Pro-Forma for Notice Paper Word 7 s1

NOTICE PAPER

Monday 19 August 2013 at 7:00 p.m.

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

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

PRAYER

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

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

Council Meeting Notice Paper 19 August 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...... 5 1.1. Planning Application 0938/12 - 69 Newry Street Windsor - Construction of a Multi-Unit Development on a lot within a Residential 1 Zone and Special Building Overlay and Associated Car Parking Waiver...... 5 1.2. Planning Application 0023/13 - 15 Fulham Avenue South Yarra - Demolition of the Existing Dwelling and Construction of a Three Storey Dwelling Above a Basement Garage...... 23

2. SUBMISSION BY THE CITY OF STONNINGTON TO THE PROPOSED VICSMART PLANNING PROVISIONS – “A NEW PERMIT PROCESS FOR SIMPLE APPLICATIONS”...... 37

3. DRAFT SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT STRATEGY 2013-2017 AND SUSTAINABILITY SNAPSHOT 2012-2013...... 44

4. CHAPEL STREET MASTER PLAN – UPDATE 3 EXHIBITION...... 48

5. MALVERN GLENDEARG TENNIS FACILITY...... 52

6. TRAWALLA/ROBERTSON LOCAL AREA TRAFFIC STUDY...... 56

7. PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT – NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER OVERLAYS...... 60

8. AMENDMENT C163 – HERITAGE PROTECTION OF RESIDENTIAL FLATS – CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING PANEL AND ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT...... 63

9. STONNINGTON SURVEY GROUP AND DEPARTMENT SURVEYS...... 72 m) Urgent Business; and n) Confidential Business.

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 ADOPTION AND CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS 19 AUGUST 2013

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council confirms the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 5 August 2013 and Minutes of the Confidential Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 5 August 2013 as an accurate record of the proceedings.

GENERAL BUSINESS 19 AUGUST 2013

1. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

1.1. Planning Application 0938/12 - 69 Newry Street Windsor - Construction of a Multi-Unit Development on a lot within a Residential 1 Zone and Special Building Overlay and Associated Car Parking Waiver

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

PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for the construction of a multi dwelling development in a Residential 1 Zone and Special Building Overlay and associated car parking waiver at 69 Newry Street, Windsor.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Select Planners Pty Ltd Ward: South Zone: Residential 1 Overlay: Special Building Overlay Date lodged: 24/12/2012 Statutory days: (as at council 95 meeting date) Trigger for referral to Councillor Call up Council: VCAT Hearing Date Not determined Number of objections: 127 Consultative Meeting: No Officer Recommendation: Advise VCAT, the applicant, and all objectors that had an appeal not been lodged, Council would have issued a Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

History

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

 Planning Permit 853/11 for the two lot subdivision of 362-380 High Street and 69 Newry Street was issued on 7 May 2012. Plans to comply with the permit conditions were approved on 20 April 2013.

It is noted that the current proposal was lodged with Council prior to the land being formally issued a separate title. The application was lodged as 362-380 High Street and 69 Newry Street, Windsor. However, Council is aware that 69 Newry Street now exists on its own separate title, separate from 362-380 High Street (The Church). Despite the application not being formally amended, the assessment of the application will relate solely to 69 Newry Street.

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Rothe Lowman Architects and are known as Drawing No’s: TP1.01 – TP2.12 and are Council date stamped 24 December 2012 and 11 February 2013. Specific details of the proposal are as follows:

 Construction of a four storey building over a basement catering for 21 apartments.  The basement comprises car stacker pits, unit storage space and 23 bicycle spaces.  The ground level comprises a car park catering for 22 car parking spaces within Wohr Parklift 440 stackers and a bin storage area. The ground level also comprises 4 apartments (2 x 1 bedrooms and 2 x 2 bedrooms).  Access to the ground level car park is proposed via Newry Lane. The basement will only be accessed by pedestrians from the ground level car park.  The first floor level comprises 8 apartments, with 4 x 1 bedroom dwellings and 4 x 2 bedroom dwellings.  The second floor level comprises 7 apartments, with 3 x 1 bedroom dwellings and 4 x 2 bedroom dwellings  The third floor level comprises 2 x 2 bedroom dwellings.  The proposed building provides a street wall height of approximately 8.2 metres to Newry lane and a street wall height of approximately 7.8 metres to Newry Street.  The overall building height is 14.2 metres.  The building will comprise clad, natural and textured concrete, white render and grey zinc. A flat roof form is proposed.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the south-western corner of Newry Street and Newry Lane, approximately 42 metres south of High Street in Windsor. The land is zoned Residential 1 and has the following significant characteristics:

 The land is regular in shape. It has a frontage of approximately 24m to Newry Street and a frontage of approximately 35m to Newry Lane. It has a total site area of approximately 834sqm.  The land was previously on one title with the existing Greek Orthodox Church of St Demetrios at 362-380 High Street to the north. The land has now been subdivided and the subject site is contained within its own lot.  The subject site caters for a single storey dwelling and 16 car parking spaces that have historically been informally used for parking associated with the Church. There is no Planning Permit provision linking parking spaces to the church.  Land to the north is zoned Residential 1 and contains a Greek Orthodox Church of St Demetrios which fronts High Street. A vehicle crossover to Newry Street provides access to 2 car parking spaces.  To the south, on the opposite side of Newry Lane is a mixture of single and double storey dwellings.  To the east, on the far side of Newry Street are a number of two storey dwellings.  To the west of the site is a two storey building fronting High Street with a single storey building to the rear. The single storey building containing two dwellings is located adjacent to the subject site. A car park associated with the apartments is also located adjacent to the site.

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 9774 Folio 048 / Plan of Subdivision 702740U. There are no covenants or easements that affect the land.

Planning Controls

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

Clause 32.01 Residential 1 Zone Pursuant to Clause 32.01-4, a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot. Given that the proposal is for four storeys, the development is not required to meet the requirements of Clause 55. Pursuant to Clause 15.01-2 consideration must be given to Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (Department of Sustainability and Environment 2004).

Clause 44.05 Special Building Overlay Pursuant to Clause 44.05-1 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Particular Provisions

Clause 52.06 – Car Parking Pursuant to Clause 52.06-2 prior to a new use commencing 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 specifies the following requirements for car parking:  1 car parking space to each one or two bedroom dwelling; and  1 visitor car space to every five dwellings where there are more than five dwellings on a lot Based on the requirements of Clause 52.06-5 the use requires 25 car parking spaces. That is 21 resident spaces and 4 resident visitor spaces. The breakdown is as follows:  9 x 1 bed: 9 car parking space  12 x 2 bed: 12 car parking spaces  Resident visitor – 4 spaces

The development proposes 22 car spaces within a car stacker system. The applicant has advised that all spaces will be allocated to residents. As such, the applicant is seeking a waiver of 4 visitor car parking spaces.

Clause 52.34 – Bicycle Facilities Pursuant to Clause 52.34-1 bicycle facilities should be provided in accordance with the requirements at Clause 52.34-3 and 52.34-4. A permit may be granted to vary reduce or waive these requirements

The table at Clause 52.34-5 specifies the following requirements for the provision of bicycle spaces

 In developments of four or more storeys 1 bicycle space for every 5 dwellings (resident space)  In developments of four or more storeys 1 bicycle space for every 10 dwellings (visitor space)

The development proposes the provision of 23 bicycle spaces. Based on the requirements of Clause 52.06-5 the use requires 6 bicycle spaces; that is 4 resident spaces and 2 resident visitor spaces.

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  A design response.

This has been provided satisfactorily.

Relevant Planning Policies

Clause 15.01 Urban Environment Clause 15.01-2 Urban Design Principles Clause 16.01 Residential Development Clause 21.01 Vision for the City Clause 21.02 Settlement and the Environment Clause 21.03 Housing Clause 22.02 Urban design policy Clause 22.06 Residential Character, Amenity, and Interface Policy Clause 32.01 Residential 1 Zone Clause 52.06 Car Parking Clause 52.34 Bicycle Facilities Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

Amendment C161

This is an update to the existing Local Planning Policy Framework, and includes a new Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS), and the deletion of a number of local policies. Of relevance to this application, the Urban Design Policy, Residential Development in Commercial Areas Policy, Residential Character, Amenity and Interface Policy, Retail Centres Policy, Traffic Policy and Parking Policy will be deleted. The policy positions of these deleted items will be included within the new MSS.

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

Although the amendment is a major change to the Planning Scheme, it is considered that the principal assessment criteria relating to this application are still largely unchanged given that the site is still situated within close proximity to a Principal Neighbourhood Activity Centre in the existing and proposed Strategic Framework Plan.

Advertising

The application was advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land and by placing three signs on the site. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily. Page 8 GENERAL BUSINESS 19 AUGUST 2013

Council has received 127 objections and they can be summarised as follows:

 Overlooking  Overshadowing  Visual Bulk  Character  Loss of light  Lack of setbacks  Streetscape integration  Overall Height  Overdevelopment  Design  Density  Precedent  Landscaping  Car parking  Traffic  Sanctuary of church  Illegal parking  Dangerous driving  Car stackers  Dumping of rubbish  Flooding  Safety  Damage during building construction  Noise

The application for review has attracted 8 statements of grounds. No consultation meeting was held as Cr Sehr advised one was not necessary.

Referrals

Infrastructure

Council’s Drainage Engineer assessed the advertised plans (Council date stamped 24 December 2012 and 11 February 2013). The comments received can be summarised as follows:

 Could you please place a condition on the permit stating that a report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared 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.

 Could you please place a condition that the existing levels of Newry Lane must not be altered in any way (to facilitate the basement ramp).

Melbourne Water

Melbourne Water assessed and provided comments on the advertised plans (Council date stamped 24 December 2012 and 11 February 2013). The comments received are summarised as follows:

 Melbourne Water, pursuant to Section 56 (1) of The Planning and Environment Act1987, objects to the proposed development on the following grounds: - The development will increase flood levels upstream - The development does not allow for the passage of overland flows

Arborist

Council’s Arborist assessed the advertised plans (Council date stamped 24 December 2012 and 11 February 2013). The comments received can be summarised as follows:

 There are 2 significant trees located at this site. The western tree is a Eucalyptus globules ‘Compacta’ (Compact Blue Gum), which is in good health, but has poor structure. The eastern tree is an Acmena smithii (Lilly Pilly), which is in poor health and has large areas of decay located in the main structural branches. Council has no objection to the proposed tree removals.  The proposal has dedicated virtually no open space for substantial landscape inclusion. No opportunity has been given to replace canopy trees being removed from this site.  The landscape content for the minimal space provided is adequate.

Council’s Waste Management Coordinator assessed the advertised plans (Council date stamped 24 December 2012 and 11 February 2013) and the Waste Management Plan submitted. The comments received can be summarised as follows:

 Council’s Waste Collection & Disposal Services Policy states that every rateable tenement is liable to pay a garbage charge irrespective of the level of waste collection services provided to the tenement by Council. This Policy principal should be reinforced within the Planning Permit.  A successful Waste Management Plan will describe how a property’s solid waste stream is managed, and instruct the property’s owners, residents, occupiers, manager/s, and waste collectors of their roles and responsibilities within the waste stream. The successful Waste Management Plan will also articulate how the building is going to contribute toward achieving the waste reduction and diversion targets outlined the Victorian State Government strategy; ‘Sustainability in Action: Toward Zero Waste’. As a final document, the development’s approved Waste Management Plan will be prepared, presented and stored in a manner for easy access and comprehension by all existing and future stakeholders of the development.  A comprehensive Waste Management Plan prepared by Leigh Design Pty Ltd and dated 20 December 2012 accompanied this proposal. This document responded well to the waste management challenges presented in the plans I viewed, i.e., those prepared by Rothe Lowman Property Pty Ltd and date stamped by Council 24 Dec 2012.

Transport

Council’s Traffic Engineer assessed the advertised plans (Council date stamped 24 December 2012 and 11 February 2013) and the Waste Management Plan submitted. The comments received can be summarised as follows:

 It is proposed that all dwellings will be allocated one space, with the extra space to be allocated to a specific dwelling, rather than visitor parking. This will result in shortfall of 4 visitor parking spaces. The applicant should indicate which dwelling the additional parking space will be allocated to.

 It should be noted that, as it is proposed to increase the number of dwellings on site by more than one, future occupants of the site would not be eligible for residential parking permits. The surrounding on-street parking is currently unrestricted in Newry Street and High Street; however parking in Newry Lane has recently been converted to 2 hour parking. It is anticipated that further changes to parking restrictions in this area is likely. In addition, the peak visiting times for nearby non-residential properties such as the church and the park will coincide with peak times for visitors to the subject site which will further increase demand for on-street parking.  It is noted that this site has been subdivided from an existing property. The site currently provides patron parking for the church at 362-380 High Street. This will result in a loss of parking for people attending church services and other events at the church, which may place additional pressure on on-street parking.  It is considered that the additional traffic generated by the proposed development will not significantly impact upon the existing traffic conditions in the area.  The proposed bicycle parking facilities have been provided within the basement. The applicant should confirm the type of rack to be used and revise the plans to show that the requirements of the Australian Standards will be met.  It is noted that in order for cyclists to access the basement parking area, bicycles will need to be transported through the lobby and down to the basement via either the lift or the stairs. The applicant should demonstrate that it is possible to manoeuvre a bicycle through either of these routes.  The development includes the use of the Wohr Parklift 440 car stackers. The model of stacker has not been identified. The pit has been dimensioned with a depth of 1.85m, which is suitable for the Standard Type. The applicant should confirm this.  The proposed parking area has been dimensioned, but there is a discrepancy between spaces 1 to 6 and spaces 7 to 12; although the arrangement appears to be the same there is a difference of 0.3m in width. It is also unclear how the two single stackers for spaces 20 to 22 will be accommodated with the 5.5m marked on the plans.  The applicant should provide swept path diagrams to show that access to spaces 5 + 6 and 19 + 20 is achievable.  The layout of the parking facilities is such that vehicles on the ramp cannot be seen from within the garage or the carriageway. An access control measure, such as a traffic light, should be implemented.  The plans indicate a ramp area in the south west corner of the car park for use by pedestrians to access the storage areas and leave the property via the stairs. The applicant should confirm that it will not be steeper than 1:14, as required by the Australian Standards.  For 90 degree parking, columns should be between 0.75m and 1.75m from the parking aisle for a 5.4m long parking bay as per the Australian Standards and the Planning Scheme. It is noted that the manufacturer’s specifications for the car stacker provide advice that conflicts with this. The applicant is to show the dimensions of the column setback on revised material.  The plans submitted do not detail the proposed floor gradients of the parking area. The minimum gradient of the parking area shall be 1 in 100 (1.0%) for outdoor areas and 1 in 200 (0.5%) for covered areas to allow for adequate drainage as per AS 2890.1.  The plans submitted do not detail the proposed floor gradients of the parking area. The maximum gradients within a parking module shall be as follows: - Measured parallel to the angle of parking – 1 in 20 (5%); and - Measured in any other direction – 1 in 16 (6.25%).  The TIA states that a sight triangle has been provided however this has not been marked on the plans.  The applicant has argued that no sight distance triangle is required on the west side of the access way due to the lack of footpath on the north side of Newry Lane, and the short length of the lane west of the property. The Transport and Parking Unit has some concerns

with this arrangement. It is noted that many properties have off-street car parking access via Newry Lane and a reduced sight distance allowance on the west side of the access may result in an increased likelihood of conflict between vehicles.  The applicant is to provide swept path diagrams to demonstrate that access is achievable in one movement. The Transport and Parking Unit will not remove parking in this area without permission from the adjacent property occupiers.

Environmental Sustainable Design

Councils Environmental Sustainable Design Officer assessed the advertised plans (Council date stamped 24 December 2012 and 11 February 2013) and the Sustainable Management Plan submitted. The comments received are summarised as follows:

 The submitted Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) does not reflect Council’s SDAPP program requirements or respond to all categories. In particular; the submitted SMP provides either no response or very limited information addressing Council’s Best practice for Indoor Environmental Quality, Ecology, and Innovation categories of SDAPP. The Applicant is advised to review Council’s SDAPP program and re-submit the SMP in-line with Council requirements. A full copy of the completed STEPS report should also be provided.  The Applicant has provided varying degrees of design response to early-stage advice from Council on a number of items including bicycle parking, waste, location of sub-station and some aspects of orientation. However, not all aspects highlighted by Council at pre- application stage were addressed to sufficient detail and should be further discussed in the SMP. In particular, these should include, but not limited to: a. WSUD and permeability – A rainwater tank is proposed to capture run-off from the roof. However, a significant proportion of the site’s impermeable surfaces will receive no treatment. Whilst it is conceded that the previous site use had limited permeability, there are opportunities for improvement on the proposed development. For example, ground floor terraces could be made of permeable paving or decked (in a manner to allow drainage below decking areas) and landscaping areas increased. Applicant should ensure all connections to and from the rainwater tank are annotated on plans. b. Landscaping and ecology – as above larger areas of landscaping or drainage of ground floor terraces to landscaping could assist in meeting permeability objectives as well as increasing site ecology. Applicant should indicate surface treatment for ground floor terraces on plans and discuss permeability measures in SMP. c. Ventilation – Applicant should ensure that all operable windows are marked on plans. Currently, plans do not indicate if bedroom and communal corridor windows will be operable. d. Energy efficiency – a very low level of energy efficiency is proposed for both heating and cooling systems. This aspect should be re-addressed. e. Waste – There is some discrepancy between bin sizes proposed in SMP and the Leigh Design Waste Management Plan (20 December 2012). Applicant to ensure all plans and reports correlate. In addition, Council’s Best Practice recommends a recycling target of 70% for construction and demolition waste. f. Information on implementation schedules (highlighting roles, responsibilities and tasks for incorporation of ESD measures throughout project), commissioning and/or building tuning and production of a Building User Guide, should be provided.  The Applicant should confirm roof treatment and colour on plans. Council recommends light coloured roofs to reduce heat island effect.

