Pro-Forma for Notice Paper Word 7 s3

NOTICE PAPER

Monday 4 March 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 4 March 2013

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

1. PLANNING APPLICATIONS...... 6

1.1. PLANNING APPLICATION 0557/12 - 1721 - 1727 MALVERN ROAD & 11 PARAN PLACE & 1535 HIGH STREET, GLEN IRIS – USE AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE SITE FOR A FIRE STATION...... 6

1.2. PLANNING APPLICATION 1037/11 - 634 - 636 MALVERN ROAD, PRAHRAN - CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI- DWELLING DEVELOPMENT IN A RESIDENTIAL 1 ZONE, REDUCTION OF CAR PARKING REQUIREMENT AND ALTERATION OF ACCESS TO A ROAD IN A ROAD ZONE, CATEGORY 1...... 23

2. SUBMISSION TO THE STANDARD DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE...... 42

3. LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK IN THE PLANNING SCHEME – AMENDMENT C161...... 46

4. AMENDMENT C177 – ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABLE DESIGN...... 54

5. CHAPEL STREET MASTER PLAN – UPDATE ON PROGRESS OF THE CHAPEL STREET MASTER PLAN...... 62

6. DRAFT ART IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN POLICY...... 66

7. REPORT ON THE STREET TREES IN GLADSTONE AVENUE, ARMADALE FOLLOWING PRESENTATION OF A PETITION REQUESTING COUNCIL REPLACE THE EXISTING LILLY PILLY STREET TREES...... 68

8. GUTTER CLEANING AND GARDEN CLEARING PROJECTS...... 72

9. CITIZEN OF THE YEAR : REVISED GUIDELINES...... 74

10. BUSHFIRE AND FLOOD DONATION...... 77

11. INSTRUMENT OF DELEGATION FROM COUNCIL TO THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER...... 79

12. INSTRUMENT OF DELEGATION FROM COUNCIL TO ORGANISATIONAL ROLES...... 80

13. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF FEE FOR FUNCTIONS ON CHAPEL: TASKFORCE...... 81

14. FINANCIAL REPORT – DECEMBER 2012...... 82

15. TRIAL KING ST ROAD CLOSURE – S223 HEARING...... 85

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 16. CR CHANDLER – PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT – ATTENDANCE AT THE WATER AND ENVIRONMENT 2013: CIWEM’S ANNUAL CONFERENCE...... 87

m) Urgent Business; and n) Confidential Business. 1. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED PROPERTY PURCHASE………………………….………………88

ADOPTION AND CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS 4 MARCH 2013

RECOMMENDATION

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

GENERAL BUSINESS 4 MARCH 2013

1. PLANNING APPLICATIONS

1.1. PLANNING APPLICATION 0557/12 - 1721 - 1727 MALVERN ROAD & 11 PARAN PLACE & 1535 HIGH STREET, GLEN IRIS – USE AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE SITE FOR A FIRE STATION

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

PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for use and development of the site as a fire station in a Business 2 Zone and Industrial 3 Zone, creation of access to a road and alteration of a road in a Road Zone Category 1 and part demolition and buildings and works to a shop in a Business 2 Zone and Heritage Overlay at 1721 – 1727 Malvern Road, 11 Paran Place and 1535 High Street, Glen Iris.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Metropolitan Fire Brigade C/- The Planning Group Ward: East Zone: Business 2, Industrial 3 Overlay: Heritage Overlay (part) Date lodged: 16/08/2012 Statutory days: (as at council More than 60 meeting date) Trigger for referral to Objections Council: VCAT Hearing Date 3 April 2013 Number of objections: 66 from 53 different properties Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on 6 December 2012 Officer Recommendation: If the applicant had not lodged an appeal pursuant to Section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 a Notice of Decision would have been recommended.

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Architectus and are known as File No. 557/12, Drawing No.s: A0001, A0011, A0020, A0021, A0060 – A0065, A0070, A0100 – A0104, A0201, A0202, A0301 – A0303, A0911, A1010, A1011. The plans have been formally substituted for the VCAT hearing and are Council date stamped 14 February 2013. Additional supporting reports include the following:

 Planning Report by The Planning Group, Council date stamped 16 August 2012.  Acoustic Report by Marshall Day Acoustics, Council date stamped 16 August 2012.  Arboricultural Assessment by Tree Logic, Council date stamped 16 August 2012.  Traffic Impact Assessment by GTA Consultants, Council date stamped 16 August 2012.  Spatial Analysis Methodology by MFB, Council date stamped 16 August 2012.

Key features of the proposal are: Page 6 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 MARCH 2013

 Construction of a fire station building and associated accommodation, habitable facilities and drill yard.  13 car parking spaces and 8 bicycle spaces will be provided in a basement car park accessed from Paran Place.  Ground level will comprise fire truck parking bays, multi-purpose habitable rooms, bedrooms, amenities, courtyard areas and associated office space. A drill yard, visitor parking and a disabled car space will be located behind the main building.  The design of the building is contemporary and will present to Malvern Road as three connected elements each with pitched roofing.  The façades comprise steel hoods 900mm deep, a base finished in light coloured polished concrete and glazing to the gable ends.  The roof material will be metal sheet standing seam and will consist of a single tone on the two smaller pavilions. The roof over the appliance bay has been broken up with light toned recessed sections.  The building will have a maximum building height of 10.748m when measured from Malvern Road and 14.49m when measured from Paran Place. It is noted the maximum building height has been increased from the advertised plans. This is a result of the design change which now incorporates a symmetrical roof pitch to the fire appliance bay.  It is proposed to create a 9.5m wide crossover to Malvern Road and to alter the access point at the intersection of Paran Place and High Street.  The fire station will operate 24 hours and will be staffed by 4 fire fighters at any one time over two 12 hour periods. There will be a 30 minute changeover period between shifts at which time there will be 8 fire fighters on site.  One fire appliance, 8.27m in length, will operate from the site and will exit on Malvern Road when responding to a call-out and will return via Paran Place. The MFB have advised that the second appliance bay will be used during an exceptional event or emergency.  Once or twice a year a large fire appliance 11.77m in length may return to the site.  Additional works include part demolition and alteration of the canopy at 1535 High Street. This is needed in order to facilitate truck access into Paran Place.  It is noted works are proposed to the road infrastructure to allow various truck manoeuvres during railway boom gate closures. These road works do not require planning permission.

The applicant has submitted additional sketches prior to the submission of VCAT amended plans circulated on 15 February 2013. These sketches are Council date stamped 12 February 2013 and indicate perspective views of the proposed fire station from Malvern Road.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the eastern side of Malvern Road, Glen Iris approximately 60m north of its intersection with High Street. The site has the following significant characteristics:

 The land at 1721-1727 Malvern Road is zoned Business 2 and is developed with a 2 storey office building containing basement parking and some landscaping presenting to Malvern Road.  The land at 11 Paran Place is zoned Industrial 3 and contains a single storey building set amongst a large grassed area.  The combined site is irregular in shape and has a frontage to Malvern Road of 45.7m, a rear boundary with Paran Place of 15m and a total site area of 2053sqm.  Land to the abutting north contains a multi-dwelling development consisting of 7 double storey townhouses.  Land to the abutting south on Malvern Road contains a double storey office building with basement car parking. Page 7 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 MARCH 2013

 Land to the abutting east at 13 Paran Place contains a double storey warehouse building fronting Paran Place. This building consists of undercroft car parking and a warehouse at ground level, and a caretaker’s dwelling at first floor.  Land to the abutting east at 9 Paran Place contains a single storey building with car parking in the front setback. This site is used as an office.  Land to the west across Malvern Road is zoned Residential 1 and affected by Heritage Overlay 351 (Dorrington Conservation Precinct). This precinct generally consists of large single storey Federation dwellings set amongst a landscaped setting.  The surrounding land to the south and east is contained within the Glen Iris Village Neighbourhood Activity Centre. This land is developed with contemporary buildings along Malvern Road and older Victorian shops on High Street.  Architectural styles within Paran Place are varied and reflective of the area’s Industrial 3 zoning.

Previous Planning Application(s)

A search of Council records indicates there are no relevant planning applications for the subject site. However, it is noted that a fire station was considered and refused by Council in 1990 for the northern adjacent site at 1715-1719 Malvern Road. The fire station was located in the Residential 1 Zone and proposed two fire appliances with both entry and exit manoeuvres via Malvern Road. This application was refused due to potential traffic impacts and a review of this decision was sought at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

The Tribunal Order upheld Council’s refusal and made the following findings:

 “...this is a most complex intersection, the operation of which is affected by a host of physical factors such as the tram terminus, the fifth leg of the intersection (Kialla Avenue), the railway crossing, the new south-eastern arterial, the concentration of traffic signals, the difference in elevation between the railway crossing and Malvern Road, the shopping centre on both sides of High Street between Malvern Road and the railway crossing, the narrow footpaths which appear to be mainly between 2 and 3 metres wide and in particular their poor capacity at and near the intersection because of the limited splays of buildings at the various corners of the and the number of impediments to pedestrian movement which exist within the footpath area. Add to this the kerb-side parking...pedestrian peaks of over 1600 pedestrians, comprised mainly of school children and you have a picture of a very busy and complicated section of the road network.”  The Tribunal raised concerns about the impact of emergency vehicles on the intersection, namely, the intensity of pedestrian movements in the morning and evening peak, the constrained traffic situation in High Street between the railway crossing and Malvern Road. It was determined that the introduction of a fire station may increase potential hazards.  It was further noted that “the location of the appeal site on the approach rather than the departure side of the intersection does not seem to the Tribunal to matter very much in this case because the intersection is so congested on many occasions during the day.”  With respect to amenity impacts it was noted “The Tribunal has reached the conclusion that amenity although important is not the overriding concern in this appeal...In principle...impacts of these essential services often are outweighed by the need for the service by the community.”

Ultimately, the Tribunal noted that in their view, the site was not an appropriate location for a fire station given the constraints of the intersection and its high usage.

The Title

The site is described on the following Certificates of Title:

 Volume 9617 Folio 635 Land in Plan of Consolidation 159951J (1721-1727 Malvern Road). This Title includes Covenants 272291, 276612 and 280345.  Volume 11257 Folio 516 Lot 3 on Plan of Subdivision 050340 (11 Paran Place)  Volume 8392 Folio 284 Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 044233 (1535 High Street). This Title includes Covenant 300166.

All these covenants prohibit use of the sites as a brick kiln or brick manufacturer. The proposed Fire Station will not result in a breach of the covenants.

Planning Controls

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

Clause 33.03 – Industrial 3 Zone Pursuant to Clause 33.03-1 a permit is required to use the land for an emergency services facility. Pursuant to Clause 33.03-4 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Clause 34.02 – Business 2 Zone Pursuant to Clause 34.02-1 a permit is required to use the land for an emergency services facility. Pursuant to Clause 34.02-4 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Overlay

Clause 43.01 – Heritage Overlay Pursuant to Clause 43.01-1 a permit is required for part demolition and to construct a building or construct or carry out works including road works where the existing footpaths and kerb and channel are altered.

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. It is noted the Table of Uses at Clause 52.06-5 does not include “emergency services facilities” therefore car parking must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Clause 52.29 – Land adjacent to a Road Zone Category 1 Pursuant to Clause 52.09 a permit is required to create or alter access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1.

General Provisions

Clause 62.02-2 – Buildings and works not requiring a permit unless specifically required by the planning scheme Pursuant to Clause 62.02-2, a permit is not required for roadwork unless specifically mentioned. The Heritage Overlay only requires a planning permit for road works other than pedestrian refuges and splitter islands.

Relevant Planning Policies

Clause 10.04 Integrated decision making Clause 11 Settlement Clause 13.04-1 Noise abatement Clause 15.01 Urban Environment Clause 21.04 Economic Development Clause 21.05 Infrastructure Clause 22.02 Urban Design Policy Clause 22.04 Heritage Policy Clause 22.06 Residential Character, Amenity and Interface Policy Clause 22.12 Traffic Policy Clause 22.13 Parking Policy Clause 22.14 Community Services Policy

Advertising

The application has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land and by placing 3 signs on the site. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

The site is located in East Ward and 66 objections from 53 different properties have been received. Issues raised include:

 Traffic congestion.  Car parking.  Impact on the nearby intersection.  Danger to school children.  Noise from sirens, alarms and trucks.  Overlooking.  Property values.  Design and built form and character impacts.  Diesel fumes.  Concerns relating to the purchase of the site prior to undertaking research as to the viability of the site.  Concerns relating to information contained within reports and their accuracy.  Inadequate data collection.  Preference of an alternative site.

A Consultative Meeting was held on 6 December 2012. The meeting was attended by all three Ward Councillors, representatives of the applicant, objectors and Council Planning Officers. The application plans have been amended for the VCAT hearing. The following changes have been made:

 The 2 pitched roofs for each pavilion have been refined to a single 30 degree pitched roof to align with the adjacent residential units.  The introduction of symmetrical roofs has resulted in a building height increase from 9.5m to 10.748m for the appliance bay and from 5.95m to 6.1m for the northernmost building.  Steel hoods, 900mm deep, have been introduced into the facades to provide shading for the gable glazing and emphasise the form of the three pavilions.  The glazed blue brick elements have been removed and replaced with a polished concrete light finish.

 Large high level glazed gable ends have been introduced in lieu of the herring pattern of the previous design.  The standing seam roof on the appliance bay has been broken up with light toned recessed sections.

There are currently 21 parties to the upcoming appeal which has been listed for a merits hearing on 3 April 2013.

Referrals

Council’s Waste Management Coordinator advised that whilst a waste management plan is not necessary for this type of use, the plans should be amended showing where waste bins will be stored and how wastes will be disposed from the site.

The applicant advised that waste bins will be stored adjacent to the appliance bay and waste segregation will occur within the building in the Mess area. Given the waste bin location is not identified on the VCAT plans a permit condition should be included requiring this information. Council’s Local Law will be adequate for waste bin collection from the premises and a condition would have been included if the applicant had not lodged an appeal with the Tribunal.

Strategic Planning

Council’s Strategic Planning Department advised that the site is within an activity centre and therefore a more suitable location for the proposed use than a purely residential area.

Urban Design

Council’s Urban Designer raised concerns with the site’s proximity to the intersection, however, noted this is a matter for the traffic department and VicRoads. In terms of the building design of the advertised materials, it was noted that further work could be done to improve the transition of built form to the north. It was also advised that the building design could be improved through better material selection to the façade, particularly to the gable ends and base, and improved landscaping along the frontage of the site.

Following receipt of the sketch plans in the lead up to VCAT amended plans, Council’s Urban Designer advised that the revised concept is a significant improvement on the previous proposal. The choice of materials is more suited to the streetscape and the even roof pitches are seen to be more appropriate in this setting. A minor issue was raised with the use of polished concrete walls to the façade as it would present to the street as an intrusive element and it was suggested that this be either replaced with fritted glass or landscaping to create a green wall.

Transport and Parking

Council’s Traffic Engineer provided the following comments:

 Car parking provision is adequate for the site, however, the basement layout must be amended to satisfy the relevant Australian Standards.  Traffic generation for fire stations is not particularly high. The submitted Transport Impact Assessment provides modelling for appliance movements and the findings are accepted as the proposed use will not have a significant impact on the surrounding road network given the relatively low volume of vehicles proposed to Malvern Road and Paran Place.  Whilst the Malvern Road / High Street intersection experiences significant queues given the level crossing, ultimately the impact on the intersection is best assessed by VicRoads as they are the relevant road manager.  A warning system on Malvern Road has been suggested to ensure pedestrian safety is maintained in addition to accurate sight line triangles at Malvern Road.  No objection was offered to the High Street median strip works and driving on the wrong side of the road when the rail gates are down subject to VicRoads approval.  Details of the bicycle parking facilities were not provided and should be requested via permit condition.  Concerns were raised in relation to the infrequent use of large design vehicles (once or twice a year) and whether access into Paran Place would be possible.  Permit conditions have been requested to further detail the internal basement layout and ramp grades to ensure compliance with the Planning Scheme or relevant Australian Standard.  Council’s Traffic Engineers cannot provide a detailed assessment of the Spatial Analysis Report. Nevertheless, they have advised that the choice of the site location has been based on response times to call outs and historical data.

Transport and Parking (second comments)

 Whilst some measures were undertaken to address the column locations within the access aisles, a permit condition should be imposed to require kerbing adjacent to parking space 13 so as to ensure the columns are not struck during parking manoeuvres. The VCAT amended plans appear to indicate this kerbing however no notation is provided. A condition would have been imposed requiring clarification of this aspect.  The information provided for bicycle parking is considered satisfactory.  Concerns remain with the use of an 11.77m long fire appliance once or twice a year as it may require unsafe driving practices.  It is noted the discussion plans submitted on 24 October 2012 contained conflicting information with respect to the disabled parking and visitor spaces at ground floor level. This has since been addressed in the VCAT amended plans.  The 24 October 2012 discussion plans detailed an acceptable pedestrian warning system to Malvern Road. This has not been shown on the VCAT amended plans and a condition should be including requiring this information.  The location of the sight distance triangles needs to be revised to be taken from the edge of the property boundary.

Infrastructure

Council’s Infrastructure Engineer advised that access clearances in Paran Place and Malvern Road may be tight and further information is required. Conditions are required to ensure the laneway and footpath levels are not altered to facilitate access to the site. Further conditions were requested in relation to drainage and water sensitive urban design.

The applicant provided additional information depicting the clearance heights and these are considered acceptable.

Heritage

Council’s Heritage Advisor raised no concerns with the alteration to the verandah at 1535 High Street given its existing condition is poor and does not contribute to the heritage place. Furthermore, no concerns were noted with respect of the like-for-like replacement of the existing advertising signage.

VicRoads

VicRoads advised they have no objection to the proposal subject to conditions requiring further swept path diagrams and the proposed road works to be undertaken to their satisfaction and at the cost of the MFB. Additional information has been requested via permit conditions.

