Agenda of Council Meeting - 9 July 2018 · Web view2018/07/09 · planning application 0498/17- 44-46 Duke Street, Windsor VIC 3181- Construction of a new dwelling on a lot of less

NOTICE PAPERMonday 9 July 2018 at 7pm

Council Chamber, Malvern Town Hall,(enter off Glenferrie Road, Malvern)

Page 2

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.

NOTESCouncil 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.

This meeting is being live-streamed.

Members of the gallery will not be filmed however the recordings will capture any audio which will be transmitted and held on Council’s website.

Members of the gallery are not permitted to film or record the meeting on their own devices.

Page 3

http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/

Council MeetingNotice Paper

Monday 9 July 2018Order of Business and Index

a) Reading of the Reconciliation Statement and Prayerb) 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)1. MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 25 JUNE 2018.........................................................

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 (Clause 424 of General Local Law 2008 (No 1)

f) Correspondence – (only if related to council business)g) Questions to Council Officers from Councillorsh) Tabling of Petitions and Joint Lettersi) Notices of Motion j) Reports of Special and Other Committees; - Assembly of Councillors k) Reports by Delegates l) General Business

1. PLANNING APPLICATION 459/17 - 45 WASHINGTON AVENUE, MALVERN EAST - CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DWELLINGS ON A LOT IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER OVERLAY.................................................................................

2. PLANNING APPLICATION 1287/17- 14 MARY STREET, WINDSOR VIC 3181- CONSTRUCTION OF A DOUBLE STOREY DWELLING ON THE LOT LESS THAN 500 SQUARE METRES..................................

3. PLANNING APPLICATION 0498/17- 44-46 DUKE STREET, WINDSOR VIC 3181- CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING ON A LOT OF LESS THAN 300SQM IN A NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND REDUCTION TO THE CAR PARKING REQUIREMENT...........................................................

4. SECONDARY CONSENT AMENDMENT TO APPROVED PLANS FOR PLANNING PERMIT 0200/11 - 9 - 22 - 32 TOORAK ROAD &, 37 CAROLINE STREET SOUTH, SOUTH YARRA VICTORIA 3141- REVISED MATERIALS FOR BOUNDARY FENCE.................................................................................

5. APPOINTMENT OF AUTHORISED OFFICERS PURSUANT TO THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1987 – STATUTORY PLANNING .............................................................................................

6. C221 - SPECIAL BUILDING OVERLAY AND LAND SUBJECT TO INUNDATION REVIEW - CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS................................................................................................

7. COMMUNITY GRANTS 2018-2019..................................................................................................8. RETURN OF 2018 GENERAL REVALUATION...................................................................................9. AUDIT COMMITTEE CHAIR'S REPORT 2017 AND STRATEGIC INTERNAL AUDIT PROGRAM................10. DRAFT TOWARDS ZERO ROAD TRAVEL SAFETY STRATEGY 2018-2022.........................................11. GARDINERS CREEK BIODIVERSITY PROJECT................................................................................12. STREET TREE PRUNING PROGRAM - RESIDENT NOTIFICATION......................................................

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 4

13. WAY FOUND - WAYFINDING SIGNAGE STANDARDS FOR VICTORIA ...............................................14. FESTIVALS AND EVENTS CALENDAR 2019 & 2020......................................................................15. ARTS AND CULTURE GRANTS 2018/19 PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................

m) Other General Businessn) Urgent Businesso) Confidential Business

1. PRAHRAN MARKET PTY LTD – REPLACEMENT DIRECTOR AND/OR APPOINTMENT/RECRUITMENT OF CHAIR......................................................................................

2. PROPOSED PROPERTY PURCHASE ............................................................................................

Page 5

ADOPTION AND CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

9 JULY 2018

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council confirms the Minutes of the Council Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 25 June 2018 and Minutes of the Confidential Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 25 June 2018 as an accurate record of the proceedings.

Page 7

GENERAL BUSINESS9 JULY 2018

l) General Business

1. PLANNING APPLICATION 459/17 - 45 WASHINGTON AVENUE, MALVERN EAST - CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DWELLINGS ON A LOT IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER OVERLAY

Manager Statutory Planning: Alexandra Kastaniotis General Manager Planning & Amenity: Stuart Draffin

PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of two dwellings on a lot in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone and Neighbourhood Character Overlay at 45 Washington Avenue, Malvern East.

This item was deferred from consideration at the Council meeting of 25 June 2018. The application is now re-presented to Council for further consideration.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Alta Architecture Pty LtdWard: EastZone: Neighbourhood Residential Zone (Schedule 4 - Significant

Character Precincts)Overlay: Neighbourhood Character Overlay (Schedule 7 - Californian

bungalow Significant Character Areas)Neighbourhood Precinct: Garden Suburban 4Date lodged: 25 May 2017Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

84 days

Trigger for referral to Council:

Over seven objections

Number of objections: 19 objectionsConsultative Meeting: Yes – held on 6 February 2018Officer Recommendation: Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit.

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Alta Architecture and are known as Job No. 0873, Drawing No.s: TP0.03 rev-1, TP0.04 rev 3, TP0.05 rev 2, TP0.06 rev-3, TP0.07 rev-3, TP0.08 rev-3, TP0.09 rev-0 and TP0.10 rev-0, and are all Council date stamped 3 April 2018.

Key features of the proposal are:

Page 9


Demolition of the existing single storey Californian Bungalow dwelling. Construction of two double storey dwellings in a side by side configuration. Both

dwellings consist of four bedrooms. Each dwelling has a two car garage located in a basement level, accessed via a ramp

from Washington Avenue. The ramp is located along the northern boundary of the site. The building is proposed with a 9 metre street setback to ground floor and a 17 metre

setback to first floor. The proposed maximum building height is 7.39 metres. Two significant trees exist on the site, a Brush Box to be retained in the rear of the site,

and a Cannery Island Date Palm that is proposed to be relocated from a more central location to the rear of the site to allow its retention.

A significant tree exists close to the common boundary at the rear of 43 Washington Avenue. The two street trees in front of the site are also significant.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the western side of Washington Avenue, approximately 36 metres south of the intersection between Wattle Grove and Washington Avenue. The site is occupied by a single storey weatherboard Californian bungalow, set in an established garden. Two car spaces are provided in an at-grade, open air, paved car parking area in the frontage of the lot. This is accessed from a crossover on the northern boundary of the site.

Washington Avenue is covered by the Neighbourhood Character Overlay, Schedule 7, which identifies the street as having a specific character. The statement of neighbourhood character from the schedule states the following:

These streetscapes comprise numerous Californian bungalows set within established gardens. The significance of these areas is due to the consistency of original dwellings which have a low slung appearance within the streetscape. Key original features that add to the areas’ significance include large terracotta tiled roofs with simple chimneys, stucco and timber fretwork on gable ends, decorative brickwork, bay windows and arched verandahs with large pillars. Front fences are typically timber picket or low red-orange brick to match the era and style of the dwellings.

The above statement describes the general character of the street well.

Page 10


A notable exception in the street is the relatively recent construction of a ‘side by side’ development of two dwellings at 44 Washington Street opposite the subject site. This building was approved at VCAT in 2011 prior to the introduction of the NCO7. The Tribunals decision in that matter makes it clear that the permit was issued in the absence of a Neighbourhood Character Overlay (or similar control); and that if a character overlay had applied further weight could have been given to Council’s concerns about neighbour character. As a Neighbourhood Character Overlay is now in place, limited weight can be given to the building at 44 Washington Avenue in terms of establishing neighbourhood character.

Other relevant interfaces to the site include:

North: the rears of 2, 4 and 6 Wattle Grove are located to the north of the subject site. These lots are all occupied by single storey weatherboard Californian bungalow dwellings with open landscaped gardens to the rear. These lots are also included in the NCO7.

South: 43 Washington Avenue exists to the south of the subject site and is occupied by a single storey weatherboard Californian bungalow dwelling. A significant Claret Ash tree exists towards the rear of the lot near the common boundary with the subject site. This lot is also included in the NCO7

West: The subject site has an irregular rear boundary that abuts both 42 and 44 Darling Road. These lots fall outside the NCO7. 42 Darling Road is one half of a semi-detached duplex. The dwelling has undergone a ground and first floor extension authorised by Planning Permit 1166/16, issued on 28 September 2017. The rear of this lot is an open landscaped garden. 44 Darling Road is occupied by a single storey detached Californian bungalow dwelling. The rear of this lot is occupied by a detached garage and a small rear yard.

Previous Planning Application(s)

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

Planning Permit 809/09 was issued by VCAT on 14 April 2011 for the construction of two double storey dwellings in accordance with the endorsed plans at 44 Washington Street.

No relevant planning permit history exists for the subject site.

The Title

The site is described as Lot 4 on Plan of Subdivision 008789 on Certificate of Title Volume 04750 Folio 807. No covenants affect the land.

An easement for the purpose of drainage and sewerage runs in a north south direction along the rear of the site. The easement is 6 feet wide (1.828 metres).

Planning Controls

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

Zone - Clause 32.09 - Neighbourhood Residential Zone:

Pursuant to Clause 32.09-6 a permit is required to construct two dwellings on a lot.

Page 11


Pursuant to Clause 32.09-9 a building must not be constructed that exceeds a maximum height of 9 metres; or 2 storeys.

Pursuant to Clause 32.09-4 the lot must provide a minimum 35% site area as Garden Area.

Pursuant to Clause 32.09-6, the proposal must meet the requirements of Clause 55.

Overlay – Clause 43.05 – Neighbourhood Character Overlay, Schedule 7:

Pursuant to Clause 43.04-2 a permit is required to demolish or remove a building.

Pursuant to Clause 43.04-2 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Particular Provisions – Clause 52.06 – Car parking:

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-2, one space is required for a one or two bedroom dwelling and two are required for a three or more bedroom dwelling. One visitor space is required for every five dwellings.

The development provides 4 car spaces in the basement (2 per dwelling). This satisfies the statutory requirement for car parking. As under 5 dwellings are proposed, there is no requirement for visitor parking.

Relevant Planning Policies

Clause 16.01 - Residential Development Clause 22.05 - Environmentally Sustainable Development Clause 22.18 - Stormwater Management Clause 22.23 - Neighbourhood Character Policy Clause 32.09 - Neighbourhood Residential Zone Clause 43.05 - Neighbourhood Character Overlay Clause 52.06 - Car Parking Clause 55 - Two or more dwellings on a lot (ResCode) Clause 65 - Decision Guidelines

Advertising

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

It is noted that the application has been amended twice and each time the plans have been re-advertised. A brief timeline of this advertising history is provided below:

Original application advertised August 2017.

Amended application submitted 6 November 2017.

Amended application re-advertised November 2017.

Amended application submitted 3 April 2018

Page 12


Amended application re-advertised April 2018

The site is located in East Ward and has received 19 objections in total. The general concerns raised in the objections can be summarised as follows:

The development is contrary to the Californian Bungalow character of the street. The existing dwelling contributes to the streets character and should be retained. Insufficient street setback to Washington Avenue. Visual bulk. Overlooking. Vegetation removal and reduction in green space/garden area. Height and bulk of building is not sympathetic to street. Impacts during construction (noise, dust, etc). Property damage to adjoining land from basement construction. Impact on property values. Relocation of the palm tree impacting on neighbours fence and property. Relocation of the palm tree impacting on the easement.

The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

A Consultative Meeting was held on 6 February 2018. The amended plans submitted on 6 November were the plans discussed at the meeting. The meeting was attended by Councillor Davis, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. Subsequent to the meeting, in April 2018, the applicant submitted amended plans seeking to address the objectors and Council officer’s concerns.

Referrals

The original application plans submitted in August 2017 were referred to the following:

Infrastructure. Transport and Parking.