Urban Design

Councils Environmental Urban Design Officer assessed the advertised plans (Council date stamped 24 December 2012 and 11 February 2013). The comments received are summarised as follows:

 With a lot size of 835 sqm, the subject site is located within a small residential street that is largely characterised by a fine-grained pattern of relatively small residential lots and a mix of single-storey and two-storey dwellings.  The site appears to be a recent subdivision of the Church property at No.362-380 High Street, Windsor; occupying what was the Church and Church Hall car-park. On this point, it is not clear how the Church and Church Hall can function without this associated car-park site.  At 4-storeys, the scale of the development does not relate well to the scale of the existing dwellings in this small local street. In order to exceed 3-storeys, a development of this nature should be seeking a suitable main road site where this proposed scale of residential intensification could be supported.  As a matter of principle, new residential developments should be integrated within an appropriately sized deep-soil landscape setting. This proposal offers little in the way of a landscape setting for a residential development of this nature.  The proposal has one-third (7 of 21) of the apartments with a southern orientation for their principal living areas. Given the size and configuration of the site, and the comments in (1) above, a lesser-scaled development with fewer apartments should be capable of virtually eliminating south-facing apartments and thereby improving the overall energy efficiency of the building.

KEY ISSUES

In assessing this application, consideration must be given to the relevant State and Local Planning Policy Framework. In addition, an assessment must have regard to the guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development.

State Planning Policy Framework

The site is in close proximity of the Prahran, South Yarra, Windsor Principal Activity Centre as identified in the Stonnington Planning Scheme. In addition, tram services are available along High Street approximately 50 metres to the north of the site. State Policy specifically encourages higher density development in and around Neighbourhood Activity Centres and housing that is well serviced by physical and social infrastructure.

It is State Planning Policy at Clause 16.01-2 and 16.01-4 to increase the proportion of housing and encourage higher density housing development on sites within established urban areas close to activity centres, employment corridors and public transport. The site provides an opportunity for increased residential densities to help consolidate urban areas and to provide a range of housing types to meet increasingly diverse needs.

It is important that while addressing policy objectives of urban consolidation that the proposal must also appropriately respond to its context in terms of landscaping and existing neighbourhood character.

Local Planning Policy Framework

Clause 21.03 (Housing) of the Municipal Strategic Statement encourages a range of dwelling types to meet the community’s needs and development that displays good design which reflects the surrounding scale, height, density, bulk, setbacks, style, form and character of buildings, fences, gardens and the streetscape. The development site is of a size that is capable of being developed with a multi unit development however, it is not considered that the proposal respects the character of the area.

Council’s ‘Urban Design Policy’ at Clause 22.02 directs higher scale development, greater than two storeys in height, to land with a frontage to a Road Zone (Category 1). The subject site does not front a Road Zone 1, but instead fronts a local road and laneway.

It is also Council policy, pursuant to Clause 22.02 Urban Design, that new buildings not be significantly higher or lower than the surrounding buildings, and that developments be of a height and scale that is consistent with its particular setting and location and generally respect the one to two storey built form character of the City’s residential areas. It is also policy for parts of the building over 2 storeys and any roof gardens to be set back behind the facade to minimise impacts on the streetscape. The proposed building would sit amongst single and double storey dwellings. The proposed four storey form, given its proposed width and limited setbacks is not considered to produce a graduated building height form that sits well within the streetscape.

Details of the specific urban design concerns, amenity impacts, traffic and parking issues will be discussed below.

Built Form

The assessment of this application must take into account the relevant Design and Built Form principles of Clause 15.01 (Urban Environment) including the Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development, the remaining objectives of Clause 22.02 (Urban Design Policy) and Clause 22.06 (Residential Character, Amenity and Interface Policy). These policies encourage development to make a positive contribution to the built form of the area, to maintain and enhance the character and amenity of residential areas, to reflect the scale, character and appearance of an area and to encourage high standards of design.

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

Context

As discussed above, it is clear that the site is of a size that is capable of being developed with a multi unit development and as such accommodating an increase in density. However, the built form must be appropriate to its context. When considering whether the development is appropriate to its context, its relationship to surrounding buildings must be considered.

It is considered that the proposed height of the development is excessive in this location. Council Officers agree with Councils Urban Design Officer in that at 4-storeys, the scale of the development does not relate well to the scale of the existing dwellings in this small local street. The south side of Newry Lane, opposite the subject site is characterised by narrow single storey and double storey dwellings. The west of the site is occupied by a single storey residential building and to the east on the far side of Newry Street are double storey dwellings.

In addition, the extent of the basement size and the development proposed prevents an opportunity for in-ground canopy tree planting and appropriate landscaping having regard to amendment C155. The building has been designed with little or no setbacks from the boundary.

The minimal areas left are not considered sufficient to allow the proposed development to make an appropriate contribution to landscaping along the streetscape or throughout the site generally.

Overall, it is considered the proposed height and scale of the development is not appropriate in its context and the approach to the development should be reconsidered with the objective of responding sympathetically to the scale and character of the existing residential context in Newry Street and Newry Lane.

The Public Realm

The development provides active ground floor frontages and balconies at upper levels ensuring surveillance of the surrounding area.

Safety

The proposed development will not detrimentally impact upon the safety of the surrounding public environment. The proposed building has balconies and windows orientated towards the street and the laneway, which provides passive surveillance and enhances safety.

Landmarks, Views and Vistas

The proposed development is not considered to have a detrimental impact on any landmarks, views or vistas.

Pedestrian Spaces

The proposed building creates an acceptable relationship between the building and the footpath. The frontages to Newry Street and Newry Lane are well activated and will enhance the social experience of the pedestrian.

Heritage

The subject land is not affected by a Heritage Overlay.

Consolidation of Site and Empty Sites

The proposal does not seek to consolidate land, rather it would increase density through the introduction of a multi-dwelling development.

Light and Shade

Given the inner location of the subject site and the desired built outcomes, the public realm would not be impacted upon by overshadowing by the proposed development.

Energy and Resource Efficiency

Given the orientation of the site, the development has attempted to maximise the northern aspect. The applicant submitted a Sustainable Management Plan with the application. Council’s Environmental Sustainable Design (ESD) Officer requested that a more detailed response on sustainable design measures be provided, in accordance with Council’s Sustainable Design in the Planning Process (SDAPP) programme. These suggestions can be included as conditions on any permit that is issued.

Architectural Quality

Whilst the architecture quality of the design, in isolation has its merits, it does not appropriately respond to the context within which it sits. The design is not site responsive with the building expanding to the side boundaries with a limited attempt to address the residential building to the west. Rather, the building height, scale, and massing would have an overwhelming presence when viewed from surrounding properties and from the street.

Landscape Architecture

The extent of the proposed development precludes the possibility of incorporating deep-soil canopy tree planting on the site. Such landscaping is regarded as an essential component to any new residential development and will contribute to softening the built form. Amendment C161 seeks to introduce a revised Municipal Strategic Statement to the Stonnington Planning Scheme. This document includes objectives and strategies to maximum opportunities for canopy tree landscaping in new developments. The strategic direction is to prevent further erosion of the existing landscape character and repairing the damage of the past and to establish high standards of landscape integration with all new developments.

The proposed site coverage (approximately 75%) is too excessive to allow for significant landscaping and to provide for a satisfactory level of on–site amenity for future residents. Planting is proposed in the south east corner of the site. Nevertheless, the proposed level of landscaping throughout the site is not considered sufficient to mitigate the visual impact of the four storey height of the building nor is it considered to be a respectful contribution.

Amenity Impacts

The Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development call for appropriate building separation and visual relief to ensure private amenity is maintained and neighbourhood character is reinforced. Bearing in mind that Clause 55 does not apply for applications of four or more storeys, the standards and objectives of this Clause can provide assistance in assessing these developments. The most sensitive interfaces is No.360 High Street to the west of the site.

Visual Bulk

The most sensitive interface is the single residential building to the west of the site at 360 High Street. This dwelling contains habitable room windows on the interface facing the subject site. The private open space of this dwelling is also adjacent to the subject site.

The second level of the proposed development extends to a height of 10.7 metres which requires a setback of 5.79 metres form the boundary. A setback of between 4.2m and 5.4m has been provided adjacent to the area of private open space, which is not in accordance with the Standard. The third level extends to a height of 14 metres requiring a setback if 9 metres. A setback of 8 metres has been provided. It is acknowledged that the third level will not be visible from the private open space of No.360 High Street. Nevertheless, the setbacks at the second level are not considered sufficient to provide an appropriate transition in scale to this residential interface. It is considered that the form and scale of the proposal has the effect of ‘crowding’ the residential interface and this is considered to result in an unreasonable degree of visual bulk to this neighbouring residential neighbour. It is considered a more recessive edge with the residential interface would produce a better design outcome.

Overlooking

While Clause 55 (Rescode) does not apply to a building of four or more storeys, the overlooking standard can be used as a guide to assess the impact on adjoining properties from potential overlooking.

The proposal comprises balconies and windows that are orientated to all boundaries. Balconies and windows orientated to the north and east do not require screening given they overlook the Church and the public realm. In addition, there are no habitable room windows or areas of private open space within 9 metres.

The most sensitive interface is to the west at No. 360 High Street. This dwelling contains habitable room windows and an area of private open space facing the subject site. Bedroom 1.01 and 2.01 are not proposed to be screened. It is considered that these windows will allow for views into the secluded private open space of No.360 High Street. Similarly, the terraces on the third level raise overlooking concerns. It is also noted that the screening to the terraces on the first and second level are not clearly detailed on the elevations. The remaining windows on this elevation have been screened accordingly. A condition can be placed on any permit issued requiring the windows and terraces that have the potential to overlook must be screened in accordance with Standard B22 of Clause 55.

To the south, the terraces to dwelling 2.02 and 2.03 are within 9 metres of the private open spaces of the dwellings to the south on Newry Lane. These have not been screened. A condition can be placed on any permit issued requiring that the terraces be screened in accordance with Standard B22 of Clause 55.

Daylight to Existing Windows

Whilst reiterating Clause 55 is not applicable, it can provide a useful guide in assessing potential amenity impacts. For daylight to existing windows, the setback of the building opposite habitable room windows should be 50% of the proposed wall height, pursuant to Standard B19. This has been achieved on all elevations.

Overshadowing

The Overshadowing Open Space Objective, at Standard B21 states the following:

Where sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is reduced, at least 75 per cent, or 40 square metres with minimum dimension of 3 metres, whichever is the lesser area, of the secluded private open space should receive a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm on 22 September.

If existing sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is less than the requirements of this standard, the amount of sunlight should not be further reduced.

The Objective states: To ensure buildings do not significantly overshadow existing secluded private open space.

The applicant submitted shadow diagrams detailing the level of proposed overshadowing from the proposed development. The proposed development will increase the overshadowing to the private open space of the dwelling to the west at 360 High Street. The private open space afforded to this dwelling is small in nature and the increase in overshadowing to this area in the morning is not considered reasonable.

The additional overshadowing to the rear car park is not considered to be unreasonable.

Internal Amenity

The proposed development provides dwelling diversity with a range of sizes and configurations and all habitable rooms will have direct access to light. Dwellings range in size of 44.9m² to 83.7m² which is considered a reasonable size.

Every dwelling has access to a terrace however, four apartments have not been provided with a minimum 8sqm of private open space, which is considered to be a reasonable size of private open spaced depicted by Standard B28 of Clause 55. Although Rescode is not strictly applicable, it does provide a guideline for a reasonable level of private open space that should be provided to new dwellings. It is considered a condition should be placed on any permit issued requiring a minimum of 8sqm of private open space to be provided to all dwellings.

Each dwelling is provided with an external storage space located at basement floor level that is considered safe and secure. Mail boxes are also located at ground floor level and their location is considered to be safe and convenient for residents.

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

Traffic and Car Parking

Congestion

Council’s Transport and Parking Unit considers that the additional traffic generated by the proposed development will not significantly impact upon the existing traffic conditions in the area.

Car Parking

The application proposes the provision of 22 car spaces for 21 dwellings.

Based on the requirements of Clause 52.06-5 the development requires 25 car parking spaces. That is 21 resident spaces and 4 resident visitor spaces. The breakdown is as follows:  9 x 1 bed: 9 car parking space  12 x 2 bed: 12 car parking spaces  Resident visitor – 4 spaces

The development proposes 22 car spaces in the ground level car park all proposed to be allocated to residents. It is noted however, that the allocation of apartment car parking and visitor car parking has not been detailed.

A waiver of 4 visitor car parking spaces is therefore required. Although, the subject site is located in close proximity to public transport, Councils Transport Department have raised concerns with the proposed lack of visitor car parking. The peak visiting times for nearby non-residential properties such as the church and the park will coincide with peak times for visitors to the subject site which will further increase demand for on-street parking. It is considered that visitor parking should be accommodated on-site given the size of the development and given the loss of the informal parking that was provided to the church.

Access and Manoeuvring

The car parking spaces are proposed to be accommodated within Wohr Parklift 440 Car Stackers. Councils Transport Department have detailed that the model of stacker has not been identified and it is not clear that the area allocated will accommodate the car stackers. A condition can be placed on any permit issued requiring the type of stacker and confirmation that it will fit in the area allocated.

The aisle width has been dimensioned at 6.4m, as per the requirements of the Planning Scheme. Access to each space is considered appropriate.

Other matters

Council’s Transport and Parking Unit have also provided comments that they require more information in regard to the following:

 Sight distances at property boundary  Location of columns  Sight distance on the ramp  Allocation of parking  Garage door  Pedestrian ramp grades  Column locations  Floor gradients  Height clearances  Swept path detailing access from Newry Lane

The concerns that have been raised are not fundamental to safe, manageable and convenient access for the development and therefore could be addressed through conditions should a permit be issued.

Bicycles

A total of 23 bicycle spaces are proposed in the basement which can be accessed from the ground level car park. It is not clear how visitors will have access to these spaces or what type of bicycle facilities are proposed. This can be determined by way of permit condition.

It is also noted that in order for cyclists to access the basement parking area, bicycles will need to be transported through the lobby and down to the basement via either the lift or the stairs. A condition will be placed on any permit issued requiring the applicant to demonstrate that it is possible to manoeuvre a bicycle through either of these routes.

Landscaping

Two significant trees are proposed to be removed from the site. Council has no objection to their removal given the health of the trees. The landscape content for the minimal space provided is adequate.

Overall however, the proposed development effectively precludes the provision of any adequate landscaping. The absence of landscape integration is considered a poor design outcome. For these reasons, the proposal fails to satisfy State and Local policies that call for sufficient space for landscaping to contribute to the existing and preferred landscape character of the area.

Environmental Sustainable Design

As discussed earlier, Council’s Environmental Sensitive Design (ESD) Officer requested that a more detailed response on sustainable design measures needs to be provided in the form of a Sustainable Management Plan (SMP). This plan needs to be in accordance with Council’s Sustainable Design in the Planning Process (SDAPP) programme.

Should a permit be issued a condition should be included requiring the submission and approval of a Sustainable Management Plan (SMP).

Waste Management

Comments have been received from Council’s Waste Management Coordinator that the submitted Waste Management Plan prepared by Leigh Design responded reasonably well to the waste management challenges presented in the plans.

Melbourne Water

Melbourne Water has objected to the proposal. They consider that the development will increase flood levels upstream and the development does not allow for the passage of overland flows.

Infrastructure

Council’s Infrastructure Unit advises that conditions to be included on any permit to issue relating to legal point of discharge and existing footpath levels are not to be altered.

Water Sensitive Urban Design

The plans detail a 12000 litre rain water tank within the basement. A STORM report was submitted that details that this tank will achieve a minimum rating of 100%. However, the tank is not detailed as being connected to toilets. A condition requiring this can be included on any permit that is issued.

Objections

In response to the grounds of objection not already discussed in the report, the following comments are made:  Precedent, any future applications for development will be assessed on their individual merits.  Noise during construction- this is a matter considered outside the planning permit stage. Any works conducted during construction will need to be conducted in accordance with Council Local Laws.  Sanctuary of church impacted. Although outside the realm of the planning process, it is not considered that the proposed development will impact on the sanctuary of the church.  Illegal parking and dangerous driving. These considerations are outside the planning permit process however, it is noted that residents of the proposed development and their visitors like any other road users will need to obey the Victorian Road Rules.  Car stackers will not be used and are noisy. Car stackers are becoming increasingly popular as a form of vehicle parking. Given that future residents will not receive parking permits, the car stacker will be the only option for car parking. The stackers will not create unreasonable noise.