KEY ISSUES

Assessment of this application is based on the following areas of consideration:

 The previous Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) decision for the adjacent site;  Proposed use of the site as a fire station;  Design, built form and character considerations;  Amenity impacts arising from the built form; and  Car parking and traffic considerations.

Previous AAT Order (1990/27238)

As noted previously, a decision from the AAT for the northern abutting site was made in 1990. In assessing the current application it is important to have regard to this previous finding. The Tribunal found the intersection to be complex and highly utilised, especially during the morning and afternoon peaks.

Whilst the general use of the site as a fire station is similar, the specifics of the use and the associated impacts are different as a result of the new site location and infrastructure changes proposed as part of this revised design. The following key differences are critical in understanding the impacts of the current proposal versus the 1990 proposal:

 The previous proposal sought to accommodate two fire trucks using Malvern Road access only. The revised proposal accommodates one permanent fire truck with exit movements made from Malvern Road and return movements via Paran Place.  The previous proposal included the installation of new emergency signals at the entry/egress point of Malvern Road and the introduction of a special phase to the traffic signals. The current proposal will simply introduce a special phase to the traffic signals to simplify the intersection operation.  The previous proposal did not seek to alter the infrastructure of the short leg of High Street between Malvern Road and the railway crossing. This proposal seeks to undertake significant road works to assist in improved response times and minimise queuing in this section of High Street.

The abovementioned changes will ensure the proposal addresses the findings of the Tribunal and will not adversely impact on the functioning of the intersection.

Proposed use of the site as a fire station

The use of the site requires a permit both under the Industrial 3 Zone and the Business 2 Zone.

The Industrial 3 Zone is targeted towards industrial type uses and seeks to ensure that these uses do not adversely impact on surrounding sensitive uses. It does not provide specific guidance for non-industrial uses such as a fire station.

The Business 2 Zone is broader and its purpose is to encourage the development of offices and associated commercial uses.

Whilst the zones do not specifically concern themselves with emergency services, the proposed use is section 2 and requires assessment of the relevant decision guidelines. Both zones seek to implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

Clause 15.01-4 of the Local Planning Policy Framework seeks to ensure suitable locations for police stations and fire brigade, ambulance and emergency services are provided for in or near activity centres. Notably, this is the only clause of the Planning Scheme that makes specific mention of emergency services.

The nature of a fire station requires it to be open and staffed 24 hours per day. The proposed fire station will operate with 4 fire fighters working 12 hour shifts. There will be a 30 minute changeover during which there will be 8 staff on site. Given the previous use of the site was an office and the office space was over two levels, it can be assumed that the number of staff would have far exceeded a maximum of 8. In light of this, the proposed staff numbers will not be excessive, especially considering the site’s location in an activity centre.

Historical data indicates that the use will generate an average of 2.6 callouts per day and an average callout rate of 0.6 per night between 11pm and 7am. These callout rates are not considered to be unreasonable in the context of the activity centre.

The fire station will include internal alarms for the staff that must be audible. Therefore it is necessary to ensure external noise sources such as traffic are minimised. The acoustic report submitted with the application notes that there are Australian Standards in relation to the construction of fire stations which must be achieved. This is an item that is best dealt with at the building permit stage as it will require certain material selection and construction techniques in accordance with the relevant requirements.

In terms of noise levels to adjacent residents from the internal alarm system, the MFB have advised they use ‘best practice’ measures for overall noise management. These include:

 Specification of a time schedule for drill yard activities.  Internal alarms to be selected to perform at the lower range of acceptable internal noise levels specified in AS 1670 within the station.  Implement a community noise management program to provide information to residents, monitor noise impacts at residences and provide an opportunity for residents to voice concerns.

It is considered unnecessary to require the abovementioned best practice measures as permit conditions. It is further noted that VCAT has not imposed such conditions on previous permits in more sensitive areas. A number of more recent VCAT decisions in relation to fire stations have noted that the MFB adopt a ‘good neighbour’ approach which has led them to conclude there will be minimal impacts on amenity. Page 14 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 MARCH 2013

In Muller v Manningham CC [2008] VCAT 1234, the Tribunal considered the impact of a fire station in a Low Density Residential Zone. The Tribunal was advised that the MFB “employs a ‘good neighbour’ approach to the use of sirens, lights and horns. These are only used when required, such as when giving notice to oncoming traffic, or where traffic has blocked a truck in its lane. Given that the median strip opening is to be signalised and that blocking of lanes is likely to occur only during peak traffic hours, it is very unlikely that trucks exiting the station will need to use sirens anywhere near the subject land.”

It is considered that a similar situation would occur in this locale given the intersection is generally busy only during the morning and afternoon peak and a keep clear sign is proposed adjacent to the Malvern Road crossover. The use of lights and sirens late at night or in the early hours of the morning is therefore unlikely given the limited traffic using the intersection at these hours.

Having regard to the drill yard activities, it is noted this area is located away from the sensitive residential interface and shielded by buildings. Therefore the noise impacts will not be unreasonable in a local activity centre setting. In terms of noise from other services such as mechanical equipment and fire appliances warming up, these can be adequately mitigated through conditions addressing SEPP N-1 requirements.

The 1990 AAT Order noted with respect to amenity that “the impacts of these essential services often are outweighed by the need for the service by the community.” Clause 10.04 of the Planning Scheme notes that “responsible authorities should endeavour to integrate the range of policies relevant to the issues to be determined and balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development for the benefit of present and future generations.”

Essentially, the MFB provides an emergency service and the net community benefit of providing this service significantly outweighs the intermittent impacts that may occur.

Design and Built Form

Clause 15.01 promotes high quality urban design outcomes that contribute positively to local urban character.

Clause 22.02 of the Planning Scheme seeks to ensure the design and scale of new buildings makes a positive contribution to the surrounding area and that new buildings not be significantly higher or lower. It further notes that form and materials should complement the character of nearby buildings.

The proposed fire station will present to Malvern Road as three linked building forms with symmetrical pitched roofing. The three forms would have different building heights with an overall maximum height of 10.748m towards the southern end as read from Malvern Road. This height will reduce to a maximum height of 6.1m for the third building adjacent to the residential interface to the north.

Whilst it is noted the maximum building height of each building has increased from the advertised material, the increase will be negligible as it is to the roof ridges rather than the overall built form. The change in the roof and gable design has also resulted in less built form adjacent to the residential properties to the north. The previous roof design was such that the lower section of roof appeared like a continuation of the wall. The current symmetrical design proposes a lower pitching point, therefore the roof recesses away from the adjoining residential properties.

It is considered that the height, scale and form of the proposed development relate well to the streetscape that comprises a variety of building heights and styles.

An important factor in considering the appropriateness of the design is the standard MFB response time to an emergency situation of 7.7 minutes. In order to achieve this, the appliance must leave the fire station within 90 seconds of the alarm being raised. Therefore, the internal design and layout of the building is based around minimising internal paths of travel from the various habitable rooms to the appliance bay. Furthermore, the maximum building height is required so as to allow for adequate space for the ventilation of fire appliances.

In Epworth Healthcare v Yarra CC (red dot) [2012] VCAT 1801, the Tribunal dealt with the issue of form versus function for a new building of the Epworth Hospital. With respect to design the Tribunal noted “we accept there is a strong case for hospital buildings to place high priority on internal functionality.” It is further noted that the Tribunal found the State Planning Policy Framework identifies good urban design as a fundamental element of planning.

The original application material proposed a façade consisting of blue glazed bricks, coloured metal fins, a herring pattern gable and operable glass doors to the appliance bay. As noted above, Council’s Urban Designer raised concerns with the design language particularly with regard to the roof shape and use of materials. It was also noted that the design sought to introduce a somewhat foreign industrial element into the streetscape.

The VCAT amended plans detail a revised façade design that is considered to be an improved outcome. The design has been simplified with respect to material choice and the roof form is now symmetrical. It is considered the proposal draws from colours, forms and materials found elsewhere along Malvern Road and the design no longer seeks to introduce an industrial element to the streetscape. Furthermore, the recessed façade and overhanging hood/wall elements to each building provide additional depth and articulation to the design.

Council’s Urban Designer is supportive of the revised scheme but has advised that the polished concrete to the building could be replaced with fritted glass or, at a minimum, landscaping to form a green wall. This would soften the appearance of the building as it presents to the streetscape and would improve the design aesthetics.

The applicant requires 100% privacy to the front rooms given they are habitable spaces for the fire fighters and there is some concern as to the degree of privacy that fritted glass can provide. This is considered a reasonable requirement and a green wall to the northernmost building would be adequate to soften the proposed wall. This could be achieved by requiring landscaping to the 1.2m wide paved section of the northernmost building between the building façade and the title boundary (adjacent to the multi-purpose room) to form a green wall.

In light of the above, it is considered the design changes as shown in the VCAT amended plans are acceptable and will ensure an appropriate building that integrates with and respects the surrounding streetscape and character of the area.

Heritage

The works proposed in the Heritage Overlay are limited to the partial demolition of the verandah and advertising signage to 1535 High Street.

Council’s Heritage Advisor has no concerns with the proposed works given the substantial alterations that have already occurred. Given the proposed works will not adversely affect the heritage place and are limited to later additions, this aspect of the proposal can be supported.

Amenity impacts arising from the built form The subject site is seen to have two sensitive interfaces; the residential properties to the abutting north, and the caretaker’s dwelling to the abutting east.

In terms of the northern interface, the development proposes two boundary walls. The wall to the multi-purpose and mess rooms will be 10.27m in length with a height of 3.3m and will be built opposite an existing single storey garage wall and an uncovered car space to 2/1715 Malvern Road. This interface is not considered to be sensitive and a 3.3m high wall will not have adverse amenity impacts.

The second wall, also 3.3m in height, will have a length of 5.74m and be built opposite the secluded private open space of 4/1715 Malvern Road. This equates to approximately half of the length of the open space area. This wall is considered acceptable given it is to the southern side of the open space and will not result in additional overshadowing impacts. In terms of visual bulk, the presence of a 3.3m high wall is not considered unreasonable given the site context. The land abuts a Neighbourhood Activity Centre zoned Business 2 and residents in such situations cannot expect the same level of amenity as one would expect in a pure residential zone. It is further noted that the existing conditions consist of a minimum 10m high wall to an office building separated by a basement driveway. This is not considered to be a pristine interface worthy of protecting.

It is noted there is a residential use alongside a warehouse to the east at 13 Paran Place. The fire station proposes its bedrooms adjacent to this property therefore the internal uses of both buildings will be similar. It is further noted that this dwellings contains boundary windows.

The proposed fire station will not have unreasonable amenity impacts on this property. The site is located within an Industrial 3 Zone and uses with greater adverse amenity potentials are able to exist as of right. In terms of the impact to boundary windows, the Property Law Act does not grant boundary windows easements of air and light therefore offering them no protection. The plans indicate a boundary wall will be located directly opposite two non-habitable windows and one bedroom window. It is considered the impact to the bedroom is acceptable given this room has other sources of light including an additional south-facing window and a west-facing light well.

Land to the abutting south comprises a 2 storey office. The impacts to this property are inconsequential given the site context. Similarly, impacts to the east at 9 Paran Place are not considered unreasonable given this site is also used as an office.

The proposed development has been designed to limit amenity impacts to properties in the adjoining Residential 1 Zone. This has been achieved by limiting boundary wall construction in terms of height and length and limiting the maximum building height adjacent to this sensitive interface. This aspect of the proposal is worthy of support.

Car parking and traffic considerations Clause 52.06 provides that a new use must not commence until the required number of car spaces are provided on the land. The table at Clause 52.06-5 does not include “emergency services facilities” therefore car parking must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

As noted in the proposal section of this report, there will be a maximum of 8 fire fighters on site at any one time. The development proposes 13 car parking spaces in the basement and 1 visitor space and 1 disabled space at ground level. It is considered that this provision is adequate to meet the needs of the proposed use. Visitors to the site would have access via an intercom provided at the base of the ramp. The use is such that there will not be a reliance on street parking in the surrounding road network.

Council’s Traffic Engineer has provided comments on the car parking layout and access arrangements. The revised comments are based on revised discussion plans Council date stamped 24 October 2012. These comments advise that many of the initial concerns have been addressed however, some changes were still required.

It is noted the VCAT amended plans have addressed the majority of the concerns that have been raised. The parking bays at ground floor are appropriately located, the column locations have been revised and the bicycle parking now accords with the relevant requirements. It is noted that sight distance issues have not been resolved and although kerbing is shown adjacent to car parking space 13, no details are provided regarding its height. Furthermore, the pedestrian warning information that was provided in the 24 October plans has been left off the VCAT amended plans. As such conditions would have been included to address these matters.

It is noted Council’s Traffic Engineer is not supportive of the large fire appliance accessing the site once or twice a year given it will require the appliance to cross the centre line of the road when entering Paran Place and existing Malvern Road. This is considered to be an unsafe practice. However, they have advised that further comments are required from VicRoads with respect to this access arrangement. Notably, VicRoads have not raised concerns with this infrequent event and this aspect of the proposal is therefore considered acceptable.

Having regard to the traffic implications, the fire station will undoubtedly alter traffic movements in this area especially during an emergency call out. This will have subsequent impacts on the operation of the nearby intersection for both vehicles and pedestrians. However the nature of the emergency service use is such that the arrival time of 7.7 minutes is critical. It is further noted that existing emergency services in surrounding areas would, on occasion, utilise this intersection.

The AAT noted the infrastructure deficiencies of this intersection in their 1990 Order. These concerns have been echoed by the objectors in this current proposal and relate to the high pedestrian movement, the refuge island on High Street and the tram terminus which combine to create a complex intersection.

In terms of traffic movement, the submitted traffic report notes that there has been an overall decline in traffic and pedestrian movements through this intersection since the 1990 application. Council’s Traffic Engineer and VicRoads have assessed the application material and have no concerns with this survey data.

Having regard to the physical constraints of the intersection outlined in the 1990 Order, these will be addressed through a number of engineering upgrades to the intersection and surrounding roads. These changes will ensure the safe and efficient movement of fire appliances with no unreasonable safety implications for other users of the intersection.

A special traffic phase will be introduced to the intersection traffic lights to assist with emergency call outs. This would allow priority to emergency vehicles and shutdown the intersection lights to all traffic, including pedestrians. This would be a safer outcome in comparison to other emergency services travelling through the intersection that would have no control over the traffic lights. In contrast to the previous fire station application, the current proposal seeks exit only movements onto Malvern Road thus eliminating the reliance on Malvern Road for return trips.

Furthermore, road works are proposed to reduce the length of the semi-mountable kerb on High Street between the rail crossing and Malvern Road. This will allow the fire appliances to drive down the opposing lane when the boom gates are down and pull up at the front of the queue to allow the appliances first priority when the boom gates are raised.

VicRoads and Council’s Traffic Engineer have reviewed the traffic information submitted with the application and are supportive of the proposal subject to conditions.

Having regard to regular traffic movements by staff, these are considered to be negligible given the fire station will have a maximum of 8 staff at any one time. The traffic generated from these staff members is minimal in the context of the surrounding area and the existing traffic conditions. It is further noted the existing office contains 57 car spaces within a basement accessed from Malvern Road. When this office was used at capacity, the traffic generation would have been far greater than what is currently proposed.

Objections

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

 It is noted a number of objectors are concerned about the site selection, the purchase of the site without feasibility studies, the spatial data provided by MFB and that the fire station should be located on the other side of the Monash Freeway. The Tribunal has consistently upheld the general principle that canvassing alternative site options is not the role of the decision maker. Whilst the spatial data provides some evidence as to where suitable locations may be in relation to historical data, it is not an assessment consideration. Council’s role is to determine whether or not this specific site is appropriate in relation to the relevant Planning Scheme requirements. In any case, it is noted that Clause 15.01-4 seeks to ensure that “suitable locations for police stations and fire brigade, ambulance and emergency services are provided for in or near activity centres.”  Given the fire station is located at ground level and boundary fences are proposed in excess of 1.8m in height, there will be no unreasonable overlooking to adjoining residential properties.  In terms of report accuracy, the submitted reports have been prepared by relevant qualified professionals. Furthermore, the applicant is required to sign a declaration stating that the information provided is true and correct.  Property values are not a planning consideration.  Emissions from diesel fumes are not a planning consideration and are addressed by relevant EPA guidelines.

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 location of the site is supported by Planning Policy given its location within an Activity Centre.  The proposed use is supported by Planning Policy given it provides a net community benefit.  The proposal adequately responds to the concerns raised in the AAT Order of 1990 through the upgrading and engineering of the nearby intersection and High Street and the creation of separate entry and exit points.

 The traffic impacts will not be unreasonable or unsafe given the anticipated low volumes of call outs.  Design concerns have been addressed in the VCAT amended plans.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council advise VCAT and other parties that had a Failure to Determine appeal not been lodged, a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 557/12 would have been issued for the land located at 1721 – 1727 Malvern Road, 11 Paran Place and 1535 High Street, Glen Iris, under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for use and development of the site as a fire station in a Business 2 Zone and Industrial 3 Zone, creation of access to a road and alteration of a road in a Road Zone Category 1 and part demolition and buildings and works to a shop in a Business 2 Zone and 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 VCAT amended plans circulated on 14 February 2013 but modified to show:

a) Landscaping to the 1.2m wide paved section of the northernmost building between the building façade and the title boundary to form a green wall to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. b) Sight distance triangles taken from the edge of the building line in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards or to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. c) A notation to the basement car park indicating the area around the two central columns adjacent to car park space 13 as raised kerbing with a minimum height of 0.15m to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. d) A pedestrian warning system generally in accordance with the ground floor plan A100 Council date stamped 24 October 2012. e) The location of onsite waste bin storage and how wastes will be disposed from the site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. f) Any changes as required by VicRoads conditions 14 to 19 (inclusive).

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

3. 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.

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

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. The level of the footpaths and/or laneways must not be lowered or altered in any way to facilitate access to the site.

8. 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.

9. Prior to a Building Permit being issued 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 compliance with Council’s report. The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer’s design

10. Before the use starts, 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.

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

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

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

14. 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.