The subsequent amended plans were not re-referred to these bodies as the changes shown on the plans did not impact on the referral response and did not warrant a re-referral.

The original application plans and the most recent amended plans submitted in April 2018 were referred to the following:

Parks (landscaping). Urban Design

A summary of the comments from all the referral department is provided below:

Infrastructure:

The application is supported. Three standard conditions relating to drainage are recommended on any permit issued.

Parks:

Page 13


A Tree Management Plan is required to ensure the protection of the two London Plane street trees, the Claret Ash at 43 Washington Avenue and the two trees at the rear of the site (bush Box and Box Elder) to be retained.

The payment of a $13,205.00 security deposit is required for the protection of the two street trees and is recommended to be imposed via permit condition.

The relocation of the Canary Island Date Palm is supported in principle. However, as this cannot be achieved without damage to the neighbour’s fence, and as the application proposes to retain and protect a number of other significant trees, there is no objection to the removal of the palm tree.

The submitted landscape concept plan is supported.

Transport and parking:

The proposal satisfies the parking requirement of the planning scheme.

The proposal will not significantly impact on traffic conditions in the area.

Appropriate sight lines must be provided at the property boundary for pedestrian safety.

Urban Design:

The most recent version of the amended plans (submitted in April 2018) has now resulted in a building that is acceptable and acceptably responds to the character of Washington Avenue.

KEY ISSUES

Demolition of existing building:

Pursuant to the Neighbourhood Character Overlay, Schedule 7 (NCO7) - Californian Bungalow Significant Character Areas; a permit is required to demolish a building.

It is important to establish the rational for this permit trigger. The purpose of the NCO includes the following:

To identify areas of existing or preferred neighbourhood character.

To ensure that development respects the neighbourhood character.

To prevent, where necessary, the removal of buildings and vegetation before the neighbourhood character features of the site and the new development have been evaluated. (emphasis added)

It is clear from the purpose of the zone that the overlay does not seek the retention of older buildings in the sense of a Heritage Overlay; but rather seeks to ensure any new building is compatible with the preferred character established by the overlay prior to allowing an older building to be removed and replaced.

As such, there is no objection to the removal of the existing building from the site, as long as the replacement building represents an acceptable response to the preferred neighbourhood character. This is discussed below.

Page 14


Neighbourhood Character:

As stated above, the lot is located within an area covered by the Neighbourhood Character Overlay, Schedule 7 (NCO7) - Californian Bungalow Significant Character Areas. The imposition on the NCO7 on the subject site and surrounding land establishes that the area is subject to a specific character that has been deemed significant and worthy of protection. The statement of character on the NCO7 states that:

The significance of these areas is due to the consistency of original dwellings which have a low slung appearance within the streetscape. Key original features that add to the areas’ significance include large terracotta tiled roofs with simple chimneys, stucco and timber fretwork on gable ends, decorative brickwork, bay windows and arched verandahs with large pillars

The NCO7 goes on to outline the preferred neighbourhood character for the area:

The preferred neighbourhood character for these areas is defined by the continued presence of Californian bungalows and new dwellings that reflect the key characteristics of the streetscapes which comprise:

- Single storey building scale with second storeys recessed behind the front façade.

- Simple floor plans with projecting front room and porch or verandah.

- Orientation of buildings to the street according to lot orientation.

- Consistent front and side setbacks.

- Established planting, including canopy trees, in the front, side and rear setbacks.

- Use of weatherboard, brick or brick and render.

- Dark terracotta tiled, pitched roofs.

- Car parking and car parking structures located behind the dwelling with side driveway access.

- Low brick or timber picket front fences

Page 15


The proposal is assessed against these ‘key characteristics’ below:

Key characteristic: Comment: Complies?Single storey building scale with second storeys recessed behind the front façade.

The NCO7 varies the wording of Standard B31 of Clause 55 (Design detail) and asks that second storey elements of a new building be sited and designed so that the single storey part of the building, including its roof form, is the dominant visual element when viewed from the street. This requires the second storey elements to be:

- Set back 8 metres from the front building façade where the main ridge line of the roof is perpendicular to the street, or located behind the main ridgeline of the roof where this is parallel to the street, and

- Designed to complement the form of other dwellings in the street.

And that:

Pairs of attached dwellings should present to the street as a single dwelling particularly though its scale, form, roof design and siting.

The building line of the first floor is setback 8 metres from the ground floor façade of the proposal, and is set behind the ridgeline of the ground floor roof. Both these factors will ensure that the single storey element of the building, including its roof form is the dominant visual element when viewed from the street.

However, two balconies exist at first floor towards the front of the building accessed from the respective bedroom 4 of each dwelling. These balconies vary the setback requirement of the NCO7 as they introduce a first floor element within 8 metres of the front façade. Although not visible from the front of the building, these balconies have 1.7 metre high screens that will be visible from oblique angles when viewed from the street and surrounding land and will detract from the legibility of the single storey roof form at the front of the building. For this reason, it is proposed to require the deletion of these balconies via permit condition.

The single storey element of the proposal presents as a single dwelling to the street, and incorporates many of the design characteristics found in the form of the more traditional Californian bungalows. The recessed nature of the first floor (being setback 8 metres from the ground floor façade) ensures this does not detract from the single storey appearance of the ground floor.

Condition Required

Page 16


Simple floor plans with projecting front room and porch or verandah.

The application does not propose a projecting front room, but does try to replicate this element of the Californian bungalow style by including a porch/portico to Dwelling 1 that projects from the building. This element has a gabled end, which is a common element in the traditional Californian bungalow. This is considered to adequately respond to this key characteristic of the streetscape

YES

Orientation of buildings to the street according to lot orientation.

The proposal is oriented towards the street.YES

Consistent front and side setbacks.

The proposal replicates the 9 metre street setback of the existing dwelling on site (to be removed) and the existing neighbouring dwelling at 43 Washington Avenue.

The 9 metre setback is respectful of the overall setback character along Washington Avenue. It is noted that nearby dwellings such as 37, 39 and 41 Washington Avenue have street setbacks between 5.9 metres and 6.8 metres.

YES

Established planting, including canopy trees, in the front, side and rear setbacks.

The proposal seeks to retain the significant trees on site and protect the significant street trees and the significant Claret Ash at 43 Washington Avenue.

In addition, the proposal has put forward a landscape concept plan that has been reviewed by Council’s Parks Department, who are satisfied with the proposed landscaping.

YES

Use of weatherboard, brick or brick and render.

The building proposes to use the following wall materials:

Cream render at ground floorA timber cladding at first floor, with natural finish

The use of render is consistent with the key characteristic. However, the use of timber cladding introduces a new material into the streetscape that is not consistent with the key characteristics listed in the NCO7.

To address this, a condition is recommended that requires the timber cladding at first floor to be replaced with a light coloured weatherboard.

Condition required

Dark terracotta tiled, pitched roofs.

The design proposes to use dark terracotta tiled and pitched roofs. YES

Car parking and car parking structures located behind the dwelling with side driveway access

The car parking associated with the proposal is located in a basement and so achieves the objective of this key characteristic to ensure car parking structures are not visually dominant.

YES

Page 17


Low brick or timber picket front fences

The application proposes a 1.5 metre high metal blade front fence with solid rendered piers. Although this doesn’t meet the exact materials mentioned in the preferred key characteristic, the type and form of the fence is similar to other fences in the street, in that it is made up of solid piers with a visually permeable vertical fill section which is similar to brick piers and timber picket infill sections, and can be supported due to this.

Variation Acceptable

Overall, the proposal is considered to represent an acceptable response to the NCO7.

Built form:

The provisions of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone require the proposal to be considered against the provisions of Clause 55- Two or more dwellings on a lot. A full assessment against the applicable 34 objectives and standards has been carried out. The development is generally compliant with these standards. The following relevant standards are highlighted and discussed:

BUILDING HEIGHT

The proposal has a maximum building height of 7.39 metres above natural ground level. This complies with the maximum 9 metre height permitted by the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, Schedule 4.

SITE COVERAGE

Schedule 4 of the NRZ states that a basement should not exceed 75% of a site’s area. The application proposes 39% basement site coverage (including the access ramp).

It is noted that the site coverage of the building footprint is 44.7%, which is less than the 60% permitted by the standard

PERMEABILITY

Standard B9 of Clause 55.03-4 asks for at least 20% site permeability. The application proposes 38.6% and therefore complies.

Page 18


SIDE BOUNDARY SETBACKS

All side boundary setbacks to the first floor comply with the requirements of Standard B17. This is shown in the below tables:

Northern ElevationLocation Wall height B17 Setback

requiredSetback proposed

Complies?

Northwest corner 6.3 metres 1.8 metres 3.4 metres YesNortheast corner 6.3 metres 1.8 metres 3.05 metres Yes

Southern ElevationLocation Wall height B17 Setback


Complies?

Southwest corner 6.2 metres 1.78 metres 3.3 metres YesSoutheast corner 6.3 metres 1.8 metres 2.95 metres Yes

However, due to the transverse ridge that seeks to reference the traditional Californian bungalow style, the single storey roof form at the front of the proposal seeks areas of variation to the setback requirement on the northern elevation. This is detailed in the table below:

Single storey roof-formLocation Wall height B17 Setback


Complies?

Northern elevation 5.3 metres 1.51 metres 1.0 metres NoSouthern elevation 5.2 metres 1.41 metres 1.54 metres Yes

The variation is considered acceptable as:

The roof form sits above the basement ramp on the northern elevation, and as a result is open underneath. This helps minimise any visual bulk impacts the variation may create on adjoining land.

As the variation is proposed on the northern elevation, it will not increase any overshadowing impacts on adjoining land.

It is noted that the setback requirements of Standard B17 is taken from the wall line of the building, and that eaves are permitted to encroach up to 0.5 metres into the setback. Due to the basement ramp underneath, there are no eaves on the northern elevation of the single storey roof form. Therefore, the standard applies to the whole roof form on this elevation. However, the southern elevation does have 0.4 metre eaves protruding from the wall line. As Standard B17 allows eaves to protrude 0.5 metres into the setback requirements, there is no variation on this side of the building.

NORTH FACING WINDOWS

A number of north facing windows exist at 43 Washington Avenue facing the site. The setbacks proposed at first floor comply with the requirements of the relevant Standard B20. This is detailed in the table below:

Page 19


Southern Elevation – First FloorLocation Wall height B20 Setback


Complies?

Southwest corner 6.2 metres 2.56 metres 3.3 metres YesSoutheast corner 6.3 metres 2.62 metres 2.9 metres Yes

However, although the setbacks at first floor comply with Standard B20, the apex of the single storey roof form at the front of the proposal seeks a variation. The variation affects the easternmost north facing window at 43 Washington Avenue. The variation is detailed in the table below: Southern Elevation – Single storey roof-formLocation Wall height B17 Setback


Complies?

Southern elevation 5.2 metres 1.96 metres 1.54 metres No

The variation is considered acceptable as the area of variation is offset to the east from the affected window, and is not directly opposite the window. The building directly opposite the window achieves compliance with Standard B20, as does the remainder of the building opposite the other north facing windows further to the west at 43 Washington Avenue. The area of non-compliance is deemed minor and due to its offset will not unreasonably impact on daylight access to the affected window.

OVERSHADOWING

The overshadowing diagrams show that the proposal will not result in any additional overshadowing of the rear private open space of 43 Washington Avenue between the hours of 9am and 3pm on the 22nd September (the equinox) as the shadow cast by the building will be contained within the shadow of the existing fence on the common boundary.

There will be a small area of additional shadow cast toward the front of the site, but this will not impact on any areas of usable secluded private open space.

