manager: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to provide Council the audited accounts for 2011/2012 from the five Business Associations from the special rated precincts.

BACKGROUND

In 2012, Council requested the special rated precincts formally submit their audited accounts for review. In previous years audited accounts were presented at the annual general meeting for each Association and submitted to Council officers to facilitate payment of the special rate.

Audited accounts were received from: # Streets Ahead Promotions Inc (Chapel St Precinct) (attachment 1) # High Street Armadale Business Association (attachment 2) # Toorak Road South Yarra Business Association (attachment 3) # Toorak Village Traders Association (attachment 4) # Glenferrie Road Malvern Business Association (attachment 5)

DISCUSSION

Council officers have reviewed the audited accounts and are satisfied the expenditure reflects the activities outlined in the Associations’ strategic and business plans previously noted by Council.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Under the Local Government Act, Council is charged with the responsibility of administering the special rate levy to promote and improve Stonnington’s major economic precincts. This activity is noted in the Council Plan under Prosperity

The activity is also supported in the Economic Development Policy 2012-16, under the theme Thriving Precincts.

CONCLUSION

The financial accounts for the five Business Associations have been professionally audited. Council officers are satisfied the accounts reflect the activities outlined in each of the Association’s strategic plans and business activity plans.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION This recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. Page 190 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

RECOMMENDATION

That Council notes the audited accounts 2011/12 from:

1. Streets Ahead Promotions Inc. (Chapel St Precinct) 2. High Street Armadale Business Association 3. Toorak Road South Yarra Business Association 4. Toorak Village Traders Association 5. Glenferrie Road Malvern Business Association

Page 191 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

19. RISK REPORT TO COUNCIL FOR THE YEAR 2012

Author/Manager: Bernard Mulholland, Tracey Wyatt & David Taylor General Manager: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to inform Council on the status of the management of Council’s Risk Management, Occupational Health & Safety (OHS) and Contract Compliance obligations and to give an overview of Risk Management program for the twelve-month period ended 31 December 2012.

BACKGROUND

In accordance with the Council resolution of 20 February 2006, this report is required to be presented to Council every six months in order to keep Councillors up-to-date on these subjects. Due to changes in the organisational structure occurring at the time of the last report, this report will address the full calendar year of 2012.

Monthly comprehensive reports have been presented to the Executive with quarterly reports being presented to Council’s Audit Committee.

DISCUSSION

The following matters were undertaken or implemented during the 12 month period ending 31 December 2012.

Establishment of Risk Management & Contracts Compliance Department

In March 2012, an internal reorganisation saw the Risk Management and Contracts Compliance (RM&CC) Department established to further promote and enhance Council’s commitment to risk reduction and elimination, improved safety in the workplace and compliance with the contracting requirements. This was an area which has been the subject of interest to Government and had resulted in inquiry/investigation by the Auditor-General, the Local Government Inspectorate and the Victorian Ombudsman and our Internal Auditors.

Council appointed Bernard Mulholland (formerly the Manager for Community Amenity) as Manager to this new Department and added an additional role of OHS Coordinator to provide for greater and separated emphasis for both Risk Management and OHS. The key resources of OHS Coordinator, OHS Advisor and Risk Management Coordinator were all new appointments to City of Stonnington following the reorganisation.

Risk Management

In responding to internal audit observations following the assessment of Council’s Risk Management, OHS and Contracts Compliance capability, Council commenced the above reorganisation in March 2012. In establishing the new RM & CC Department to manage these functions, Council separated the functions of Risk Management and OHS within the new Department to provide dedicated centres of attention for these critical functions.

The resultant separation of these functions during 2012 has gone a long way in resolving the factors raised in internal audit observations as well as the Audit Committee and realised significant improvements in the delivery of Risk Management and OHS outcomes. Page 192 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Some of the key Risk Management deliverables include;

 Establishment of improved protocols for receiving and managing insurance claims;  Improved service levels for addressing and finalising claims;  Managing significant incidents such as Prahran & Malvern Town Hall flooding;  Investigating and addressing sensitive allegations;  Redevelopment of pro-forma documentation such as “Deed of Release”;  Finalised insurance renewal documentation for the placement and renewal of the insurances by 30 June;  Development and introduction of RM & CC Induction Presentation;  Redrafting of Council’s Risk Policy;  Redesigning Council’s Risk database and updating software to Version 3.8;  Reviewing and repopulation of Council’s Risk Register;  Establishment of risk assessment framework based upon ISO Standard;  Conducted Risk Profiling workshops with representatives of all Divisions;  Redrafting of Council’s Fraud and Corruption Control Policy;  Drafting of Council’s Fraud Control Plan (required by the Auditor General); and  Development of major facility Emergency Response Kits;

Insurance Claims

Public Liability

For the twelve months to 31 December 2012, 218 public liability claims were received which was a 6% increase from the previous year.