VICROADS CONDITIONS

15. Prior to the use of the permitted development, signal modification works at the Malvern Road / High Street intersection to give priority to emergency vehicles with the emergency phase must be carried out at no cost to VicRoads.

16. Prior to the commencement of the permitted development, a functional layout of the proposed crossover at Malvern Road and of the proposed works on High Street must be submitted to and approved by VicRoads and the Responsible Authority showing:

a) Details of the sealed crossover on Malvern Road at least 9.5 metres in width as measured at the property boundary. The edges of the vehicle crossover must be angled at 60 degrees to the road reserve boundary. b) Swept path analysis of appropriate design vehicles entering and exiting the site. c) Swept path analysis of appropriate design vehicles manoeuvring into the proposed temporary fire truck storage area at the level crossing. d) The redundant crossover on Malvern Road removed and kerb, channel, footpath and nature strip reinstated. e) Details of the new ‘Keep Clear’ road marking outside the new crossover on Malvern Road. The ‘Keep Clear’ road marking north of the new crossover must be removed. f) Details of the works to be undertaken on High Street, including the removal of the central median kerbing to allow vehicles access to the temporary storage area.

17. Prior to the commencement of use of the permitted development and/or commencement of road works required by VicRoads under this permit, a detailed engineering design must be prepared generally in accordance with the accepted functional layout drawing and to the satisfaction of VicRoads.

18. Before the use of the permitted development, works as shown on the approved functional and detailed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of and at no cost to VicRoads.

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

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

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

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

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

1.2. PLANNING APPLICATION 1037/11 - 634 - 636 MALVERN ROAD, PRAHRAN - CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT IN A RESIDENTIAL 1 ZONE, REDUCTION OF CAR PARKING REQUIREMENT AND ALTERATION OF ACCESS TO A ROAD IN A ROAD ZONE, CATEGORY 1

(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, reduction of car parking requirement and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1 at 634-636 Malvern Road, Prahran.

This item was considered at the Council meeting of 18 February 2013. The application is now represented to Council for further consideration.

Executive Summary

Applicant: PAD Architects Pty Ltd Ward: South Zone: Residential 1 Overlay: None Date lodged: 19 December 2011 Statutory days: (as at council 41 meeting date) Trigger for referral to Higher than 4 storeys Council: Number of objections: 4 objections from 3 different properties Consultative Meeting: No Officer Recommendation: Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

Planning History

Planning Permit No. 607/09 was issued on 30 November 2011 under the direction of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) for the construction of a multi-storey residential development and altered access to a Road Zone Category 1.

Application No. 607/09 was originally lodged with Council on 31 August 2009 for a three-storey apartment building over a basement, comprising 13 dwellings and 13 car spaces. The application was determined by Council’s Delegate and a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit (NOD) was issued on 4 June 2010. This decision was contested by the owners of 44 and 46 Grandview Grove and was listed for a VCAT hearing on 24th and 25th October 2011. Amended plans were circulated before the VCAT hearing and the amended plans included some significant changes (e.g. reduction in the overall number of dwellings from 13 to 8, increase in the setbacks and alterations to the building design and presentation).

The Tribunal found the revised application to be acceptable subject to further modifications. The key findings of the VCAT decision are summarised as follows:

 There is strong policy support for higher density development on this site given its main road location and proximity to public transport and the Hawksburn Activity Centre.  This section of Malvern Road contains some large buildings and is capable of accommodating a more robust built form.  The design of the building is of a high quality with commendable use of articulation, materials and finishes.  The southern interface is sensitive and complicated.  The proposed rear setbacks are adequate in protecting the amenity of the southern adjoining properties and maintaining the “rear neighbourhood character” subject to some modifications.

It is noted that adverse possession issues were raised at the hearing. The survey plan indicated that the location of the boundary fence between the subject land and 44 Grandview Grove was about 0.75m – 1m inside of (or to the north of) the title boundary as shown on the survey plan. The owner of 44 Grandview Grove lodged an adverse possession claim in September 2011 (i.e. before the VCAT hearing) and the application was approved in February 2012 (i.e. after the VCAT hearing). As a result, the title boundary of 44 Grandview Grove has extended towards north by 0.75m-1m and the existing boundary fence now defines the title boundary.

The current application generally follows the building envelope approved by VCAT, but is one level higher. Details of the current application are described in the following section of this report.

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by PAD Architects and are known as Drawing No.s: A000 Rev B, A001 Rev B, A002 Rev B, A101 Rev C, A102 Rev C, A103 Rev C, A104 Rev C, A105 Rev D, A106 Rev C, A201 Rev C, A202 Rev C, A203 Rev B, A211 Rev B, A212 Rev B, A301 Rev C, A310 Rev C, A311 Rev C, A401 Rev C, A404 Rev C, A407 Rev C and A501 Rev C, Council date stamped 19 December 2012; landscape plan No. 11- 379L-TP01BVCAT, Council date stamped 9 August 2012. Additional information submitted for Council’s consideration includes: Town Planning Report prepared by Hansen Pty Ltd and Water Sensitive Urban Design Report prepared by Storm Consulting, all Council date stamped 9 August 2012.

The application proposes to develop the subject land with a four-storey apartment building (technically five storeys because a section of the basement projects over 1.2m above the ground), comprising 9 dwellings and 10 on-site parking spaces. As a result of further excavation and reduction in the floor to ceiling height (i.e. from 2.7m to 2.6m), the proposal is 2.37m higher than the previously approved development. Key features of the proposal are:  Construction of a basement that contains 10 parking spaces, bin enclosure and storage facilities. Access to the basement is via a ramp at the north-east corner of the subject site. The level of the basement is 0.4m lower than that of the approved development and the ramp gradients have been modified to accommodate the further excavation.  Ground floor including 2 double-bedroom dwellings and 1 single-bedroom dwelling. The layout of the ground floor is identical to that of the approved development except for changes that were made to adhere to the conditions of Permit No. 607/09.  First floor comprising 3 two-bedroom dwellings. The layout of the first floor accords with that of the approved development and includes the changes required by the permit conditions.  Second floor consisting of 2 two-bedroom dwellings. No changes have been made to the layout or setbacks of this level apart from the modifications requested by the permit conditions.  Third floor incorporating one three-bedroom dwelling which is setback from all boundaries as follows:

- between 3.7m and 6.05m from the street boundary; - between 4.25m and 5.5m from the western boundary; - 5.25m from the eastern boundary; - between 7.45m and 8.8m from the common boundary with 46 Grandview Grove and between 8.54m and 9.92m from the common boundary with 44 Grandview Grove (note: the adverse possession claim of 44 Grandview Grove was successful and its title boundary has extended towards north by 0.75m-1m).  The proposed development has a maximum building height of 13.5m above the footpath in Malvern Road (taken from west elevation).  The building presents a contemporary architectural style, with various features and materials. Materials and finishes include a combination of metal cladding, timber screen, clear glazing, rendered masonry and perforated screen.

The plans, Council date stamped 19 December 2012, were formally lodged with Council as revised plans. These plans show a reduction in the finished floor levels (i.e. being 0.4m, 0.5m, 0.6m, 0.7m and 0.8m for the basement, ground, first, second and third floor respectively). The proposed development is largely identical to the development approved by VCAT but includes the following differences:  A third floor that contains a three-bedroom dwelling.  A 0.4m reduction in the floor level of the basement and associated changes to the ramp gradients;  A 0.1m reduction in the floor to ceiling height on each floor.

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is located on the southern side of Malvern Road, approximately 380m east of its intersection with Williams Road. The site has the following significant characteristics:

 The subject lot contains two parcels of land, being 634 and 636 Malvern Road. Collectively, the site has a frontage to Malvern Road of 25.9m, a depth of between 23.47m and 25.7m, and a total area of approximately 647sqm.  The land slopes up from the north-western corner to the south-eastern corner by approximately 2.5m.  The site is currently developed with two single-storey detached dwellings, each of which has a front setback of approximately 5.5m.  The front setback contains a number of existing plants.  The site is not afforded with any vehicular access from Malvern Road.

The subject site forms part of an established residential area that generally features single and double storey dwellings, mixed with a number of multi-storey apartment buildings from a range of periods and on a range of allotment sizes. As described by Member Martin, a common feature of this section of Malvern Road is the existence of relatively large buildings and the streetscape is “fairly robust”. The site interfaces with adjoining properties as follows:

 Directly adjacent to the west of the subject site, 616 Malvern Road is a 1930s two-storey apartment building. This building is setback approximately 3.5m from Malvern Road, with windows facing the subject site. Private Open Space is generally located away from the subject site.  Further west of the subject site at 608 – 610 Malvern Road is a recently constructed four- storey apartment building, which was approved by VCAT in 2009.  A large Neighbourhood Activity Centre (i.e. Hawksburn) is located a short distance away to the west.

 To the east of the site is 638 Malvern Road, which is a single-storey Victorian dwelling. This property is setback significantly from the Malvern Road frontage and also from the common boundary with the subject site. This site has dual frontages and a depth of over double the depth of the subject site. To the rear, a set of four garages face Pohlman Lane, contained within a red-brick art-deco building. Pohlman Lane is a one-way lane, with its primary use to provide vehicular and service access to those properties fronting Malvern Road, A’Beckett Street and Grandview Grove.  Further east at 646 Malvern Road is a recently constructed three-storey apartment building over a basement car park.  To the south of the subject site are two houses at 44 and 46 Grandview Grove. The property at 46 Grandview Grove is a single-storey dwelling with a first floor rear extension located close to the common boundary. The perimeter of 46 Grandview Grove is well landscaped which provides a means of screening.  The property at 44 Grandview Grove is a single storey detached dwelling with pedestrian and vehicle access from Grandview Grove. The dwelling extends relatively deep into the rear with a setback ranging between 2.8m and 4.7m from the rear boundary.  The properties at 44 and 46 Grandview Grove form part of a heritage precinct (HO135 – Grandview Grove Area).

The Title

The site is in two titles and described as:  Certificate of Title Volume 10184 Folio 498 as Lot 1 on Title Plan 092209R.  Certificate of Title Volume 08124 Folio 122 as Lot 1 on Title Plan 718078V. The south-western corner of 636 Malvern Road is affected by an easement. As no buildings and works are proposed within this easement, the proposal will not affect the easement. The applicant has signed a declaration to this effect.

Planning Controls

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

Zone Clause 32.01 – Residential 1 Zone Pursuant to Clause 32.01-4 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot.

Overlay None

Particular Provisions Clause 52.06 Car Parking Pursuant to Clause 52.06-2, the car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5 must be provided on the land prior to a new building being occupied. A permit may be granted to reduce or waive the number of car spaces required by the table included in Clause 52.06-5. According to the table, one (1) parking space is required for each one or two bedroom dwelling and two (2) parking spaces are required for each three or more bedroom dwelling. Visitor parking is required for developments of 5 or more dwellings.

A total of 11 parking spaces are required for this application (specifically, that is 10 for residents and 1 for visitors). Given 10 parking spaces are provided in the basement, permission is required to reduce the parking requirement.

Clause 52.34 Bicycle Parking Pursuant to Clause 52.34-1, a new use must not commence or the floor area of an existing use must not be increased until the required bicycle facilities and associated signage has been provided on the land. Pursuant to Clause 52.34-3: A dwelling requires the following rates: In developments of four or more storeys, 1 to each 5 dwellings for residents In developments of four or more storeys, 1 to each 10 dwellings for visitors

One bicycle parking space is required and the applicant seeks to waive this requirement.

Clause 52.35 Urban Context Report and Design Response for Residential Development of Four Storeys or More An application for a residential development of four or more storeys must be accompanied by an urban context report and design response.

Relevant Planning Policies

Clause 11.01 Activity Centres Clause 15.01 Urban Environment Clause 15.02 Sustainable Development 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 65 Decision Guidelines

Advertising

The application has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land and the objectors of Application No. 607/09, and by placing a sign on the site. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

The site is located in South Ward and four (4) objections from three (3) different properties have been received. In summary, the objections raised the following concerns:  Visual bulk  Overshadowing  Loss of privacy  Loss of daylight/sunlight  Inadequate car parking provision  Excessive building height  Impact on the heritage value of the area  Inconsistently with the existing neighbourhood character

 Errors shown on the plans

The revised plans, Council date stamped 19 December 2012, were not re-advertised as they will not result in any additional material detriment.

Referrals

All the comments were made based on the plans advertised in September 2012. As the revised plans are similar to the advertised plans, the revised plans were not formally referred to the internal and external departments for comments.

Urban Design Comments from Council’s Urban Designer highlighted the following:  Due to the pattern of subdivision near the corner of Malvern Road and Grandview Grove, the subject site area is relatively constrained.  The permitted three-storey development represents the reasonable maximum extent of development for this smaller site.  At the approved three storeys, the rear interface with the neighbouring properties to the south is already of a lesser standard than what would be desirable for a new higher-density residential development of this nature. This proposed fourth level would result in an unreasonable degree of visual bulk on this smaller site.  The subject sites for more intensive development must be suitable for this purpose and be of a sufficient size to enable the effective management of their interfaces with existing residential neighbours. This smaller site is unsuitable for any greater intensification than has already been approved.

Landscape The application was referred to Council’s Arborist who provided the following comments:  A Tree Management Plan (TMP) is required for the adjacent Brush Cherry tree at 616 Malvern Road.  The increase in the built form as viewed from Malvern Road should see a change in tree species for the northern boundary. The proposed Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) in the front setback should be replaced with a large, vigorous growing canopy species.

Transport Comments were received from Council’s Transport Department indicating they do not expect the development to adversely affect the existing traffic conditions in the surrounding road network. However, the Transport Department raised concerns with the provision of bicycle parking, accessway, sight distance at property boundary and vehicle crossing. Revised plans were requested in regards to the following:  Bicycle spaces to meet the requirements of the Planning Scheme and/or the Australian Standards or to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  Adequate sight distance at property boundary to be provided.  Dimensions of the vehicle crossing to be shown on plans and the crossing to match the access point at the property boundary.

Infrastructure

Council’s Infrastructure Engineer commented that there are no apparent Infrastructure related concerns. However, measures for water recycling are encouraged. Should a permit be issued, the following conditions have been requested to be included:

 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 the report prior to a building permit being issued. The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer’s design.  The existing footpath levels must not be lowered or altered to facilitate the basement ramp.

Waste Council’s Waste Management Coordinator requested a Waste Management Plan to be submitted in accordance with Council’s Waste Management Guidelines.

VicRoads This application was referred to VicRoads pursuant to Section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. VicRoads confirmed that they have no objection to the proposal subject to the following condition:  Prior to the occupation of the permitted development the cross-over and driveway are to be constructed generally in accordance with the submitted plans Drawing Number A101 revision b dated December 2011 by Pad Architect.

KEY ISSUES

Strategic Justification The State Planning Policy Framework encourages higher density development to be located in or close to activity centres, employment corridors and public transport, so as the development will improve housing choice and make efficient use of existing infrastructure. In addition, the local policies support medium density housing in key strategic locations and along arterial roads where the development will be in close proximity to existing medium density development.

There is no dispute that there is strong policy support for higher density development on this site because of the following reasons:  The subject site is located close to a large Neighbourhood Activity Centre (i.e. Hawksburn), which includes commercial facilities and community services. As a result, the proposal is in accordance with the objective and direction of Clause 11.01-2, which seeks to ‘encourage a diversity of housing types at higher densities in and around activity centres’.  The subject site fronts a main road in Road Zone, Category 1. It is noted that this section of Malvern Road is a selected arterial road where “medium density housing and shop tops are encouraged and high scale development may be supported”. Therefore, the proposal is supported by Council’s Strategic Framework Plan at Clause 21.01 and Housing Policy at Clause 21.03.  The subject site is highly accessible to public transport, with Toorak Railway Station located within walking distance and trams along Malvern Road. The development of the site for a multi-unit apartment building is in accordance with the policy direction of Clause 16.01-2, which encourages ‘higher density housing development on sites that are well located in relation to activity centres, employment corridors and public transport.’ In addition, the proposal is in line with the objective of Clause 15.02-1, which seeks to ‘promote consolidation of urban development and integration of land use and transport’.

 The proposal will provide for a greater range of housing stock in this section of Prahran. This is considered to be consistent with Clause 21.03-1 (Housing Needs) which calls for ‘options for smaller households [to] include multi-unit development, dual occupancies and other forms of medium density housing’. Compared with the previous application, the proposal at hand will make a further contribution to the achievement of urban consolidation and increased housing choice, which is supported by the planning policies. However, this is not to say because the subject site has a strong strategic support for higher density residential development that ‘anything goes’. As Members Naylor and Keddie remarked in ACCC P/L trading as AWC Property v Yarra CC [2012] VCAT 1180 “justifying the built form by achievement of urban consolidation and increased housing choice is only one side of the policy ledger.” Any redevelopment on this site must fit comfortably into the neighbourhood and be respectful of its context. The following sections of the report will examine whether the proposal is acceptable in character and amenity terms.

Neighbourhood Character / Built Form As the Tribunal found the previously proposed three-storey building was acceptable subject to modifications, the key question here is whether the additional fourth level will exceed the maximum development potential of this site and result in unreasonable impact on the character of this neighbourhood.

Council’s Urban Designer is concerned that the subject site does not have the capacity to accommodate a more intensive development because of its relatively constrained size. He has noted that the impacts associated with the fourth level cannot be satisfactorily managed on this relatively small site. This view is shared by the objectors.

The proposal may seem to be suspicious on its face value, as it seeks to intensify the development approved by VCAT and therefore could tip over the balance sought by the Tribunal member. However, noting VCAT did not rule out the possibility of establishing a four-storey building and this area displays a robust built form, it is inappropriate to jump to the conclusion that a four-storey building on this site is unacceptable without a holistic review of the proposal. Consequently, this application has been assessed against the Urban Design Guidelines outlined at Clause 15.01-1 and the Design Guidelines for Higher Density Residential Development (Department of Sustainability and Environment 2004). Whilst ResCode is not strictly applicable as the proposed development exceeds three storeys, it nevertheless has been used to provide guidance on the assessment.