 Dumping of rubbish. Residents of the proposed development, like any other resident in Stonnington will need to abide by Councils Local Laws.

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 refused for the following reasons:  Melbourne Water objects to the proposal.  The proposal, by virtue of its scale and height fails to respect the existing neighbourhood character.  The proposal, by virtue of the extent of built form constitutes an overdevelopment of the site.  The proposal will result in an unreasonable level of visual bulk being presented to the neighbouring residential interface and as a result fails to meet the Objectives and Policy Statements of Clause 22.02 and Clause 22.06 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

RECOMMENDATION

That if the Applicant has not lodged an appeal pursuant to Section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Council would have issued a Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit No: 938/12 for the land located at 69 Newry Street, Windsor for the construction of a Multi-Unit Development on a lot within a Residential 1 Zone and Special Building Overlay and Associated Car Parking Waiver on the following grounds:

1. Melbourne Water (a referral authority) has objected to the proposal for the reasons outline in correspondence dated 21 February 2013 summarised as follows: a) The development will increase flood levels upstream b) The development does not allow for the passage of overland flows

2. The scale and height of the building is out of character with the existing neighbourhood and does not meet the State and Local Planning Policies, including Clause 15.01-1 (Urban Design), Clause 22.02 (Urban Design Policy) and Clause 22.06 (Residential Character, Amenity and Interface Policy).

3. The proposed building, having regard to its extent of built form constitutes an overdevelopment of the site and does not respond to or respect the surrounding residential interfaces.

4. The excessive extent of the building cover precludes the possibility of an appropriate landscape response for the site.

5. The proposal will adversely impact on the amenity of its neighbours through visual bulk, overlooking and overshadowing and as a result fails to meet the Objectives and Policy Statements of Clause 22.06 (Residential Character, Amenity and Interface Policy) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. Page 21 GENERAL BUSINESS 19 AUGUST 2013

6. The proposed area of private open space allocated to dwellings G.04, 1.06, 1.08 and 2.07 is considered to result in a poor level of internal amenity for the dwellings.

7. The proposed parking provision does not comply with Clause 52.06-5 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

1.2. Planning Application 0023/13 - 15 Fulham Avenue South Yarra - Demolition of the Existing Dwelling and Construction of a Three Storey Dwelling Above a Basement Garage

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

PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a new dwelling in a Heritage Overlay at 15 Fulham Avenue, South Yarra.

Executive Summary

Applicant: John Liu Ward: North Zone: Residential 1 Zone Overlay: Heritage Overlay (Schedule 140) Date lodged: 16/01/2013 Statutory days: (as at council 60 meeting date) Trigger for referral to Councillor Call Up Council: Number of objections: Three (3) Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on 23 July 2013 Officer Recommendation: Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The application was lodged in January 2013 and plans (Council date stamped 23 April 2013) were advertised in April 2013. Three objections were received from surrounding properties. The advertised plans included a habitable third floor level which consisted of a lift, lobby, kitchen, WC, stair access to the floors below and a large roof deck. Following advertising and in response to concerns raised by the Heritage Advisor, the applicant lodged formally amended plans under Section 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 on 4 July 2013. The plans made the following variations from the advertised plans:

 Reduction in the size of the third floor level so as to contain a lift and lobby only.  Removal of the roof deck.  Lowering of the grow wall within the front setback from 2.4 metres to a maximum height of 1.5 metres.  Increase in the ground floor level front setback by 1 metre to Fulham Avenue.

These plans were not readvertised as it was considered that the changes would not result in increased detriment on the heritage area.

Details of the proposal as shown on the plans dated 4 July 2013 are provided below.

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Built Modern Pty Ltd and are known as Project No. 12076, Drawing No’s: A101, A102, A103, A104, A105, A107, A200, A201, A202 and Council date stamped 4 July 2013.

The proposal seeks to demolish the existing dwelling to make way for the construction of a new three storey dwelling, plus a basement garage. Key features of the proposal are:

 The basement level is to be accessed from a new crossover on Lechlade Avenue and will provide off-street parking for five vehicles, storage, refuse areas, a home theatre, lobby, cellar, kitchen and bathroom.

 At the ground floor level a large open plan living area including two bedrooms is proposed.

 The first floor level is to contain an additional three bedrooms, bathrooms and balconies, as well as a library and gallery.

 The upper floor will consist of a lift and lobby that will provide access to roof services and mechanical equipment.

 The building will have an overall maximum height of 9.5 metres to the roof of the third floor level. Due to the slope in the land towards the west, the height of the building varies and the majority of the dwelling is between 7.6 metres and 8.8 metres in height.

 The rear of the site is to be retained as open space and contains two large significant trees that are to be protected as part of this development application.

 The new dwelling is to be primarily constructed from concrete, stone, steel and render.

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is located on the south-west corner of Fulham Avenue and Lechlade Avenue in South Yarra. It has a principal frontage to Fulham Avenue of 22.86 metres and a secondary frontage to Lechlade Avenue of 50.29 metres; yielding an overall site area of 1150sqm. The land is currently occupied by a dilapidated single storey dwelling and a 1.9 metre high timber fence extends along the north and east boundaries of the subject site. The land falls from east to west by 1.8 metres.

To the north is Lechlade Avenue and beyond this is the Como House homestead, one of the largest mansions in the municipality and owned by the National Trust. Como House sits within its own Heritage Overlay (Schedule 26) and is an A1-graded building. This late Georgian mansion is renowned as being one of the finest monuments to the mid-Victorian era in Australia and is preserved as a museum house.

To the south of the subject site is No. 11 Fulham Avenue, which contains a contemporary double storey dwelling that is setback from the street approximately 10 metres at the ground floor level. A high and predominantly solid front fence extends along the front boundary, although some sections are partially transparent allowing for views of the facade from the street.

To the west is No. 14 Como Avenue which contains a double storey rendered brick residence. The dwelling occupies a large portion of the site and includes vehicle access from a crossover on Lechlade Avenue. Page 24 GENERAL BUSINESS 19 AUGUST 2013

Fulham Avenue sits to the east of the subject site and thirteen properties have a principal frontage to this street. The setbacks and architectural styles vary, although the predominant character is of large double storey brick and render dwellings with appreciable areas of private open space and high front fences. Large canopy trees are also a characteristic of the area.

Previous Planning Application(s)

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

 Planning Application 0798/11 was lodged with Council in October 2011 for the construction of a double storey dwelling over a basement garage. The application was referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor who was not supportive of the application and the key concerns were that the faux classical design with modest setbacks and multiple crossovers would not complement the valued architectural character of the area. The application was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant.

The Title

The site is described as Lot 25 on Plan of Subdivision 005433 on (Volume 06187, Folio 359). No easements affect this land.

The land is affected by Covenant 0717333, which prohibits the construction or erection of more than one house or dwelling, or any house or dwelling constructed out of materials other than brick, stone or concrete or at a less cost than one thousand pounds.

The proposed development of one new dwelling will not breach the restrictions of this covenant as the new residence is predominantly constructed from concrete and stone and will not cost less than one thousand pounds. The applicant has signed a declaration to this effect.

Planning Controls

The following permit triggers are considerations for this application:

Clause 32.01 – Residential 1 Zone Pursuant to Clause 32.01-03 a permit is not required to construct a building on a lot greater than 500sqm. No permit is required to construct or carry out works as the subject site has an area of 1150sqm.

Clause 43.01 – Heritage Overlay (Schedule 140) Pursuant to Clause 43.01-1 a permit is required for demolition and to construct a building or construct or carry out works. The decision guidelines are at Clause 43.01-4.

The building on the subject site is graded C under the Heritage citations of Schedule 140. The existing building contributes to the Heritage Overlay only through its modest scale, pitched roof and face brick materiality.

The considerations for this application are heritage only. Amenity impacts cannot be considered.

Particular Provisions No particular provisions are applicable to this application.

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

Clause 15.01-5 Cultural identity and neighbourhood character Clause 15.02 Sustainable Development Clause 15.03 Heritage Clause 16.01 Residential Development

Clause 21 Municipal Strategic Statement Clause 22.02 Urban Design Policy Clause 22.04 Heritage Policy Clause 22.06 Residential Character, Amenity and Interface Policy

Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

Reference Documents: Heritage Guidelines, City of Stonnington 2002

Draft Clause 22.18 Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) Policy This document is seriously entertained 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 two (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 three (3) different properties have been received. The concerns raised can be summarised as follows:

 Not in character with the area.  The architectural plan of the new development would negatively affect the existing character of the streetscape of Como Avenue and Fulham Avenue.  Intention to build a second dwelling on the lot.  The proposed development is detrimental to the local heritage overlay.  Overlooking.  Loss of light.

A Consultative Meeting was held on 23 July 2013. The meeting was attended by all North Ward Councillors, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. The meeting did not result in any further changes to the plans.

Referrals

Heritage

The advertised plans (Council date stamped 23 April 2013) were referred to Council’s Heritage Advisor who noted several concerns. The proposed street setback to Fulham Avenue was raised as a concern and it was recommended that the setback be no less than 9 metres with no habitable structures intruding into this area. It was also stated that the front setback should be open to public view and contribute to the landscaped character of setbacks within the street.

It was noted that buildings in the street are typically of one or two storeys and a partial third storey and roof deck raises a number of issues. Roof decks and associated habitable areas are not typical to this heritage area. It was stated that the habitable third level could not be supported.

Comments on the architectural expression raised concern with the large areas of concrete, glazing and reflective surfaces as these are not materials generally seen in this area.

These comments were provided to the applicant who amended the plans on 4 July 2013 (as noted earlier in this report) in an effort to address these concerns. The amended plans were again referred to the Heritage Advisor who considers that the third floor has been largely improved although it is unclear why the lift and lobby is still necessary when the roof deck has been removed. The variations to third floor level have resulted in changes to the large upper level concrete facade block to the east, which is considered to now achieve a satisfactory outcome.

The increase to the street setback and reduced height of the grow wall in front of the facade are also an improvement. Although it is suggested that the 2 metre high fence to the south of the entry canopy on Fulham Avenue be increased in transparency, as is seen to the north of the entry canopy. While the steel portal sits closer to the street than is preferred, it is a lightweight construction and can be accepted. It is emphasised that a suitable landscape response within the front setback is necessary to complement the street.

Arborist

Council’s Arborist has reviewed the proposal and has confirmed that there are two significant trees on the site, known as a mature Liquidambar styraciflua (Sweet Gum) and a mature Ulmus glabra ‘Lutescens’ (Golden Elm). The Arborist has stipulated the following requirements:

 Setbacks for the southern tree have been reduced and construction is now proposed within the Structural Root Zone (SRZ) of the Golden Elm on the eastern and northern aspects. No arboricultural report has accompanied these plans indicating that construction this close to the tree can be achieved based on non-destructive root excavation works. The type of construction within the SRZ has also not been detailed.

 A Tree Management Plan will need to be conditioned for this proposal, but it must be demonstrated that the retention of the Golden Elm can be achieved in relation to the proposed works within its structural root zone. The installation of the underground tank must also be addressed in the Tree Management Plan.

 Tree planting will need to be included for the eastern frontage.

Infrastructure Department

The application was referred to Council’s Infrastructure Department who noted the following:

 The levels of Lechlade Avenue at the property line must not be lowered or altered (to facilitate the basement ramp).

 A report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared in accordance with that report prior to a building permit being issued.

 The installation of water tanks for recycling are encouraged to help address WSUD and sustainability issues.

KEY ISSUES

Heritage

The proposal has been considered against the Heritage Overlay decision guidelines (Clause 43.0- 4) and the Stonnington Heritage Guidelines. An assessment against the heritage provisions is provided below:

Heritage Context

The statement of significance for this Heritage Overlay (Schedule 140) relates to the Como Urban Conservation Area. This area comprises the Como property, Lechlade Avenue and Fulham· Avenue, including the south-east comer of Como Avenue and Lechlade Avenue. The area is significant as it formed the early subdivision of the Como Estate. Fulham Avenue’s significant characteristics are “the size of each building and its relative closeness to the street frontage. While medium to high front fences dominate, most houses are clearly visible from the street and contribute to its overall character”.

Full Demolition

The Heritage citations for Schedule 140 classify the current building at 15 Fulham Avenue as a C graded building and describe it as follows:

Built in 1968 apparently replacing a house built between 1914 and 1918, this single storey villa is appropriate for its site in terms of scale, setbacks and form.

The demolition of this building is considered acceptable given the existing dwelling is a recent construction; has limited heritage value; and is in a poor state. The dwelling currently does not reflect the grandeur of the surrounding developments and it is considered acceptable to remove the dwelling to make way for a suitable replacement building that complements the area. Council’s Heritage Advisor has not raised any concern with the demolition of the existing building on the land. The demolition will not adversely affect the significance of the heritage place as the existing building contributes little to the streetscape.

New dwelling

The new building will be a contemporary dwelling that will be clearly distinguishable as a new addition and will include a basement garage that is accessed from a new crossover on Lechlade Avenue. Three floor levels will sit above the basement with the building having an overall maximum building height of 9.5 metres. Due to the slope in the land towards the west, the height of the building varies and the majority of the dwelling is between 7.6 metres and 8.8 metres in height. Fulham and Como Avenues consist of a mix of architectural styles and many of the dwellings contain contemporary additions and are two storeys in height. As the surrounding buildings are generally two storeys, the new dwelling will not dominate the streetscape in terms of its height. Page 28 GENERAL BUSINESS 19 AUGUST 2013

Council’s Heritage Advisor initially reviewed the advertised plans (Council date stamped 23 April 2013) and raised concern with the front setback, the third floor level and material and finishes. In an effort to address these concerns the applicant submitted revised plans on 4 July 2013. The combined changes that are seen on the revised plans are considered to have largely addressed the heritage concerns and will achieve a design response that is more in keeping with the surrounding area. It is noted that an element of the third floor has been retained to provide a lift and lobby to access roof services and the size of this floor level has been reduced through the removal of the kitchen, WC and staircase. The roof deck has also been removed, although the plans still include reference to a roof deck in the notations. The third floor level will be discussed in more detail below.

Street setback

While the applicant has increased the front setback from Fulham Avenue as part of the revised plans, the setback has not been amended to 9 metres as per the Heritage Advisor’s initial feedback. However, it is considered that on balance the changes to the proposal have now achieved a suitable outcome that is in line with other setbacks in Fulham Avenue. There are still architectural elements that encroach within this setback and these are discussed in more detail below.

When considering street setbacks, consideration must be given to the existing setbacks in the area and the extent to which these setbacks form a character of the Heritage Overlay. To the south of the subject site (western side of the street), front setbacks vary between 10 metres and 7.6 metres. While there is a moderate level of consistency, front setbacks are generally concealed due to the high front fences. On the eastern side of the street the setbacks vary between 8.9 metres and 6.2 metres, again demonstrating a lack of homogeny in the street setbacks.

The revised plans have set the facade of the subject dwelling back between 6.9 metres and 7.6 metres from the front (east) title boundary. Within this setback there are eaves, a steel portal and a grow wall (green wall) located 4.5 metres from the front boundary. Additionally, a covered canopy is proposed at the entry gate on Fulham Avenue which will have a maximum height of 2.4 metres. While these elements appear to bring the building closer to the street, the proposed fence at 2 metres in height will obscure much of the bulk. Where the fence is partially transparent, the grow wall (green wall) will provide a soft buffer at a height of 1.5 metres when viewed from Fulham Avenue. It is considered that the main face of the building (including the upper floor level facade) is located a sufficient distance from the street to reflect a similar building pattern as the dwellings to the south and east. The reduction of the size of the third floor level and the increased articulation on the facade through a reduction in the large concrete block work also results in an improved presentation to Fulham Avenue. While the setback shown on the plans dated 4 July 2013 is now considered to be acceptable, there is still some concern with the prominence of the steel portal that is discussed below.

The steel portal sits higher than the ground floor level parapet and 4.5 metres from the front title boundary. It is to be finished in black steel with metal slats and serves the purpose of providing shading and screening to the bedroom. While the lightweight construction of the steel portal does not raise significant concerns as confirmed by the Heritage Advisor, the black steel does emphasise the presence of this structure at the front of the site. As the portal serves the function of screening and shading, it is not considered necessary to remove it entirely. An improved outcome can be achieved through the use of a lighter, muted colour for the frame. The applicant has suggested that a white or silver colour can be used. It is considered that finishing the steel in white or silver will assist in reducing the prominence of the portal within the front setback and this will be dealt with by way of a condition.

The covered canopy at the entry gate from Fulham Avenue is shown on the floor and site plans but has not been shown on the elevations. Council’s Heritage Advisor does not take issue with the canopy as there are similar examples of covered entries in the street. The height of the canopy has not been noted on the plans and therefore a condition of the permit will require that the canopy be shown on elevations with a maximum dimensioned height of 2.4 metres.

Fencing on Fulham Avenue

Fencing in Fulham Avenue varies although there are numerous examples of high fences (approximately 2 metres in height) that are both solid and partially transparent. The proposal seeks a similar arrangement whereby the fence to Fulham Avenue will vary between 1.8 metres and 2 metres in height and will consist of both solid and partially transparent elements. To the south of the frontage a 2 metre high solid wall is proposed. This was raised as a concern by the Heritage Advisor who recommended that the fence should provide a greater level of transparency. While it is higher than the Heritage Guidelines recommend, the fence in this location provides privacy to the bedroom at the ground floor level that has an easterly outlook. Subject to the change in colour of the steel portal and a suitable landscape response, it is considered a solid fence at this height is acceptable and will result in a similar interface as the fence directly to the south at No. 11 Fulham Avenue, which also has a 2m high solid fence.