The most numerous of the claims received were for tree root damage to assets (92 or 42%) of the 218 claims received, asset issues (33 or 15%) and trips and falls (30 or 14%).

During this period 164 claims were finalised with 34 being settled at a cost of $130,233.00, and 130 being resolved at no cost or denied.

Motor Vehicle

124 motor vehicle claims were received for the twelve month period. This is a 3 % increase on the previous year. During the period, 114 claims were settled, at a cost of $177,635.00.

In terms of fault, (68 or 55%) incidents were deemed to be Council at fault, which is slightly above the long-term average of 53%. Driver education is provided for those identified as requiring further training.

Page 193 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

Risk Management Strategy & Action Plan

Timely progress has been made with the implementation of the Strategy & Action Plan.

Occupational Health & Safety

During 2012, Council followed its earlier accreditation of 3 Divisions under AS/NZS 4801 for its OHS Management System by receiving accreditation for all 5 Divisions in June 2012. This was a significant achievement for Stonnington and unique in Local Government. In December, it continued on this path by successfully undergoing surveillance audits with external auditors. Having all Divisions accredited under the Standard, surveillance audits will continue each year.

A new OHS Coordinator commenced employment in late May 2012, with the OHS Advisor being appointed in early July 2012. A program of works was developed for the new OHS Unit which included a number of key major projects such as:

 Reviewing and reforming the OHS Procedures Manual;  Implementation of an electronic Incident Management System;  Developing organisational OHS Objectives and Targets;  Safety Week activity development each year;  Rewriting the Corporate OHS Induction;  Inaugural Health and Safety Representatives (HSR’s) Conference; and  Reviewing Council’s First Aid response system.

Both prior to and following these new appointments, routine activities to ensure health and safety compliance and that safe work practices were being followed, was undertaken across Council including activities such as:

 Coordinating and scheduling safety related training for specific business Units;  Internal auditing of Divisions in readiness for external AS/NZS 4801 auditing;  Contractor and new staff inductions;  OHS Committee meetings conducted quarterly;  Injury records kept and involvement in investigation of significant incidents; and  Provision of advice to business Units and staff in relation to OHS matters.

During the period January-December 2012, there were 183 reported OHS incidents including injuries, near misses and reported hazards. This number is higher than previous years as there has been a focus on reporting and rectifying hazards before they result in injuries. The reported incidents included 12 events which met the definition to be notified to WorkSafe Victoria, including:

 Significantly lacerated finger requiring stitches;  Minor burns from battery acid;  Assault of a staff member in a staff only area by a member of the public at Prahran Aquatic Centre;  Finger crushed between steel frame and truck in workshop;  Ceiling collapse at Prahran Town Hall after burst water pipe;  Minor burns to hands removing a plastic bag which caught fire behind truck cabin;  Singed eyebrows when lighting pilot light of gas heater in resident’s home;  Contractor fell off ladder while painting and fractured wrist;  Gash to the shin requiring 6 stitches after hitting an unseen towbar;  Client at aged facility had suspected heart attack (and subsequently died the following day);

Page 194 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

 Worker received foreign matter in his eye causing an eye infection, resulting in 7 working days off work, and a temporary vision impairment; and  Contractor slipped on wet floor in client’s home fracturing her kneecap in 3 places.

Five Improvement Notices have been received from visits by WorkSafe Victoria Inspectors. One Improvement Notice was issued following an incident at Prahran Aquatic Centre resulting in a staff member being inappropriately touched by a patron. A significant review of work practices was undertaken to improve the safety and security of staff and patrons in and around the pool facility including an overhaul of the lighting in carparks, secure areas for staff with no patron access and improved communication processes.

During a proactive audit by WorkSafe of Council’s Depot, 4 Improvement Notices were issued. They related to appropriateness of guarding on 2 drill presses, the production of a traffic management plan diagram for the carpark/workshop area, and a flammable liquids storage cupboard with a faulty self-closing door.

WorkSafe Victoria are of the view that the requirements of all of these notices have been fully complied with and have released all Notices.

Workcover

During the January to December 2012 period, 46 new WorkCover claims were opened, including 20 for lost time injuries. Only one month in the period had zero lost time injuries occurring.

Council’s WorkCover premium for 2012 consistently performed much better than the whole of local government industry rate in every area provided by the insurer, CGU. As a result, Stonnington’s premium is at least 30% less than the industry, as well as the average claim cost for Stonnington in 2012 being $827 compared to the rest of the industry who are paying $43,387 on average per claim.