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

Context

This section of Malvern Road features a number of 1960-1970s three-storey apartment buildings along with contemporary infill developments. Council recently approved a three-storey apartment building at 646 Malvern Road and a four-storey residential development at 608 Malvern Road. As observed by Member Martin, large buildings are a common feature of this streetscape and it is likely that this area will experience more infill developments as a result of the policy direction.

The proposed development represents a careful response to the contextual conditions by manipulating the form, scale and presentation to react to the character of this area and minimising visual bulk and amenity impacts on the neighbouring properties.

Starting with the Malvern Road frontage, in order to minimise the impact of the additional level, the basement will be further excavated by 0.4m and the floor to ceiling height of each level will be reduced by 0.1m. Page 30 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 MARCH 2013

Consequently, the current proposal will only be 2.37m taller than the previous scheme. As indicated on the streetscape elevation (Drawing No. A203 Rev B), the parapet wall of the proposed building generally aligns with that of 646 and 650 Malvern Road, notwithstanding that Malvern Road slopes down towards the west. In a site context where large built form is a common feature, the 2.37m increase in height is not considered to be excessive and will not result in a dominant element.

It is noted that the proposed fourth level sits directly above the lower levels without any separation. This design approach is considered to be acceptable and will not cause an overly bulky appearance to Malvern Road for the following reasons:

 Firstly, the north elevation is broken into two groups of balconies separated by a central staircase. Each group of the balconies is framed by timber screening and has a width that corresponds to the pattern of houses on individual properties. The articulation of the façade effectively breaks up the building mass. In order to integrate the fourth level with the lower levels, the timber frames have been extended to the fourth level, but the easterly located timber frame is about half a level higher than the westerly located timber frame. The difference in height adds visual interest that further breaks up the building bulk. In addition, the step down in the height of the timber frames matches the change in land level and therefore creates an impression of transition in height.  Secondly, the breadth of the fourth level is smaller than the third level as it is further setback from the side boundaries. The building further steps down to a two-storey scale to relate directly to the neighbouring houses. The change in the breadth of each level successfully reduces the prominence of the building when viewed from Malvern Road.  Thirdly, the top level is clad in a horizontal panel cladding system with a light colour. The similar colour palette integrates the top level with the lower levels and creates a sense of continuity. In contrast to the vertical panel cladding system that is used for the lower levels, the horizontal cladding makes the fourth level more visually recessive. For the reasons outlined above, it is considered that the proposed fourth level will not be an obtrusive element when viewed from Malvern Road. The design approach well integrates the additional level with the previously approved scheme and provides an outcome that is compatible with the surrounding developments and the neighbourhood character.

With regard to the side elevations, the building would read as a two-storey element with recessed upper levels. The side elevations are well articulated through a combination of various setbacks and different texture and materials. The proposed fourth level is linked with the lower levels by the extended timber screening. However, the visual impression of the fourth level is more recessive because of the greater setbacks, light colour and horizontal cladding.

Turning to the rear section of the proposed development, much debate was raised during the previous VCAT hearing about whether the rear treatment of the proposed three-storey development would provide an acceptable planning outcome. Member Martin reviewed the proposed treatment of the rear half of the building through a holistic approach and ultimately found it to be acceptable subject to some modifications. The proposal at hand adopts the same treatment for the lower three levels and includes the changes required by the Tribunal. The overall height of the lower three levels has also been dropped by 0.7m, which further reduces its impact. For the same reasons outlined in the VCAT Order, the treatment of the rear section of the lower three levels is deemed to be acceptable. As pointed out by Council’s Urban Designer, the subject site is relatively constrained in depth. However, the proposed additional level has generous setbacks from the rear boundary (i.e. between 7.45m and 8.8m, and between 8.54m and 9.92m from the northern boundary of 46 and 44 Grandview Grove respectively). According to the applicant, the rear setbacks of the fourth level were determined by sight line and shadow analysis.

As a result, its impacts on the southern adjoining private open spaces in terms of visual bulk and overshadowing are minimised. The south elevation of the fourth level is treated in a simple but sensitive way. The use of horizontal cladding with a similar tone to the sky reinforces the impression of a recessed fourth level. Whilst the relatively small size presents some challenges to a more intense development on this site, the proposed development recognises the specific context of the neighbourhood and provides a careful response to maintain the rear neighbourhood character and keep the amenity impacts within acceptable limits.

The Public Realm

The proposed location of entries of the development will increase activity on the footpath of Malvern Road. The balconies and windows that overlook Malvern Road would enhance a sense of surveillance and security. The proposed landscaping in the front setback would also contribute to the improvement of the public realm.

Safety

The proposed development will not detrimentally impact on the safety of the surrounding public environment and will provide appropriate security for future residents. The development includes habitable room windows and balconies that offer passive surveillance, which will enhance personal safety and property security. Security entries are provided for the lobby and parking areas.

The volume of car parking and vehicle movements to be generated from the subject site is unlikely to have a significant impact on the existing road network and pedestrian safety.

Landmarks, Views and Vistas

There are no identified significant views or vistas that will be affected by the proposed development.

Pedestrian Spaces

The design of the proposed development provides a good transition between the public realm and private realm. The location of the ground floor entries is clearly identified and provides a sense of address within the street. The proposed landscaping in the front setback would soften the appearance of the development and contribute to the public realm. The architectural detailing would also improve the visual and social experience for pedestrians.

Heritage

The subject site is not subject to any heritage control. However, the properties to the south are included within Heritage Overlay 135 – Grandview Grove Area. The objectors are concerned that the proposed development will detract from the heritage value of the adjoining heritage precincts by virtue of its height and scale. However, it is considered that the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the significance of the adjoining heritage overlay area for the following reasons:

 As remarked in the VCAT Order, “the key interface with local heritage controls is how the front elevation of the period dwelling(s) relates to its streetscape (in this case being Grandview Grove) – the proposal will have no affect on same”.  The subject land is outside the heritage overlay and would not be perceived as a development in Grandview Grove or Chatsworth Road. The heritage areas and streetscapes would remain intact.

 The proposed fourth floor is substantially setback from Grandview Grove. Whilst it may be visible from various vantage points from Grandview Grove and Chatsworth Road, it will read as a recessive element that will not overwhelm the heritage buildings along Grandview Grove and Chatsworth Road. In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the significance of the heritage overlay areas.

Consolidation of Site and Empty Sites

The application seeks to utilise two lots for a higher density development. The combined street frontage is consistent with the rhythm of the existing streetscape. In addition, the proposed development will positively contribute to the complexity and diversity of the surrounding built environment.

Light and Shade

As the subject site is located on the southern side of Malvern Road, the proposed development will not overshadow the public realm. The reduction in the building height of the lower three levels will also reduce the overshadowing impact on the adjoining private open spaces.

Compared with previously approved development, there will be a marginal reduction in the shadows cast onto the southern abutting private open spaces because of the reduction in the height of the lower three levels and the generous setbacks of the top level. This is considered to be an improvement.

Energy and Resource Efficiency

The development takes advantage of its northerly aspect by locating a number of balconies and living areas towards north. The layout of the dwellings provides a good level of internal amenity.

The applicant also proposed to install a 10,000L underground water tank, which will achieve a STORM rating of 101%. This meets the best practice and will effectively reduce stormwater runoff.

Architectural Quality

The proposed building exhibits design excellence by having regard to its context, setting back upper levels, respecting adjacent properties through form, detailing and massing, and articulating all building elevations. The side and rear elevations are also carefully articulated, with the lower two levels having prominence and the upper levels treated in a recessive manner using materials and detailing that present a lightweight form. In relation to the proposed materials, colours and finishes, the design incorporates a range of materials and elements within an interesting composition. The use of materials and colour is well conceived in the overall building articulation and is considered to be an appropriate outcome. In order to ensure this outcome, a condition that requires a full detailed schedule of construction materials, external finishes and colours in accordance with the nominated finishes on elevation drawings will be included on any permit that issues.

Landscape Architecture

The applicant submitted a landscape plan which is generally in accordance with the landscape plan presented at the previous VCAT hearing but modified to adhere to condition 1(n) of Permit No. 607/09.

VCAT considered the landscape plan to be of a high quality. Council’s Arborist is also generally satisfied with landscape proposal. However, as the proposal is one level higher than the previous proposal, it is considered necessary to replace the proposed Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) in the front setback with a large, vigorous growing canopy species so as the soften the appearance of the building. This can be addressed via permit conditions.

In addition, as required by Council’s Arborist, a tree management plan will be required to ensure the health of the adjacent Brush Cherry tree at 616 Malvern Road.

Off-site Amenity Impacts

Whilst ResCode is not strictly applicable in this circumstance as the proposed development is higher than three storeys, it is common practice to use ResCode as a reference to gauge amenity impacts of proposed development. This approach was considered to be sensible by Member Martin.

As VCAT has found that the lower three levels will not result in unreasonable amenity impacts on the adjoining properties and meet the relevant objectives, the assessment here is limited to the fourth level.

It is worth noting that the adverse possession claim of the owner of 44 Grandview Grove was successful and therefore its title boundary has extended towards north by 0.75m-1m (in other words, the distance between the proposed development and its common boundary with 44 Grandview Grove has been reduced). This does not affect the finding that the lower three levels will not unreasonably affect the amenity of this property. Member Martin specifically stated (at paragraph 40 of the Order) that:

For completeness, I can also indicate that I regard the interface between the proposed rear setbacks (incorporating the final changes set out in the three bullet points above) and the No. 44 property as having sufficient “wriggle room” to be acceptable even if the adverse possession claim by No. 44 was successful and the contentious rear fence was to stay in its current possession.

The following is an assessment against the relevant ResCode requirements:

Side and rear setbacks

Standard B17 (side and rear setbacks) sets out numeric requirements for side and rear setbacks. The table below illustrates how the proposal meets these requirements. As the land will be excavated, wall heights are taken from the nature ground level not the finished floor level.

South elevation West Elevation East Elevation Wall Setback Setback Wall Setback Setback Wall Setback Setback

height required proposed height required proposed height required proposed 12.3m – 7.39m – 7.45m – Max Max Third 8.59m 4.25m – 7.39m 5.25m floor 13.27m 8.36m 8.8m 13.5m 5.5m 12.3m

The rear setbacks sit comfortably within the ResCode envelope. However, there is a non- compliance with the standard along the west and east elevations. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the proposal meets the objective of Clause 55.04-1 for the following reasons:  The proposed fourth level is opposite a wall of the eastern adjoining property at 638 Malvern Road and therefore will not result in adverse impacts such as loss of daylight or visual bulk. As Member Martin commented, the front half of the building sits alongside the front yard of 638 Malvern Road, which is a less sensitive interface and tends to be inherently semi-public in character. As a result, the non-compliance with Standard B17 will not result in unreasonable amenity impacts on 638 Malvern Road.  Whilst the western adjoining property at 616 Malvern Road has a habitable room window facing the proposed fourth level, this room also has a north facing window that provides an additional source of sunlight. Therefore, the proposal will not result unreasonably restrict daylight access to this property.  The articulation, materials and finishes of the top level effectively reduce its bulk impact.  For the reasons discussed earlier, the proposed setbacks are considered to be consistent with the character of this area.  No objections were received from these two properties.

Daylight to existing windows

The western adjoining property has a habitable room window facing the subject site and the setback of the proposed fourth level falls short of the requirement of Standard B19. However, it is noted that a north-facing window provides an additional source of sunlight to this room. In addition, it is noted that the approved three-storey building did not comply with Standard B19 and the current proposal will not cause much greater impact on daylight access to this window than the approved development does. As a result, it is considered that the proposal will not significantly impact on light access to this neighbouring window.

North facing windows

The southern adjoining property at 46 Grandview Grove has a number of north-facing habitable room windows with 3m from the common boundary. The proposed fourth level has a height between 12.3m and 13.27m, and is setback 8.8m from the common boundary. This setback complies with Standard B20 (based on the average wall height) and therefore will not restrict sunlight to the north-facing habitable room windows of 46 Grandview Grove.

44 Grandview Grove also has a number of north-facing habitable room windows. However, only the most easterly located windows are within 3m from the common boundary. Due to the change in land level, the proposed fourth level has a height of 11.38m and is setback 8.54m from the common boundary. This setback exceeds the requirement of Standard B20. It is also noted that the proposed top level will not be directly opposite the north-facing habitable room windows in question.

Overlooking

The key assessment tool to determine unreasonable overlooking is the overlooking objective, including Standard B22. The standard provides a 9m 45 degree angle arc that determines unreasonable overlooking, and windows or balconies that are located in such a position must be screened to a height of 1.7m above finished floor level accordingly.

The standard does not apply to any overlooking issues from the proposed ground level as all the existing boundary fences have an effective height of at least 1.8 metres (as the land will be excavated) and the finished floor level is less than 0.8 metres above ground level at the boundary. Assessment of overlooking impacts from the first and second floors to each interface is provided as follows:

- North Elevation The north facing balconies and windows front the street and therefore will not result in any overlooking issue.

- South Elevation The first floor south-facing windows are highlight windows that have a sill height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level. The second floor south-facing windows are non-habitable room windows. There are no south-facing windows on the third floor. Therefore, no unreasonable overlooking will occur from the south elevation.

- East Elevation The east facing windows that may overlook into the habitable room window of 638 Malvern Road (i.e. windows to bedroom 2 of Unit 1.02 and windows to bedroom 1 of Unit 2.02) are highlight windows that have a sill height of 1.7m above finished floor level. The east-facing balcony of unit 1.02 is positioned in a way that it does not require screening. As a result, no unreasonable overlooking will occur from the east elevation.

- West Elevation The first floor west-facing windows to bedroom 1 and 2 of Unit 1.01 are not screened and may overlook into the western adjoining private open space. As a result, a condition that requires these windows to be screened in accordance with Standard B22 will be included. The second floor west facing habitable room windows are screened by the external timber screening, which will restrict unreasonable overlooking from these windows (note: the west facing window of bedroom 2 of Unit 2.01 is opposite a non-habitable room window of 616 Malvern Road) . The third floor west facing habitable room windows and balconies are not screened. However, views from these windows to the adjoining habitable room windows of 616 Malvern Road are blocked by the eave of the western adjoining property. As a result, no unreasonable overlooking will occur from these windows.

Internal Amenity

The proposed development consists of various dwelling types and sizes ranging from 65m² to 125m². The size of the proposed dwellings are generous and all the dwellings are provided with the necessary components for comfortable living, including the provision of windows to all habitable rooms. It is noted that all the habitable areas have clear outlook and direct solar/daylight access. Seven out of nine dwellings have north-facing living areas and balconies/courtyards.

The private open space for each dwelling is provided in the form of a balcony/courtyard. All the balconies/courtyards have a size that exceeds the requirement of Standard B28 and they are easily accessible from a living room. As a result, the provision of private open space is considered to be adequate in meeting the recreational needs of the future residents.

As mentioned earlier, the main entry is located in the centre of the building and will be easily identifiable from Malvern Road. This arrangement creates a sense of address and safety.

The proposal also provides areas for the necessary site services. The car parking spaces will also be conveniently accessed in a secure basement garage for residents.

Each dwelling is provided with a storage facility in the basement. However, the plans do not indicate the location of mailboxes. As a result, a condition requiring the location of mailboxes to be shown on the plan will be included.

Overall, the proposed development provides a sufficient level of internal amenity for future residents.

Traffic and Parking

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5, the development results in a statutory parking requirement for 11 car spaces (being 10 spaces for residents and 1 space for visitors). A total of 10 car spaces are proposed within the basement car park for residents. Thus, the application seeks to waive the visitor parking requirement. Given the location of the subject site and its excellent access to public transport, the waiver of one visitor parking space will not result in significant impacts on the parking condition of the surrounding road network. In addition, the residents and visitors of this development are not eligible for “Resident Parking Permits” pursuant to Council’s Local Laws, thus waiving the visitor parking requirement will not impact on the street parking network.

The proposal is required to provide one bicycle parking space pursuant to the requirement of Clause 52.34-3. No bicycle parking is provided and the applicant seeks to waive this requirement. This request is considered to be unjustified as it is important to promote sustainable modes of transport. Council’s Sustainable Transport Policy also encourages use of more sustainable modes of transport (e.g. walking, cycling and public transport). As a result, a condition that requires a minimum of one bicycle parking space to be provided in accordance with the requirements of Clause 52.34 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme and the Australian Standards or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority will be included on any permit that issues. In regard to other concerns raised by Council’s Transport and Parking Department, given VCAT was “comfortable that the proposed car parking arrangement are in order”, the arrangement of the basement is considered to be acceptable. However, a condition requiring the dimensions of the crossover to be shown on the plans will be included to address the concerns of Council’s Transport Engineer. It is noted that the ramp gradients have been modified to accommodate the further excavation. However, the revised gradients are in compliance with the requirements at Clause 52.06-8 and therefore are deemed to be acceptable.

Waste Management

The applicant did not lodge a Waste Management Plan as part of the application. As a result, a condition requiring a Waste Management Plan will be included on any permit that issues.

Objections

In response to the grounds of objection not already discussed in the report, the following comments are made: Errors shown on the plans – it is noted that the plans contain some minor errors (e.g. the note of amendment No. 4 shown on Drawing No. A102 Rev C refers to Mason St). However, these errors are of a minor nature and do not affect the assessment of this application.

Human Rights Consideration

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

CONCLUSION

Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons:  The proposed multi-dwelling development is consistent with the strategic direction outlined by the Stonnington Planning Scheme which encourages higher density residential development in and around neighbourhood activity centres.  The design, orientation and built form of the building are consistent with the neighbourhood character.  The proposed development will not result in unreasonable amenity impacts.