OVERLOOKING

All ground floor windows will be appropriately screened by boundary fencing. While all first floor windows on the side and rear elevation either show obscure glazing to 1.7 metres above floor level; or have sill heights of 1.7 metres above floor level.

The first floor balconies at the front of the building are enclosed in 1.7 metre high screens, but are proposed to be removed via permit condition anyway.

All overlooking has been treated to a satisfactory level in accordance with the requirements of Standard B22.

Vegetation - Significant Trees:

There are a number of trees on and in the vicinity of the subject site. These are discussed below:

Page 20


Tree 2 – Bush Box:

Tree 2 is a significant tree located at the rear of the subject site. The tree is proposed to be retained and protected.

Tree 3 – Box Elder:

Tree 3 is located at the rear of the site next to Tree 2, but is not a significant tree. Although not significant, this tree has a height of 12 metres and contributes to the landscape amenity of the area. The tree is proposed to be retained and protected

Tree 9 – Claret Ash:

Tree 9 is located at the rear of 43 Washington Avenue, in close proximity to the common boundary with the subject site. The rear of Unit 2 will encroach 15% into the Tree Protection Zone of this tree.

Council’s Parks department have advised the following with regard to the encroachment into the Tree Protection Zone of this tree:

To retain the existing design, tree sensitive methods of construction are recommended for the construction of the alfresco.

o Alfresco should remain porous.o A discontinuous footing system such as pier and beam constructed above grade

is recommended.o Excavation for the footings should be undertaken by hand as to avoid severing

roots greater than 50mmØ considering the proximity to the SRZ.

With these recommendations, encroachment to Tree 9 may be reduced to between 7 - 10% of the TPZ which is acceptable under AS4970.

A condition is recommended that a Tree Management Plan be prepared prior to the endorsement of plans that investigates the root system of the Claret Ash and investigates construction methods to ensure the root system is protected. These investigation into construction methods may include the above and will be reviewed by Council’s Parks department prior to endorsement. This will protect the tree and the significant amenity it brings to the area, while still allowing the development to proceed. It is noted that Council’s Arborist has not raised any issues with the impact of the development on this tree.

Tree 10 and 11 – London plane street trees:

No building works are proposed within the Tree Protection Zones of the two street trees. The existing crossover is proposed to be retained and used to provide access to the basement. It is recommended that these trees are also included in the Tree Management Plan condition to ensure they are appropriately protected during construction.

Tree 1 – Canary Island Date Palm:

Tree 1 is located at the rear of the existing dwelling on the subject site near the junction of the boundaries between 2 and 4 Wattle Grove and the subject site.

Page 21


This tree is located within the proposed footprint of Unit 1. As palm trees can be relocated relatively easily with a good chance of survival, the applicant proposed to relocate the tree to the northwest corner of the site. The relocation of the tree is considered to be a preferred outcome.

An issue arises as the owner of 2 Wattle Grove has objected to the relocation of the palm tree. The objection is based on independent agricultural advice provided by the objector which indicates that the tree cannot be relocated without removing a portion of the boundary fence between the subject site and 2 Wattle Grove, and access being granted to the arborist team onto the objector’s property. The objector has stated that he will not allow access onto his property to facilitate the relocation of the tree.

It is still the preferred outcome that the tree is relocated, however this may not be possible if relocation requires access onto 2 Wattle Grove, and this access is not granted. In order to address this, a condition is recommended that seeks the following:

1. An investigation is carried out on site by an arborist to establish the size and location of the root ball. This will establish categorically if the tree can be relocated without damage to the fence or neighbour’s property. It is noted that to date, all arborist advice has been based on visual assessments only, no excavation has occurred to establish the actual extent of the root ball.

2. If the tree can be relocated without damage to the fence and neighbouring property, the report must detail exactly how the relocation is to occur. This will be reviewed by Council’s arborists prior to the endorsement of plans.

3. If the report concludes that a successful relocation will require the partial removal of the fence and access onto neighbour’s property, the report must detail how this would occur and all reasonable efforts must be made by the permit holder to negotiate with the neighbour so that these recommendations can be implemented.

4. If the neighbour refuses to allow access to their property or the partial demolition of the fence and the permit holder can satisfy Council that all reasonable steps have been made to relocate the tree but that its relocation is not possible due to this, the tree may be removed from the site.

It is noted that although the relocation of the tree is a preferred outcome, Council’s Parks department have advised that they have no objection to the removal of the palm tree.

Relocation of the Palm tree and the easement:

The palm tree is proposed to be relocated to the north-west corner of the site to the area of the land between the rear of 2 Wattle Grove, the rear of 44 Darling Road and the sewerage and drainage easement that runs through the rear of the site. This ‘pocket’ of the site has dimensions of 3 metres by 4.6 metres.

Some concerns have been raised by objectors with the proximity of the relocated tree to this easement. However, the location has been reviewed by both Council’s Parks Department and Infrastructure Engineers, neither of whom have a concern with the location of the tree in relation to the easement.

Given the dimensions of the land outside the easement where the tree is proposed and the nature of a palm trees’ root-ball, that is small and dense in area, the location of the relocated tree is supported.

Page 22


ESD/WSUD:

The applicant has submitted a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) in response to the application requirements of Clause 22.05-4. The SDA uses the BESS tool to demonstrate that the objectives of Clause 22.05 have been addressed.

The BESS score achieved for the development is 53%. This score meets best practice (which requires a score of at least 50%) and demonstrates the proposal adequately responds to the ESD objectives of Clause 22.05.

The SDA includes a STORM Rating Report showing a STORM rating of 101%. This meets the minimum requirement to satisfy Clause 22.18 in terms of on-site stormwater treatment.

Car Parking and Traffic

Clause 52.06 requires a three or more bedroom dwelling to have at least two car spaces. The development meets this requirement by providing a double car garage at basement level to each dwelling.

It is noted that Council’s Transport Engineers have reviewed the proiposal and did not raise any issues with car parking.

Garden Area:

Under the provisions of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, a lot with an area over 650 square metres requires 35% of the site to be Garden Area. This is a mandatory requirement of the zone that cannot be varied. Garden Area is defined by the Planning Scheme as:

An uncovered outdoor area of a dwelling or residential building normally associated with a garden. It includes open entertaining areas, decks, lawns, garden beds, swimming pools, tennis courts and the like. It does not include a driveway, any area set aside for car parking, any building or roofed area and any area that has a dimension of less than 1 metre

The application complies with the Garden Area requirement as 37% of the site is provided asGarden Area.

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 Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

CONCLUSION

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

The proposal represents an acceptable response to the objectives and key characteristics of the Neighbourhood Character Overlay, Schedule 7 – Californian Bungalow Significant Character Area.

Page 23


The development will not unreasonably impact upon adjoining amenity as determined by compliance with ResCode (Clause 55) Objectives.

The proposal satisfies Council’s Environmentally Sustainable Development and Stormwater Management Policies.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PA - 459-17 - 45 Washington Avenue - Malvern East - Attachment 1 of 1 Plans

RECOMMENDATIONThat a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 459/17 for the land located at 45 Washington Avenue, Malvern East be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of two dwellings on a lot in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone and Neighbourhood Character Overlay subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development (including demolition), one (1) copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application Council date stamped 3 April 2018 but modified to show:

a. A section plan to demonstrate the basement and basement ramp maintains a headroom clearance of at least 2.2 metres in all vehicular trafficable areas.

b. A convex mirror on the southern side of the accessway at the property boundary (or similar) incorporated into the design to provide appropriate sight lines towards the north to vehicles exiting the basement ramp.

c. An annotation on the basement plan that the water tanks will be plumbed directly to all toilets for flushing.

d. The two first floor balconies, accessed from the respective Bedroom 4 of each dwelling, deleted, with no change to the associated ground floor roof form.

e. Any recommendations of the Canary Island Date Palm Relocation Investigation Report required by Condition 5.

f. Any changes required by Condition 3 (SDA), Condition 4 (Tree Management Plan) and Condition 8 (Landscape Plan).

g. The Tree Protection Zones and Tree Protection Fencing required by Condition 4 (Tree Management Plan) and Condition 5 (The Canary Island Date Palm Relocation Investigation Report, if any)

h. The timber cladding used for the first floor wall material replaced with a light coloured weatherboard.

Page 24


2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason, without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans pursuant to Condition 1 a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon approval the SDA will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development must incorporate the sustainable design initiatives outlined in the SDA to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Amendments to the SDA must be incorporated into plan changes required under Condition 1. The report must include, but not limited to, the following:

a. Demonstrate how Best Practice measures from each of the 10 key Sustainable Design Categories of Stonnington Council’s Sustainable Design Assessment in the Planning Process (SDAPP) have been addressed

b. Identify relevant statutory obligations, strategic or other documented sustainability targets or performance standards

c. Document the means by which the appropriate target or performance is to be achieved

d. Identify responsibilities and a schedule for implementation, and ongoing management, maintenance and monitoring.

e. Demonstrate that the design elements, technologies and operational practices that comprise the SMP can be maintained over time.

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

4. 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 trees identified on the plans as Tree 2 (Brush Box), Tree 3 (Box Elder), Tree 9 (Claret Ash) and Trees 10 and 11 (street trees).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

Page 25


can cease.

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

5. Concurrent with the endorsement of development plans, a Canary Island Date Palm Relocation Investigation Report must be prepared by a suitably qualified arborist and submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the Canary Island Date Palm Relocation Investigation Report will form part of this permit and all works must be done in accordance with the report.

The Canary Island Date Palm Relocation Investigation Report must carry out the following:

- An investigation to establish the size and location of the Palm’s root ball. This will establish if the tree can be relocated without damage to the north boundary fence or neighbouring property.

- If the tree can be relocated without damage to the fence and neighbouring property, the report must detail exactly how the relocation is to occur and how the tree is to be protected during construction once relocation has occurred.

- If the investigation concludes that a successful relocation will require the partial removal of the fence and access onto neighbour’s property, the report must detail how this would occur and all reasonable efforts must be made by the permit holder to negotiate with the neighbour so that these recommendations can be implemented and the tree relocated.

- If the neighbour refuses to allow access to their property or the partial demolition of the fence and the permit holder can satisfy Council that all reasonable steps have been made to relocate the tree but that its relocation is not possible due to this, the tree may be removed from the site.

6. Before the development (including excavation and demolition) starts, all tree protection fencing as shown on the endorsed plans must be erected and then maintained for the duration of the development. Fencing is to be compliant with Section 4 of AS 4970.

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

8. 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 show:

a. A survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be

Page 26


retained and/or removed

b. Buildings and trees (including botanical names) on neighbouring properties within three metres of the boundary

c. Details of surface finishes of pathways and drivewaysd. A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers,

including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant

e. Landscaping and planting within all open areas of the sitef. Details of all proposed hard surface materials including pathways, patio

or decked areas.

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

10. Prior to the commencement of all works, a security deposit of $13,205.00 must be lodged with Council to ensure the development will not impact on the long term health of the two London Plane street trees in front of the site. This deposit will be refunded when Council is satisfied that the health of this tree is not affected by the development.

11. Prior to the endorsement of plans and prior to any development commencing on the site (including demolition and excavation whether or not a planning permit is required), the owner/ developer must enter into a Deed with the Responsible Authority and provide it with two separate bank guarantees of $10,000.00. The bank guarantees must be provided to the Responsible Authority as security against a failure to protect the health of the following trees to be retained at the rear of the site:

Tree 2: Bush Box. Tree 3: Box Elder

The applicant must meet all costs associated with drafting and execution of the Deed, including those incurred by the responsible authority. Once a period of 12 months has lapsed following the completion of all works at the site the Responsible Authority may discharge the bank guarantee upon the written request of the obligor. At that time, the Responsible Authority will inspect the trees and, provided they have not been detrimentally affected, the respective bank guarantee will be discharged.