Contracts Compliance

Contract Compliance being the third element of the new Department commenced in July 2012 with the requirement to establish, review and audit contracting systems within Council. A major task was the development of legally credentialed tender documentation for use by contract managers. In December, 4 of 15 suites of documents were finalised and loaded onto Council’s website.

Page 195 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

In addition, this Unit conducted an internal audit of all creditor expenditures above $150,000 to ensure compliance with Section 186 of the Local Government Act 1989. The Unit also undertook a review of Council’s Contracts Register with the emphasis of ensuring that all contractors to Council have current Public Liability and Professional Indemnity Insurance while contracting to Council.

The Unit also undertook a review of Council’s Procurement Policy which was subsequently adopted by Council on 17 December 2012.

CONCLUSION

Risk Management, Occupational Health & Safety and Contracts Compliance are significant programs for any business and the recognition by Council during 2012 that these areas required increased resourcing and impetus, has enabled Council to deliver a significant number of positive risk, OHS and contract outcomes in the reporting period, the achievement of accreditation under AS/NZS 4801 for all of Council is the most significant of these outcomes. The reorganisation of these functions ensures that Council is able to appropriately meet its legal obligations and that it is adequately protected through insurance coverage, risk management, OHS and contract compliance programs.

RECOMMENDATION

That the twelve-month Risk Management and Contracts Compliance report for the period 1 January to 31 December 2012 be received and noted.

Page 196 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

20. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF FEE FOR MALVERN TOWN HALL: SECOND BITE

Author/Manager: Judy Hogan/Fabienne Thewlis General Manager: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to seek direction from Council regarding a request for an in- kind waiver of the fee for the use of Malvern Town Hall for this financial year.

BACKGROUND

A letter has been received from Sarah Davies, Fundraising Officer on behalf of Second Bite requesting the in-kind use of Malvern Town Hall on Friday 15 February 2013 for a fundraising opportunity. The charity Second Bite is not located within the municipality but does make regular deliveries to the following agencies within Stonnington  Prahran Mission  Prahran Adventure Playground  Waiora Community Mental Health Service  Hollydale Lodge, Malvern  A booking for the Malvern Town Hall has been made for Friday 15 February 2013.

The full cost for the use of the Malvern Town Hall would be $2,000.

The request for funding has been recommended for refusal as the request is outside the timelines for requests for funding through the community grants process. Given the timeline for this event and the lead up arrangements which need to be made this request has been brought to Council for decision at this time.

RECOMMENDATION

That the request from Second Bite for the waiver of the fee for the in-kind use of Malvern Town Hall on Friday 15 February 2013 be refused.

Page 197 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

21. COUNCIL COMMITTEES

Author: Chief Executive Officer: Warren Roberts

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to outline and clarify the operational aspects of relevant Advisory Committees and to detail the terms of reference and operational protocols for the proposed Finance, Economic Development Tourism and the Arts, Sustainability and Social Development Advisory Committees.

BACKGROUND

The committees would meet outside of the usual Council/Briefing cycle at an agreed time and could support and contribute to the development of matters that would then form formal reports for Briefing and Council.

The committees could not make decisions, however, the insight and understanding would support and enhance debate.

BACKGROUND

A Council may establish an advisory committee to look into and inform Council on matters referred to it by Council. An advisory committee assists a Council to spread its workload, enables it to recruit and utilise particular expertise to help Council make its decisions and to engage community resources and opinion.

An advisory committee is an informal gathering having no formal powers delegated to it by Council. Unlike, for example, a special committee, an advisory committee cannot make any decisions on behalf of Council nor do any of its views have any force. Accordingly, advisory committee decisions or recommendations have no legal standing unless they are adopted by Council at a formal meeting.

Although there is no delegation by Council of powers to an advisory committee, it is common for an advisory committee to operate under a ‘Terms of Reference’ document (refer attached) in which the particular advisory committee’s purpose is set out as well as how it is to function. As with special committees, Council retains control over the membership of an advisory committee.

An advisory committee is defined in the Local Government Act 1989 to mean: “any committee established by the Council, other than a special committee, that provides advice to – (a) The Council; or (b) A special committee; or (c) A member of Council staff who has been delegated a power, duty or function of the Council under section 98;”

In contrast, a special committee is a committee that exercises a power or performs a duty or function of the Council that has been delegated to that committee by Council.

Page 198 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

An advisory committee is an Assembly of Councillors if at least one Councillor is present and the meeting is considering a matter that is intended or likely to be the subject of a Council decision or which is subject to the exercise of a function, duty or power of Council that has been delegated to a person or committee.

Accordingly, Councillors and Officers attending an advisory committee meeting are subject to Conflict of Interest disclosures and are required to follow the disclosure protocol. A Record of the Assembly must be reported to the next practicable Council meeting and recorded in the Council minutes.

Advisory committee meetings are not required to be open to members of the public.