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 1037/11 for the land located at 634 – 636 Malvern Road, Prahran be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for construction of a multi-dwelling development in a Residential 1 Zone, reduction of car parking requirement and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1 subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development, three (3) copies of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the revised plans dated 19 December 2012 but modified to show:

a) A schedule of construction materials, external finishes and colours. b) The provision of at least one bicycle parking space in accordance with the requirements of Clause 52.34 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme and the Australian Standards or otherwise to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. c) Screening of the first floor west-facing bedroom 1 and 2 windows of Unit 1.01 in accordance with Standard B22. d) Dimension of the crossover. e) Location of the mailboxes. f) Any changes required by the Waste Management Plan in accordance with condition 4. g) Any changes required by the Tree Management Plan in accordance with condition 5. h) Any changes required by the Landscape Plan in accordance with condition 6. 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. The project must incorporate the Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives detailed in the endorsed site plan and/or stormwater management report prepared by STORM Consulting dated 29 May 2012.

4. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must include: a. Dimensions of waste areas b. The number of bins to be provided c. Method of waste and recyclables collection d. Hours of waste and recyclables collection e. Method of presentation of bins for waste collection f. Strategies for how the generation of waste and recyclables from the development will be minimised

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

5. Concurrent with the endorsement of development plans, a tree management plan prepared by a suitably qualified arborist must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the tree management plan will form part of this permit and all works must be done in accordance with the tree management plan. The tree management plan must detail measures to protect and ensure the viability of the adjacent Brush Cheery tree at 616 Malvern Road, Prahran.

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 Council’s Parks Unit. Removal of protection works and cessation of the tree management plan must be authorised by the Parks Unit.

6. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a landscape plan to be prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The landscape plan must be generally in accordance with the landscape concept plan DWD No. 11-397L-TP01B VCAT dated June 2012 prepared by John Patrick Pty Ltd, but modified to show the proposed Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda) in the front setback is replaced with a large and vigorous growing canopy species, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Page 39 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 MARCH 2013

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

8. A report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council prior to a building permit being issued. A drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in compliance with the above report prior to the commencement of works and the drainage must be completed in accordance with the Engineer’s design.

9. Any poles, service pits or other structures 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.

10. 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.

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

12. Prior to the occupation of the building, all screening devices designed to limit overlooking hereby approved must be fixed to a height of 1.7m and have no more than 25% openings or an alternative to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The screens must be designed and coloured to blend in with the development to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

13. All plant and equipment (including air-conditioning units) shall be located or screened so as not to be visible from 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.

VicRoads Conditions

14. Prior to the occupation of the permitted development the cross-over and driveway are to be constructed generally in accordance with the submitted plans Drawing Number A101 revision b dated December 2011 by Pad Architect.

End of VicRoads Conditions

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

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

NOTES:

This permit does not constitute any authority to carry out any building works or occupy the building or part of the building unless all relevant building permits are obtained. Page 40 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 MARCH 2013

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

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

“Significant tree” means a tree: a) with a trunk circumference of 180 centimetres or greater measured at its base; or b) with a trunk circumference of 140 centimetres or greater measured at 1.5 metres above its base; or c) listed on the Significant Tree Register.

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

Attachments - Locality Plans, Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations etc.

2. SUBMISSION TO THE STANDARD DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Acting Manager: Susan Price Executive Manager: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of the report is for Council to consider a response to the Standard Development Contributions Advisory Committee’s report (Setting the Framework) and endorse Council’s submission.

BACKGROUND

On 11 September 2012, the Minister for Planning appointed an Advisory Committee (the Committee) to review and report on the proposed new development contribution system for funding local infrastructure generated by new development.

On 27 September 2012, the Committee wrote to all Victorian Councils, State Agencies and stakeholder groups inviting written and oral submissions on the report prepared by the Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD), A New Victorian Local Development Contributions System – A Preferred Way Forward.

# At this time Council Officers prepared an initial submission and submitted it to the Committee, included at Attachment 1.

The Committee received 58 written submissions and met with over 100 people from 33 organisations throughout its Stage 1 Consultation program, Stonnington was not one of these organisations.

On 17 December 2012, the Committee submitted its Report 1 Setting the Framework to the Minister for Planning.

On 30 January 2013, Council was invited to provide a written submission in response to its findings in Report 1 Setting the Framework.

DISCUSSION

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS FRAMEWORK

The current preferred framework for development contributions as outlined by the Government in its report A Preferred Way Forward has the following characteristics:

 The standard Development Contributions are proposed to be based around five infrastructure categories including community facilities, open space facilities, transport infrastructure, drainage infrastructure and public land.

 The capacity to impose development levies on new development is dependent on the location of the development in relation to specific development settings.

 It is proposed that different levies be set for residential and non-residential development in these areas.

 The different development settings include, Urban Areas, Growth Areas, and Strategic Development Areas (large and small scale).

 The standard development levies are proposed to be a contribution towards basic and essential infrastructure.

 A Standard Levy for Urban Areas will fund infrastructure attributable to population growth only.

 The proposed model needs to be supported by a structure plan or equivalent strategic plan.

SUBMISSION TO THE COMMITTEE’S REPORT

Some of the key issues identified in the report (Setting the Framework) that are of particular relevance to Stonnington are:

 The definition of Urban Areas is very broad and fails to recognise the various levels of development occurring across metropolitan Melbourne. The proposed definition of these development settings means that all land within the City of Stonnington would be considered established areas and could not qualify as strategic redevelopment sites.

 The application of the Development Levy Scheme (DLS) to only large scale Strategic Redevelopment Areas lacks the flexibility needed to respond to the various levels of development occurring and infrastructure needs across metropolitan Melbourne. The needs in the Chapel Street Principal Activity Centre are not considered.

 The model discussed for setting the Standard Levy in an Urban Area poses difficulties in terms of availability, suitability and collection of data for specific areas to set the levy.

 The model also fails to account for the social value of infrastructure improvements.

The following are key recommendations in response to the Committee’s report:

 That the Committee consider adding an additional Development Setting under Urban Areas titled ‘Activity Centres’ that could be applied to Principal Activity Areas to address the greater needs of infrastructure in those areas.

 That all areas planned for or experiencing significant development, such as inner city Principal Activity Centres, should be able to have a DLS applied.

 That the DLS decision making process should include a Social Impact Assessment.

 That the Committee consider a streamlined process for the justification and introduction of the Standard Levies into the Planning Scheme.

 That service provision upgrades such as the undergrounding of powerlines and relocation of other utilities be specifically included on the list of allowable items for the Urban Areas Standard Levy under the Public Realm facility.

 That the Council for each municipality should be involved in the reviews of the Standard Levies undertaken to ensure the review takes into account local influences and needs.

# Council’s proposed submission in full has been included as Attachment 2. Submissions are due to the Committee by Tuesday 12 March 2013.

NEXT STEPS

Following the closing date for submissions the Committee will use the feedback received to further develop a model and recommend the Standard Levies as Stage 2 of its work. The Committee is expected to complete Report 2 Setting the Levies on 31 May 2013 and submit it to the Minister for Planning.

In Council's proposed submission it is stated that Council would appreciate any opportunity to provide comment at the next stage of the process. However, the Committee’s terms of reference concludes at the completion of Report 2 Setting the Levies. It is not known whether Council will be given the opportunity to comment at this or subsequent stages.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

If the proposed scheme is implemented, changes to the Stonnington Planning Scheme will be required. The Committee has set out ways in which the development contributions framework could be included in the Planning Scheme. A Planning Scheme Amendment would be required to implement the levies.

FINANCE AND RECOURSES IMPLICATIONS

The preparation of a Planning Scheme Amendment to implement the development levies would require significant strategic work to be undertaken by Council. This work would involve the identification of areas where the levies would apply and to develop strategic justification for their application.

The application of development levies will enable Council to collect funds for infrastructure specific upgrades needed in the areas the levies apply.

CONCLUSION

The Standard Development Contributions Advisory Committee has prepared Report 1 Setting the Framework, which it is now seeking comment on.

The attached submission outlines some key recommendations to allow developer levies to be better applied to allow for the provision of infrastructure for more specific local needs.

The developer levies framework, outlined in Report 1, is supported in principle; however some revisions are required to better serve and apply to the broad context to which it is proposed to apply.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION

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

RECOMMENDATION

That Council endorses the submission in response to the Standard Development Contributions Advisory Committee report (Setting the Framework) as outlined generally in Attachment 2 to this report and submits it to the Committee.

3. LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK IN THE PLANNING SCHEME – AMENDMENT C161

PURPOSE

The purpose of the report is for Council to consider the Panel report on proposed Amendment C161 to include a revised Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF), including the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS), in the Planning Scheme, and whether to adopt Amendment C161 (Am C161) with or without changes.

BACKGROUND

A Planning Scheme Review must be completed in the financial year after the adoption of a new Council Plan. In June 2010, Council adopted the Stonnington Planning Scheme Review 09-10 Final Review Report. The Planning Scheme Review Report recommended revision of the current local planning policy framework to:  Revise the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS), using the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) headings, as applicable, retaining the existing MSS policies (in general terms, with revisions to address gaps and inconsistencies).  Include the values and visions (endorsed by the community as part of the Planning Scheme Review) in a revised vision statement or objectives in the MSS.  Delete several existing Clause 22 Local Policies and incorporate the policy positions into the MSS.  Retain separate Clause 22 Local Policies for specific issues and areas.

Over the subsequent year, Council officers prepared a revised Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF), which involved:  A deconstruction of the existing policies in the LPPF (MSS and Local Policies) and a reconstruction of these policies into a new MSS.  Inclusion of other Council policy adopted as part of the Planning Scheme Review, or other policy not yet included in the Planning Scheme (such as from the Economic Development Strategy, Neighbourhood Character Study, Public Realm Strategy, Arts and Cultural Strategy, Access and Inclusion Plan, Sustainable Transport Policy and the Walking Policy).  Anticipation and incorporation of new state government policy, including the requirement for a ‘sustainability provision’ in all MSSs.

At its meeting on 2 April 2012, Council resolved to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to exhibit Am C161 to:  Replace the existing Clause 21 MSS with a new MSS.  Delete ten Clause 22 Local Policies and include their policy positions in the new MSS;  Revise Clause 22.08 Student Housing Policy (to align the preferred locations for student housing with the preferred locations for higher density development in the new MSS, and to revise the car parking requirement).

The Minister for Planning authorised the preparation of Am C161 on 19 April 2012. Am C161 was exhibited from 3 May 2012 to 4 June 2012.

A total of 11 submissions were received. At its meeting on 26 June 2012, Council considered a report on the submissions to Am C161 and resolved to refer the amendment and the submissions to an independent Panel.

A Directions Hearing was held on 8 August 2012, and a Panel Hearing was held on 25 and 26 October and 3 December 2012. Four submitters made presentations to the Panel; one being a local resident (from near Holmesglen) and the others being representatives of three developers with recent development applications (Chadstone shopping centre, 590 Orrong Road and 12-16 Carrum Street, Malvern East).

At the Directions Hearing, the Panel asked for further information on a range of issues and anticipated the need to refine the wording of the MSS. This further information was submitted on 15 September 2012, along with a revised version of the MSS which included some refinements. After the initial hearings, the Panel sought further information and further refinements. The final version was submitted to the Panel on 29 November 2012. The refinements are consistent with Council’s adopted position at the time of its consideration of submissions or are in accordance with any subsequent adopted policies.

The Panel Report (dated 18 January 2013) was posted to Council on 25 January 2013 and received by Council on 29 January 2013. A copy of the Panel Report has been forwarded separately. On 21 February 2013 the Panel report was placed on Council’s website and a hard copy made available for viewing at the Planning Counter at the Prahran Town Hall. The submitters have been notified of its availability to view.

In accordance with Ministerial Direction No 15, Council should decide whether or not to adopt an amendment within 40 working days of the receipt of the Panel Report (by 28 March 2013). Council can make this decision at its meeting on 4 March or the subsequent meeting on 18 March 2013, or seek an extension of time from the Minister.

DISCUSSION

The MSS is Council’s overarching planning policy statement for the whole municipality. The new MSS is much more detailed than the current MSS (prepared in 2006), as it contains additional policy transferred from existing policy in the Planning Scheme and new policy from other recently adopted Council policies and strategies. The preparation of the new MSS has been a complex and time-consuming exercise.

During the course of the amendment process, the wording and structure of the MSS has been refined, reduced and re-ordered to some extent. The need to do this was anticipated at the meeting when Council resolved to prepare the amendment, when it also resolved to allow Council officers to refine and reformat the wording consistent with Council policy. Changes and refinements have occurred at several points in the process:  Prior to exhibition (editing and refinements).  After consideration of submissions (in response to the submissions).  After the Directions hearing (in response to information sought by the Panel).  After the initial Panel hearings (in response to further information sought by the Panel).

The final version is included as the “Hearing Version of the MSS” in Appendix B in the Panel report. It includes track changes which show the changes since exhibition.

In its report the Panel states that the Hearing Version responded to a number of drafting queries which it considers has improved the clarity and readability of the MSS.

## Refer to Attachment 1 for a more detailed comparison of the existing LPPF, the exhibited Am C161 LPPF, changes made in the Hearing version of Am C161 (compared to the exhibited version) and a summary of the Panel’s recommendations for further changes and the Council officers’ response. Refer to Attachment 2 for a list of the Panel’s formal recommendations, the Panel’s reasons and the Council officers’ detailed response.

Key issues

The following summarises some key issues to assist Council’s consideration of the amendment and the Panel’s findings and recommendations.

The SPPF requires Councils to plan for the projected population for the next 15 years. At the time of exhibition the results of the 2011 census were not available and the latest projections were based on 2008/9 estimates. Since then the 2011 Census data has been released along with the Victoria in Future (VIF12) population projections. The Hearing version of the Overview includes the latest figures. In 2011 the City of Stonnington had an estimated resident population of 101,102 people and 47,022 private dwellings. VIF12 predicts an increase of about 13,411 people and 8213 dwellings in the 15 year period 2011 to 2026. Council has recently commissioned an update of its own population projections, which are expected to be consistent with the VIF12 projections and provide more detail for local areas and suburbs. A draft is expected to be completed by March 2013.

In accordance with the adopted position in the Planning Scheme Review, the new MSS defines the following locations for residential development:  Substantial Change Areas, being locations for medium and higher density development, generally being areas abutting the PPTN and in and beside activity centres where development over 11 metres in height is directed.  Incremental Change Areas, being the residential hinterland, where 2-3 storey development is directed; and  Minimal Change Areas, being residential land in a Heritage or Neighbourhood Character Overlay, where limited development may be appropriate.

# Attachment 3 is based on a plan prepared by Council as part of a project for the Inner South Metropolitan Mayors Forum (ISMMF). It shows areas for significant growth (equivalent to substantial change) and low/moderate growth (equivalent to incremental and minimal change)2.

# Attachment 4 shows the land in the Heritage Overlay and the Neighbourhood Character Overlay in the Planning Scheme. These represent the current manifestation of the Minimal Change Areas. However these may change and it is not proposed to include them on a plan in the MSS.

It is not proposed to include the plan in Attachment 5 in the MSS, contrary to a Panel recommendation to include a plan showing all three Change areas. As agreed by the Panel, the areas for substantial change can be readily interpreted from the Strategic Framework Plan in the MSS.

2 The Panel report includes a copy of an earlier plan (Figure 1 on p31 of its Report) which was tabled by Council at the initial hearing. Council subsequently provided the Panel with an updated version of the map (refer Attachment 3) which is clearer than the map in Figure 1. Unfortunately the Panel did not include the updated map in its Report.

# Attachment 5 shows the final Hearing Version of the Strategic Framework Plan. Text in the MSS (21.03-3) defines the preferred locations for higher density development as land shown on the Strategic Framework Plan:  In and beside activity centres and in mixed use areas, and  Abutting the Principal Public Transport Network (PPTN) – ie tram an priority bus routes and railway stations.

The Panel found that in the absence of current local housing policy and capacity analysis, it questions the basis for the MSS Housing theme provisions.

The Panel notes Council’s position that a city-wide capacity assessment is not warranted at this stage, as sites with current permits / applications and in Structure Plan areas alone have capacity to meet the VIF12 dwelling projections and beyond.

The Panel notes that Clause 16 of the SPPF refers to land ‘on or abutting’ the PPTN and ‘in or beside’ neighbourhood centres but that other parts of the SPPF used terminology such as ‘around’ and ‘within easy walking distance’ of public transport and an activity centre. The Panel acknowledges that an interpretation of the latter criteria would result in most of the municipality being a candidate area for higher density development (refer Figure 3, p33 of the Panel report).

The Panel notes that Council proposes to undertake further work in relation to higher density guidelines, housing capacity and population projections and that this is likely to result in a review of the change areas.

Pending the completion and review of further strategic planning work, the Panel considers the Hearing version housing theme provisions relating to designation of areas are acceptable as they largely maintain the status quo, with some extension of Substantial Change Areas in the eastern part of the municipality (along the tram routes, generally east of Tooronga Road).

The Panel recommends that the Change areas should be revisited when further strategic work identified in the MSS is completed (and the provisions of the new residential zone are finalised).

During the Panel process the Panel noted that the Neighbourhood Character Study (2006) was only draft and, although adopted by Council, had not been through a comprehensive consultation process prior to its referencing in Am C161. In addition, a strategy which required regard to be had to a reference document was not acceptable as outlined in the Practice Notes and that the relevant policy in the reference document should be included in the Planning Scheme. Council officers agreed to remove the one line strategy to this effect from the Hearing version of the MSS, because at that stage (November 2012) Council was well advanced with a review of the Neighbourhood Character Study and the preparation of a separate amendment (Am C175) to include detailed neighbourhood character policy in the Scheme. It should be noted that the new C161 MSS contains a comprehensive set of strategies in relation to built form character. The impact of the removal of reference to the study is considered minor.

Future work anticipated and already underway includes the preparation of Higher Density Guidelines, a Neighbourhood Character Policy and Structure Plans for additional centres. This work will assist in further refining the preferred locations, scale and form of higher density development across the City. When Council applies the new residential zones it may be able to apply mandatory heights to selected parts of the City.