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

13. Any 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.

Page 27


14. A report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in accordance with that report prior to a building permit being issued. All drainage must be by means of a gravity based system with the exception of any basement ramp and agricultural drains which may be pumped. The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer’s design.

15. The existing footpath levels must not be lowered or altered in any way at the property line (to facilitate the basement ramp).

16. The applicant must at their cost provide a stormwater detention system to restrict runoff from the development to no greater than the existing runoff based on a 1 in 10 A.R.I. to the satisfaction of Council’s Infrastructure Unit. Alternatively, in lieu of the stand-alone detention system, the owner may provide stormwater tanks that are in total 2,500 litres greater than those tanks required to satisfy WSUD requirements for the development. Those tanks must be connected to all toilets.

17. Prior to the occupation of the development , areas set-aside for parked vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be:

a. Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. b. Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with

the plans. c. Surfaced with an all-weather sealcoat d. Drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. e. Line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes to the

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

18. Prior to the occupation of the building, any privacy screening devices as shown on the endorsed plans must be installed and permanently fixed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

19. 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.

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a request may be submitted to the Responsible Authority within the prescribed timeframes for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

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 28


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

The crossover must be constructed to Council’s Standard Vehicle Crossover Guidelines unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority. Separate consent for crossovers is required from Council’s Building and Local Law Unit.

At the permit issue date, Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 stated that the Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing within the following timeframes:

o Before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has not yet started; and

o Within 12 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully started before the permit expires.

Page 29


2. PLANNING APPLICATION 1287/17- 14 MARY STREET, WINDSOR VIC 3181- CONSTRUCTION OF A DOUBLE STOREY DWELLING ON THE LOT LESS THAN 500 SQUARE METRES.


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for the construction of a dwelling on a lot less than 500 square metres in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone at 14 Mary Street, Windsor.

Executive Summary

Applicant: ARG Planning Pty LtdWard: SouthZone: Neighbourhood Residential Zone, Schedule 3Overlay: No OverlayNeighbourhood Precinct: Inner UrbanDate lodged: 11 December 2017Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

35 days (Section 57A amendment received 4 June 2018)

Trigger for referral to Council: More than seven (7) properties objectedCultural Heritage Plan NoNumber of objections: Twelve (12) properties Consultative Meeting: Yes – 11 April 2018Officer Recommendation: Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Brenchley Architects and are known as Drawing No.s: A00, Council date stamped 11 December 2017 and A04 to A08 with hourly shadow diagrams, Council date stamped 3 May 2018.

A STORM Rating Report prepared by Flux Civil Consulting also accompany this application.


Demolition of the existing single-storey dwelling and front fence including all trees (no planning permit required).

Construction of a double storey five bedroom dwelling on the site. The applicant describes the dwelling as a ‘multi-generational’ dwelling, designed to address the housing crisis experienced by younger generations in Melbourne. It is specifically designed for the owners of the site, to encourage family life with a degree of privacy. The dwelling features individual bedroom and retreats areas with shared core facilities such as kitchen, dining and living rooms for the combined household. The two areas towards the back of the site will also access the shared facilities within the dwelling. As such, a number of living rooms and private open space areas are provided for the use of various family groups.

Page 31


An existing shed constructed on the eastern, western and southern boundary is to be retained.

The dwelling is setback between 5.3 and 5.5 metres from its Mary Street frontage.

Two car parking spaces are provided on site in a tandem layout, including one car space in a single garage. Vehicular access to the site is via an existing crossover.

The dwelling is constructed on the eastern and western side boundaries, while the upper level is setback 1.7 metres.

A pop-up Cathedral ceiling roof is proposed at the front of the dwelling to maximise light access. This element is setback 3.7 metres from the façade and 2.7 metres from the side boundaries.

The dwelling has two main areas of secluded private open space. These include an area at the rear (40 square metres) and a central courtyard towards the front of the site.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the south side of Mary Street. The site has the following significant characteristics:

The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 8.17 metres and a length of 46.63 metres yielding an area of 384 square metres.

The site has a fall of approximately 0.2 metres from south to north.

The site is occupied by a single fronted Victorian house setback 5.3 metres from the street.

The site currently does not support any substantial trees.

Access to the site is via a single width crossover near the western boundary.

The front setback is largely covered by paving for car parking and access.

Mary Street is a narrow residential street with a mixed existing character. The context features single and double storey dwellings and a mix of Victorian and Edwardian cottages, as well as more contemporary housing stock. Properties on the southern side of Mary Street are setback between 5 and 6 metres and feature limited landscaping.

To the east, the site abuts three properties:

18 Mary Street, a single storey Victorian dwelling setback 4.1 metres from the street, and between 1.1 and 2.1 metres from the common boundary. No habitable room window faces the subject site.

9-11 Cyril Street, a single storey Edwardian dwelling with a double storey extension constructed on the common boundary. The extension includes a first floor terrace abutting the subject site.

5-7 Cyril Street, a single storey Edwardian dwelling with a single storey extension constructed on the common boundary. The secluded private open space abuts the rear section of the subject site.

To the west is 12 Mary Street, a single storey dwelling with a double storey extension to the rear. The dwelling is setback between 1.3 to 1.6 metres from the common boundary with a number of habitable room windows facing the subject site. The secluded private open space abuts the rear section of the subject site.

Page 32


To the south of the site is a 2 metre wide right of way. A property known as 11A Gertrude Street is located on the other side of the right of way. The single storey dwelling on this site is setback 11 metres from its rear (northern) boundary.

To the north is Mary Street, which is a narrow two-way road with parking on both sides. Vehicles are found parking on the kerb to allow traffic through the street. A double storey detached dwelling known as 13 Mary Street with vehicle access off Mary Street is located opposite the site.


A search of Council records indicates that a Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit for the construction of a dwelling on a lot less than 500sqm was issued on 17 January 2017 on the following grounds:

1. The proposed scale, height and form of the dwelling is inappropriate and does not reflect the preferred neighbourhood character as specified by Clause 22.23 (Neighbourhood Character Policy) and does not meet the objectives of Clause 54.02-1 (Neighbourhood Character Objective) and Clause 32.09 (Neighbourhood Residential Zone) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

2. The development fails to integrate with the street due to the minimal front setback and does not meet the Objective of Clause 54.03-1 (Street setback) and Clause 54.06-1 (Design detail) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

3. The proposal will unreasonably impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties through visual bulk and overshadowing and is not respectful of the neighbourhood character. It fails to meet the objective of Clause 54.04-1 (Side and rear setbacks), Clause 54.04-2 (Walls on boundaries) and Clause 54.04-5 (Overshadowing open space).

4. The proposal will not provide an adequate level of amenity for future residents of the site. It fails to meet the Objectives of Clause 54.05-1 (Daylight to new windows), Clause 54.05-2 (Private Open Space) and Clause 54.05-3 (Solar access to open space) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

An application for review was submitted to VCAT and considered on 14 September 2017. The Tribunal ordered that Council’s decision to refuse the application be upheld. The proposal failed to respond to the preferred or existing character of the area and would result in unreasonable amenity impact on the adjoining dwellings.

It is noted that the current proposal is entirely different to that considered by the Tribunal. How this application has responded to the concerns outlined in the VCAT Order is discussed further in this report.

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 11642 Folio 159 as well as Lot 1 on Title Plan 959631B and no covenants or easements affect the land.

Planning Controls


Page 33


ZoneClause 32.09 – Neighbourhood Residential Zone

Pursuant to Clause 32.09-5, a permit is required for buildings and works to construct a dwelling on a lot less than 500 square metres.

The following variations to Clause 54 and 55 are stipulated under Schedule 3 to the Zone:

RequirementSite coverage Basements should not exceed 75% of the site area.Front fence height Maximum height of 2 metres in streets in a Road Zone, Category

1.Other streets, 1.2 metres maximum height.

Schedule 3 of the zone also sets out a maximum building height of 9 metres.

As the site has a total site area of 384 square metres, that is less than 400 square metres, the minimum garden area requirement under Clause 32.09-4 is not applicable.

Relevant Planning PoliciesClause 11 – SettlementClause 16 – HousingClause 21.02 – Overview Clause 21.03 – VisionClause 21.05 – HousingClause 22.18 – Stormwater ManagementClause 22.23 – Neighbourhood Character PolicyClause 52.23 – Shared HousingClause 54 – One Dwelling on a LotClause 65 – Decision Guidelines

Advertising

The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily. The application has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land and by placing one (1) sign on the site. All residents previously who objected to the previous application were also notified by direct notice, other than those on Mary Street, as they are notified by the sign displayed on site.

The site is located in South Ward and objections from twelve (12) different properties have been received. A summary of the concerns raised include:

• The proposal consists of 3 dwellings, hence concern on the lack of car parking spaces and private open space provided.

• The proposal is a poor response to prevailing neighbourhood character, in terms of bulk and material.

• The building will dominate the streetscape at the height proposed.

• Overshadowing adjoining properties private open spaces.

• The plan is inaccurate and fails to show additions within the adjoining property at 9-11 Cyril Street.

Page 34


• Concern on the use of the outbuilding near the rear boundary as another dwelling.

• The proposal will further impact on the already problematic parking condition in nearby streets.

• Location of services (e.g. air conditioners, heaters and etc) are not shown on plans.

A Consultative Meeting was held on 11 April 2018. The meeting was attended by Councillors Stefanopoulos and Hindle, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer.

Following the consultative meeting and discussions with Council’s Officer, the permit applicant has reduced the roof pitch to 35 degree. This reduced the overall height of the dwelling to 8.9 metres to the front and 7.69 metres to the rear. This is in response to the offsite amenity concern raised in terms of visual bulk and overshadowing of private open space. However, a pop-up cathedral ceiling has been introduced at the front portion of the dwelling with a maximum height of 8.9 metres above natural ground level.

Referrals

Urban Design

The amended design has been reviewed by Council’s Urban Design and the following comments are provided:

The raised section of roof unnecessarily adds to the overall building height and bulk. As other means of daylighting are available to the upper level, it is suggested that this element be deleted.

Planner Response: It will be a permit condition require the add-on roof to be removed in respect of the neighbourhood character.

Infrastructure

The application has been reviewed by Council’s Infrastructure Engineer, who raised no concerns to the proposal subject to standard infrastructure conditions be included.

KEY ISSUES

To assess the appropriateness of the application, Council has to consider the following:

Is there strategic support for the redevelopment of the site?

Whether the multi-generational dwelling concept is an acceptable form of housing?

Is the design of the proposed dwelling acceptable to the preferred or existing neighbourhood character of the area?

Does the extent of amenity impact on adjoining dwellings meet the test of clause 54?

The above considerations also respond to the VCAT decision against the previous planning permit application.

Is there strategic support for the redevelopment of the site?

The overarching policies and objectives at both a State and Local level encourage support on appropriate quantity, quality and type of housing, and promote a housing market that meets community needs. These strategies call for well-designed development that respects

Page 35


neighbourhood character, improves housing choice, makes better use of existing infrastructure and improves energy efficiency.

The proposed concept of multi-generational dwelling will encourage various family groups to reside on the site. The subject site is not located on a main road and has no overlay restrictions. It is therefore classified as being within an Incremental Change Area according to Council's Strategic Framework Plan (Clause 21.03-3). Policy directs that development (2-3 storeys) can occur in Incremental Change Areas.

The subject site has an area of 380 square metres, is therefore capable of accommodating a double storey dwelling and in line with the policy. In principle, the redevelopment of this land to provide a multi-generational dwelling in a well serviced location, located less than 200 metres from an activity centre and public transport, is supported. Specific elements of the proposal are examined in detail below.