The partially transparent fence to the north of the Fulham Avenue frontage also exceeds the height recommended by the guidelines; however it is acceptable as it will be largely transparent and will allow for views of the facade. High front fences are also a characteristic of the area as has been noted earlier in this report. A dimensioned eastern streetscape elevation will also be required to show the height of front fences and this will be addressed by way of a condition, ensuring that no fence exceeds 2 metres in height.

Interface to Lechlade Avenue

The interface to Lechlade Avenue will consist of fencing and a vehicle crossover that provides access to the basement garage. This is not dissimilar to the existing conditions that consist of a crossover and high solid fence. A grow wall has been proposed on this boundary at a height of 2.4 metres. While this is higher than a standard fence, the northern elevation is a secondary frontage and currently exhibits a high, solid fence. Furthermore, it is not uncommon in this neighbourhood to see side and front fences of this height. The grow wall is essentially a green wall and will provide a soft buffer to the street. A dimensioned northern streetscape elevation is to be required by way of a condition and must detail the fencing and gates proposed.

Interface to Como House

Lechlade Avenue sits to the south of Como House, being to the rear of Como House. Views of the A1-graded mansion from Lechlade Avenue are largely obscured by poplar trees and other mature vegetation as well as high fencing. In this regard, the interface between Lechlade Avenue and Como House is not a significant one. The principal aspects of Como House are seen from the north and east and the development within the residential streets to the south (such as Lechlade Avenue, Como Avenue and Fulham Avenue) will not interfere with the significance of the Como House homestead.

It is considered that the proposed dwelling at 15 Fulham Avenue will not unreasonably detract from or obscure significant views of Como House.

Upper floor levels

Overall the applicant has attempted to address the concerns raised by Council’s Heritage Advisor. The first floor level is to be setback 13 metres from the Fulham Avenue, which is similar to the double storey addition directly to the south at No. 11 Fulham Avenue. The habitable rooms at the third floor level have been removed except for a lift and lobby area. While the extent of the third floor level has been reduced, the building will maintain additional height that exceeds the heights of buildings on the adjoining sites. The reason for the lift and lobby at this floor level is not considered justified to allow for a building element that will dominate the surrounding heritage properties.

The applicant has stated that the lift is required to service the plant and mechanical equipment to be located on the roof itself. The roof plan does not show any domestic plant equipment, although it has been suggested that solar panels will be positioned here. The applicant has assured both Council and the objectors that the intention of the lift to the roof is solely for the purpose of servicing the domestic plant equipment. While this may be the case, it is considered that alternative access can be provided to these services, such as via a stairwell, which will have a less intrusive impact on the streetscape. Therefore, a condition of the permit will require that the plans remove the third floor level entirely so that the building reflects the predominant character of the streetscape at two storeys in height. Additionally, a condition of the permit will require that the roof plan remove all reference to “roof deck”. It will also be required that the location of all domestic plant equipment including solar energy facilities be shown.

Subject to the conditions, the proposed new dwelling will be fitting to the surrounding area and will not dominate the street or detract from surrounding heritage fabric.

Protection of trees

Council’s Arborist has reviewed the plans and has confirmed that there are two significant trees to the rear of the site. It has been noted that construction is proposed within the structural root zone (SRZ) of the Golden Elm on the eastern and northern aspects. As no Arborist report accompanied this application it is unclear what type of construction is proposed in this location and whether it is possible to achieve non-destructive root excavation. As such an Arborist Report and subsequent Tree Management Plan (TMP) will need to be conditioned for this proposal. The Arborist Report must demonstrate that the retention of the Golden Elm can be achieved in relation to the proposed works within its structural root zone. If it is found that this cannot be achieved, the plans will need to be amended to ensure the retention of the significant tree. This is to be addressed by way of conditions.

Additionally, Council’s Arborist has noted that a landscape response is required for the eastern frontage. It is considered reasonable given the extent of landscaping evident in this neighbourhood that a Landscape Plan be provided by way of a condition that details new plantings on the subject site. Vegetation within the front setback should seek to soften the building and is to be complementary to the streetscape.

Water Sensitive Urban Design

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

The applicant provided a STORM report demonstrating that the development achieves a rating of 80%. The minimum best practice is 100%. The amended plans continue to show a 3000L rainwater tank at the rear of the dwelling that is to be used for gardening and washing cars, as well

GENERAL BUSINESS 19 AUGUST 2013 as a 5000L rainwater tank along the northern side of the dwelling which is to be used for flushing toilets. This equates to a total capacity of 8000L on the site. It is expected that additional measures can be put in place to achieve a minimum 100% STORM rating. Therefore, an amended STORM report will be required by way of a condition to ensure a 100% rating is achieved.

Objections

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

 Amenity impacts such as overlooking, overshadowing and loss of daylight

Under the provisions of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, the development of one new dwelling on a lot greater than 500 sq m does not trigger a planning permit under the Residential 1 Zone and therefore no amenity impacts can be considered. The only trigger for a planning permit is the Heritage Overlay. As such, this application may only consider the heritage implications of the development. Amenity impacts such as overshadowing, overlooking or loss of daylight are to be addressed as part of the Building Permit.

 The proposed development is detrimental to the local heritage overlay

As discussed throughout the assessment section of this report, the development was modified following advertising in an effort to address the concerns raised by Council’s Heritage Advisor and the objectors. Subject to the conditions listed below, the changes shown on the plans that are Council date stamped 4 July 2013 are considered to result in an appropriate outcome for the Heritage Overlay.

 The use of the land to the west for a second dwelling

The subject site is affected by a single dwelling covenant that prohibits the construction of more than one dwelling on the lot. No additional dwelling could be considered on this land without an approved planning permit to vary or remove the covenant. This process would require consent from all beneficiaries of the covenant. A planning permit would also be required for any new dwelling which would be subject to a comprehensive assessment against the relevant planning scheme provisions. As no application has been lodged to vary or remove the covenant there is nothing to suggest that the land to the west of the dwelling is intended to be developed for a second dwelling.

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 development will be of a scale, height and mass that is consistent with other developments in the street and the wider heritage area.  The development will not remove any significant fabric from the subject site that would be contrary to the heritage guidelines. Page 32 GENERAL BUSINESS 19 AUGUST 2013

 Subject to conditions, the development will provide an adequate design response on the site and will achieve the objectives of the Heritage Overlay and Stonnington’s Heritage Guidelines.

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 0023/13 for the land located at 15 Fulham Avenue, South Yarra be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for demolition of the existing dwelling and subsequent construction of a new dwelling on a lot within a Heritage Overlay subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development, three (3) copies of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans Council date stamped 4 July 2013 but modified to show:

a) The colour of the steel portal to the eastern facade is to be finished in a white or silver colour to achieve a more recessive appearance to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; b) The third floor level containing the lift and lobby are to be entirely removed from the plans; c) The canopy at the entry gate to Fulham Avenue is to be shown on the elevations with a dimensioned maximum height of 2.4 metres above natural ground level; d) Fully dimensioned northern streetscape elevation showing all proposed fences including the new automatic sliding gate; e) Fully dimensioned eastern streetscape elevation including all proposed fencing. No fence is to be shown to exceed 2 metres in height; f) Materials and colours of all front fencing to be noted on the plans; g) All elevations are to be dimensioned to show the overall maximum building height above natural ground level; h) Roof plan updated to show the location of any domestic plant equipment, including the location any solar energy facilities. All equipment is to be concealed when viewed from the street; i) Roof plan to remove all reference to roof deck; j) Arborist Report that details results of non-destructive root excavation demonstrating that the retention of the Golden Elm can be achieved in relation to the proposed works within its structural root zone; k) Any alterations to the plans that may be necessary to ensure the retention of the significant Golden Elm in relation to the proposed works within its structural root zone; l) Submission of a Tree Management Plan in accordance with Condition 6; m) Landscape Plan as required by Condition 4; n) Materials and finishes in accordance with Condition 3; o) Water Sensitive Urban Design Response in accordance with Condition 16;

all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

3. Concurrent with the endorsement of the plans, a schedule of construction materials, external finishes and colours to the satisfaction of the Responsible Page 33 GENERAL BUSINESS 19 AUGUST 2013

Authority must be submitted and approved. When approved, the schedule will be endorsed and will form part of the permit.

4. Concurrent with the endorsement of the 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 drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The landscape plan must show:

a) A survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be retained and/or removed. b) Buildings and trees (including botanical names) on neighbouring properties within three metres of the boundary. c) Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways. d) A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers, including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant. e) The extent of any cut, fill, embankments or retaining walls associated with the landscape treatment of the site. f) Landscaping to the front (eastern) setback to complement the surrounding area.

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

6. 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 Liquidambar styraciflua (Sweet Gum) and Ulmus glabra ‘Lutescens’ (Golden Elm) located on the subject site. Installation of the underground tank must also be addressed in the Tree Management Plan.

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

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

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

7. The levels of Lechlade Avenue at the property line must not be lowered or altered (to facilitate the basement ramp).

8. The level of the footpaths must not be lowered or altered in any way to facilitate access to the site.

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

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

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

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

15. 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.

16. 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.

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

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

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

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

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing within the following timeframes:

i. Before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has not yet started; and ii. Within 12 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully started before the permit expires.

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

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

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

 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:

d) with a trunk circumference of 180 centimeters or greater measured at its base; or e) with a trunk circumference of 140 centimeters or greater measured at 1.5 metres above its base; or

f) 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.

2. SUBMISSION BY THE CITY OF STONNINGTON TO THE PROPOSED VICSMART PLANNING PROVISIONS – “A NEW PERMIT PROCESS FOR SIMPLE APPLICATIONS”

Manager: Alex Kastaniotis General Manager: Stuart Draffin

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider and adopt this paper as the basis of a submission to Department of Transport Planning and Local Infrastructure (DTPLI) on the proposed VicSmart Planning Provisions.

BACKGROUND

In July 2013, the Minister for Planning released the proposed new VicSmart provisions for consultation and public comment prior to their finalisation.

VicSmart is described by the State Government as “a new dedicated, streamlined and faster planning permit process for straightforward planning applications that will apply across Victoria”.

Twelve classes of application are included in the new provisions. These include planning applications for subdivision of land to realign the common boundary between two lots, construction or extension of a front fence within 3m of a street and within an overlay, amongst others. Attachment 1 provides details of affected applications.

Comments are being sought on the draft provisions and proposed changes to the Planning and Environment Regulations by 30 August 2013.

DISCUSSION

What is VicSmart?

VicSmart is the proposed new assessment process for applications that are considered to be simpler, and more straightforward.

Based on the information released by DTPLI, the new VicSmart permit process aims to:

 provide a simpler and more consistent permit process through standard statewide requirements  ensure timely and efficient processing of straightforward, low-impact applications  ensure the level of assessment is proportional to the nature of the proposal  reduce the regulatory and administrative burden on councils  provide certainty to applicants and councils about the information required and the matters to be considered when making a decision.

VicSmart Assessment Process

The VicSmart assessment process involves three steps to a decision:

SUBMIT The application is submitted with all the information specified in the new proposed Clauses 93 and 95.

ASSESS A council officer assesses the application against the decision guidelines specified in the new proposed Clauses 93 and 95.

DECIDE The Chief Executive Officer (or delegate) decides to approve or refuse the application.

Proposed Changes

The Planning and Environment Amendment (VicSmart Planning Assessment) Act 2012 amends the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to enable a streamlined assessment process for straightforward planning permit applications to be set up in planning schemes.

The VicSmart process will be made operational through the Victoria Planning Provisions and planning schemes. New planning provisions and changes to the Planning and Environment Regulations are currently being drafted by the DTPLI to implement VicSmart.

The Planning and Environment (VicSmart Planning Assessment) Act 2012 enables planning schemes to set out a different procedure for VicSmart classes of application by specifying:

 the notice requirements (third party notification) of Section 52(1) of the Act do not apply  the further information requirements of Section 54 of the Act do not apply  third party review rights (ie objector VCAT appeals) in Section 82(1) of the Act do not apply  some decision making considerations of Section 60(1) and 84B(2) of the Act do not apply  the Chief Executive Officer of the municipal council (or delegate) is the responsible authority for the application not Council.

Key Features of VicSmart

Key features of the VicSmart process are:

1. A decision within ten business days. 2. An applicant is expected to submit all the necessary information with the application. 3. No need for external referrals. An applicant is expected to obtain any referral authority approval before lodging the application with council. 4. Exempt from advertising. 5. The application is only assessed against specific pre-set decision guidelines. 6. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the council or a delegate will decide the application, not Council. 7. An applicant has a right of review to VCAT if there is disagreement about whether the decision guidelines have been met.

Key Differences of VicSmart Compared to Current Planning Permit Application Process:

Existing Provisions Proposed VicSmart Provisions 60 statutory days to determine applications 10 business days to determine applications Ability to request further information within There is no provision to request further 28 days information

Application is sent to Referral Authorities by Referral Authority responses to be submitted Council when a VicSmart application is lodged with Council Only some applications are exempt from There is no provision to advertise under advertising VicSmart Decision guidelines are set out in applicable Decision guidelines are only set out in the planning controls, comprised of the zone, relevant/ applicable VicSmart clause any applicable overlays and local policy Council is the delegate for making a The CEO (or Council Officers if Deed of decision, with call-up authority via Council’s Delegation is amended) is the delegate for Deed of Delegation to officers making a decision with Council specifically excluded via the Act. An applicant can appeal to VCAT against a An applicant can appeal to VCAT against a Notice of Refusal or any imposed Notice of Refusal or any imposed conditions. conditions. An objector can appeal to VCAT There are no provisions for objector against a Notice of Decision or any imposed involvement in the appeal process. conditions.

VicSmart Application Numbers and Fees

DTPLI have undertaken preliminary estimates across the State to work out how many planning applications will be VicSmart applications. It is estimated that about 15% of the current application workload will likely be VicSmart applications. This estimate does not include the VicSmart subdivision classes as it is impossible to identify them from the data that is collected by PPARS.

The DTPLI consider that Stonnington is one of the Councils likely to receive a larger number of applications than most due to large areas being located in a heritage overlay and a lot of renovating activity.

DTPLI also advise that statutory planning fees will not change in the short to medium term.

ASSESSMENT

The proposed VicSmart provisions are sound in their intent to deal with simpler planning applications in a shorter time frame. This is intended to be achieved by removing the further information and notice provisions and providing a new 10 business day decision timeframe.

In removing the Responsible Authority’s ability to request further information and stop the statutory clock, it is assumed that applicants will submit complete applications; which more often than not, is not the case. Accountability for submitting a complete application must remain with the applicant and should not inadvertently become the Responsible Authority’s problem by having to request required information ‘informally’ as suggested by DTPLI. Page 39 GENERAL BUSINESS 19 AUGUST 2013

Some class of applications, such as the construction of a garage and carport can be problematic as many are not sympathetic to the valued character in the Heritage Overlay when they are first lodged. These often involve lengthy negotiations with the applicant and heritage advisor to arrive at an outcome that can be supported by the Responsible Authority. The 10 business day time frame for determining these applications is not realistic and therefore these types of applications should not be included in the VicSmart provisions. Should applications be poorly documented or the 10 business day timeframe for a decision not allow for negotiation, it is highly likely this could lead to refusal of applications. Further Information

Under VicSmart, the Responsible Authority will not have the ability to formally request further information under Section 54 of the Planning and Environment Act and so will not have the ability to stop the statutory ‘clock’ for deciding an application.

If required information is not submitted by the applicant, the Responsible Authority is still expected to make a decision within 10 business days. To facilitate this, the Responsible Authority is expected to ‘informally’ request the required information. The applicant can appeal against the Responsible Authority’s failure to determine an application within the 10 business days.

Solution

Although it is “expected” that applicants provide all required information, in practice, there will be applications where this will not occur. Councils will have to develop a mechanism to review all submitted information early. In the case of lodgement at the planning counter, perhaps this is undertaken in the presence of the applicant, prior to accepting and lodging the application. This will remove the risk of the ‘clock’ starting and ensure that the required information is submitted.

The responsibility of submitting a complete application must remain with the applicant. A way to reduce the risk of incomplete applications is for the DTPLI to develop a specific and detailed VicSmart Application form that includes a checklist of the information required as set out in the decision guidelines for each class of application to be “ticked” by the applicant prior to lodgement.

Any information that is missed or not provided may be required by condition should a permit be issued, on the basis that this information is not critical to the decision being made.

Decision Timeframes

The 10 business days to determine an application may be problematic where referral comments are required from internal Council departments such as Heritage, Transport, Infrastructure, Arborists etc.

Solution

A possible solution could be to develop ‘committees’ that meet frequently, such as twice a week comprised of representatives from each of the relevant Council Departments. The role of the committee would be to review each VicSmart application and provide on the spot comments or within 24 hours to facilitate a planner assessing the application within the given timeframes.