A key achievement in the new MSS was the inclusion of provisions requiring a Social Impact Assessment for major new developments. The Panel has accepted that the proposed Social Impact Assessment (SIA) provisions highlight the need for this type of assessment for large proposals and specific uses with potential for adverse social impacts, including gaming and licensed premises. However, it notes that the operation of ‘rapid assessments’ foreshadowed by Council will require commitments to resourcing. SIA recommendations may be beyond the influence of proponents and the analysis may raise issues as to who should be responsible for the actions, infrastructure and services identified. These matters should be monitored and addressed in the next review of the MSS. The Panel makes no formal recommendations on this issue.

Panel’s recommendations

# The Panel endorses the Hearing version of Am C161 (refer Appendix B of the Panel report) but makes recommendations for further changes. These further recommendations are detailed in Attachment 2, along with the officer response and officer recommendations.

In summary the Panel's recommendations for changes to the final Hearing version of Am C161 can be categorised as follows:  Moderate changes - Deletion of policy positions that are the subject of current separate amendments to the Planning Scheme (in relation to environmentally sustainable development and water sensitive urban design).  Minor changes – Revisions to policy positions for such as large sites, development contributions, open space contributions and the student housing parking rate.  Minor edits and wording refinements, which will not materially affect a policy position.  Future work which is not part of Am. C161 - to review the designation of areas for substantial, incremental and minimal change and where to include policies for activity centres in the Planning Scheme.

It is considered that the following Panel’s recommendations should be accepted:  Deletion of policy positions that are the subject of current separate amendments to the Planning Scheme in relation to environmentally sustainable design (ESD) and water sensitive urban design (WSUD). However, Council officers recommend that ESD and WSUD maintain a minor presence in the new MSS (based on two ESD strategies that are in the existing MSS) and that these are combined in a new sub-theme (Energy, water and waste efficiency) with the existing waste management sub-theme.  Reinstatement of the reduced student parking rate (in accordance with consistent VCAT decisions).  Deletion of minor policy positions (which are generally covered by other provisions) and minor wording edits and changes.  Future work strategies.  Further work (not requiring change to Am C161).

It is considered that the Panel’s remaining recommendations should not be accepted or should be varied, as they apply to:  A housing change framework plan.  Large sites (mapping)  Large sites (neighbourhood character)  Residential waste management guidelines  Development contributions.  Open space contributions.  Referring to external approved documents / reference documents (in part).

In relation to the housing framework plan and large sites, the Panel supports the policy in the proposed MSS on these issues but recommends inclusion of these features on maps, to provide more transparency. Council officers are of the view that the mapping is not necessary and may result in some confusion in relation to these issues.

The Panel gives no reasons for its recommendations to delete a strategy in relation to neighbourhood character and large sites and to delete a policy guideline in relation to the Residential waste management guidelines. In fact the Panel supports the change in the final Hearing version – to ‘respect’ (rather than ‘be consistent with’) existing character – in relation to large sites. Accordingly these recommendations are not accepted.

In relation to the contributions issues, the Panel appears to take the view that Council is seeking to impose contribution requirements on developers that exceed permissible allowances. This is not the case. Council officers have proposed alternative recommendations – to clarify (rather than delete) the wording, so that it is more in line with what the Panel appears to be seeking and still achieves Council’s objectives.

It is considered that the Panel’s recommendation - to qualify the status of external documents at every mention in the MSS - is not necessary. Council officers support the Panel’s recommendation to reinstate the qualifier in the preamble to the List of Reference Documents.

Next steps

In accordance with Minister’s Direction, Council should decide whether or not to adopt an amendment within 40 working days of the receipt of the Panel report (ie. by 28 March 2013.) unless an extension of time is sought by Council. The Council meetings prior to that date are 4 March and 18 March 2013.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The new draft MSS and Local Policies are consistent with existing policy in the Planning Scheme, other adopted policy in the Council Plan and other adopted Council strategies and policies. The local planning policy framework will be strengthened by the inclusion of additional adopted policy not currently included.

The new MSS will be more detailed and comprehensive. The format will be in accordance with current best practice. It will drill down from the state policy section. All the key strategic direction and policy will be in the one place. It will include all current Council policy and provide a sound basis for the consideration of planning applications and the prioritisation of future strategic planning work.

The preparation of the revised policy framework has been informed by intensive internal consultation with all the relevant Council policy units, in particular economic development, statutory planning, environment and public spaces, traffic and parking, infrastructure services, social planning and community and corporate development. The exhibition and Panel process have added value and streamlined and refined the new MSS.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

The approval of the amendment will incur the standard advertising costs of a notice in the local newspaper in the order of $1000 - $2000 and statutory approval costs of $798, covered by the 2012-13 Budget for the Strategic Planning Unit.

The new MSS is likely to provide more support for Council’s position on planning applications at VCAT and savings on legal advocacy costs.

LEGAL ADVICE AND IMPLICATIONS

Council was represented by a legal advocate at the Panel hearing. It is considered that there is no need for further legal advice.

CONCLUSION

Am C161 to introduce and new Local Planning Policy Framework (including new Municipal Strategic Statement) has been exhibited and considered by a Panel. The Panel Report was received on 29 January 2013 and was released to the public on 21 February 2013. Council now needs to consider the Panel’s findings and recommendations and decide whether to adopt the amendment with or without changes. It will need to do this by its meeting on 4 March 2013 or seek and extension of time from the Minister for Planning.

The Panel Report supports the amendment in most part. During the Panel process the MSS has been refined, reformatted and reduced. It is considered that the changes contained in the final Hearing version (refer Appendix B of the Panel Report) are consistent with Council policy at the time of its consideration of submissions in June 2012 or in accordance with subsequent adopted policy. The Panel found that the final Hearing version is a more succinct, clear and readable document.

# The Panel recommends that Am C161 be adopted with changes in accordance with the final Hearing version but with further changes to address several specific recommendations. The Panel’s recommendations are itemised in Attachment 2 along with the Council officer response and recommendations for changes to Am C161. Council officers have accepted some recommendations and have not accepted others (as detailed in Attachment 2).

## It is recommended that Council adopt Amendment C161 with changes in accordance with the Hearing version (Appendix B in the Panel Report), with further changes as specified in the Council officer recommendation in Attachment 2, and as contained in the amendment documents for adoption in Attachment 6.

This recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. Human rights issues were addressed as part of the preparation and exhibition of the various adopted policies and strategies that have informed the preparation of the new Local Planning Policy Framework.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That Council:

1. Notes the release of the report of the Planning Panel to the public on Amendment C161 – Revised Local Planning Policy Framework (including new Municipal Strategic Statement).

2. On considering the Independent Panel Report, adopts Amendment C161 – Revised Local Planning Policy Framework (including new Municipal Strategic Statement) to the Stonnington Planning Scheme with changes (pursuant to Section 29(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987) as attached.

3. Submits the adopted Amendment C161 – Revised Local Planning Policy Framework (including new Municipal Strategic Statement) to the Minister for Planning for approval, in accordance with Section 31(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

4. Advises all submitters of Council’s decision in relation to proposed Amendment C161 – Revised Local Planning Policy Framework (including new Municipal Strategic Statement.

4. AMENDMENT C177 – ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABLE DESIGN

Manager: Susan Price (Acting), Alexandra Kastaniotis & Geoff Ovens Executive Manager: Karen Watson General Manager: Simon Thomas, Stuart Draffin

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to consider requesting authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare Amendment C177 to introduce a new Environmental Sustainable Design local policy in the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

BACKGROUND

Context Stonnington’s existing Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) contains the following strategies that relate to environmental sustainable design (ESD):  To promote the concept of sustainability and develop benchmarks to measure progress (Clause 21.02-01)  To encourage high quality and energy efficient design that contributes positively to the character of the City as a whole and enhances its landscapes, public spaces, building, shopping centre, main thoroughfares, streetscapes and gateway localities (Clause 21.02-2).

The proposed MSS (Amendment C161) included more specific strategies and policy guidelines in line with Council’s current practice. Council received the Panel report on C161 on 29 January 2013. The report states that:

The Panel commends the SDAPP and Council initiatives to provide greater planning certainty in relation to ESD to ensure that ESD is considered during the early project phase, when the greatest benefits may be achieved at the lowest cost. As recognised in various VCAT decisions, the building approval process is not well placed to address important elements of ESD such as siting…

The Panel has not supported the inclusion of the proposed new ESD [as part of C161]…we recognise that additional local policy guidance in relation to these issues may be appropriate. However, we consider it would be better to test the ESD provisions through a separate Amendment. If the proposed Stonnington ESD provisions are the same (or very similar to) the provisions proposed by Yarra, Moreland, Whitehorse and Banyule, it would be better to exhibit at the same time to promote consistency.

Stonnington needs to pursue a local policy in order to establish a planning permit application requirement for residential and non residential development to address ESD. A local policy builds on Council’s current ESD practice and would strengthen the implementation of the existing strategies in the MSS.

Council’s current practice The City of Stonnington became a Local Government ESD advocate in 2007 through its membership of the Municipal Association of Victoria’s (MAV) Local Government ESD Advocacy Group and continued to advocate for the inclusion of ESD requirements in planning through participation in the Council Alliance for a Sustainable Built Environment (CASBE).

However in the absence of a planning policy requiring ESD measures for development applications, the City of Stonnington is one of a collection of Councils who have adopted Sustainable Design in the Planning Process (SDAPP).

SDAPP is the request of ESD measures as part of a development’s proposal and aims to fill the current gap in the Planning Scheme through voluntary submissions of sustainable design assessments and management plans at the planning permit application stage.

The City of Stonnington’s adoption of SDAPP was first facilitated through the Moreland Energy Foundation as a six month trial in March 2011 and funded through a grant from the Sustainability Accord Fund.

After the successful implementation of the trial Council continued to implement SDAPP and provided the funding within existing budgets to employ a part time ESD Officer. In the absence of an ESD Officer Council would not have the resources or the expertise to continue to implement SDAPP.

The SDAPP program is facilitated through Statutory Planning and all applicants are encouraged to consider sustainable design within their developments. It is requested that medium and large development applications complete sustainable design assessments and management plans respectively.

A local planning policy would set a requirement to ensure sustainable design is incorporated early in the design process. The City of Stonnington is one of thirteen Metropolitan Councils who have sought the inclusion of key environmental performance considerations into the planning permit approvals process to achieve sustainable development outcomes.

Generic local planning policy used by other Councils The Cities of Moreland, Yarra, Banyule, Whitehorse and Port Phillip have recently received conditional authorisation from the Minister for Planning to exhibit planning scheme amendments to include an ESD local policy into their respective planning schemes.

The conditions of authorisation included (in summary):  That the amendments are exhibited for at least 2 months.  That notice be given to specific peak bodies (including Housing and Building Industry groups)  That exhibition of the amendments occurs simultaneously across the Councils.  That the policy should be exhibited in the form submitted (a generic local policy).

The five Councils will commence simultaneous exhibition of the amendments on 28 February 2013 and exhibition will close on 28 April 2013. DPCD is in the process of establishing an Advisory Committee to consider the amendments. If submissions are received then it will be a joint Advisory Committee and Panel Hearing.

The local policy used by the five Councils is generic and is based on a policy prepared by Moreland, but modified by the Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) to place an emphasis on ‘efficiency’ rather than ‘sustainability’. The emphasis of the policy relates to physical efficiency of a building rather than a sustainable approach that considers life cycle assessment of building materials and ongoing building management. The local policy is titled ‘Environmentally Efficient Design’.

There is little scope to make changes to the generic local policy to tailor it to suit local needs and it is considered unlikely that the Minister would support any other substantial variations to this policy format at this stage.

DISCUSSION

Ideally, ESD would be addressed in the State Planning Policy Framework however long term advocacy by local government on this issue has not been successful to date, with the debate relating to whether ESD requirements fit best in the planning system or in the building system.

Currently the Building Code of Australia (BCA) is limited to setting minimum standards for energy efficiency of new buildings, as opposed to responding to current best practice for environmental sustainable design.

Considering ESD at the building permit stage is too late in the process, as important design decisions are best made at the planning stage. There may also be difficulties or extra costs associated with retro-fitting a development to implement ESD objectives.

A local planning policy would set a requirement that development applications address ESD during the planning permit stage where there is greater flexibility to make changes to the building design.

The introduction of a new local policy for ESD would provide Council’s Statutory Planners, land owners and developers with clear guidance in relation to Council’s expectations that development should achieve appropriate ESD standards. The local policy would provide a consistent and transparent framework for the consideration of development applications and would formalise a process that already takes place.

The Panel on the MSS (C161) supports the concept of including an ESD policy in the Planning Scheme and recommends Council adopts an approach consistent with the other Councils. A report on Amendment C161 is being considered at the same meeting.

Proposed local planning policy The amendment will introduce a new local policy into the Planning Scheme (Clause 22.22) which will establish the minimum standard of information required for different types of development to demonstrate how best practice in ESD can be achieved.

The amendment will use the generic local policy endorsed by DPCD.

The main objective of the local policy is for development to achieve best practice in addressing the principles of ESD from the design stage through to construction and operation. Other objectives relate to key elements of sustainability including energy efficiency, water resources, indoor environment quality, stormwater management, transport, waste management, innovation and urban ecology.

The local policy requires planning permit applications to demonstrate how best practice will be achieved. Depending on the scale of the proposed development, either a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) or a Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) and a Green Travel Plan (GTP) is required.

The local policy will apply to the development of:  New dwellings (including multiunit development)  New non-residential buildings with a gross floor area between 100m2 and 1000m2  Alterations and additions of non-residential buildings of between 100m2 and 1000m2.  New non-residential building with a gross floor area of more than 1000m²; or  Alterations and additions of non-residential buildings greater than 1000m2.

# Decision guidelines in the local policy will assist planners in their decision making. Refer to Attachment 1 for a copy of the proposed local policy.

A minor change to Clause 22 is required to reference the ESD local policy.

Proposed changes to existing MSS Amendment C177 proposes to delete the existing broad strategies in the existing MSS that relate to ESD and introduce more specific strategies (following the model used by the City of Moreland). These specific strategies are also in line with those proposed in the new MSS (Amendment C161) which were recommended for deletion by the Panel so that they could be pursued as a separate amendment for a local policy. It is also suggested to include a strategy to encourage ‘white’ and ‘green’ roofs (from Amendment C161). This strategy was an outcome of the Planning Scheme Review 2010.

Amendment C177 will also include an additional implementation action in the MSS to provide a link between strategy in the MSS and the proposed local policy.

# Refer to Attachment 2 for a copy of the proposed changes to the MSS.

Consultation The Planning and Environment Act 1987 sets out exhibition requirements for amendments. The amendment will affect all properties in Stonnington. Under section 19(1)(A) of the Act, Council is not required to give notice of the amendment if it considers the number of owners and occupiers affected makes it impractical to notify them all individually. Under section 19(1)(B), Council must instead take reasonable steps to ensure that public notice of the amendment is given in the area affected by the amendment and that submissions can be received.

The five other Councils were required to notify key stakeholder groups being:  Municipal Association of Victoria  Housing Institute Australia  Plumbing Industry Commission  Building Commission of Victoria  Building Design Association of Victoria  Property Council of Victoria  Sustainability Victoria  Department of Transport  Department of Sustainability and Environment  Melbourne Water  Native Title Services (as amendment may affect Crown land).

They were also required to exhibit for no less than two months. It is recommended that Council also notify these same groups but only for the statutory one month period given that the above stakeholder groups are State bodies and are being notified about the five other amendments (with exhibition commencing on 28 February 2013). This will be sought as part of the letter to DPCD requesting authorisation.

It is understood that the five other Councils are arranging an information session with the key stakeholders in March. Stonnington council officers will attend this session.

The following notification process is proposed to ensure that the community is well aware of the amendment:  Public notice in the Stonnington Leader and Government Gazette.  Direct notification to prescribed authorities, government agencies, adjoining municipalities.  Direct notification to the stakeholder groups as required by DPCD in the case of the amendments for the five Councils.  Details on Council’s website.  A hardcopy folder containing the amendment information available at Prahran Town Hall Planning Counter.  Question and Answer sheet available at the Prahran Town Hall Planning Counter.  Strategic Planners available to respond to telephone/email enquiries.

Next steps Once Council receives authorisation to prepare the amendment, the next step is exhibition. The five other Councils are exhibiting their ESD amendments simultaneously at the end of February. It is understood that they are seeking an exemption from the need to pre-set a panel date given the complexity of arranging a a joint Advisory Committee/ Panel that involves a number of Councils.

Exhibition of Stonnington’s ESD amendment will take place as soon as authorisation is received and is anticipated for April/May 2013. Following exhibition, Council will then consider any submissions received. The aim will be for Stonnington’s ESD amendment to ‘catch up’ to the five other amendments after exhibition so that it can be included in the joint Advisory Committee/ Panel process. Council officers at the five other Councils are aware of Stonnington’s desire to join them in pursuing the ESD amendment as is DPCD. The 5 other Councils are undertaking a joint exhibition process however given timing, Stonnington’s amendment will be exhibited separately. This has been discussed with DPCD.

Community Benefit The proposed amendment will strengthen community recognition of environmental sustainable design values. It will provide a clear and consistent framework for the consideration of new development proposals against their impact on the environment.

ESD improves the liveability of buildings by providing improved internal environmental quality for occupants and a reduction in the running costs associated with power and water.

Incorporating sustainable design principles into developments will ensure that we have and will continue to have, the water, materials, and resources to protect our environment and human health for the long term but still meet the needs of our present generation.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The proposed amendment is consistent with the environmental elements of the Council Plan including the following objective and strategies:  Stonnington will be a responsible environment manager through innovation, leadership, quality delivery and accountability (key strategic strategy).  Strengthen the community’s focus on the environmental agenda by building upon innovative and leading practices through education and communication for all ages (strategy).  Support Council and the community to move towards sustainable energy options by leadership and the adoption of environmental design practices (strategy).

It is also consistent with strategies contained in the existing MSS as discussed earlier in this report (Clause 21.02-01 and Clause 21.02-2).