Whether the multi-generational dwelling concept is an acceptable form of housing? A review of Council’s record reveals that the previous application considered by both Council and VCAT also include the concept of a multi-generational dwelling. In the report considering the previous application, a comment by Council’s Urban Designer stated that:

‘Whilst the proposition of a multi-generational home is supported in principle; to be achievable, such a housing model requires a suitable context and an appreciably larger site than that of a former inner-urban Victorian-era cottage.’

It is considered that the design of the dwelling has been refined in the current application to be more site responsive and respectful of the surrounding context.

The Tribunal in its order acknowledged that the proposed dwelling was to be a multi-generational dwelling, and no concerns were raised in its order on this issue.

Under Clause 74 of the Planning Scheme, a dwelling is defined as a building used as a self-contained residence which must include:

a) a kitchen sink;b) a food preparation facilities;c) a bath or shower; andd) a closet plan and wash basin.It includes out-buildings and works normal to a dwelling.

The proposed building has a total of five individual bedrooms, separate retreat areas and a core kitchen, dining and living areas located towards the front of the dwelling. Given the layout of the dwelling and the shared areas, it is considered that the proposal can be assessed as being a multi-generational dwelling that is designed for a combined household.

The proposal meets the requirements stipulated under Clause 52.23 (Shared housing), as the site is in a residential zone, provides self-contained accommodation and does not have more than 10 habitable rooms (a total of 8 habitable rooms are proposed).

In terms of the layout of the dwelling, it is noted that the wall separating the hallway along the eastern boundary and the kitchen and living rooms is equipped with highlight windows. This demonstrates that the intent of this development is to construct a single dwelling for the use of various family groups, as any wall with glazing is not a fire rated wall under the building regulations.

Page 36


The permit applicant has agreed to enter into a Section 173 agreement with Council to ensure that the land is only to be used as one dwelling. This is considered an appropriate measure to ensure that the subject building will only be used as a single dwelling and will be included as a condition should the application be supported.

Is the design of the proposed dwelling acceptable to the preferred or existing neighbourhood character of the area?

The neighbourhood character in the vicinity of the site is mixed with predominantly single storey Victorian dwellings and some two storey contemporary dwellings. The preferred neighbourhood character within the Inner Urban Precinct of Council’s Neighbourhood Character Policy under Clause 22.23 states that this ‘…precinct is defined by buildings of innovative and high quality architectural styles that sit comfortably within compact streetscapes of Victorian, Edwardian and Interwar dwellings. Consistent front setbacks reinforce the building edge along the streets, and building heights and forms complement, rather than dominate, the rhythm of development. Well- designed gardens for small spaces contribute to the softening of the streetscape. Low or permeable front fences provide views of building facades and front gardens. Where present, car parking structures are located at the rear of buildings with access from rear lanes to provide continuous, uninterrupted footpaths for pedestrian friendly streets.’

Design guidelines seek to ensure that new buildings meet the following:

Do not dominate the streetscape, and reflect the predominant 1-2 storey scale of the streetscape.

Respond to the streetscape character in an innovative and contemporary manner.

Facades are articulated with the use of recesses, verandahs, balconies, window openings and variations in materials and colours and roof forms incorporate eaves.

The loss of front garden space and the dominance of car parking structures protected by locating car parking structures behind the front facade of the dwelling fronting the street.

Hard paving for car parking should be minimised and permeable surfaces used as an alternative to impermeable surfaces.

Development should maintain and strengthen the garden settings of buildings and the tree canopy of the neighbourhood by ensuring that adequate landscaping is provided to contribute to the landscape quality of the streetscape.

Ensure fences complement the predominant style of front boundary treatment in the street and retain views to dwellings and gardens.

The proposal is to construct a two storey dwelling on the site with a maximum height of 8.9 metres, which complies with the height stipulated under the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. The dwelling will setback between 5.3 and 5.5 metres from the street at ground level, while the first floor is setback 5.7 metres. These setbacks comply with Standard A3 of ResCode, which requires 5.05 metres. A setback of 9.49 and 9.72 metres is proposed from the rear boundary at ground and first floor levels. These are considered appropriate in respecting the surrounding private open spaces. The first floor elements will be setback 1.7 metres from the side boundaries to ensure that the proposal respects the prevailing neighbourhood character and the overall built form will not dominate the streetscape.

In terms of the external material and finishes, the proposal includes face brickwork on the ground level and metal cladding panels on the upper level. These materials and finishes are

Page 37


a positive response to the predominant brick and weatherboard dwellings in the area. The provision of a 1.2 metre high picket front fence is also in keeping with the character and is commonly found in the area.

As mentioned above, the upper level form is setback 200mm behind the ground level façade to the street and 1.7 metres from the side boundaries. A number of properties along Mary Street include two storey sheer wall visible from the street, including number 4, 13, 17 and 21 Mary Street. The design response is considered to be appropriate in the area and this inner urban context.

It is also noted that windows have been incorporated onto each elevation as elements to articulate and punctuate the building. The incorporation of a pitched roof form is also a positive response to the prevailing neighbourhood character. The amended plans have lowered the roof pitch from that advertised, with a pop up roof proposed. It is considered that the pop-up roof form is not in keeping with the more simplistic roof forms found in the area. It is recommended that a condition requiring the pop-up roof be deleted to reduce the overall building height and to ensure that the pitch design respects and reflects other roof forms in the area.

The entrance to the dwelling is directly from Mary Street, with the provision of a study nook adjacent to the dwelling entry providing ground level passive surveillance to the street. A 4.2 metre wide garage opening is located to the west of the dwelling entry. A bedroom on the first floor also faces Mary Street.

In terms of landscaping and site permeability, the subject site currently does not support any significant vegetation. The architectural plans include the provision of a canopy tree, and supporting landscaping within the front setback, as well as within the rear private open space. The landscape concept proposed is considered to be a positive contribution to the Inner Urban character. The proposed site coverage is 73.6 percent (currently 46.6 percent including the existing shed to be retained at the rear of the site), with a permeability of 25 percent (currently 37 percent). Given the subject site is located within an inner urban context where properties with higher site coverage are found, and that reasonable landscaping opportunities proportional to the scale of the development have been provided, the site coverage is considered to be acceptable in this instance. A permit condition requiring a landscape plan to be submitted will ensure the quantity and species of the vegetation proposed are appropriate to be planted in a more confined setting. The garage is proposed to the west of the dwelling entry and is kept to a single width and accessed via the existing crossover. It is considered that the garage will not be a dominating element within the streetscape with the extent of hard surface kept to a practical minimum.

The proposal includes ground level walls to be constructed on both side boundaries, which is a common feature in an inner urban setting due to the narrow lot width. The properties that are constructed boundary to boundary along Mary Street includes numbers 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15A, 19 and 20. It is therefore considered that the proposed boundary to boundary construction is acceptable subject to not resulting in unreasonable amenity impacts to the adjoining properties.

In light of the above, it is considered that the proposed dwelling is an appropriate outcome in the prevailing and preferred neighbourhood character of the area and it is a positive response to the design guidelines under the Inner Urban Precinct, subject to conditions.

Does the extent of amenity impacts on adjoining dwellings meet the test of clause 54?

Side setbacks

Page 38


Location Wall Height Required Proposed DifferenceEast elevation ground level

3.67 metres 1.02 metres 1.7 metres + 0.68 meters

West elevation ground level

3.78 metres 1.05 metres 2.6 metres + 1.55 meters

East elevation first floor 5.94 metres 1.70 metres 1.70 metres 0 metreWest elevation first floor (Bed 3)

6.62 metres 1.90 metres 1.70 metres - 0.2 metre

West elevation first floor (Bed 2)

6.3 metres 1.81 metres 1.70 metres - 0.11 metre

West elevation first floor(Bed 4)

5.9 metres 1.69 metres 1.70 metres + 0.01 metre

Some building setbacks do not comply with those required under Standard A10 of ResCode.

Minor variations are sought for the first floor west elevation by 200mm. The built form protruding into the required setback includes the top 500mm of the upper level wall and the associated roof. This is considered acceptable in an inner urban context due to narrowness of the lots. The area of non-compliance is associated with Bedrooms 2 and 3, where a number of ground level habitable room windows are found within the adjoining property. Given the setback variation sought is no greater than 200mm, the impact to those windows is not considered to be unreasonable as the amenity impact on the adjoining property will be minimal. The proposal generally respects the neighbourhood character and the amenity impact is limited as the adjoining properties’ habitable room windows and private open spaces will still receive reasonable solar access, subject to conditions, this will be further discussed in the following section of this report.

Wall on boundary

The proposal includes ground level boundary walls that measure 32 metres in length along the eastern and western boundaries with an average wall height of 3.6 metres. The length and average wall height of the ground level walls exceed that stipulated under Standard A11 of ResCode.

It is considered that the variation sought is supported along the eastern boundary, as 18 Mary Street does not contain any habitable room facing the common boundary, while 5-7 and 9-11 Cyril Street both have walls constructed on the boundary adjacent to the proposed wall. The extent and height of wall proposed along the eastern boundary is considered acceptable and will not result in unreasonable amenity impacts to the adjoining properties to the east.

The height of wall to be constructed on the western boundary is however considered to be an area of concern. A number of habitable room windows of the adjoining property are setback between 1.4 and 1.6 metres from the common boundary. It is considered that the proposed wall height will result in unreasonable amenity impacts to those habitable room windows. It will therefore be a permit condition requiring the western boundary wall height to be reduced to ensure that the average height does not exceed 3.2 metres. This is not applicable to the garage wall as it does not directly abut any habitable room window of the property to the west. The retention of the garage wall at 3.78 metres will also allow the same height be brought around to the front façade. This will ensure that the street parapet height wall is maintained across the width of the site.

Overshadowing

Page 39


Given the north-south orientation of the site, the proposal would cast additional shadows to the secluded private open space area area of 12 Mary Street in the morning hours. This dwelling has approximately 60 square metres of open space within the rear of the site. The submitted shadow diagram indicates that the proposal will overshadow an additional 36 square metres of the private open space at 9am at the equinox, which leads to 13 square metres of the space not overshadowed at 9am by the proposal. The shadow impact is significantly reduced from 10am at the equinox, leaving at least 43 square metres of the neighbour’s secluded private open space not overshadowed by the proposed development. The shadow impact to the west therefore complies with Standard A14 of ResCode by ensuring at least 40 square metres with a minimum dimension of 3 metres of its private open space will receive a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 10am and 3pm at the equinox.

The development will cast shadow to the properties to the east from 1pm. 18 Mary Street has access to a secluded private open space of 36 square metres, 5-7 Cyril Street’s is 42 square metres, while 9-11 Cyril Street has its secluded private open space located some 6 metres away from the common boundary and will not be affected by the proposal. At 3pm where the shadow impact will be the greatest, 18 Mary Street will have 17 square metres of its secluded private open space not affected by shadow, while 5-7 Cyril Street will have 41 square metres of its secluded private open space clear of shadow of the proposal. At 2pm, 28 and 33 square metres of the private open spaces of 18 Mary Street and 5-7 Cyril Street will not be affected by shadow cast by the proposal respectively. Thus, the properties to the east, will have at least 75 percent of the secluded private open space receiving five hours of sunlight between 9am and 2pm at the equinox. The shadow impact to east therefore complies with Standard A14 of ResCode.

Overlooking

The only potential adverse overlooking is to the east and west, as the site faces Mary Street to the north and the proposal is setback 9.2 metres from the southern (rear) boundary. The elevation shows that all first floor windows on the eastern and western elevations are highlight windows with a sill height of 1.7 metres. While views from the south facing window of Bedroom 4 will be obscured by the side boundary fences. The first floor terraces between the master bedroom and bedroom 5 are also equipped with overlooking screens that are 2.4 metres in height. However, their level of transparency is not shown, which will be required as a permit condition.