Another possible solution to address this issue is to seek referral comments prior to the lodgement of a planning permit application under VicSmart in the same way that external and formal Referral Authority comments are provided. This may also assist in ensuring all the required information is submitted, it however has the potential to be a lengthier and less efficient process. This would “hide” the true timeframe and resource requirements to assess applications.

Class of Applications

Overall the class of applications that qualify as VicSmart applications are supported although it is considered that demolition of a verandah should not be included under Demolish or remove an outbuilding and construction of a carport, garage, pergola, verandah, deck, shed or similar structure should be deleted from the VicSmart provisions as these types of applications take much longer than ten business days to determine as time is spent in negotiating with the applicant, and often, Heritage Consultant, on achieving an appropriate outcome, sympathetic to the heritage character of the area.

Comments and Suggested Changes re Proposed Clauses

General

Referral Requirements It is recommended that in all the clauses, the Referral Authority must identify in writing which plans and version numbers its comments pertain to and this information, together with a copy of the plans reviewed be provided to the Responsible Authority on submission of the VicSmart planning application.

It should also be made explicit that Referral Authority comments need to be made within 3 months of submission of the VicSmart application. This is currently specified in consultation documents but should also be included under Referral Requirements.

Information Requirements Specify that titles for the subject land must be valid and searched within the last 30 days of lodgement of the application to ensure they are current.

It is suggested that additional text (underlined) be added to the proposed provisions as follows:

Include Referral Authority responses (with plan details and version specifications) and a copy of the plans commented on.

Clause 93.04 Front Fence in a Residential Zone

Clause 93.04-1 Information Requirements - specify that location, height and design of any existing front fence on two adjacent properties either side of the subject site be provided. Require a photograph of the site and adjacent properties along the whole of the street frontage and add in the requirement that the applicant identify if there is a slope and retaining wall on the subject site.

In relation to the decision guidelines, delete the term adjoining and replace with adjacent, consistent with the remainder of the clause.

Clause 93.05 Buildings and Works in Commercial and Industrial Zones

Under Information requirements, add in the requirement that existing and proposed heights be provided.

Under Decision guidelines, include reference to any other relevant policy such as the Awnings Policy at Clause 22.21.

Clause 93.07 Construct a Fence (under the Significant Landscape Overlay)

Information requirements should be expanded to be the same as set out in Clause 93.04 as well as including the requirement for a written statement addressing decision guidelines in the Overlay and Schedule.

Clause 93.08 Remove, Destroy or Lop a Tree

Replace ‘lop’ with prune throughout the clause.

Clause 93.11 Advertising Sign

Under information requirements, for existing signs, identify which signs are lawful and include the provision of clearances to the underside of the sign/s and setback from the face of the kerb.

Clause 93.12 Reducing or Waiving the Requirement for Car Parking

Under information requirements, add in a requirement that an assessment of the layout of the car parking and availability of car parking in the area, as well as requiring a written statement be provided assessing the items set out under Clauses 52.06-6 Application Requirements and Decision Guidelines for Permit Applications and 52.06-9 Decision Guidelines.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

The City of Stonnington’s e-planning system for electronic lodgement of applications which is currently being developed will need to factor in the VicSmart application stream. Applicants who choose to submit on-line could potentially be stepped through various “fields/ screens” to ensure all the information required in the decision guidelines is submitted for successful lodgement.

The current Fastrack Planner role will become a VicSmart Planner role.

The VicSmart process will be resource intensive and will require more planning officer time spent upfront but will likely offset time that would otherwise be spent requesting the missing information.

In order to meet the 10 business day decision timeframe, VicSmart applications will have to be prioritised over other applications and to this end may delay processing and decision making of these applications.

Given that no new planning permit triggers are proposed to be introduced by the changes to the legislation, it is not expected that VicSmart will generate additional planning applications. However what is required is a change of current operations in the Statutory Planning Department to facilitate the new VicSmart system.

VicSmart applications will need to be given priority from an administrative point of view to ensure the 10 business day time frames can be met.

A review of the current internal referral processes and establishing referral committees that meet frequently, (such as twice a week) to review submitted VicSmart applications, in order to meet the 10 business day deadlines, will need to be developed.

It is considered that greater demand will be placed on the Heritage Advisor’s time and therefore Council may need to allocate additional funding for the likely increased use of this contractor’s time. There may also be increased demand on other internal referral departments such as Council’s Arborists and Traffic and Transport Officers.

The Deed of Delegation will need to be updated to include reference to the VicSmart planning permit process and delegate the decision making from the CEO to officers within the Statutory Planning Department.

The Planning Register will need to be updated to include reference to the VicSmart applications.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION

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

CONCLUSION

The Minister for Planning has released the proposed new VicSmart provisions for consultation and public comment prior to their finalisation.

The intent of VicSmart is to fast track simpler planning applications. It is intended to facilitate this by removing the further information request trigger, removal of the notice requirements and requiring Council to make decisions within 10 business days.

With some changes to current Council administrative processes and other changes as set out under the financial and resource implications section of this report, VicSmart can be implemented, subject to Councils being given an adequate notice period from DTPLI for the changes to be made.

It is considered that some elements of the proposed provisions will have negative impacts on the processing of some applications and not necessarily deliver the desired outcome of efficiency in decision making.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council consider and adopt this report to form the basis of a submission to the Department of Transport Planning and Local Infrastructure on VicSmart.

3. DRAFT SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENT STRATEGY 2013-2017 AND SUSTAINABILITY SNAPSHOT 2012-2013

Authors: Rebecca Robson, Sarah Buckley General Manager: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to inform Council on the Draft Sustainable Environment Strategy and Sustainability Snapshot, and to seek approval for further community engagement and feedback on these publications.

BACKGROUND

Creating a healthy and sustainable City is a priority of Council. Over the past decade, Council has made great progress in addressing many of the key environmental issues impacting the community, both through internal improvements and initiatives involving the broader community.

Some of the major environmental achievements to date include:

 Dramatically reducing Council’s potable water consumption by 75% below 2000/01 levels, exceeding the 60% reduction target.

 Reducing greenhouse gas emissions generated by Council assets through investment in permanent energy reduction measures.

 Reducing the total amount of waste generated by the municipality and increasing the diversion of waste from landfill for recycling.

 Enhancing biodiversity and waterway health along the Yarra River and Gardiners Creek.

 Increasing the proportion of sustainable products and material used by Council.

 Building community knowledge and capacity to respond to environmental issues through an expanded range of education sessions delivered by Council.

To raise awareness of the significant progress being made by Council and the community in influencing local environmental issues, a report has been developed for public reference accounting for progress to date. The Sustainability Snapshot highlights key projects and actions undertaken to improve local sustainability. The report outlines environmental performance data and progress towards achieving sustainability targets, demonstrating Council’s commitment to providing accountable leadership which is an expectation of the community.

Continuing to enhance local sustainability in line with community needs remains a focus for Council over coming years. Environment is one of the four pillars of the Council Plan 2013- 2017, aiming for ‘a cleaner, safer and better environment for future generations to enjoy’.

To achieve this objective, broad environment strategies are outlined in Council Plan which inform a range of department strategies and policies across Council. The Draft Sustainable Environment Strategy 2013-2017 plays an integral role in delivering these broad environment strategies and fills an important niche in addressing the issues of importance to residents not covered by other Council strategies. These include the challenges of waste management and the efficient use of water and energy, enhancing biodiversity, supporting the community to adopt sustainable practices and improving Council’s own environmental performance and practices, which is a strong focus throughout the strategy.

Together, the Draft Sustainable Environment Strategy and Sustainability Snapshot provide the strategic direction and reporting tool for progress being made by Council and the community in enhancing local sustainability.

DISCUSSION

The Draft Sustainable Environment Strategy 2013-2017 is centred around seven priority areas, developed to focus Council’s planning in addressing local environmental challenges. These are:  Energy Conservation

 Integrated Water Management

 Waste Minimisation

 Sustainable Purchasing and Product Use

 Biodiversity

 Environmental Education

 Environmental Commitment and Reporting

Goals, objectives and actions have been developed to address each of these priority areas. Initiatives aim to provide community benefits in three different forms; through direct community involvement, direct community benefits or relating to Council’s organisational activities which provide an indirect benefit to the community.

To ensure the focus areas of the strategy align with community expectations about the issues of local importance and Council’s role in responding, community consultation was undertaken as part of the development of the strategy. The main form of consultation was through a resident survey conducted in November 2012 using a representative sample of the community.

The results of the survey strongly reflect the priority areas Council will focus on over coming years through implementing the strategy. Efficient use and management of resources, particularly water, waste and energy, were considered the most important issues to be addressed.

The community want Council to lead by example and improve its own environmental performance through the integration of sustainable practices across the organisation. Creating a Council wide commitment to sustainability is a key goal of the strategy, with initiatives ranging from infrastructure improvements to increase the efficiency of Council buildings and facilities to internal behaviour change programs to support a reduction in staff resource use.

As part of the strategy Council will also be further refining its environmental data management systems to enable efficient monitoring and reporting of Council’s environmental performance. Council’s data will be analysed to test the effectiveness of initiatives and validate where best to focus investment in efficiency measures.

The primary method for reporting Council’s environmental performance and the goals of the strategy will be through the Sustainability Snapshot released at the end of each financial year. The Snapshot is based on the seven priority areas of the strategy. For each theme, a summary of the key actions achieved to date, highlights in performance and Council’s focus for the year ahead is included.

Next steps

To promote the release of the Sustainability Snapshot 2012-2013 and provide further opportunity for the community to comment on the Draft Sustainable Environment Strategy 2013-2017, it is proposed that a community engagement event be held in September 2013 at the Malvern Town Hall.

Key environmental groups and community representatives will be invited to attend. The event will also be open to the wider community. A summary of the Sustainable Environment Strategy and Sustainability Snapshot will be presented at the event. This will commence the community consultation process for the strategy.

Following the community engagement event, the strategy will be released for a formal public exhibition period of one month.

Following the engagement event, the Sustainable Environment Strategy and Sustainability Snapshot will be presented to Council for adoption.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The Draft Sustainable Environment Strategy 2013-2017 and Sustainability Snapshot 2012- 2013 support the key strategic objectives and strategies outlined in the Council Plan 2013- 2017.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

Implementation of the Sustainable Environment Strategy 2013-2017 and development of the annual Sustainability Snapshot will be undertaken using existing resources.

CONCLUSION

Council and the community have made great progress in influencing the key environmental issues impacting the City. Achievements to date will be reported through Council’s first Sustainability Snapshot to be released publically.

The Draft Sustainable Environment Strategy 2013-2017 provides a strategic approach for Council to continue addressing local environmental challenges in line with community expectations.

The Sustainability Snapshot provides an ongoing method for reporting progress towards enhancing the local environment and achieving the goals of the strategy through its release each financial year.

Further community feedback will be incorporated into the strategy following a formal consultation period during September / October 2013.

The final draft of both publications will then be presented for adoption by Council.

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

RECOMMENDATION

1. The Draft Sustainable Environment Strategy 2013-2017 and the Sustainability Snapshot 2012-2013 be released for community consultation for a period of one month. 2. Following the consultation period, community feedback be considered in finalising the Sustainable Environment Strategy 2013-2017 and Sustainability Snapshot. 3. Once finalised the Sustainable Environment Strategy 2013-2017 and Sustainability Snapshot be presented to Council for adoption.

4. CHAPEL STREET MASTER PLAN – UPDATE 3 EXHIBITION

Manager: Rick Kwasek General Manager: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

The Chapel Street Masterplan has been finalised following extensive community consultation and stakeholder engagement and is presented for adoption by Council. This follows two previous reports regarding Masterplan and consultation process, presented to Council in March and in May 2013 # BACKGROUND

The Chapel Street corridor extending from Dandenong Road to Alexandra Avenue is unique in the context of its linear dimension, embracing four distinct precincts. These can be described as Windsor, Prahran and South Yarra and Forest Hill.

The Master Plan incorporates and reinforces the above values, and is aligned to the current Chapel St reVision Structure Planning process. The Master Plan seeks to implement high quality street and public spaces to meet the needs of an increasing number of people that live, work and visit the area. The focus will be on providing an accessible, attractive, safe and green network of streets and public spaces.

The Master Plan outlines key directions, and incorporates explanatory text and typology that will act as a guide for proposed improvements and opportunities along Chapel Street and adjacent and intersecting streets. A high level implementation plan has also been incorporated into the final Master Plan which includes a design palette to guide improvements and to ensure they are consistent, controlled and prioritised for short, medium and long term improvements.

The following consultants were involved with the development of the Chapel Street Master Plan:

 Hansen Partnership – Development of Master Plan  Aspect Landscape Designers – Development of Palette and Implementation strategy

A significant amount of community engagement has been undertaken to help with the development of the Master Plan. Community input and comment was sought through a number of sources. A specific website was developed to display the Master plan and its components. The feedback and comments from the community were overwhelmingly positive and have been incorporated into the final version of the Master Plan.

DISCUSSION

Community and internal engagement

One of the main components of Community engagement was in the form of “Street Talk” Sessions. Officers from the City of Stonnington and Hanson Partnership were on hand to present ideas and listen to feedback from members of the community visitors to Chapel Street and local traders. Participants were asked to fill out forms on the spot or to online. The stalls set up in a number of locations in Chapel Street held over two weekends to maximize participation. Community members were also invited to participate via mail prior to the sessions, and visitors to Chapel Street were encouraged to stop and examine the information displays as they walked down Chapel Street.

In addition to the “Street Talk” sessions, comments were sought through a project specific web page using feedback forms and community forum. Community could make comment on the forum topic or participate in an online poll.

In all, community responses and general feedback to the master plan, were overwhelmingly positive with over 200 people commenting over the course of the three feedback sessions. Nearly 3000 individuals were interested in the website information with over 50 direct website comments.

The comments listed on page 37 of the Draft Master Plan provide a summary of data collected during the “Street Talk” sessions and the website feedback questionnaire. The comments along with feedback gathered from key stakeholder groups are included as part of this redraft of the Chapel Street Master Plan. (See Attachment 1 - Master Plan Report Rev F, August 2013 p.37) # Timelines

The project is currently running according to key milestones set out in the project plan. Exhibition of the Chapel Street Master Plan is now complete. This report seeks Council adoption of the Master Plan in accordance with the project program.

Chapel Street Master Plan: Indicative timelines

November February/March March April/May June/July August 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013

Preliminary Draft Draft Inspiration Public Public Council Master Plan Master Meeting Forum Exhibition Consideration Report Plan

Exhibition

The master plan was placed on exhibition for the month of July 2013. Approximately 8000 brochures were distributed to the Chapel Street precinct and surrounding areas. In addition hard copies of the Master Plan and Guide were available for viewing at Council’s service centers. The website that was established during the consultation process remained active for viewing and comment.

Community responses and general feedback to the master plan continued to be positive with only a small amount of submissions adding to the 200 that had previously made comment. Over the course of the four week exhibition period there were just over 300 Page 49 GENERAL BUSINESS 19 AUGUST 2013 unique visits to the website this is in addition to nearly 3000 individuals who were interested in the website as part of the community engagement.

The comments listed on page 37 of the Draft Master Plan provide a summary of data collected during the community consultation and exhibition and the website feedback questionnaire. The comments along with feedback gathered from key stakeholder groups are consistent with those gathered as part of the Community consultation and are included as part of this redraft of the Chapel Street Master Plan. (See Attachment 1 - Master Plan Report Rev F, August 2013 p.38)

Chapel Street Palette and Guidelines

The City of Stonnington Chapel Street Palette & Guidelines 2013, sets out the landscape materials, streetscape furniture and design principles to be used along Chapel Street, Melbourne, between Alexandra Avenue and Dandenong Road. (see Attachment 2)

The purpose of this document is to provide City of Stonnington, designers and developers a clear and consistent strategy for implementing future streetscape works along Chapel Street. It is intended that the information in the guidelines will assist with the planning, design and construction of landscape works along Chapel Street, both in the short term and for the next 10 years and beyond.

The Key benefits of the Palette are to:

• Promote consistency of a streetscape palette; • Provide continuity along the street; and • Create opportunities to celebrate unique spaces.

The Palette has two distinct areas and includes a Standard Palette which provides details of the proposed furniture and materials for the standard palette along Chapel Street. A bespoke Palette has been included which provides details of the proposed furniture and materials that may be used in addition to the Standard palette for the design of key places as nominated by the City of Stonnington and the Master Plan. The bespoke palette allows designers to respond to the unique nature of the individual precincts within Chapel Street.

This project is currently being funded from the 2013/14 Capital Budget. Further allocations have been referred for consideration in the preparation of the 2014/15 – 2017/18 Strategic Resource Plan for implementation of the Master Plan.

CONCLUSION

Council has committed to the development of a Master Plan for Chapel Street. The Master Plan process has been robust and comprehensive and is consistent with the Chapel reVision Structure Plan. The Chapel Street Master Plan will help to guide future infrastructure development along Chapel Street.

The master plan helps to outline key directions (including explanatory text) for infrastructure improvements along Chapel Street and adjacent and intersecting streets. It incorporates proposed typologies and key themes and details regarding urban infrastructure scenarios. Design guidelines and a high level implementation strategy have been incorporated, into

GENERAL BUSINESS 19 AUGUST 2013 the final document to ensure proposed improvements are consistent, controlled and prioritised for short, medium and long term works.