In addition, Council’s Sustainable Environment Plan 2005 recognises the importance of a sustainable approach to development and the proposed amendment would support the Sustainable Environment Plan’s aims to ensure that all new housing within Stonnington reaches a suitable energy efficiency rating.

In early 2011 Council recruited a part time/ 2 day per week ESD Officer to enable implementation of the SDAPP Program. Employing an ESD expert enabled Council to undertake;  2- 4 reviews of ESD assessments from large development applications / week  Development of ESD training modules for Statutory planners  Development of website information to guide applicants  Attendance at CASBE and IMAP network meetings  Development of the City of Stonnington’s Sustainability Statement

Currently, the ESD referrals received by Stonnington’s ESD Officer for review are voluntary applications. A local policy would set a requirement for all new development applications to submit an ESD assessment and increase the number of submissions to be reviewed by Statutory Planning significantly. It is anticipated that to successfully implement the amendment, the current part time ESD officer position will need to be extended to full time. The City of Port Phillip and Moreland City Council developed and adopted the voluntary SDAPP process and after conducting the program for several years have had an increased rate of participation to approximately 60%. Both Councils strongly recommend a full time ESD Officer is required for participation rates any higher than 50%.

A full time ESD Officer would enable Council to invest more time developing and implementing ESD training for Statutory Planners to enable them to assist with the SDAPP Program and approvals of ESD assessment applications. Additionally a full time Officer would provide the expertise to assist in the development of an internal policy that requires all new and upgraded council buildings to incorporate ESD and meet a 6 star rating.

Provision has been made in the preparation of the 2013/2014 budget for the existing part time ESD officer position (2 days per week) to be extended to fulltime. The costs associated with the amendment process including exhibition and the joint Advisory Committee/Panel Hearing (costs will be split between the Councils) will be covered within the planning scheme amendment budget. Page 59 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 MARCH 2013

March/April September November May 2013 October 2013 2013 2013 2013 Joint Authorisation Joint Advisory Panel Exhibition Directions Exhibition Committee/Panel Report Hearing

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

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

CONCLUSION

Recently, five Councils have received authorisation to prepare amendments to introduce an ESD local policy in their Planning Schemes. The local policy is a generic policy that has been modified by DPCD. The five Councils are required to exhibit their amendments simultaneously. DPCD is in the process of establishing an Advisory Committee to consider the amendments. If a Panel is required, this will be a joint Panel.

City of Stonnington is committed to pursuing ESD and this is highlighted in the Council Plan. Council included ESD policies and strategies in the proposed MSS (C161). Whilst the Panel did not support the inclusion of these provisions in the MSS, the Panel did support the concept of an ESD policy and recommended that Council adopt an approach consistent with the other Councils.

Amendment C177 proposes to introduce a local policy in the Planning Scheme that is based on the generic local policy that the five other Councils are using. It also proposes changes to the existing MSS to introduce specific ESD strategies and reference the local policy as an implementation tool. It is recommended that Council requests authorisation to prepare the amendment. If Council receives authorisation in a timely manner, then it could potentially ‘catch up’ to the five other amendments and form part of the joint Advisory Committee/Panel.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council

1. 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 C177 to make changes to Clauses 21.02-01 and 21.02-2 of the Municipal Strategic Statement and to include a new local planning policy (Clause 22.22) in the Stonnington Planning Scheme generally in accordance with the attached documents. 2. Authorises Council officers to finalise the amendment documents. 3. Once authorisation has been received, exhibit Amendment C177 in accordance with Sections 17-19 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

5. CHAPEL STREET MASTER PLAN – UPDATE ON PROGRESS OF THE CHAPEL STREET MASTER PLAN

Manager: Rick Kwasek General Manager: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to update Council on the Chapel Street Master Plan Project process and progress.

BACKGROUND

Council provided funding in the 2012/13 budget for the preparation of a Masterplan for Chapel Street.

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. (See # Attachment 1 - Preliminary Draft Master Plan Report, February 2013 p.5)

Chapel Street has an intrinsic character and is outlined in the unique nature of the four precincts. It is considered important that this character is maintained and enhanced without compromising urban qualities and commercial opportunities which have historically defined this vibrant, distinctive area of Melbourne.

The Preliminary Draft 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 will result in a report outlining key directions, explanatory text and typology and will act as a guide for proposed improvements and opportunities along Chapel Street and adjacent and intersecting streets. Plans will be developed indicating proposed outcomes and detailing urban infrastructure scenarios. An implementation strategy will be incorporated into the final outcome and will include a design guide to ensure improvements are consistent controlled and prioritised for short and long term improvements.

The following consultants have been commissioned to assist with the development of the Chapel Street Master Plan:

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

DISCUSSION

Community and internal engagement

An integral part of the Chapel street Master Plan will involve four key phases as follows;

Phase 1: Gather information/community input Page 62 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 MARCH 2013

 Inception meetings with traders (completed)  “Ideas Think Tank” (completed)  Develop review panel (February 2013)  Public Forum (March 2013)  Meeting with a Review Panel (Early May 2013)

Phase 2: Internal testing and interpretation of feedback

 Project Working Group – meets fortnightly (Established)  Establish Project Control Group (February)  Councillor Briefing - At Key Milestones (End February)

Phase 3: Complete Draft Masterplan (March- May 2013)

 Public Forum (March 2013)  Complete Draft Masterplan (April/May 2013)  Councillor Briefing – (Approval to commence public exhibition) (May 2013)

Phase 4: Public Exhibition Process (May - August)

 Public Exhibition (May/June 2013)  Councillor  Review Submissions (June/July 2013)  Councillor Briefing (July 2013)  Review panel (July/August 2013)  Refine Master Plan (July/August 2013)  Council to consider Master Plan (Mid August 2013)

Master Planning Process

The process to date has involved the gathering of information and reviewing existing research to inform the preparation of initial images. An ‘Ideas Think Tank’ workshop was held on 30 November 2012, involving over 30 participants representing a diverse range of stakeholders including traders, developers, architects please describe. This provided a means of generating discussions around concepts of best practice.

A Preliminary Draft Masterplan has been prepared having regard to the above research, feedback received as the Chapel reVision Structure Planning process, and feedback from the “Ideas Think Tank” workshop. The Preliminary Draft Masterplan is to be used in community engagement process. # (See Attachment 1 - Preliminary Draft Master Plan Report, February 2013)

The next stage is open community workshops to be held in Chapel St during March. At these workshops images from the Masterplan will be on display and visitors, traders, community members etc will have the opportunity to view the Masterplan elements and to provide comment. The information gathered in the open public forum will be collated and reviewed and will be used to develop the Draft Master Plan which will be used for the final phase of the process which includes the formal public exhibition process. A document including explanatory text will be compiled as a presentation report suitable for public exhibition and will include the provision of an implementation strategy, which will identify potential projects, high level costing and priority and possible delivery timeframes. Page 63 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 MARCH 2013

Timelines

The project is currently running according to key milestones set out in the project plan. Council will continue to be updated and consulted on the Chapel Street Master Plan in coming months. Exhibition of the Chapel Street Master Plan is scheduled for mid 2013. It is anticipated that a report will be brought to Council seeking endorsement of the Master Plan in August 2013.

Chapel Street Master Plan: Indicative timelines

November February/March March April/May May/June August 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 2013 Preliminary Draft Inspiration Public Public Council Draft Master Master Meeting Forum Exhibition Consideration Plan Report Plan

This project is currently being funded from the 2012/13 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 is well progressed, is consistent with the Chapel reVision Structure Plan and will help to guide future infrastructure development along Chapel Street.

The final Master Plan will outline key directions (including explanatory text) for infrastructure improvements along Chapel Street and adjacent and intersecting streets. The Master Plan will incorporate proposed typologies and key themes and details regarding urban infrastructure scenarios. Design guidelines and an implementation strategy will be incorporated, into the final document to ensure improvements are consistent, controlled and prioritised for short and long term improvements.

RECOMMENDATION

1. The report on the status of the Chapel Street Master Plan be noted

2. The Preliminary Draft Chapel Street Master Plan be made available for community workshops in Chapel Street proposed as part of the engagement process

3. Following the Community Workshops the Draft Masterplan, be presented for Council consideration ahead of the formal public exhibition phase.

6. DRAFT ART IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN POLICY

Manager: Jan Jacklin Executive Manager: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of the report is to for Council to adopt the draft Art in the Public Domain Policy.

BACKGROUND

In 2009 Council adopted the Art Acquisitions Policy in order to develop a Contemporary Art Collection for the City of Stonnington. This Policy and the appointment of the Art Acquisition Panel (consisting of two contemporary art experts and one artist) has successfully guided the acquisition of 2D and 3D works of contemporary art for the Stonnington Art Collection.

The role of public art in place making is referenced in the Arts and Cultural Strategy 2011– 2015, the Public Realm Strategy (2010) and the Economic Development Strategy 2012– 2016. The development of a dedicated Policy to guide art in the public domain is one of the actions outlined in the implementation plan for the Arts and Cultural Strategy 2011-2015.

DISCUSSION

The draft Art in the Public Domain Policy has been developed by an expert consultant. The consultant conducted workshops with the Art Acquisitions Panel and several Council Units including Strategic Planning, Urban Design, Infrastructure, Maintenance, Transport and Parking, and Local Laws, as well as Cultural Development and Events to obtain a broad vision as well as guidelines and strategies for the Policy.

# A copy of the draft Policy is attached.

The Policy’s vision is for the City of Stonnington to be known for inspiring artworks that shape creative and dynamic public spaces, and that are a source of pride for the community.

Four goals underpin the draft Policy: 1. Council and community ownership, engagement and pride in artworks 2. Best practice program delivery 3. Program development and capacity 4. Strategic partnerships for artists and program development.

The draft Policy addresses:  Selection criteria for commissions, acquisitions and donations  The appointment of a selection panel  Management and maintenance of artworks  Guidelines for precinct art and design.

Recommendations on commissions and acquisitions would be made by the Public Art and Acquisitions Panel, utilising a strong selection criteria. Recommendations would be taken to Council for approval.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The Draft Art in the Public Domain Policy addresses the key pillar of Liveability in the Council Plan 2009-2013. It seeks to ‘encourage awareness of the public realm as both a desirable destination and a gathering space for community participation and enjoyment.’

The Policy aligns with the vision of the Arts and Cultural Strategy 2011-15, in particular Creative Spaces, in which Council aims to ‘enliven public spaces with arts and cultural activities’ and Leadership and Advocacy, as Council seeks ‘to celebrate, advocate and champion arts and culture in the community’.

This Policy fits within Stonnington’s Pubic Realm Strategy, as it provides guidance for creative and community use of existing public spaces and those in development. It will also ensure the commission of works that are ‘integrated with the values and design of [the] public spaces’ in which they will be situated.

The current Capital budget provides $80,000 for the acquisition of contemporary art for the Stonnington Art Collection; this includes art in the public domain. Funding for future public art commissions may be sourced from this budget or from individual capital programs. $80,000 per annum has been included in the Strategic Resource Plan for future years.

CONCLUSION

The Draft Art in the Public Domain Policy provides robust guidelines for the commissioning of fitting works of art for the public realm in Stonnington. It has been thoroughly researched and consultation and feedback from a number of business units within Council has been incorporated into the Policy.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopts the Draft Art in the Public Domain Policy.

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

Author: Mark Phillips General Manager: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

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

BACKGROUND

The Street

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

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

Street Trees

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

Street Reconstruction

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

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

The Petition

During preliminary discussions with the Infrastructure Unit a number of residents of Gladstone Avenue expressed concern about the existing street trees. Initial advice to the residents was that Council would not support removal and replacement of the trees as part of the reconstruction project. Page 68 GENERAL BUSINESS 4 MARCH 2013

Council has now received a petition, dated 18 November 2012, from residents and ratepayers expressing concerns about the Lilly Pilly trees. The petition has been signed by residents from 27 properties (from 27 single dwellings). The resident’s main concerns are: 1. The fruit and flower drop; 2. The fruit bats and possums feeding on the fruit and the associated excrement and noise; 3. The trees root systems causing damage to Council infrastructure and private property.

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

DISCUSSION

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

Current Situation

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

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

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

Petition Request

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

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

Options

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

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

The trees are considered to be in good health and as such officers would not recommend removal as there are many other streets considered to be in greater need of streetscape improvements. If this street was to be prioritised for street tree replacement at the request of the residents the costs should be borne by the residents accordingly.

CONCLUSION

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

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

It is therefore proposed that a survey be conducted of the residents of Gladstone Avenue to ascertain the level of support for the removal of the existing Syzygium australe (Scrub Cherry) and Waterhousea floribunda (Weeping Lilly Pilly), and that residents be advised of Council’s intention to recover 100% of the associated replacement costs.

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

RECOMMENDATION

1. The residents of Gladstone Avenue, Armadale be surveyed to determine their level of support for the removal of the existing Lilly Pilly trees and replacement with an alternative species, on the basis that the whole of the replacement costs be borne by the residents.

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

8. GUTTER CLEANING AND GARDEN CLEARING PROJECTS

(Manager: Penny Pavlou) (General Manager: Connie Gibbons)

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the progress of the Council’s Aged Services gutter cleaning and garden clearing projects and to request ongoing funding to continue these services.

BACKGROUND

Council allocated $180,000 in the 2012/13 Capital Works budget for the cleaning of gutters and clearing gardens for Aged Services clients. This program supports older people and people with disabilities in the Stonnington community who are unable to attend to these tasks themselves. Council funded the program for one financial year.

In order to access the services, residents must be aged 65 years or over, be frail aged or disabled and receive an assessment from Council’s Aged Services Unit to determine eligibility. Eligible residents may receive one two-hour gutter cleaning service per year and one three-hour garden clearing service per year. The gardening service includes pruning, mulching and installing raised garden beds.

Clients are charged the normal Home and Community Care (HACC) rate for home maintenance services based on ability to pay of $8.90 (low), $15.85 (medium), $38.40 (high) or $79.20 (full cost recovery).

DISCUSSION

Both services commenced in the latter part of 2012. Client feedback has been very positive for both services; however the gardening service has proved to be the more popular. There are currently waiting lists to access both services.

Since August 2012, 107 residents have had their gutters cleaned, while 20 are on a waiting list. Ninety clients have had their gardens cleared, and 100 residents are on a waiting list.

The past months have seen the popularity of both these programs for older and disabled Stonnington residents rise as the community becomes more aware of the service. Requests come in daily and residents are informed about the waiting lists. It is unlikely that all residents on the waiting lists will have received their service by the end of the financial year, thus making some residents miss out if Council does not continue to fund the program.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The service is funded until the end of the 2012/13 financial year. Officers have included further funding of $100,000 for garden clearing and $60,000 for gutter cleaning in the 13/14 draft budget for Councillors’ consideration. However, due to the success of the two services, and the extensive waiting lists, Officers recommend that the program is funded on a recurrent basis. Once expectations have been raised by providing the service for two years, it will be difficult to withdraw.

Administrative resources are required to support the programs – including customer enquiries and requests, scheduling, rostering, billing and contract management. An administrative resource (0.4 EFT, Band 4, approximately $19,600) has been included in the funding bid to support the programs.

The recommendations of this report comply with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

CONCLUSION

Council’s Aged Services Unit provides Gutter Cleaning and Garden Clearing services for eligible residents who are aged 65 years or over, frail aged or disabled. Council allocated $180,000 in the 2012/13 budget for gutter cleaning and clearing gardens for Aged Services clients. Feedback from both these programs has been very positive and there are currently extensive waiting lists for both services.

Officers have included further funding of $100,000 for garden clearing and $60,000 for gutter cleaning for Council’s consideration in the draft 2013/14 budget for one year only. Due to the success of the two services, and the extensive waiting lists, Councillors may wish to allocate these funds on a recurrent basis.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Council notes the report on the progress of the Aged Services gutter cleaning and garden clearing services.

2. Council allocates $100,000 for garden clearing and $60,000 for gutter cleaning services in the 2013/14 budget and ongoing on a recurrent basis.

9. CITIZEN OF THE YEAR : REVISED GUIDELINES

Author/Manager: Judy Hogan/Fabienne Thewlis General Manager: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE

To review the process and guidelines for the selection of Citizen of the Year Award winners.

BACKGROUND

Initial discussion was held at the Councillor Briefing Session on 11 February 2013 regarding the structure of the Council Citizen of the Year Awards. A further report was requested on the matter to enable further discussion.

Every City has its local identities that go beyond the call of community duty and the City of Stonnington recognises its highest achievers within the community with its annual Citizen of the Year and Young Citizen of the Year Awards.

In 2002 Council broadened the Citizen of the Year Award categories to include five specific areas, being Art/Culture, Sport, Youth, Education and Community Service as well as Young Citizen of the Year.

In 2005, following a further review, Council extended the award categories for 2006 to include the category of ’Community Group’. This has proved to be a positive enhancement to the award program.

Council resolved on 4 June 2012 following the selection of the 2012 Citizen of the Year award winners as follows:

“5. A further report be brought back reviewing the Citizen of the Year guidelines for 2013- 2014”

Current Guidelines The current guidelines recognise individuals and a Stonnington community group who have accomplished a commendable performance or distinguished achievement/s that have benefited the Stonnington community, generally over a period of years. This may have taken place in areas such as sport, youth, education, community service and art/culture.

Nominations can be made by individuals, community organisations or associations and other groups. Staff and contractors of the City of Stonnington are ineligible to enter.

In previous years it has generally been the accepted practice that Councillors not directly involve themselves in the nomination process for prospective candidates for an award.

Nominees do not have to be a resident of the City of Stonnington, however they must have made a substantial contribution to the municipality. Citizen of the Year nominees must be 26 years of age or over. Young Citizen of the Year nominees must be under 26 years of age.

The Mayor of the day has had discretion to make an award known as the Mayor’s Award for outstanding community service. To date only three such awards have been given and this award has been granted on a discretionary basis on a year by year basis. It is recommended that this category be included in the Citizen of the Year guidelines.

A selection panel considers the nominations and makes a recommendation to Council for a final decision. The selection panel has been the Mayor and four past recipients of the Citizen of the Year Award and/or Young Citizen of the Year Award. All Councillors are welcome to attend the selection panel meeting.