In relation to the ground level, 1.9 metre high boundary fences exist along the eastern and western boundaries which will be sufficient to obstructed direct views into the adjoining properties. The proposal therefore complies with the overlooking standard and objectives under Clause 54.04-6.

Internal Amenity

In terms of access to daylight, all habitable rooms are equipped with a window on an external wall, the provision of skylights over kitchen area, rumpus, ground level bedroom and the living room will also provide additional access to daylight in these areas. The terraces to the north and south of the living room are greater than 3 square metres in area and has more than 1 metre clear to sky, which will improve light access in the living room.

Furthermore, the dwelling will have access to a secluded private open space that is 40 square metres, as well as courtyards and first floor terrace.

Page 40


Only the open space area within the front setback of the dwelling is oriented to the north. Given the north-south orientation this situation is acceptable. It is noted that the proposal does not comply with the setback requirement specified under Clause 54.05-3 applicable to a development when the private open space is provided to the south of the dwelling. The wall to the north of the open space has a height of 5.7 metres, which means that the private open space should be a minimum length of 7.13 metres, when 5.13 metres is proposed. A review of the shadow diagram reveals that the open space will be largely affected by shadow throughout the day other than after 3pm. It is considered that the areas opened to the east and west, the presence of the single storey shed structure to the south and that the first floor building form does not extend across the entire width of the site. This area will still receive a reasonable amount of daylight. It is considered that objective of solar access to open space is reasonably achieved.

Car Parking and Traffic

The proposed dwelling consists of a total of five bedrooms. Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5, two parking spaces are to be provided. The proposal includes the provision of a single garage and a tandem car space. It is however noted that the garage length of 5.4 metres fails to comply with the relevant design standard. It will be a permit condition requiring the garage be extended to achieve a minimum internal length of 6 metres with no further encroachment into the front setback.

Vehicle access to the site is via an existing vehicle crossover off Mary Street. It is considered that the accessway is well designed to facilitate safe and efficient vehicle manoeuvres.

Water Sensitive Urban Design

Clause 22.18 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme requires an application to be accompanied by a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response to demonstrate the achievement of best practice stormwater treatment measures that improve stormwater quality and reduce flow of water discharged to waterways.

The application is accompanied with a STORM Rating report which demonstrates that the proposal can achieved a 102% STORM Rating through the provision of a 100mm raingarden and a 5000L rainwater tank. Plan showing that the 250 square metres of roof area of the dwelling will be connected to the rainwater tank which is connected to toilets for flushing. Stormwater collected from the roof of the existing shed will be connected to the raingarden. The architectural plan shows that the rainwater tank will be installed under the accessway within the front setback of the proposed dwelling. The raingarden, according to the STORM Assessment Report, is to be installed at the southwest corner of the secluded private opens space adjacent to the shed. This is however not shown on the architectural plan. It will therefore be a permit condition requiring the raingarden be shown on the architectural plan along with a cross-section of the raingarden.

Objections not previously discussed

The plan is inaccurate and fails to show additions within the adjoining property at 9-11 Cyril Street.

The amended plans now include the extension at 9-11 Cyril Street. This assessment considers the potential impacts this may have.

Concern on the use of the outbuilding to the rear as another dwelling.

It has been clarified in the amended plans that the outbuilding will be used as a shed, and is non-habitable.

Page 41


Location of services (e.g. air conditioners, heaters and etc.) are not shown on plans.

These are considered services normal to a dwelling and that do not require a planning permit. Should any amenity issue arise from the operation of these services in the future, these are regulated under the relevant EPA regulations or Council’s Local Laws.

It will also be a condition permit requiring all services to be located or screened to minimize visibility form any surrounding properties and must not be located on balconies or first floor terraces.

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 design of the proposed multi-generational dwelling is acceptable when assessed

against the preferred or existing neighbourhood character of the area. The extent of amenity impact on adjoining dwelling is acceptable and meet the test of

clause 54. The design of the dwelling will deliver reasonable internal amenity to the future

occupants of the dwelling. The proposed traffic and parking arrangement, subject to condition, will facilitate safe

and efficient manoeuvring of vehicles.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PA - 1287-17 - 14 Mary Street Windsor - Attachments 1 of 1 Plans

Page 42


RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 1287/17 for the land located at 14 Mary Street, Windsor be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for the construction of a dwelling on a lot less than 500 square metres in area in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development, one (1) copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by Brenchley Architects, Sheets A04 to A08, amended on 3 May 2018 but modified to show:a) The pop up cathedral ceiling roof above staircase and bedroom 2 be

deleted. Additional skylights may be added to increase daylight received by the dwelling;

b) The ground level wall along the western boundary be reduced to achieve an average height of 3.2 metres. This does not apply to the first 5.5 metre from the façade of the dwelling;

c) An annotation on the site and elevation plans stipulating that all overlooking measures to have a maximum transparency of 25 percent;

d) The garage must have an internal length of 6 metres with no reduction to the street setback;

e) A cross-section of the raingarden be include in the elevation plan. f) Any changes as a result of the landscape plan as required under Condition

3.All of the above must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason, without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plan, 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. The landscape plan must show: a) Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways.b) A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers,

including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant.

c) Landscaping and planting within all open areas of the site.d) A minimum of three (3) canopy trees (minimum 2 metres tall when

planted) in the following areas:i. An upper canopy tree capable of reaching a height of 8 metres at

maturity within the front setback.ii. Two canopy trees capable of reaching a height of 4 metres at

maturity within the rear secluded private open space.e) Location and cross-section of the raingarden.

Page 43


4. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling, 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.

5. The development hereby permitted must not commence until the owner of the land enters into an agreement with the Responsible Authority pursuant to the provisions of Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 in which it must be covenanted as follows: a) That the dwelling approved under Planning Permit 1287/17, and any

subsequent amendment, must not be used for any more than one dwelling, as defined under the Stonnington Planning Scheme, unless with the further written consent of the Responsible Authority;

b) That the requirements contained in this agreement must form part of any lease of the premises which the owner of the land under this permit may enter into with another party;

c) Pursuant to the provisions of Section 181 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 this agreement must be registered with the Registrar of Titles and must run with the land; and

d) The owner of the land under this permit must pay the legal costs and be responsible for the preparation and registration of the said agreement

6. All plant and equipment (including air-conditioning units) shall be located or screened so as to minimise visibility from any of the surrounding properties and from overhead views, and must not be located within the secluded private open space, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

7. The level of the footpaths and laneway must not be lowered or altered in any way.

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

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

10. Prior to the occupation of the building, fixed privacy screens (not adhesive film) designed to limit overlooking as required by Standard B22 of Clause 55.04-6 in accordance with the endorsed plans must be installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority thereafter for the life of the building.

11. 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. In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a request may be submitted to the Responsible Authority within the prescribed timeframes for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

Page 44


NOTES: I. 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.

II. At the permit issue date, Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 stated that the Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing within the following timeframes:

i. Before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has not yet started; and

ii. Within 12 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully started before the permit expires.

Page 45


3. PLANNING APPLICATION 0498/17- 44-46 DUKE STREET, WINDSOR VIC 3181- CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING ON A LOT OF LESS THAN 300SQM IN A NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND REDUCTION TO THE CAR PARKING REQUIREMENT


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for the construction of a new dwelling on a lot of less than 300sqm in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone and reduction to the car parking requirement at 41-44 Duke Street, Windsor.

Executive Summary

Applicant: James Livingston PlanningWard: SouthZone: Clause 32.09 – Neighbourhood Residential Zone (Schedule 3)Overlay: N/A Neighbourhood Precinct: Inner Urban PrecinctDate lodged: 05 June 2017Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

68


Councillor Call-upNumber of objections

Cultural Heritage Plan NoNumber of objections: 34 objections from 29 addressesConsultative Meeting: Yes – held on 23 May 2018Officer Recommendation: Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Cook Gordon Architects and are known as Drawing No.s: A01 (rev TP04), A02 (rev TP04), A03 (rev TP03), A04 (rev TP05), A05 (rev TP05), A06 (rev TP05), A07 (rev TP06), A08 (rev TP06), A09 (rev TP06), A10 (rev TP04), A11 (rev TP04), A12 (rev TP04), A13 (rev TP04), A14 (rev TP04), A15 (rev TP04), A16 (rev TP05), A17 (rev TP02), A18 (rev TP06), A19(rev TP03), A20 (rev TP04), A21 (rev TP04), A22 (rev TP04), A23 (rev TP04), A24 (rev TP04) and Council date stamped 2 May 2018.

The application seeks permission for the construction of a double storey dwelling. Key features of the proposal are:

General

Full demolition of the existing dwelling (note: a planning permit is not required for demolition)

Construction of a new double storey dwelling. The proposal has a maximum building height of 7.33m (measured from natural ground

level and shown on the proposed west elevation). Pedestrian access and entries are provided from Duke Street.

Page 47


No onsite car parking is provided. The proposal is to consist of a contemporary architectural style. The proposed

materials and finishes include brick, metal roof cladding, flat metal plate finish, perforated metal mesh, metal louvered screen and perforated metal mesh.

Ground Floor

To the north, the proposal provides a centrally positioned entry section which has a width of 2.91m and a depth of 1.26m. The remainder of the dwelling is to be constructed on the northern boundary.

To the south, the proposal incorporates a lightwell, which has a setback of 6.025m from Primrose Street, a length of 4.825m and a width of 1.49-1.565m. The remainder of the dwelling is to be constructed on the southern boundary.

To the west, the proposal allows for a setback of 1.29m. To the east, the proposal is setback 6.035m from the boundary. The eastern section of

the site will be used as the main area of secluded private open space. An open steel pergola (i.e. uncovered) will be installed above the rear garden.

The ground floor comprises a study, an open plan kitchen / dining / living room and service areas.

First Floor

The first floor adopts the same boundary setbacks to align with the ground floor layout. The first floor comprises a secondary living room, two bedrooms and associated

bathrooms.

The development plans that form the basis of this assessment are plans (A01 – A24, Council date stamped 2 May 2018). These plans were formally declared pursuant to Clause 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and supersede the originally advertised plans (Council date stamped 27 January 2017). The revised plans were submitted to respond to concerns raised by Council and objectors, and show the following key changes:

The introduction of a hipped roof form to the rear section The rear (i.e. eastern) setback to be increased from 4.305m to 6.035m The depth of a lightwell on the south elevation to be increased from 4.2m to 4.825m A west facing window at first floor to be modified in shape

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is located on the south eastern corner of the intersection of Duke Street and Primrose Street. It is approximately 181.1m east of the intersection with Chapel Street, and 55.8m west of the intersection with Hornby Street.

The subject site has the following significant characteristics: The land is rectangular in shape, yielding a total site area of approximately 120sqm. The land has dual frontage: to the west, it provides a frontage of 5.23m to Primrose

Street; to the north, it adjoins Duke Street with a frontage of 24.51m. The land is currently improved by a two-bedroom single storey weatherboard dwelling. Pedestrian access is provided from Duke Street. No onsite car parking arrangement is provided.

The surrounding land is predominantly residential consisting mostly of single and double storey dwellings on smaller lots, mixed with a number of double storey brick dwellings and occasionally apartment buildings. Whilst the lot size varies, the immediate context generally reflects a fine grain pattern of development.

Page 48


The subject site has four interfaces, which are summarised as follows:

To the immediate south is a property at 18 Primrose Street, Windsor, which houses a double storey dwelling with a contemporary rear addition.