RECOMMENDATION

1. The Chapel Street Master Plan document rev. F August 2013, the Chapel Street Palette and Guidelines be adopted

2. Funding for the implementation of the Chapel Street Master Plan be referred for consideration in the development of future capital budgets.

3. The adopted Masterplan be made available for reference on Councils website, and publicised as appropriate.

4. A letter be sent to the Chapel Street Precinct Association, Inc. thanking them for their contribution.

5. MALVERN GLENDEARG TENNIS FACILITY

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

PURPOSE This report provides information to Council with regards about the proposed future management and operation of the Malvern Glendearg tennis facility and details plans to redevelop the facility.

BACKGROUND The City of Stonnington owns eight tennis facilities that provide a range of social and competitive tennis programs and activities for the community. Of the eight Council owned tennis facilities, four are currently operated by the tenant club under a lease agreement; two are operated by a commercial contractor under a management contract; and one is managed in-house (Chapel Off Chapel). The Malvern Glendearg tennis facility was previously operated under lease by the former Malvern Glendearg Tennis Club. This tennis club is now defunct and its clubrooms are poor condition. A small group of former members currently maintain and use the courts, which also have the following use: . Ardrie Park Tennis Club play their Saturday morning junior completion overflow at Malvern Glendearg; . Ladies tennis on Wednesday and Friday mornings; and . Coaching on Thursday afternoon and Sunday morning. The current Malvern Glendearg tennis clubroom is in disrepair and will be re-built as part of Council’s 2013/14 capital works program. It is therefore appropriate that Council determines the future management arrangements for the facility prior to its construction to ensure the facility is appropriately managed on behalf of the community and provides greater access and participation.

DISCUSSION Tennis is a popular sport in Stonnington that is played by both men and women and by people of all ages. It can be played socially or competitively and at all times of the day. A recent review of tennis trends and community needs in Stonnington supports the upgrade and ongoing provision of quality tennis facilities for the Stonnington community. An increase in the popularity of tennis in Stonnington is verified by Tennis Victoria membership figures for affiliated clubs within Stonnington, which demonstrate increased membership numbers in Stonnington (Tennis Victoria, 2012). The redevelopment of the Malvern Glendearg clubrooms is therefore justified, subject to the appointment of a competent operator through an Expression of Interest Process and is expected to further increase the participation rates of tennis within Stonnington. Malvern Glendearg Tennis Club The former Malvern Glendearg Tennis Club was not able to maintain or operate the Malvern Glendearg tennis facility in accordance with the terms of its lease agreement and has not operated in a formal sense for many years. The existing clubroom facility has subsequently fallen into a state of disrepair. Page 52 GENERAL BUSINESS 19 AUGUST 2013

The remnant members of the now defunct Malvern Glendearg Tennis Club have conceded their inability to operate as a viable entity and have recently entered into merger negotiations with the All Saints Tennis Club. The All Saints Tennis Club is currently based at All Saints Catholic Church tennis courts (located at the corner of Olive Street and Darling Road in Malvern East), but will soon become homeless following the church’s decision to sell the land on which the tennis courts are located. The two groups have formed an interim committee with a view to securing the future leasing rights for the redeveloped facility at Glendearg. The interim committee held its inaugural meeting on the 16 May 2013 and approved the formation of the ‘Glendearg All Saints Malvern Tennis Club’. It has since lodged an application for incorporation. The new club has reported that they are likely to have membership in excess of 100 (individuals and families) and would like to be considered through an Expression of Interest process. Future Management Options Future management of the facility should be committed to initiating developmental and promotional strategies to provide a broad range of accessible tennis programs and opportunities for the community. # There are a number of management options available to Council for the future management and operation of the Malvern Glendearg Tennis Facility including club operated under a lease agreement, commercially operated in accordance with a management agreement (e.g. tennis coach) or as an in-house Council service. A description of the perceived advantages and disadvantages of each are detailed in Attachment 1 to this report. Officers recommend that Council calls for Expressions of Interest (EOI) from viable organisations and/or operators to assist in identifying a suitable management arrangement for the Malvern Glendearg tennis facility. Several organisations and individuals have already enquired about the future management arrangements for the Malvern Glendearg Tennis Facility including local tennis coaches, the Ardrie Park Tennis Club and the newly formed Glendearg All Saints Malvern Tennis Club. An EOI process would guarantee a transparent and equitable process is used to identify all interested parties and the subsequent evaluation of EOI submissions would identify a preferred operator for the future management and operation of the Malvern Glendearg tennis facility. Officers would prepare a report to Council for its decision. # A copy of the proposed assessment criteria and weightings is included as Attachment 2 to this report.

There would be no obligation for Council to accept any EOI and Council may still elect to manage and operate the facility or negotiate a lease directly with a club. In July 2013, the General Manager Social Development contacted Carole Richards of the Victorian Scout Association and asked her whether this site would be of interest to the Scouts for development of a new scout hall. Ms Richards responded that the Malvern Glendearg site would not be suitable for a new scout hall.

Facility Redevelopment The Malvern Glendearg Tennis Facility pavilion is scheduled to be redeveloped in 2013/14 and 2014/15. Plans are currently being finalised and an initial cost plan has been completed. Proposed operators of the facility are aware of the centre’s pending redevelopment. # A total of $330,000 is set aside for the project comprising $230,000 in the adopted 2013/14 capital works budget and $100,000 in the forecast Strategic Resource Plan for 2014/15. A

GENERAL BUSINESS 19 AUGUST 2013 copy of the initial concept plans for facility design (still under development) is included as Attachment 3 to this report for information. At this point in the development project, the construction costs, including design, project management, cost escalation, project supervision and contingency, are estimated to be $308,000, but these costs will be revised as the design is completed. Additional works have been identified through the discussions of the future of the facility, which are outside the scope of this project. These works include:

 formalising the car park on the southern boundary and associated retaining wall  upgrading the courts fencing  court re-surfacing  court lighting (subject to resident consultation)  external drainage  landscaping  bike racks  water fountain  signage

Officers will prepare a bid for the 2014/15 capital works program for some or all of these works to enable the facility to be completely redeveloped and for Council to fully capitalise on its proposed investment in the facility. Undertaking any additional works before the completion of the redevelopment of the pavilion would minimise the interruption to users and neighbours of the facility.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The EOI evaluation process and subsequent identification of a preferred operator for the Malvern Glendearg Tennis Facility would need to be consistent with a number of key strategic documents such as the Council Plan and Municipal Public Health Plan, both of which identify public health and community well-being as priorities.

Tennis facilities provide a range of community benefits. A range of Council plans and policies support and influence the delivery of sport and recreation facilities and services to the community including:

 Council Plan 2013-2017;  Public Realm Strategy 2010;  Municipal Public Health Plan 2013-2017;  Pavilion Redevelopment Strategy 2009;  Youth Strategy 2010-2014; and  Tennis Centre Management Contracts.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS The EOI process would cost approximately $1,000 in advertising costs and would be funded out of Recreation Services 2013/14 operating budget. Proposed changes to the Strategic Resource Plan and draft 2014/15 capital works budget would result in an additional $210,000 being spent at the facility to enable the full redevelopment of the facility.

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

CONCLUSION In order to identify and assess all possible management options for the Malvern Glendearg tennis facility, it is recommended that Council undertakes an EOI process to determine the most appropriate management solution. This would enable Council to consider each management model, having regard to each applicant’s capacity to manage and maintain the facility, and provide a range of community programs and services.

RECOMMENDATION That: 1. Council endorses the Expressions of Interest (EOI) process for the future management and operation of the Malvern Glendearg Tennis Facility and receives a further report to appoint the preferred applicant. 2. Officers prepare a bid for the 2014/15 draft capital works budget to support further works to enable the redevelopment of the Malvern Glendearg Tennis Facility complex at the time the pavilion is replaced.

6. TRAWALLA/ROBERTSON LOCAL AREA TRAFFIC STUDY

Author: Naomi Absalom Manager: Ian McLauchlan General Manager: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the proposed traffic management scheme in the Trawalla Avenue/Robertson Street local area and seek approval to undertake consultation on the recommended actions.

The Resident Working Group (RWG) has previously presented their findings to the Councillor Briefing of 11 June this year.

BACKGROUND

In mid 2010 Council Officers were requested to consult residents on a proposal to install a roundabout at the Trawalla Avenue/Lascelles Avenue intersection, Toorak to encourage motorists to travel more slowly along Trawalla Avenue. Consultation was undertaken in June 2010.

Subsequently, Council at its meeting of 6 September 2010 resolved to abandon the proposal, due to the lack of support from the community, and further resolved to consult all residents within the area bounded by Orrong Road, Toorak Road, Grange Road and Georges Road on whether they would participate in a local area traffic study.

At its meeting of 7 February 2011, Council resolved to approve the proposed boundaries for the LATM study area, and to progress to the appointment of community representatives to the resident working group.

The working group study was commenced on Sunday 16 October, 2011 at which a public meeting was held to nominate residents to represent each of the 5 sub-areas defined for the study and to work with Council staff on preparing and exhibiting a scheme. The group has been meeting since October 2011 to investigate traffic issues in the study area.

The working group has undertaken the following work:

 undertaken a community survey to ascertain attitudes to traffic and parking issues in the area of concern  requested various traffic surveys and studies to gain an objective understanding of the traffic environment  developed two draft traffic management schemes and consulted on these to the community seeking feedback, which was used to modify the proposed scheme  written the Final Report to Stonnington City Council  recommended a scheme to Council that, in the group’s view, has taken account of the reasonable objections expressed in the community consultation, while seeking to improve safety within the study area and reduce the impact of peak hour through traffic, whilst being mindful of the cost implications to Council.

# The final report, attached, prepared by the RWG is based on a scheme that was circularised to all residents however some amendments have been made in the recommended scheme to accommodate the feedback received:

The recommended scheme (Appendix M in the attached report) has support from all the Resident Working Group members and consists initially of 3 basic types of treatments, listed in order of recommendation and cost:

 Peak Hour Turn Restrictions to address peak hour traffic issues  Speed Cushions to moderate speeds in the high volume through traffic routes, or where parking is considered critical  Single lane slow points (or roundabout) in those lower volumes residential streets where parking levels and the carriageway widths would suggest these treatments are likely to be effective.

The scheme also initially included parking restrictions in Trawalla Avenue and Lascelles Avenue however these were later removed, for individual consultation with the respective street.

DISCUSSION

# As outlined above, the recommended scheme prepared by the RWG has been modified from that consulted to the all residents in the area to accommodate the feedback received. The amendments made are :

 Removal of a right turn ban from Hill Street into Grange Road;  Addition of a right turn ban 7 – 9am Monday to Friday from Chastleton Avenue into Hill Street, with advance warning signs on Orrong Road and Towers Road;  Removal of midblock slow points in Robertson Street;  Addition of a roundabout at the intersection of Robertson Street and Blackfriars Close;  Addition of a left turn band from Grange Road into Robertson Street 4 – 6pm Monday to Friday.

The RWG consider their recommended scheme will address many concerns from objecting residents, particularly as there was a concentration of objecting responses around Robertson Street due to the anticipated increase in traffic through their street.

Therefore before each component of the scheme is implemented, residents in affected streets should be consulted and entire study area should to be notified that further consultation will occur. It is normal practice to consult residents of individual streets on implementation of devices in their street, however in the case of the turn restrictions proposed, sub-areas affected should be consulted on the proposals.

Council officers attending RWG meetings, advised in the meetings that internal restrictions such as turn bans, particularly left turns, were less effective as they are difficult to enforce however the residents considered them a cost effective way of reducing traffic movements. Officers indicated they were prepared to support them as trial implementations to determine their effectiveness.

The recommended traffic management scheme includes right turn restrictions from Toorak Road into Orrong Road, Lansell Road and St Georges Road during the morning peak, right turn restrictions into Hill Street from Struan Street and Chastleton Avenue in the am peak, Page 57 GENERAL BUSINESS 19 AUGUST 2013

and left turn restrictions from Grange Road into Trawalla Avenue and Robertson Street in the pm peak.

# The attached diagrams show the suggested consultation areas for these restrictions. VicRoads should also be consulted as to the anticipated affect on Toorak Road. It is suggested these turn restrictions be consulted to the community as a 6 month trial implementation, which is evaluated (included consultation with residents on the impact) and reported back to Council for a decision at the end of the trial period.

The recommended scheme also proposes some long term treatments for investigation:

 Signalised intersection – St Georges Road/Grange Road  40 km/h speed limit for entire area  Delay east-west traffic flow along St Georges Road via signal timings  Narrowing of entry to Orrong Road from Toorak Road to one lane in each direction

These can be pursued after the initial recommendations have been implemented, and an assessment has been made as to their impact and further works required.

The sum of $200,000 has been provided on the 2013/14 capital works budget to commence works in the area.

CONCLUSION

In order to improve traffic issues in the Trawalla Avenue/Robertson Street area it is considered appropriate to commence installation of the traffic management scheme as outlined in the proposed Traffic Management Scheme, by undertaking consultation with directly affected residents on the proposals.

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

RECOMMENDATION

1. Council note and receive the final report of the Trawalla / Robertson Resident Working Group 2. All property occupiers in the areas outlined on the attached maps be consulted on proposals to trial for 6 months the recommended turn restrictions in: a. Toorak Road at Orrong Road, Lansell Road and St. Georges Road b. Grange Road at Robertson Street and Trawalla Avenue c. Hill Street at Struan Street and Chastleton Avenue 3. Designs for the proposed speed cushion treatments and single lane slow points be prepared and consultation be undertaken with property occupiers of streets directly affected. 4. All residents in the study area be notified of the recommendations of the Resident Working Group report and Council’s decision; Page 58 GENERAL BUSINESS 19 AUGUST 2013

5. Further reports be submitted to Council seeking approval for implementation of traffic devices following the consultation for the introduction of the restrictions outlined above.

7. PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT – NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER OVERLAYS

Manager: Susan Price General Manager: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to consider requesting authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare a Planning Scheme Amendment (C185) to introduce Neighbourhood Character Overlay for areas identified as having significant neighbourhood character.

BACKGROUND This report follows on from the reports considered by Council on 3 December 2012 and 18 February 2013 which updated Council on the Neighbourhood Character Strategy.

Neighbourhood Character Strategy 2012 and Implementation In January 2012, consultants Planisphere were appointed to undertake the following staged neighbourhood character work as part of the Neighbourhood Character Strategy:  The Neighbourhood Character Review and Character Areas  Neighbourhood Character Overlay Gap Study  Neighbourhood Character Overlay Schedules (Baldwin and Clarence)

This strategy work (Stonnington Neighbourhood Character Review, 2013 Planisphere) has now been completed with the following amendments commenced:

 Amendment C168 – to introduce the NCO and DDO to Baldwin (a mix of Victorian, Interwar and Post War dwellings) and Clarence Streets (a mix of Victorian, Federation and Interwar dwellings). The Amendment has been exhibited and a number of submissions have been received. The Amendment has been referred to Panel;  Amendment C175 – to introduce a local policy into the planning scheme to preserve neighbourhood character across all residential areas. The Amendment has been sent to Minister requesting authorisation to prepare and exhibit.

The Stonnington Neighbourhood Character Review, 2013 Planisphere is now available on Council’s web site.

DISCUSSION # The Neighbourhood Character Overlay Gap Study, in addition to Baldwin Street and Clarence Street, has identified 21 potential NCO areas. (It is noted that previous reports made reference to only 17 potential NCO areas. The number of areas has not been increased, just reviewed and rationalised to now comprise 21 potential NCO areas). These specific areas can be seen on the map at Attachment 1.

It is proposed that the remaining 21 areas will be grouped by common preferred character and design standards and predominant era of development to form ‘bundles’ of NCO precincts for a series of consecutive Planning Scheme Amendments for implementation. The groups of NCO precincts is as follows:

 Group 1: Victorian and Edwardian (4 precincts, (May Road area, Spring Street (including Irene Place) area, Willis Street, Bidey Street and Packington Place – approx. 160 properties)  Group 2: Edwardian (5 precincts, Closeburn Avenue, Bailey Avenue and Valentine Grove area, Stanhope Street, Dixon and Jordan Streets, Ardrie Road – approx. 300 properties)  Group 3: Edwardian and Interwar (3 precincts, John and Boardman Streets, Kenilworth Grove and Glentilt Road, Manning Road area – approx. 160 properties)  Group 4: Californian Bungalows (3 precincts, Macgregor Street area, Boston Avenue area, Sycamore Street area – approx. 330 properties)  Group 5: Early Modern and Post-war (1 precinct, Lalbert Crescent – approx. 30 properties)  Group 6: Interwar and Post-war (3 precincts , Allenby Avenue area, Cairnes Crescent area, Bruce Street area– approx. 190 properties)  Group 7: Post-war (2 precincts ,Green Gables area, Camino Terrace area– approx. 90 properties)

# (See Attachment 2 for the relevant citations for Group 1 and 2). Each of these groups will have their own NCO schedule (i.e. 7 NCO schedules in total). The amendments will also include DDO schedules for fencing, where applicable as not all of the areas are proposed to have fencing controls (DDO).