DISCUSSION

Over recent years the practice of using Committees as a preliminary engagement and communication framework has varied and reflected the preference of the incumbent Mayor.

Where there were no Advisory Committees all items were discussed at a whole of Council Briefing however, there have been times where briefing agendas have been extremely full and therefore the opportunity for debate potentially compromised.

Where Committees existed they provided an opportunity for relevant matters to be presented, discussed, explored, challenged and staff informed as to Councillor feedback prior to formal consideration and resolution at Council.

The Committees role should be a focus on strategic rather than operational matters and work in accordance with the established Committee Charters.

Clearly, given recent local government investigations, the function and role of Councillors and briefings and Councillor influence on recommendations requires a clear understanding on governance, charter and process.

The current local government and Stonnington environment are being impacted by a number of challenges that have the potential to significantly impact our community and organisation:

. impact of carbon tax . financial sustainability . global financial markets . interest rates . Fire Services Levy . demand for childcare . population growth . changing service demands . Environment and Sustainability . economic development

In that context, committees that focus at a ‘strategic’ level could support Council’s response.

. Finance Advisory Committee . Economic Development Tourism and the Arts Advisory Committee . Sustainability Advisory Committee . Social Development Advisory Committee

Page 199 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

It is recognised that some issues will crossover between Committees and some issues are broader and therefore will be better placed to be considered at a Council Briefing – where all Councillors are in attendance and able to contribute and discuss. Statutory and Strategic Planning are two areas where this is more appropriate.

The attached Terms of Reference reflect the nature of advisory committees, identify membership as being open to all councillors, nominates relevant staff and suggests a monthly meeting cycle.

In summary the Chairs and key nominated staff are detailed below:

Finance Advisory Committee: Chair – Cr Deputy Chair - Cr Geoff Cockram General Manager Corporate Services Scott Moore Manager Finance and Information Technology

Economic Development Tourism and the Arts Advisory Committee: Chair – Cr Deputy Chair - Cr Karen Watson Executive Manager Sustainable Future Jan Jacklin Manager Economic and Cultural Development

Sustainability Advisory Committee: Chair – Cr Deputy Chair - Cr Simon Thomas General Manager City Works

Social Development Advisory Committee: Chair – Cr Deputy Chair - Cr Connie Gibbons General Manager Social Development

The Terms of Reference require (among other points) that:

 The Advisory Committee will meet generally once per month between February and December each year.  Meetings will be held at the Stonnington City Centre Malvern at dates and times set by the Advisory Committee with such schedule of meetings to be determined and distributed to all Councillors at the start of the meeting cycle for the year.  An Advisory Committee meeting will not be held without the presence of an authorised Council Officer.

FINANCIAL AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS These Advisory Committees will be able to operate within current budgetary allocations. The legal issues have been covered in the background material.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATIONS The establishment of these Advisory Committees will not impact on matters covered under the Human Rights legislation. Any reports or matters considered by the Committees will be assessed separately at the time of preparation of such reports.

Page 200 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013

CONCLUSION Council has established four Advisory Committees – Finance, Economic Development Tourism and the Arts, Sustainability and Social Development. The attached Terms of Reference clearly document the function and scope, membership and meeting procedures to clarify the operation and reporting of the Advisory Committees.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. notes the report on Advisory Committees; and

2. adopts the Terms of Reference for the Finance Advisory Committee, Economic Development Tourism and the Arts Advisory Committee, Sustainability Advisory Committee and Social Development Advisory Committee.

3. Appoints the following Chairs and Deputy Chairs

Finance Advisory Committee –

Chair Cr Deputy Chair Cr

Economic Development Tourism and the Arts Advisory Committee –

Chair Cr Deputy Chair Cr

Sustainability Advisory Committee –

Chair Cr Deputy Chair Cr

Social Development Advisory Committee –

Chair Cr Deputy Chair Cr

Page 201 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 FEBRUARY 2013 n) Confidential Business

1. PRAHRAN (HORACE PETTY) PUBLIC HOUSING ESTATE MASTER PLAN

(Author / General Manager: Karen Watson )

Confidential report circulated separately.

2. SWINBURNE UNIVERSTIY OF TECHNOLOGY PROGRESS UPDATE

(Author / General Manager: Karen Watson )

Confidential report circulated separately.

3. OFFICE ACCOMMODATION INVESTIGATION UPDATE

(Author / General Manager: Simon Thomas )

Confidential report circulated separately.

4. AUDIT COMMITTEE CHAIR/INDEPENDENT MEMBER - APPOINTMENT

(Author / General Manager: Geoff Cockram )

Confidential report circulated separately.

5. REQUEST TO NAME A LANE

(Author / General Manager: Geoff Cockram )

Confidential report circulated separately.

Page 202