To the immediate north, the subject site abuts Duke Street, which is a narrow one-way street that runs from Hornby Street to Chapel Street. On the opposite side of Duke Street are properties at 39, 45, 47 and 49 Duke Street respectively. Of significance is that the four properties are affected by a Heritage Overlay (HO129), which is commonly described as a Hornby-Mary Streets Urban Conservation Area. Specifically, the land at 39 Duke Street houses an A1 graded gothic style federation building which was previously known as the Red Lion Hotel and is currently used as a dwelling. The land at 45 Duke Street is improved by an A1 graded semi-detached single storey dwelling, paired with the dwelling at 47 Duke Street. The site at 49 Duke Street contains a B-graded single storey brick dwelling with a pitched roof.

To the immediate west, the subject site abuts Primrose Street, which is a narrow two-way street that runs from Duke Street to James Street. On the other side of the street is 42 Duke Street, which houses a single storey rendered dwelling.

To the immediate east is 48 Duke Street, which is developed with a single storey, single fronted weatherboard cottage.


A search of Council records indicates no relevant planning applications for the subject site.

However, it is noted that Planning Permit No. 905/13 was issued to the southern adjoining property at 18 Primrose Street, which is relevant to the application at hand and will be discussed later in this assessment.

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 04691 Folio 097 / Lot 1 on Title Plan 696060H.

An easement extends to the immediate south of the subject site, with a length of approximately 9.45m and a width of approximately 0.37m. The Title also specifies that the right to use the said easement is limited to the purpose of overhanging eaves. Given the placement of this easement, a condition is recommended, requiring that notations are included on all site / floor plans, confirming that all new works will be constructed within the title boundaries on the subject site. Any subsequent amendments to the proposal should ensure that all new works (including boundary fencing) are clearly depicted within the title boundaries.

No covenants affect the land.

Planning Controls


ZoneClause 32.09 – Neighbourhood Residential Zone (Schedule 3)

Pursuant to Clause 32.09-5, a planning permit is required to construct or extend one dwelling on a lot of less than 300 square metres.

Page 49


The application proposes to construct a new dwelling on a lot of 120 square metres. A planning permit is therefore required under the zone.

Furthermore, as stipulated in Schedule 3 to the zone, a building used as a dwelling or a residential building must not exceed a height of 9 metres. The proposed maximum building height is 7.33m and complies with the height controls.

Schedule 3 also sets out variations to requirements stipulated in Clause 54 (One Dwelling on a lot), which are stated as follows:

Standard Requirement Site coverage A5 Basements should not exceed 75% of the site area. Front fence height A20 Maximum height of 2 metres in streets in a Road

Zone, Category 1.Other streets 1.2 metres maximum height.

OverlayThe subject site is not affected by any overlays.

Particular ProvisionsClause 52.06 – Car Parking

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-1, Clause 52.06 does not apply to the construct and use of one dwelling on a lot in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone unless the zone or a schedule to zone specifies that a permit is required to construct or extend one dwelling on a lot.

As outlined above, the proposal triggers a planning permit under the zone, Clause 52.06 therefore applies to this application.

Pursuant to Table 1 at Clause 52.06-5, 2 car parking spaces are required to each three or more bedroom dwelling (with studies or studios that are separate rooms counted as a bedroom).

The proposal encompasses one study room on the ground floor and two bedrooms on the first floor; and is therefore considered a three bedroom dwelling. In accordance with Table 1, 2 car parking spaces should be provided.

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-3, a planning permit is required to reduce (including to zero) the number of car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5. As no onsite car parking is provided, a planning permit is required for the reduction to car parking requirement.

Clause 54 – One Dwelling on a Lot

Page 50


Relevant Planning Policies

21.06 Built Environment and Heritage 22.18 Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) Policy 22.23 Neighbourhood Character Policy 32.09 Neighbourhood Residential Zone (Schedule 3)52.06 Car Parking 54 One Dwelling on a Lot 65 Decision Guidelines

Advertising

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

4 objections (from 3 affected properties) were received in the initial public notice.

Key aspects of the objections during the initial advertising period are summarised below:

Inconsistency with the neighbourhood character Amenity impacts in relation to daylight access to north-facing windows and

overshadowing Amenity impacts in relation to overlooking Over-development Visual bulk on the Primrose Street and Duke Street Inappropriate car parking arrangement

A Consultative Meeting was held on 23 May 2018. The meeting was attended by Councillors Hindle and Sehr, representatives of the applicant, objectors and their representative, and a Council planning officer. The meeting resulted in the following changes to the advertised plans:

The introduction of a hipped roof form to the rear section The rear (i.e. eastern) setback increased from 4.305m to 6.035m The width of a lightwell on the south elevation increased from 4.2m to 4.8m A west facing window at first floor to be modified in shape

The revised plans were circulated to all objectors via email. 30 further objections were received and can be summarised as follows:

Inconsistency with the planning policy framework Inconsistency with the heritage character of Duke Street Inadequate car parking provision Overshadowing Overlooking Inappropriate material use on the southern elevation Lack of design details

No objections have been withdrawn. The total number of objections counts as 34 (from 29 addresses).

Referrals

Page 51


Urban Design Comments from Council’s Urban Design Advisor on the revised plans advised that:

Scale: the proposal for a 2-storey contemporary infill development on the subject site is not an unusual scale for a corner site in this neighbourhood.

Form: the proposed building is a contemporary interpretation of a simple pitched roof-form. Visual break is introduced in the building form, together with projecting window at first floor, adds visual interest and articulates the form of the building as it presents to Duke Street.

Setbacks: given the corner lot, a zero setback to Duke Street is consistent with the character of corner buildings in the area. The small setback to Primrose Street is appropriate for this context.

Materials and colour scheme: recycled common red bricks and dark-grey colouring for the subsidiary elements are supported. The face-brickwork on the south elevation is not supported as it creates a visual conflict with the predominant material – red-brick.

Fenestration: the relatively large sizes of the first floor windows and their (horizontal) rectangular shape(s), are at odds with the predominant character of the window sizes and proportions found in the Victorian/Edwardian-era buildings in the neighbourhood. It is suggested that a more finely-scaled and vertically-proportioned window arrangement would result in a better integration of the building with the character of the neighbourhood.

KEY ISSUES

The application seeks to construct a double storey dwelling at 44-46 Duke Street, Windsor. As the permit triggers concern Clause 32.09 (Neighbourhood Residential Zone) and Clause 52.06 (Car Parking), the key issues that Council has to determine are:

Is the proposal acceptable in neighbourhood character terms? Will the proposal unreasonably affect the amenity of the adjoining properties? Does the proposal provide an adequate level of internal amenity to the occupants? Is the car parking reduction (to zero) acceptable?

The proposal is acceptable in neighbourhood character terms.

Having considered the policies, provisions and decision guidelines of the Stonnington Planning Scheme and the context of the subject site and its surrounds, the proposal is considered to be respectful and compatible with the existing neighbourhood character with the following considerations:

Consistency with the policy direction

At State level, Clause 15.01-1 seeks to create urban environments that provide good quality environments with a sense of place and cultural identify. Clause 15.01-5 also has an objective to recognise and protect neighbourhood character and sense of place and Clause 15.03-1 has an objective to ensure the conservation of places of heritage significance.

The objectives in the State Planning Policy Framework are reiterated in the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF). This includes:

Page 52


Clause 21.05, which identifies the subject site as part of Incremental Change Area, where multi-unit development (2-3 storeys) to lots capable to accommodating increased policy is encouraged;

Clause 21.06-3 (Amenity), which seeks to ensure new development does not unreasonably affect the amenity of any adjoining residential properties through overlooking, overshadowing or traffic and parking associated with the use.

Clause 21.06-4 (Built form Character), which seeks to provide for medium density (2-3 storey) development provided the development respects the preferred character of the precinct.

The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policies require the design of a development to respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and be appropriate for its setting. Objectors are concerned that the proposal does not respect the existing character of this neighbourhood by virtue of its height, scale and form. The proposal is considered appropriate for the following reasons: As the subject site is situated in an Incremental Change Area, the construction of a 2-

storey dwelling is responsive to housing policy provisions. The overall height of the development, at two storeys, is consistent with the scale of

many of the surrounding properties. As presented in the streetscapes of Duke Street and Primrose Street, two storey development (including single storey with first floor additions) is an emerging character of the area. On Duke Street, the land at 37 Duke Street has a visible first floor addition; and the properties at 39 Duke Street; and 67 Hornby Street are constructed with zero setback to the street. Similarly, on Primrose Street, to the immediate south, the land at 18 Primrose Street is featured by its contemporary first floor addition; and the land at 21 Primrose Street also has a visible first floor component on the street elevation. Furthermore, while the proposal presents more obviously to the streets (due to the corner site nature), it should be noted that many nearby examples possess more visual dominant features when viewed from the street. For instance, the land at 33-35 James Street (located approximately 100m south of the site) contains a four storey apartment building; and the land at 30 James Street is improved by a three-storey apartment building. As such, it is clear that the varied context would support the proposal, as the scale integrates well with the existing character of the surrounds.

The subject site is located in an area where buildings are often sited close to, or on, one or both side boundaries. This pattern of development has formed a prevailing character of this area, as it is common and reasonable to have properties constructed in very close proximity to the side boundaries of narrow sites. The proposal incorporates boundary walls on the northern and the southern boundary. This is considered a reflective response to the surrounds and consistent with the context.

The policy calls for new building in an innovative and contemporary manner and building materials that are in stark contrast with the character of the streetscape should be avoided. This proposal adopts a contemporary architectural style and incorporates recycled brickwork as a response to the dominant character of the streets. The proposal therefore is considered consistent with the policy controls and appropriate to the character of the area.

Consistency with the existing character

The LPPF also includes an objective at Clause 22.23 (Neighbourhood Character Policy), to ensure that development reflects the intention of the statement of preferred neighbourhood character and design guidelines for each precinct.

The subject site is located in an Inner Urban Precinct (IU) that occupies the southern and western part of the municipality. This precinct is defined by buildings of innovative and high quality architectural styles that sit comfortably within compact streetscapes of Victorian,

Page 53


Edwardian and Interwar dwellings. Consistent front setbacks reinforce the building edge along the streets, and building heights and forms complement, rather than dominate, the rhythm of development.

In conjunction with the referral comments from Council’s Urban Design Advisor, the proposed design response is appropriate in this neighbourhood. With regard to the first floor component particularly, it is worth noting that two storey development has become a more common aspect of Melbourne’s built form. As the Tribunal remarked in Waylan Consulting Group v Moreland CC [2000] VCAT 1198, ‘… double storey dwellings are not two headed monsters. They are normal housing type throughout the metropolitan area’. Member Keaney also commented in Rendevski v City of Greater Geelong [1999] VCAT 1886:

Leaving aside the fact that this would not be the first two storey “intrusion” (either for a single home or multi-unit), the Tribunal would be reluctant to reject what is a perfectly normal and acceptable form of development right throughout our urban areas, except if the neighbourhood characteristics were so pristine and important so as to make a two storey proposal unacceptable.

With a view to the immediate context, double storey dwellings are not an uncommon feature of this area. For instance, the land at No. 20, 23, 28 Duke Street have visible first floor additions; and the southern adjoining property at 18 Primrose Street has distinct additions at ground and first floor levels. Given the variety in building heights and the absence of design-specific overlays (such as Heritage Overlay or Neighbourhood Character Overlay), it is considered that the proposal with a maximum height of 7.33m will not result in any unreasonable adverse impact on the character of this neighbourhood.