# In order to manage the number of properties affected by an amendment at any one time, it is recommended to stage the roll out of the amendments, beginning with the NCOs and DDO for Group 1 (Victorian and Edwardian) and Group 2 (Edwardian) only. This would affect approx. 460 properties and covers 9 precincts in total. This Amendment is likely to take a minimum of a year to complete. See Attachment 3 for the draft NCO and DDO schedules for Groups 1 and 2. Future reports will be brought to Council to roll out further Amendments which will come forward by era.

Neighbourhood Character Overlays and new residential zones

The Neighbourhood Character Overlay (NCO) includes objectives and can vary a much greater range of ResCode standards than any of the new residential zones. The NCO control is a more specific control to manage preferred neighbourhood character for those valued areas in the municipality. Some of the additional ResCode standards that can be varied include integration with the street (A2 and B5), overlooking (A15 and B22), design detail (A19 and B31), storage (B30) and site services (B34). Regardless of the new residential zone to be applied to the land an NCO control may still be required to preserve particular areas.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The proposed Neighbourhood Character Overlays are consistent with the following Council Plan strategy: Preserve Stonnington’s heritage architecture and balance its existing character with complimentary and sustainable development.

It is also consistent with Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement Clause 21.02-2 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme which seeks: Page 61 GENERAL BUSINESS 19 AUGUST 2013

To ensure that the qualities and attributes that define the City's urban environment and character are recognised and enhanced.

The Neighbourhood Character Overlays have been included in the budget of Council's Strategic Planning Unit for 2013/2014.

September October 2013 February 2013 April2014 May 2013 2013 Authorisation Exhibition Panel Adoption Approval

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

All submitters to the amendments will have the opportunity to present to a Panel who will consider all submissions

CONCLUSION

The Neighbourhood Character Review and the Neighbourhood Character Overlay Gap Study are now completed. These two bodies of work have informed the preparation of planning controls to be introduced into the Planning Scheme.

The introduction of the Neighbourhood Character Overlay and Design and Development Overlay constitutes the final stage of planning scheme amendments required to implement the recommendations of the Neighbourhood Character Strategy. It is recommended that implementation of the remaining NCO areas is staged with the first round of amendments progressing Group 1 (Victorian and Edwardian areas) and Group 2 (Edwardian areas).

The Planning Scheme Amendment process will enable consultation on the proposed NCOs and DDOs and consideration of the views of all submitters by a Panel.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council: 1. Note the completion of the Stonnington Neighbourhood Character Review, 2013 (Planisphere). 2. Authorise Council officers to prepare the amendment documents for Amendment C185. 3. Applies to the Minister for Planning in accordance with Section (9)(3) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to obtain authorisation to prepare Amendment C185 which will introduce the NCO and DDO for Group 1(Victorian and Edwardian) and Group 2 (Edwardian) into the Stonnington Planning Scheme . 4. Following authorisation from the Minister, exhibit Amendment C? in accordance with Sections 17-19 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

8. AMENDMENT C163 – HERITAGE PROTECTION OF RESIDENTIAL FLATS – CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING PANEL AND ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT

Manager: Susan Price General Manager: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the recommendations of the Planning Panel on Amendment C163 – heritage protection of residential flats, and decide whether to adopt the amendment with or without changes.

BACKGROUND

Context

Council adopted its Heritage Strategy Action Plan in 2006 which followed the completion of the Stonnington Thematic Environmental History (adopted 2006 with Update 1 prepared in 2009). The current stage of Council’s Heritage Strategy addresses individual buildings not currently under the Heritage Overlay. Council is progressively seeking heritage controls for all A1 graded buildings in the Municipality and those A2 graded buildings meeting or exceeding the threshold of local significance.

Individual buildings have been grouped thematically, linking to the themes contained in the Stonnington Thematic Environmental History. Residential Flats with the potential to be individually listed form one of these important thematic groups.

Amendment C163

On 13 August 2012, Council resolved to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare Amendment C163. Authorisation was granted on 24 August 2012.

# The exhibited Amendment C163 proposed to introduce individual heritage controls (with external paint controls) for 27 Residential Flats in the Municipality. Refer to Attachment 1 for a list of the exhibited Residential Flats.

Exhibition

Exhibition of Amendment C163 occurred between 13 September 2012 and 15 October 2012. Consultation included:  Full copy of the proposed Amendment documents, heritage citations, and supporting documents available for viewing at Prahran Town Hall and on Council’s and Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (DTPLI) websites.  Notice of preparation of Amendment C163 in the Stonnington Leader on 11 September 2012.  Notice of preparation of Amendment C163 in the Government Gazette on 13 September 2012.  Notice sent to owners and occupiers, and prescribed authorities on 7 September 2012. One-on-one consultations offered to owners and occupiers.

Council officers and Council’s Heritage Advisor met with five individual owners of five different properties and one Body Corporate as part of the one-on-one consultation

GENERAL BUSINESS 19 AUGUST 2013 process. An on-site meeting was held with the owners of Casa Panzo, 89 Alexandra Avenue, South Yarra on 9 October 2012.

Consideration of submissions

Council received sixteen submissions. Four were submissions of support, ten submissions were objecting to the Amendment and two were non-objecting submissions.

The ten objecting submissions requested changes to the Amendment. Seven submissions specifically requested a Residential Flat be excluded from the proposed heritage controls. Issues raised in the objecting submissions included concerns about the accuracy of citations and the appropriateness of classifications. Other general issues raised related to the accuracy of the research, analysis, additional costs, property values, insurance and unfair restrictions.

Council’s Heritage Consultant (Context Pty Ltd) considered the written submissions.

A consultative meeting was held on 23 January 2013 for submitters to discuss their submission with Councillors. Eight submitters from seven different properties attended the consultative meeting.

Council considered the submissions on Amendment C163 at its meeting on 4 February 2012. The Council report listed a number of recommended changes to the Amendment (in summary):

 Cambooya Flats, 1 Carmyle Avenue, Toorak not be included in the Heritage Overlay.  Duplex, 5 Stonnington Place Toorak, not be included.  Koonoona Flats, 754 High Street, Armadale – update heritage schedule to specify ‘garages/outbuildings’ and front fence.  Denbigh Court, 6-8 Denbigh Road, Armadale – update heritage 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.  Casa Panzo, 89 Alexandra Avenue, South Yarra – amend the heritage citation to specify in the description and the statement of significance that the c1980’s 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.1980’s rear additions and the high rendered front and side fences as non-significant elements. Include reference to the aesthetic significance of the place.  Glenunga Flats, 2 Horsburgh Grove, Armadale – amend the heritage citation to refer to the alterations to the original fabric.  Delete the provision to external paint controls for all Residential Flats that form part of the Amendment.  Minor changes to the heritage citations in response to information identified in submissions about changes to buildings.

Council resolved to request the Minister appoint a Panel to hear all submissions and consider the proposed Amendment.

Council also resolved that in its submission to the Panel Hearing, Council adopts a position in support of Amendment C163, generally in accordance with the officer’s response to submissions as contained in the report and attachments with the exclusion of Eden Kyle Flats, 30 Verdant Avenue, Toorak and application of an A2 grading to Glenunga, 2 Horsburgh Grove, Armadale. Page 64 GENERAL BUSINESS 19 AUGUST 2013

Directions Hearing

The Directions Hearing was held on 14 March 2013. Prior to the Direction’s Hearing, Planning Panels Victoria received a ‘conditional request to be heard’ relating to Eden Kyle Flats (30 Verdant Avenue, Toorak). The ‘conditional’ status resulted from the 4 February 2013 resolution relating to Eden Kyle Flats. To enable the submitter to either withdraw or confirm the Request to be Heard, the Panel directed that:

Section 10 i. Following the Directions Hearing, the submitter and Stonnington City Council officers will meet to clarify their current positions regarding this matter. ii. Stonnington City Council will provide the submitter with the sections of its submission to the Panel and the expert witness report from Mr Helms directly relating to Eden Kyle Flats, 30 Verdant Avenue, Toorak by Thursday, 18 April 2013

The above requirements were met. The submitter to Eden Kyle Flats confirmed its Request to be Heard at the Panel Hearing.

Panel Hearing

The Panel Hearing was held on 17 and 18 May 2013 at Planning Panels Victoria. Council and submitters from three properties appeared before the Panel. Council called on an expert witness (David Helms, Context Pty Ltd). No other expert witnesses were engaged by submitters.

# The Panel Report was received by Council on 27 June 2013 (refer to Attachment 2). 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 17 July 2013, advising them of the availability of the Panel report on Council’s website.

DISCUSSION

The Panel Report for Amendment C163 states that ‘its role is to consider the exhibited Amendment and all submissions provided to the Panel. This includes the submission from Stonnington City Council to the Panel, which incorporated the 4 February Council decision to exclude Eden Kyle Flats’.

Panel recommendations

Council must now formally consider the Panel’s recommendations before deciding how to proceed with the Amendment. The Panel report recommends that the Amendment be adopted as exhibited, subject to the modifications recommended in the Panel report.

A list of the key recommendations in the Panel report and a recommended response is below:

General recommendations:

External paint controls

Panel recommendation: External paint controls should be removed from the exhibited Amendment.

Officer Response: This recommendation is supported. Officers recommend a change to the Amendment to remove paint controls for all Residential Flats. This was Council’s adopted position for Panel.

Updating Clause 22.04 Heritage Policy

Panel Recommendation: Council should proceed with an update of the wording of the classification of buildings in Clause 22.04 Heritage Policy as soon as possible.

Officer Response: This recommendation is supported. No change to this Amendment is required.

The issue of building classification was raised at the Panel Hearing. Clause 22.04-3 Heritage Policy includes a list of heritage gradings. In April 2012, Council adopted revised heritage gradings to clarify their meaning and use. These are policy-neutral and do not change the meaning of the gradings. Council’s heritage consultant used the revised gradings for the Residential Flats study. The Panel report states that ‘the confusion created by the differences between versions of building classification is understandable’. Council officers are currently drafting amendment documentation for a revised Clause 22.04 Heritage Policy and Heritage Guidelines. The revised grading definitions will be inserted. A separate amendment will be brought to Council for consideration for exhibition in the coming months.

Recommendations relating to individual properties:

Cambooya Flats at 1 Carmyle Avenue, Toorak

Panel recommendation: Cambooya Flats at 1 Carmyle Avenue, Toorak should not be included in the Heritage Overlay.

Officer Response: This recommendation is supported. Officers recommend a change to remove Cambooya Flats at 1 Carmyle Avenue, Toorak from the Amendment. This was Council’s adopted position for Panel.

Glenunga Flats, 2 Horsburgh Grove, Armadale

Panel recommendation: Glenunga Flats, 2 Horsburgh Grove, Armadale –The A1 grading should be retained as exhibited.

Officer Response: This recommendation is supported. Officers recommend retaining the A1 grading for Glenunga Flats at 2 Horsburgh Grove, Armadale, as exhibited.

The Glenunga Flats were exhibited with an A1 grading. Officers recommended in the Council report (4 February 2013) that the heritage citation for Glenunga Flats be amended to refer to the alterations to the original fabric of the building. This addressed some of the issues raised in the submission.

Council’s adopted position for Panel was to change the grading of the property from an A1 grading to an A2 grading.

The Panel disagreed with the change in grading. The Panel report states that:

“ The contribution of Romberg in introducing European Modernist architecture to Melbourne is of national and state importance. In the Panel’s view as an early example of his work, Glenunga meets the criteria of an A1 grading.

It is considered that Glenunga Flats is historically and architecturally significant as an important example and that the A1 grading of the property be retained, as exhibited. This is in line with the recommendations of Council’s heritage consultant and the Panel.

Officers also recommend the following change to the Heritage Citation to refer to the alterations to the original fabric of the building:

“ Alterations to Glenunga include the removal of one of the three feature stone chimneys, enclosure of three of the four balconies, replacement of roof and spouting materials, replacement of downstairs front windows and other windows, and replacement of the original front fence and driveway.”

This addresses some of the issues raised in the submission and is in line with the recommendations of Council’s heritage consultant. The Panel did not make a specific recommendation on this matter.

The duplex at 5 Stonnington Place, Toorak

Panel recommendation: The duplex at 5 Stonnington Place, Toorak should be included in the HO, and the heritage citation should be altered to refer to changes in the original fabric.

Officer Response: This recommendation is not supported. Officers recommend a change to remove the duplex at 5 Stonnington Place, Toorak from the Amendment. This was Council’s adopted position for Panel.

The duplex at 5 Stonnington Place, Toorak was exhibited as part of Amendment C163. Council received an objecting submission from the owner of the Duplex. The grounds of objection mainly related to a previous Panel’s findings that the property did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the Heritage Overlay (Amendment C5 and C6 Part 2, July 2003). Other issues were also raised in the submission.

Council’s adopted position for Panel as outlined in the 4 February 2013 Council Report was to not include the duplex at 5 Stonnington Place, Toorak in the Heritage Overlay based on the following reasons:  As a design of Marcus Martin, the duplex is not considered the best example of his work as he is known for his large residential developments.  The property has been to Panel under Amendment C5 (formally L47) and was recommended for deletion from the list.  There is no new substantial information that could be used to influence a new panel.  The Thematic Environmental History formalises themes into a localised context – However the basic information has already been considered in detail and 5 Stonnington Place has already been assessed by theme in 2004.  The methodology used to assess the individual properties in Amendment C5 looked at contributory places in parallel with places of potential significance which also have a contributory role in demonstrating a theme that is of significance to the locality of the City.

The Panel for Amendment C163 recommends that the duplex at 5 Stonnington Place, Toorak be included in the Heritage Overlay. The Panel’s conclusions include (in summary):  The Thematic Environmental History has provided a rigorous framework that establishes the historical significance of the property, in a way that was not available to the Panel considering Amendment C5 and C6 Part 2.  The heritage significance of residential flats has reinforced the importance of the work of architect Marcus Martin, and therefore this example meets the Criterion relating to associative significance. However, the eclectic nature of Martin’s style means that this is not clear cut.  The citation should be updated to refer to changes in the original fabric. (Note: this appears to be an error and relates to a recommendation of another property as no changes to fabric were identified for this property).  On balance, the Panel has concluded that inclusion of 5 Stonnington Place, Toorak in Amendment C163, as exhibited, is justified.

Despite the Panel’s recommendation, it is recommended that Council upholds its position adopted following consideration of submissions (4 February 2013) to not include the duplex at 5 Stonnington Place, Toorak in the Heritage Overlay for the reasons previously given (and outlined above). An added reason is that the Panel concluded that it was ‘not clear cut’ in meeting the requirements of Criteria H (associative significance).

Eden Kyle Flats (30 Verdant Avenue, Toorak)

Panel recommendation: Eden Kyle Flats (30 Verdant Avenue, Toorak) should be included in the HO, as exhibited:

Officer Response: This recommendation is not supported. Officers recommend a change to remove Eden Kyle Flats at 30 Verdant Avenue, Toorak from the Amendment. This was Council’s adopted position for Panel.

Council received objecting submissions from the owners of two of the four flats at 30 Verdant Avenue, Toorak. Issues raised in the submissions include (in summary):  Heritage Citation does not provide details of some of the changes to the property (presence of pergolas, garages with old iron doors not original parts of the building, patios have been replaced with modern tiling, new developments on both sides of property have modern concrete rendered retaining walls in place or in process of being built).  The importance of ‘greening’ the development including solar heating on the roofs. There will not be flexibility in the placement of units to maximise power operation.  From a real estate point of view, the registration would devalue the price of the property.  Owners have bought the properties with the possibility of redevelopment.  Insurance issues.

Officers recommended in the Council report (4 February 2013) that no changes be made in response to the submissions. However, Council resolved to exclude the property.

At the Panel Hearing, the Advocate acting on behalf of the submitters to Eden Kyle Flats raised a number of matters including (in summary):

 The assessment by Context Pty Ltd of Eden Kyle Flats has not been sufficiently rigorous and that a proper comparative analysis would lead to the conclusion that an A2 grading is not warranted.  On the evidence of Mr Helms, a mandatory requirement for an A2 grading namely that the building would stand as an important milestone in the development (or architectural development) of the metropolis region or municipality has not been achieved.  Council as planning authority has made the appropriate decision to exclude Eden Kyle Flats and this should be given conservable weight by the Panel.  In the consideration of policy on an integrated basis, this is not a case where an individual listing for Eden Kyle Flats should occur.  The Panel should recommend that Eden Kyle Flats should be excluded from the Amendment.

The Panel for Amendment C163 recommends that the property be included in the Heritage Overlay. The Panel’s conclusions include (in summary):  The Panel is satisfied that David Helms, architectural historian who was engaged by Context to oversee the research and preparation for Stage 3 of the Residential Flats, was well qualified to undertake this project and prepare the heritage assessment of the Eden Kyle Flats.  The lack of reasons in the Council resolution meant that Council’s submission to the Panel relied on the logic provided in the original objection from the submitters, which was based on issues that are generally not relevant to an assessment for a Heritage Overlay. The Panel conducted its own research, with strong consideration of the case provided by the submitters and the expert witness.  The Panel agrees with the assessment by Council’s heritage consultant (regarding Criteria E and F) that Eden Kyle Flats has a high degree of intactness and that more recent alteration to the forecourt that included a new fence and two new garage buildings did not detract from the building’s heritage significance. The Panel report states that the flats have a high degree of external integrity when viewed from Verdant Avenue.  Mr Helms responded that while the Eden Kyle building may not be a high level of Streamlined Moderne architecture, its sculptured form, curved windows, patterned brick work including the use of ‘apricot’ bricks and the overall integrity of the building met the criteria for its heritage significance as a representative example of this type of architecture. The Eden Kyle Flats compared favourably with examples of Streamlined Moderne in other Heritage Overlay areas in Stonnington. The Panel agrees with the comparative assessment of Mr Helms.  The adjoining developments did not directly impact on assessment of the heritage significance of the Eden Kyle Flats.  That Panel agrees with the Advocate (representing Eden Kyle Flats submitters) that the failure to identify a builder or architect is a ‘significant failing’. This failure precludes consideration of Hercon Criteria H, relating to associative significance. The lack of identification of a builder or architect therefore contributes to offsetting the other heritage features of the place.