Council makes the final decision on the selection of winners under Confidential Business.

Awards are presented at a Civic Ceremony (usually held in August) where the recipients in all the categories (with the exception of the Stonnington Community Group and Young Citizen of the Year) are presented with a framed certificate and a silver tray. The Stonnington Community Group is presented with a framed certificate and a cheque for $500.00. The Young Citizen of the Year is presented with a framed certificate and a cheque for $250.00.

Proposals for Discussion It is acknowledged that, in order to thank individuals who have worked hard in their particular voluntary field, the Awards should continue. The resultant publicity through the Stonnington News, Stonnington Leader, Stonnington Review and on Council’s web page also gives broad coverage for the organisation or group that the winners are associated with.

It is proposed that the overall purpose of the Citizen of the Year remain:

“Council recognises people who have accomplished a commendable performance or distinguished achievement that benefits the Stonnington community.”

The following proposal is offered as a recommendation for the structure of the Citizen of the Year awards.

1. That for the Citizen of the Year awards Council have five separate award categories, being: . Young Citizen of the Year. . Stonnington Community Group: A community group of four or more people who have performed an outstanding service to the community. This Award targets voluntary groups or organisations substantially operated by volunteers. . Community Services . Sport . Art/Culture/Education

. Mayor’s Special Award (at the Mayor’s discretion)

2. That the selection process remain the same as previous years, as below: A selection panel of:  The Mayor (Chair) and  four past recipients of the Citizen of the Year/Young Citizen of the Year Awards, with  all Councillors welcome to attend the meeting/s.

3. The selection panel meets and put forward their recommendations to Council for final approval.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That for the Citizen of the Year awards Council have five separate award categories, being:  Young Citizen of the Year.  Stonnington Community Group: A community group of four or more people who have performed an outstanding service to the community. This Award targets voluntary groups or organisations substantially operated by volunteers.  Community Services  Sport  Art/Culture/Education

. Mayor’s Special Award (at the Mayor’s discretion)

2. That the selection process remain the same as previous years, as below: A selection panel of:  The Mayor (Chair) and  four past recipients of the Citizen of the Year/Young Citizen of the Year Awards, with  all Councillors welcome to attend the meeting/s.

3. The selection panel meets and put forward their recommendations to Council for final approval.

10. BUSHFIRE AND FLOOD DONATION

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to consider donations to aid agencies to provide relief for the victims of two recent significant natural disasters.

BACKGROUND

Two natural disasters have affected large segments of Australia in recent weeks. While Tasmania has experienced bushfires affecting thousands of people, Queensland has suffered life-threatening floods that are still ongoing in some parts of the State.

Tasmania

In early January, more than 40 fires burnt across the State of Tasmania, many out of control, including those around Bicheno, Dunalley, Ellendale, Forcett, Nubeena and Lake Repulse. More than 3000 people were evacuated and several hundred homes and buildings, including a school in Dunalley, were destroyed as a result of the fires. One Victorian firefighter lost his life while back burning.

Queensland

Throughout January and early February, large areas of Queensland were severely affected by floodwaters. More than 1000 homes will need rebuilding across the State, particularly in the areas of the Lockyer Valley, Gympie, Rockhampton, Bundaberg, Ipswich and Brisbane. Bundaberg is still in rescue mode in the wake of ex tropical Cyclone Oswald and associated flooding. More than 2000 people have been affected by the flooding in Bundaberg, while approximately 7000 were evacuated. Six people have died in Queensland as a result of the flooding.

DISCUSSION

During times of natural disaster, Council may be asked to provide support to victims due to the magnitude of the catastrophe.

 Council donated $5,000 to the victims of the 2011 Queensland floods, in which 12,000 residential properties were fully flooded, and a further 21,000 partially affected. At least 22 lives were lost, and three quarters of the state was declared a disaster zone.

 In 2010, Council donated a total of $15,000 to victims of the Indonesian Earthquake, the Pacific Tsunami and Typhoon Katsana.

 In 2009, Council donated $50,000 towards Victorian Bushfire relief.

 In September 2007, Council donated $5,000 to the victims of the Greek Bushfire.

In 2010, Council adopted a Disaster Relief Donations Policy to provide guidance for donations made by Council to those affected by disaster. The Policy defines the scope of the term ‘disaster’ and advises on the type, amount, destination and timeliness of the aid to be provided. It ensures that donations meet the needs of those affected by disaster in the most timely, effective and efficient way as well as being transparent and accountable. Considering the remoteness of the two emergencies, financial aid of $5,000 to each disaster is recommended. It is also worth noting that as some time has already lapsed since these disasters struck a timely delivery of donations is vital to their effectiveness, as stated in the Policy.

Aid agencies

The Australian Red Cross is the accredited aid agency accepting donations for both the Tasmanian bushfires and the Queensland floods. It is therefore recommended that the Australian Red Cross is the recipient of the donations.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

As outlined in the Disaster Relief Donations Policy, budget for disaster relief will be accommodated within the Sustainable Future Divisional budget.

CONCLUSION

The City of Stonnington has previously donated generously to victims of Australian floods and bushfires. Council may consider an appropriate donation for each of the two emergencies.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council donates:  $5,000 to Australian Red Cross Tasmanian Bushfire Appeal; and  $5,000 to the Australian Red Cross Queensland Flood Appeal.

11. INSTRUMENT OF DELEGATION FROM COUNCIL TO THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

(Author/General Manager Corporate Services : Geoff Cockram)

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council approve the Instrument of Delegation from the Council to the Chief Executive Officer.

BACKGROUND

Section 98 of the Local Government Act 1989 (“the Act”) provides that a council may, by Instrument of Delegation, delegate to a member of staff, any power, duty or function of the Council under the Act or any other Act, other than some powers specified in the Act, including the power to declare a rate or charge and the power to borrow money, that are reserved for Council decision.

On 18 May 2009, Council adopted an Instrument of Delegation which delegated various powers to the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”).

The CEO can, in turn, sub-delegate powers to Council staff.

Section 98(6) of the Act provides that within 12 months of a general election, the Council must review delegations which are in force.

# The instrument of delegation (refer attached) which has operated at Council since March 1996 has worked well. No changes to it are proposed and it is recommended it be again adopted by Council.

The instrument is an enabling one rather than a prescriptive one in that it delegates broad powers to the CEO but also specifies powers which are not delegated.

The delegation also applies to staff filling the role of Acting CEO from time to time.

RECOMMENDATION

That the attached Instrument of Delegation from Council to the Chief Executive Officer be adopted and sealed.

12. INSTRUMENT OF DELEGATION FROM COUNCIL TO ORGANISATIONAL ROLES

(Author / General Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram)

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council approve a new Instrument of Delegation from the Council to various positions in the organisation.

BACKGROUND

Section 98 of the Local Government Act 1989 (“the Act”) provides that a council may, by Instrument of Delegation, delegate to a member of staff, any power, duty or function of the Council under the Act or any other Act, other than some powers (such as adoption of the budget), that are reserved for Council decision. The delegations are made to the position rather than to the staff member occupying the position.

Section 98 (6) of the Act also requires that all Council delegations be reviewed within 12 months of a general election.

Delegations are essential to enable Council staff to carry out operational duties particularly in areas which involve enforcement, such as town planning, local laws, environmental health, animal management and parking control.

It is therefore appropriate to adopt a revised Instrument of Delegation to particular organisational roles where the delegation must be direct from Council to the position, rather than as a sub-delegation from the Chief Executive Officer.

The proposed delegation (Refer Attachment 1) is based on a document prepared by Council’s solicitors and is similar to that used by many Victorian municipalities.

The proposed delegation reflects

a) minor amendments to section 19AA of the Food Act 1984;

b) minor amendments (not yet in force) to section 142 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1997;

c) the need to delegate some minor operational matters (such as the appointment of authorised officers) pursuant to the Road Management Act 2004; and

d) minor changes to some position titles.

Accordingly, it is recommended that Council revoke the existing delegations and approve new delegations to Council staff.

RECOMMENDATION

That the attached Instrument of Delegation from Council to various positions in the organisational structure be adopted and sealed.

13. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF FEE FOR FUNCTIONS ON CHAPEL: TASKFORCE

(Author: Judy Hogan) (General Manager: Geoff Cockram)

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to seek direction from Council regarding a request for an in- kind waiver of the fee and charge for security for the use of Functions on Chapel for this financial year.

BACKGROUND

A letter has been received from Ray Blessing, Chief Executive Officer of Taskforce requesting the in-kind use of Functions on Chapel on Tuesday 9 April 2013 for its 40 th Anniversary celebration and the launch of “How the Light Shines In: Forty Years of Taskforce Community Agency – 1972-2013”.

Taskforce is based in Chapel Street, Prahran. “Taskforce’s core services focus on addressing critical social issues like addiction, unemployment, mental illness and high risk taking behaviours as well as supporting clients back into ‘mainstream’ services and supports”.

A booking for Functions on Chapel has been made for Tuesday 9 April 2013. The full cost for the use of Functions on Chapel would be $1,500. The cost of security which is a mandatory cost and condition for hirers for the evening would be $700 making a total cost of use of the venue $2,200. Security is arranged through the Council’s Halls Department.

The request for funding has been recommended for refusal as the request is outside the timelines for requests for funding through the community grants process. Given the timeline for this event and the lead up arrangements which need to be made this request has been brought to Council for decision at this time.

RECOMMENDATION

That the request from Taskforce for the waiver of the fee for the in-kind use of Functions on Chapel on Tuesday 9 April 2013 being $1,500 and the associated cost of security for the evening at a cost of $700 , making a total cost of $2,200 be refused.

14. FINANCIAL REPORT – DECEMBER 2012

(Author: Scott Moore – Manager Finance and Information Technology) (General Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram)

PURPOSE

To provide Council with an update of financial performance for the six months ended 31 December 2012.

BACKGROUND

Section 138 of the Local Government Act requires the provision of a quarterly financial report to an open Council meeting which compares actual and budgeted revenues and expenditure to date.

DISCUSSION

Executive Summary

The year to date net surplus is $11.47m. This is expected to be further improved during the year to 30 June 2013 to $15.88m, a favourable variance to budget of $7.78m.

The favourable full year forecast to budget variance of $7.78m is largely due to higher revenue than budget particularly for supplementary rates, garbage charges, user charges, parking fines and fees, reimbursements, contributions and proceeds from sale of property and equipment.

As at 31 December 2012, Council has Cash and Investments totalling $43.6m and it is expected this will increase to $48.7m. This is in line with the budgeted year-end balance and will cover restricted cash assets of $39.4m.

Council has a favourable Working Capital Ratio of 2.17.

Operating Result

The favourable full year forecast to budget variance of $7.78m is primarily due to the following:  A greater number of supplementary rates than budgeted for the year of $0.66m is expected.  An increase in the number of bins (garbage and green) over budget by $0.41m is expected.  Receipt of unbudgeted capital grants: o $200K from Melbourne Water Grants for Edgar St Drainage Works; o $199K from Dept of Transport for Taxi Ranks; o $175K for Yarra Biodiversity project (Fishing Platform and Tree Planting).

 Increased utilisation of Council’s Aquatic Centres and Gym expected to deliver an additional $0.28m of income. This will be fully offset by additional staffing and operational expenditure.  A Victorian State Government statutory parking fine increase of 15% compared to Council’s budgeted increase of 2%, creating a favourable full year variance in parking fine revenue of $1.2m.  Reimbursement to Council for legal expenditure spent on the Jam Factory valuation matter of $0.18m was not budgeted.  Insurance payout for Prahran Town Hall storm water damage expenditure of $0.12m incurred in 2011/12.  Open space contribution receipts expected for the financial year of $3.0m, an increase of $1.0m.  Interest earnings on investments is expected to weaken further and investment income to be below budget by $0.10m.  Savings of $0.29m to be realised from lower Metropolitan Fire & Emergency Services Levy than was budgeted.  Lodgement costs for parking fines are forecast to be $0.32m higher, as expected with increased parking fines income.  Expenditure for planning amendment scheme in respect of Orrong Rd to be $0.240m higher than expected.  Major contract payments expected to be below budget by a net $0.19m. This is due to lower than budgeted payments for the parking infringement and managed car park contract less higher election costs and pits and drainage maintenance works expenditure.  Depreciation expenditure will increase by $0.25m due to revaluation increments to Council’s infrastructure assets in 2011/12.  Unbudgeted compensation of $0.47m received from the Roads Corporation for the Monash Freeway Expansion related land acquisition.  The $2m provision for the Defined Superannuation Scheme shortfall will not be required this financial year; the expense was recognised in 2011/12 after the budget was adopted.

Capital Works Expenditure

Total net committed gross capital work in progress to date is $20.17m, which includes the purchase of 3 Winter St for $2.40m. This equates to 54% of total budget committed. Ongoing project monitoring gives confidence the capital works program is on track to be substantially completed during 2012/13. Full year net expenditure is forecasted at $35.11m with $2.06m of carry-forward capital expenditure to 2013/14 identified.

Cash Flow

Cash and Investments total $43.6m as at 31 December 2012, with $42.3m restricted to reserve funds and employee entitlements. The cash position is expected to be $48.7m on 30 June 2013, assuming the outstanding amount due under the defined benefits superannuation call is paid by 30 June 2013.

# The attachment provides Council with the following:

. Income Statement . Full Year Forecast Major Variance Analysis – Income . Full Year Forecast Major Variance Analysis – Expenditure . Balance Sheet . Cash Flow Statement . Financial Performance Indicators . Capital Works Expenditure Report

RECOMMENDATION That Council receives and notes the Financial Report for the City of Stonnington for the six months ended 31 December 2012.

15. TRIAL KING ST ROAD CLOSURE – S223 HEARING.

General Manager; Simon Thomas

BACKGROUND

Council at its meeting of 18 February 2013, in consideration of a report on the consultation associated with the proposed trial closure of King St, resolved as follows;

1. Council delegate to a special Committee consisting of South Ward Councillors, the authority to hear submissions made under the provisions of Section 223 of the Local Government Act, 1989, on the proposal to implement a trial closure to through traffic of King Street, Prahran between Chapel Street and the property driveways at the west of Little Chapel Street for a period of 6 months.

2. Following consideration of all submissions by the Committee a further report be prepared for council consideration.

3. The hearing be set for 12th March at 6.30pm in the Council Chamber at the Stonnington City Centre.

4. Council advise all submitters to the Section 223 process and all property owners/occupiers previously notified of the decision.

As outlined in the report, two submissions were received in response to the proposal, with one submitter (Watpac Developments Pty Ltd) wishing to be heard.

PROPOSAL

The Victorian State Manager Property from Watpac Developments has written to Council advising that he will be on leave on the scheduled date and has requested Council postpone the hearing for one month to afford him the opportunity to present. In terms of procedural fairness it is proposed that Council accede to the request, and that the hearing be postponed for at least one month to a time and date to be fixed.

Further, the current resolution is that Council delegate to a Special Committee consisting of South Ward Councillors the authority to hear submissions made under the provisions of Section 223.

Generally the protocol in the past is for the whole Council to hear the submissions associated with a S223 process. It is therefore also proposed that the resolution be amended such that that Council hears the submissions accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Council hear submissions made under the provisions of Section 223 of the Local Government Act, 1989, on the proposal to implement a trial closure to through traffic of King Street, Prahran between Chapel Street and the property driveways at the west of Little Chapel Street for a period of 6 months.

2. Following consideration of all submissions by the Committee a further report be prepared for council consideration.

3. The hearing be set for a date and time to be fixed in April/May 2013 in the Council Chamber at the Stonnington City Centre.

4. Council advise all submitters to the Section 223 process and all property owners/occupiers previously notified of the decision.

16. CR CHANDLER – PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT – ATTENDANCE AT THE WATER AND ENVIRONMENT 2013: CIWEM’S ANNUAL CONFERENCE

Author: Fabienne Thewlis General Manager: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to seek approval for Cr Chandler’s attendance at the Water and Environment 2013 Conference in London on 10 and/or 11 April 2013.

CIWEM – Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management

BACKGROUND Section 8 of the Councillor Civic Support and Expenses Policy states: “conferences, seminars and training courses which impact on the role of Councillors generally and their ability to make contemporary informed decisions are common locally, interstate and internationally. The City of Stonnington will encourage all Councillors to attend conferences which enhance their role and development as a Councillor, particularly those which focus on an individual Councillor’s area of specialisation and/or ward and committee responsibilities.”

Cr Chandler is the Deputy Chair of the Sustainability Advisory Committee.

DISCUSSION Councillors wishing to attend overseas conferences require authorisation by way of a Council resolution.

Cr Chandler has advised that he will be travelling to the United Kingdom in April and as such will be paying his own fares and accommodation however is looking for Council approval to attend this conference. Covering such topics as ‘Water re-use’ ‘Water Sensitive Urban Design’ challenges of future droughts and what more needs to be done’, this conference will provide an opportunity to look at a variety of perspectives from people who take a proactive approach to the sustainability agenda and what is taking place in the environment and actions being taken to deal with these.

The cost of the conference for delegates for one or two days is 228pounds (AUS $353.76 – Commbank26/2/13) plus any cost for exchange. Light lunch of sandwiches and refreshments is included in the fee. Cr Chandler has indicted he will not be attending the conference dinner. The conference will be held at the Royal Geographical Society in London which is centrally located in the city. Anticipated daily ‘out-of-pocket’ expenses would be either taxi or train fares which can be reimbursed on production of receipts on Cr Chandler’s return.

Under the policy it is expected that a written report on the seminar/conference will be given within a month of return at an Ordinary Council meeting that outlines what have been gained from the conference for the Council.

RECOMMENDATION

That Cr Chandler’s attendance at the Water and Environment 2013 Conference in London on 10 and/or 11 April 2013 be approved.

GENERAL BUSINESS 4 MARCH 2013 n) Confidential Business

1. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED PROPERTY PURCHASE

(Author / General Manager: Geoff Cockram)

Confidential report circulated separately.