The Panel concluded that: “On the basis of its research and the material presented to it, Eden Kyle Flats should be retained in the HO in Amendment C163. This was not clear cut, because there were some factors detracting from the heritage significance of the place, such as the lack of an identified builder and architect. On balance, the material in front of the Panel did not justify the exclusion from the Amendment”.

Despite the Panel's recommendation, it is recommended that Council upholds its position adopted following consideration of submissions (4 February 2013) to not include Eden Kyle Flats at 30 Verdant Avenue, Toorak in the Heritage Overlay given the recommendation from the Panel 'was not clear cut' as there are 'factors detracting from the heritage significance of the place, such as the lack of an identified builder and architect'.

Details of all of the Panel’s recommendations

# The Panel made other recommendations in addition to the above. A detailed list of the Panel’s recommendations and an officer response/recommendation can be found in Attachment 3.

Additional correspondence

Council has received additional correspondence post Panel from the Advocate acting on behalf of the submitters to Eden Kyle Flats at 30 Verdant Avenue, Toorak, and from the submitter to Glenunga Flats at 2 Horsburgh Grove, Armadale. This correspondence has been circulated to Councillors.

Legislative requirements

In accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Council can choose to adopt the amendment without changes, adopt the amendment with changes or abandon the amendment.

If Council adopts the Amendment in a form contrary to the Panel recommendation, Council must give its reasons. Ultimately, it is the Minister for Planning who will approve the Amendment. Council needs to provide strong strategic justification for any variations from the Panel’s recommendations.

Adoption of amendment with changes

It is recommended that Council adopts the Amendment with changes since exhibition. The changes are in line with the recommendations made by the Panel except in the instances of the Duplex at 5 Stonnington Place, Toorak and Eden Kyle Flats at 30 Verdant Avenue, Toorak. It is recommended that these properties be removed from the Amendment for the reasons outlined earlier in this report. An additional change is also recommended to update the Heritage Citation for the Glenunga Flats at 2 Horsburgh Grove, Armadale to refer to the alterations to the original fabric of the building. The Panel did not make a specific recommendation on this matter.

Twenty seven Residential Flats were exhibited as part of Amendment C163. It is recommended that three Flats be removed from the Amendment. Of the twenty four Flats proceeding, there are changes recommended to eight Flats (changes to Heritage Citation and/or Heritage Schedule). The other sixteen Flats can be adopted as exhibited.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The Amendment is part of the implementation of Council’s adopted Heritage Strategy Action Plan and is consistent with the following Council Plan (2013-2017) liveability strategy: Preserve Stonnington’s heritage architecture and balance its existing character with complementary and sustainable development.

LEGAL ADVICE AND IMPLICATIONS

The Amendment is consistent with policy direction in the Stonnington Planning Scheme. All affected parties have been given the opportunity to make submissions on the Amendment and be able to be heard by an Independent Panel.

The costs of processing the Amendment have been included in the 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 Strategic Planning budget. Oct/Nov Aug 2012 Sept / Oct 2012 May 2013 Aug 2013 2013 Authorisation Exhibition Panel Adoption Approval

CONCLUSION

The Panel report on Amendment C163 recommends that the Amendment should be adopted as exhibited subject to modifications.

It is recommended that Council adopts Amendment C163 with changes since exhibition. The changes are in line with the Panel’s recommendations except for the duplex at 5 Stonnington Place, Toorak and Eden Kyle Flats at 30 Verdant Avenue, Toorak. It is recommended that these properties be removed from the Amendment. An additional change is also recommended to update the Heritage Citation for the Glenunga Flats to refer to the alterations to the original fabric of the building.

# Refer to Attachment 4 for the key Amendment documents for adoption.

# Refer to Attachment 5 for the Heritage Citations for adoption.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Notes the release of the report of the Planning Panel to the public on Amendment C163 – Residential Flats in the Heritage Overlay. 2. On considering the Independent Panel report, adopts Amendment C163 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme with changes (pursuant to Section 29(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987) as shown in Attachment 4. 3. Adopts the revised citations as shown in Attachment 5. 4. Submits the adopted Amendment C163 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 C163.

9. STONNINGTON SURVEY GROUP AND DEPARTMENT SURVEYS

Manager: Beige Pureau Executive Manager: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an overview of the Stonnington Survey Group surveys and department surveys undertaken between June 2012 - July 2013.

BACKGROUND

The City of Stonnington regularly engages with the community on local issues. The City of Stonnington is committed to engaging and consulting with the community and considers this to be an important part of Council’s business. Council believes that gaining community input on important local issues ensures that Council services and facilities best meet community needs.

The City of Stonnington commitment is: “Continue to enhance community engagement and the involvement of the community in decision making”.

The Consultation Strategy 2004 led to the establishment of the Stonnington Survey Group (SSG) in September 2005 to enhance Council’s consultation methods and community members were invited to join the group. There are currently over 350 individuals who have agreed to be surveyed regularly. Surveys are sent out to the members on a regular basis in either hard copy by mail or electronic format via email as determined by the individual.

The survey data is analysed internally and reports and graphs provided to the relevant business units. A summary of the results is provided to SSG members who have participated in the survey. Survey group members come from every suburb in Stonnington with over half (57%) being female and the majority of the members being aged between 50 and 59 (25%).

Two SSG surveys have been conducted between June 2012 - July 2013. Survey 22 - Animal Management/Road Safety Survey 23 - Local Government Community Satisfaction/Community Engagement

A number of department surveys have also been conducted during the same period including:

 Car share  Bowen Street Reserve  Sustainable Transport  Chapel reVision  Grow with us  Health and Wellbeing

Due to the caretaker period for Council elections no surveys were conducted between 25 September 2012 to 27 October 2012. This has affected the overall number of surveys conducted over the last financial year.

DISCUSSION

Stonnington Survey Group (SSG)

Two major Stonnington Survey Group surveys and six department surveys were conducted from June 2012 to July 2013. The surveys were developed in consultation with the relevant business unit and coordinated and analysed by the Corporate and Community Planning Unit.

Survey 22

Section 1 – Animal Management

The purpose of this survey was to hear from respondents about pets and suggestions they may have for Council on how we can improve our service for the Stonnington community. The feedback provided informed the Domestic Animal Management Plan 2012 – 2016. The survey was sent via email and posted to 350 Stonnington Survey Group members and completed by 214. Of these, 58% were female (the age groupings 15-24 and 25-34 were slightly under-represented.

Respondents were asked how satisfied they were with the current level of monitoring and surveillance provided by Council at off/on leash dog parks. The majority of respondents (58%) indicated that they were satisfied with the monitoring. Seventy seven respondents were aware of designated off leash dog parks in Stonnington. When asked if Stonnington had enough off leash dog parks the majority of respondents (58%) said yes.

Section 2 – Road Safety

The purpose of this section was to increase our understanding of residents’ knowledge, attitudes and behaviour with regards to road use within the City of Stonnington. It is envisaged that the results will be used to assist Council’s transport program planning and service delivery.

Approximately seven out of ten respondents were very concerned/concerned about pedestrian safety around Stonnington (74%). Just over half of respondents (56%) said the main issue was pedestrian behaviour and awareness of vehicles.

Slightly over seventy percent (71%) of respondents said they were very concerned/concerned about cyclist’s safety around Stonnington. Just over half of respondents (56%) said Increasing / improving off road bike lanes would help cyclist’s safety.

Survey 23

Section 1 – Community Satisfaction

Each year, the State Government commissions a survey to provide an overview of how communities view the performance of Councils. This enables trends in community satisfaction to be monitored and areas for both celebration and improvement to be highlighted.

The survey questions refer to eighteen key areas of service delivery, as well as overall Council performance, advocacy, customer service and community consultation. This year,

GENERAL BUSINESS 19 AUGUST 2013 the City of Stonnington took the opportunity to mirror this survey to enable a comparison of results from the Stonnington Survey Group (SSG) with that of the State Government survey.

The survey was sent via email and posted to 350 Stonnington Survey Group members and completed by 170 respondents representing a high response rate of 49%. Of these, 60% were female. (Analysis of respondents’ age shows that the age groupings 15-24 and 25-34 were slightly under – represented).

Approximately seven out of ten respondents (71%) rated of Council’s Overall Performance as ether very good (16%) or good (55%). Out of the main 18 indicators art centres and libraries scored the highest satisfaction rating with the majority of respondents (74%) reporting that they had ether a very good (30%) or good (46%) rating.

Waste management also scored very high with the majority of respondents (73%) reporting that they had ether a very good (29%) or good (44%) rating. Planning and building permits was rated the lowest in satisfaction of all responsibility areas SSG13 reporting that they had ether a poor (15%) or very poor (13%) rating.

The majority of respondents indicated that Council’s customer service (20%) was the best thing about Council. When asked what Council need to do to improve its overall performance, the majority of respondents indicated that inappropriate developments (17%) needed to be stopped.

Section 2 – Community Engagement

Council is developing a Community Engagement Strategy to ensure that its future engagement and consultation practices are relevant, accessible and effective. The purpose of this survey was to hear views and suggestions from respondents as to how we can improve our community engagement.

Approximately seven out of ten respondents (73%) said there were no barriers preventing them from engaging with Council. The majority of respondents (62%) indicated they want to be involved in some of the decisions of Council. The most popular form of involvement amongst respondents that would like to be involved in Council decision making is for Council to send an email or e-newsletter outlining the issues and asking for a reply via email 80%.

The majority of respondents said they were either very satisfied (27%) or satisfied (48%) with the SSG. Just over half (51%) of respondents said the SSG had a positive impact on their perception of Council’s community consultation. Many respondents indicated that they would like to know how the results are implemented in Council decisions. Prizes and incentives were mentioned as a motivation to stay or join the SSG.

Department Surveys

A number of department surveys were conducted from September 2010 to January 2011. A summary of the results of these surveys is provided below.

Car share

In March 28, 2011 Flexicar and City of Stonnington entered into an agreement to trial car share for 12 months in dedicated parking bays in the Darling Street, Princes Street, Cato Street and Windsor car parks. The trial car share parking bays, or “pods” as they are Page 74 GENERAL BUSINESS 19 AUGUST 2013 referred to by Flexicar, have been operational since April 2011. This survey assisted Council Officers in making their recommendations to Council as to whether a car share service should be provided in Stonnington on a permanent basis.

Approximately nine out of ten respondents found it very easy or easy to locate the car share “pods” (92%). Just over two thirds (69%) of respondents said they don’t think the current number of “pods” meet their needs. Over 50% of respondents rated car availability as excellent/good. Seven out of ten respondents (70%) said Flexicars overall customer service was excellent.

Bowen Street Reserve

Stonnington Council was considering three short - term concepts and one for the longer term for the future use of the Council-owned buildings on Bowen Street Reserve. Each of the concepts includes maintaining the existing building leased to Mecwacare to continue to provide services for the local and broader community. Landscape concept designs have been developed to complement each building option and to enhance the green space for the local neighbourhood. All concepts include water sensitive design to mitigate the potential for flooding. Residents were invited to provide feedback on their preferred.

The majority of respondents (41%) indicated they supported concept 2 (two buildings, Mecwacare building, plus lease of the former Mary Armstrong Childcare Centre building to Mecwacare). Just over half (54%) of respondents agreed with the long term plan (5 to 10 year plan). Extra seating and walking tracks were the most popular features respondents wanted included to their preferred concept. Over 50% of respondents would use the redeveloped space as a place to relax followed by regular walks over 40% for all concepts.

Sustainable Transport

Council has an important role to play in addressing both the direct and indirect impacts associated with everyday travel within the City of Stonnington. This survey aims to explore residents’ travel patterns and behaviours. Over time, the results will be used to measure any changes that occur, as well as monitoring Council’s progress in implementing sustainable transport programs and initiatives.

Sustainable Survey Report 2012 is informed by a survey done by both post and online surveys sent to the Stonnington Survey Group. This survey was also provided on the Consultation Portal for the general public to complete. Overall, 224 respondent’s completed the survey. Survey data was collated on Excel spreadsheets. Where possible, data was analysed quantitatively and put into a graph.

Of the respondents who used a car the majority said they drive because they need to carry things (46%) followed by faster to take a car (27%) and more convenient (4%). Walking was most common mode of transport used for open space (63%), restaurants/coffee shops (45%) and study (34%).

When asked why respondents don’t use a car, the majority said to avoid parking problems (33%). Of the respondents who said they don’t use a car the majority (71%) said they walk rather than using a car. The majority of respondents indicated that they would use sustainable transport more if the cycling infrastructure is improved and more frequent public transport is available.

Chapel reVision

An online survey was developed to test the community’s intent and vision for the Chapel Street precinct that Council could use to guide appropriate land use and development, including appropriate planning controls for the Activity Centre. The online survey ran for approximately three weeks commencing on 6 August 2012 and concluding on the 24 August 2012.

Sixty-eight residents responded to the online survey. The survey included questions about a range of issues including the importance of a range of issues both now and in the future, the vision for the area and identifying neighbourhoods within the precinct – including their characteristics.

The majority of respondents indicated that keeping heritage buildings and restoring heritage buildings was the most important issue in the Chapel Street precinct both with 95%. Respondents indicated that improving car, bicycle and pedestrian congestion should be Council’s top priority in the Chapel Street precinct over the next 10 to 20 years. When asked if respondents agreed with the current The Chapel Vision Structure Plan Vision, the majority (90%) indicated ‘yes’.

Grow with us

The City of Stonnington sought feedback from participants of the ‘Grow with Us’ program. The Grow with Us program is free sport and recreation programs for young people aged 10 - 17 years. The feedback received as part of this survey assists council in planning for future events and activities. The surveys were distributed to participants by the instructors of each of the programs.

All respondents had a positive experience with 54% reporting they found the activity to be very good, and 46% finding it good. The majority of respondents (91%) indicated they would recommend the program to a friend.

Respondents were asked why they enjoyed the activity. The majority (85%) said learning new skills followed by being with friends or making new friends (69%) and improving fitness levels (62%). The majority (62%) found the instruction very good and the remainder (39%) finding it good.

Health and Wellbeing

The City of Stonnington is developing a new Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan for 2013-2017. It is one of Council’s three major plans and its development, by the end of October, is a legislative requirement.

This survey report will help guide the health and wellbeing priorities and activities Council will focus on over the next four years.

The Health and Wellbeing Survey report 2013 is informed by an online survey, hard copy survey provided at Cabrini Hospital, the Inner South Community Health Centre and Council services and by ‘Street Talks’ on Glenferrie Road and Chapel Street. The survey was completed by 652 respondents, representing a high response rate.

The survey asked about community priorities for health and wellbeing (based on 11 priorities selected from the Victorian Public Health and Wellbeing Plan) and for suggestions about what is working well and what could be improved in health and wellbeing in Page 76 GENERAL BUSINESS 19 AUGUST 2013

Stonnington. The survey was open to Stonnington residents, visitors and workers. Approximately 70% of respondents were residents.

Respondents selected promoting good mental health equal first with increasing participation in physical activity as the top two health priorities in Stonnington, followed by supporting healthy eating, preventing family violence and promoting community safety.

When asked what Stonnington is doing well in health and wellbeing many of the 536 comments were on providing parks/public spaces, physical activity and community facilities. Respondents were also asked ‘what could Stonnington do better in health and wellbeing’. The key themes were around reducing health inequalities and physical activity followed by community safety, smoking bans and health communication and education.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The Council Plan sets out Stonnington’s commitment to residents under the pillar of Community ‘a city where all people can be happy, safe and feel part of and contribute to the community’ and the main strategy for engagement under Community is ‘continue to enhance community engagement and the involvement of the community in decision making’.

Ongoing cost with engagement activities including survey software and Council’s website are included in the 2013/14 budget.

CONCLUSION

During June 2012 to July 2013, over 350 individuals who agreed to be surveyed on a regular basis were invited to participate in two surveys through the Stonnington Survey Group.

The surveys were developed in conjunction with the relevant business units and the analysis and reporting conducted by Corporate and Community Planning.

Community feedback was provided on a variety of topics including animal management, road safety, community satisfaction and community engagement. The Survey Group members also provided feedback on the content and design of surveys and were provided with summary reports of each of the two surveys as requested.

During June 2012 to July 2013 a number of department surveys were also conducted. Feedback was provided on Car Sharing, Bowen Street Reserve, Sustainable Transport, Chapel reVision, Grow with Us and Harold Holt Swim Centre Crèche.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council note the report on the Stonnington Survey Group and Department survey findings.