Built form

The proposal does not introduce a built form that is dominant or overwhelming to this neighbourhood. The 2-storey red-brick building on the corner of Duke Street and Hornby Street is one of the nearby examples on a corner site. Specifically, the said land is at 67 Hornby Street and contains a 2-storey brick dwelling built on the street frontages and the northern boundary. It is also noted that the street facades read as continuous double storey boundary walls with no break. The proposal however introduces pedestrian access and entries via Duke Street, which in return presents an articulated built form thereby reducing the dominance of double storey boundary wall to the street and providing visual interest.

Having regard to the existing context, it is considered that the proposed built form provides an acceptable response to its neighbourhood. Although the proposal is to be constructed along the northern and southern boundaries, as discussed above, the narrow and small subdivision pattern of the area has reinforced a prevailing character where buildings are often sited close to, or on, one or both side boundaries. Furthermore, the immediate context does not present a consistent pattern; rather it is featured by mixed built forms. The proposal therefore is not considered too remote or farfetched from the established mixed nature of the surrounds.

Additionally, in the wider neighbourhood, it is noted that the land at 14 White Street (located the corner of James Street and White Street) houses a contemporary example of a double storey redevelopment on a corner site of a similar size to the subject site. The development incorporates face brickworks on the ground floor; and continuous first floor boundary wall to White Street with dark grey vertical cladding.

With all the above considerations, the proposed built form is considered appropriate and will sit comfortably in its context.

Page 54


Site Layout and Building Massing

Street setback

With specific regard to the street setback requirements, it is noted that the site is located on a corner. Standard A3 stipulates the following preferred setbacks for developments on corner sites.

Minimum setback from front street:

If there is a building on the abutting allotment facing the front street, the same distance as the setback of the front wall of the existing building on the abutting allotment facing the front street or 9 metres, whichever is the lesser.

Minimum setback from side street

The same distance as the setback of the front wall of any existing building on the abutting allotment facing the side street or 2 metres, whichever is the lesser.

The proposed setback to the primary frontage of Duke Street will be zero, which means that a variation to the Standard is required as the eastern neighbouring property at 48 Duke Street has a setback of approximately 2m. A variation may be supported on the basis that the existing dwelling on the site is built to the northern (Duke Street) boundary. Furthermore, the existing neighbourhood character has a prevailing feature where boundary construction is common given the narrow nature of the sites in this area. In the immediate context, it is noted that two storey sheer walls constructed alongside boundaries are not uncommon. The proposal is therefore not inconsistent with the character of this neighbourhood.

The proposed setback to Primrose Street is 1.29m which generally aligns with the setback of the principle façade of the southern neighbouring property at 18 Primrose Street.

Site Coverage

Standard A5 states that the maximum site coverage is 60 per cent. The existing site coverage is 66% and the proposed site coverage is 63%. Given the reduction in the overall site coverage, the proposal is considered an improved design outcome and can be supported.

Permeability

Standard A6 requires a minimum permeability of 20 per cent. The proposed impervious surface area is 67%, which allows for 33% of the site to be permeable. The proposal therefore complies. It is however recommended that the permeable surface should be clearly outlined in the site or floor plans. A relevant condition will therefore be included.

Design detail

The design detail of the proposed dwelling are considered to be appropriate. Reasons are outlined below:

Firstly, as discussed above, the built form and the scale (of being a 2-storey property) respond to the character of the area appropriately.

Secondly, the proposed pitched roof is consistent with the nearby properties.

Page 55


Thirdly, in terms of façade articulation and detailing, efforts have been made to provide a positive response to the streetscapes of Duke Street and Primrose Street. For instance, the proposed street façades incorporate windows and introduce entries to articulate the double storey walls. This approach is considered acceptable in principle. With particular respect to the window shapes, it is noted that the first floor north facing windows are of large sizes, which are at odds with the predominant character of the window sizes and proportions found in the Victorian/Edwardian-era buildings in the neighbourhood. A condition is therefore recommended, requiring a more finely-scaled and vertically-proportioned window arrangement to be provided at the first floor level on the north elevation.

Furthermore, the material palette responds to materials that are not uncommon in the neighbourhood. The proposal incorporates recycled common red bricks for the external cladding, this is considered responsive to the variety of existing red-brick buildings in the area. The proposal also incorporates dark-grey colouring for window frames, screening and roofing, which complements the red brickwork and can be supported.

Additionally, one of the objectors raised concerns regarding the white finishes to be applied on the southern elevation. As outlined in the referral comments, this treatment is not supported as a portion of this wall is visible from Primrose Street; and will likely cause a visual conflicts in material/colour with the north and west elevations of red-brick. A condition is therefore recommended, requiring the south elevation materials/colour to be consistent with the north and west elevations.

Front fence

In accordance with Standard A20, the maximum height of front fences on Duke Street and Primrose Street should not exceed 1.2m. The Objective is to ‘encourage front fence design that respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character’. The proposal is considered to meet the objective for the following reasons:

The subject site sits in a corner, abutting Primrose Street and Duke Street. Traditionally, for corner sites, the narrow street is treated as the primary; and the other as the secondary. Primrose Street is therefore considered the frontage. On Primrose Street, the proposal incorporates a 1.5m timber paling fence. This is supported as it is consistent with other front fences along Primrose Street, in terms of the materials and colour finishes.

On Duke Street, pedestrian access and entries are proposed. The proposed pedestrian entry is enclosed with a timber paling fence with a height of less than 1.5m. This is considered responsive to the surrounds. It is also noted that at the eastern end, a 1.89m high timber paling fence is included. As shown on the proposed site plan, an additional access is provided from the rear section. The proposed north elevation however does not specifically depict the proposed additional access. A condition is therefore recommended, requiring the second access to be clearly depicted on the north elevation with dimensions and used for pedestrian access only.

For all the reasons outlined above, it is considered that the scale, massing and form of the proposal are appropriate in this locale and will assimilate well into the neighbourhood.

The proposal will not cause unreasonable amenity impacts on the adjoining properties.

This application has been assessed against the relevant requirements of Clause 54 and the section below outlines the key findings:

Page 56


Side and rear setbacks

Standard A10 (side and rear setbacks) sets out numeric requirements for side and rear setbacks. The proposed extension is largely constructed along the side boundaries (refer to assessment of Standard A11 below). However, part of the first floor extension is setback from the side boundaries.

Ground Floor

To the south, the proposed wall height does not exceed 3.6m and the required minimum setback is therefore 1m. As the proposal introduces a lightwell, the section where the internal staircase is located is to be set back 1.49m (minimum) and thus complies. The remaining is to be constructed on the boundary and will be assessed under Standard A11 (Walls on boundaries) below.

To the east, the proposal allows for a setback of 6.035m to accommodate a rear garden (i.e. secluded private open space). As the proposed wall height does not exceed 3.6m, the required setback should be 1m. The proposal therefore complies.

First floor

The first floor is to be constructed to be aligned with the ground floor layout and provides for the same boundary setbacks around the building.

To the south, the proposed wall height is 5.47m and the required minimum setback therefore is 1.56m. The proposed lightwell allows for a minimum setback of 1.49m from the boundary.

To the east, the proposed building height is 5.55m and the required minimum setback therefore is 1.59m. The proposal is to be set back 6.035m from the rear boundary and thus complies.

A variation is considered appropriate for the following reasons:

1. To the south, the proposal incorporates a lightwell, which ensures daylight access to the existing north facing windows. This will be discussed in the assessment of Standard A13 (North facing window objective) below.

2. Given the narrow spacing between properties in this neighbourhood, the variation is considered to be acceptable from a character perspective.

3. The existing dwelling is constructed on the northern and southern boundaries. The proposal is not considered remote from its existing condition.

Wall on boundaries

The proposed building will be constructed along both the northern and southern boundaries. The impact of the proposal with regard to the northern (Duke Street) boundary has been assessed above. Assessment of the proposed southern wall on boundary is provided as follows:

In accordance with Standard A11, the permissible maximum length of walls on boundary is 13.63m.

Standard A11 also states a new wall should not exceed an average of 3.2m with no part higher than 3.6m. As the proposal is to be constructed on the southern boundaries at both

Page 57


levels, a variation to the Standard is required. It is considered that the Objective of Clause 54.04-2 is satisfied for the following reasons: To the south, the ground floor boundary wall is generally consistent with the existing

boundary wall in terms of the height and the length. Consequently, any impact will be generally consistent with the existing condition. The proposal introduces a lightwell to the immediate east of the ground floor study. The dimensions of the lightwell provide daylight access to the southern adjoining land. (Note: a detailed discussion is included in the assessment against Standard A13 (North facing windows objective) below).

The existing southern boundary wall has a total length of approximately 20m and a height of more than 3m. The front section of the existing southern boundary wall is directly opposite the ground floor habitable room window contained in the property at 18 Primrose Street; and the remainder is constructed simultaneously adjacent to the neighbour’s wall. In this proposal, where the ground floor habitable room window in the southern adjoining property is located, a lightwell is introduced and enclosed with a boundary wall of 2.19m in height (maximum). As a result of the reduction in the wall height, the consequential amenity impact on the southern adjoining property will be reasonably lessened.

With regard to the southern interface, the wall on boundary will not be positioned directly opposite the main rear courtyard of 18 Primrose Street, meaning visual bulk impacts to this space will not be unreasonable.

In light of the above, the proposed boundary walls are consistent with the character of developments in this neighbourhood and will not cause detriments to the amenity of the adjoining properties.

Daylight to existing windows

To the west and the north, the subject site adjoins Primrose Street and Duke Street. The Standard does not apply.

To the east, no habitable room windows are located opposite the subject site. The Standard therefore does not apply with respect to these interfaces.

To the south, all habitable room windows except one are defined as north facing windows and an assessment will be included in the following assessment against Standard A13 (North-facing windows) below.

The one non-north facing window of the neighbouring property at No. 18 Primrose Street that is applicable in this assessment is a narrow window that is part of the access door that connects the rear open plan living / kitchen area to the northern external access path. Given the angle of this window, it is not technically defined as a north facing window and therefore must be assessed against Standard A12 under the Daylight to Existing Windows Objective.

A variation to the Standard will be required as part of the proposed building on the boundary will be positioned opposite this angled window. A variation may be supported on the basis that the proposed light court will sit just west of the angled window allowing for adequate light access into this space. It is also noted that the window already receives compromised light under its existing arrangement. Importantly, it should be noted that this angled window is not the only source of light for this open plan kitchen / dining / living room, as the floor-to-ceiling east facing glazing door / windows is used as the main source of daylight access.

North-facing windows

Page 58


The North Facing Windows Objective states the following:

To allow adequate solar access to existing north-facing habitable room windows.

Standard A13 applies to any neighbouring north facing habitable room window that is positioned within 3m of the property boundary. The Standard provides a numeric boundary setback requirement based on the height of the proposed wall when positioned opposite the neighbouring north facing windows.

On the southern neighbouring lot at 18 Primrose Street, there is one north facing window at ground level, which serves a bedroom and a number of north facing windows at first floor level, which serve the two bedrooms respectively. A detailed assessment of all applicable windows is provided as follows:

Assessment of the impact on the neighbouring ground floor window:

The ground floor north facing bedroom window to 18 Primrose Street is positioned opposite the proposed lightwell. The northern end of the lightwell (i.e. the internal staircase) is proposed to be 6.09m in height, which means the wall should be set back 2.49m from the boundary in order to comply with the Standard. A setback of 1.49m – 1.565m has been provided resulting in a variation to the Standard. This is supported on the basis that due to the existing wall on the boundary, and the associated eave, the affected window already receives little daylight and even less direct sunlight. It is considered that the proposal will result in an improved arrangement in relation to light access to this window, despite not complying with the Standard.

Assessment of the impact on the neighbouring first floor bedroom windows:

The upper level for 18 Primrose Street has a slightly unorthodox window arrangement where one bedroom (Bedroom 2) is served by a standard north facing window that wraps around to the western wall of this bedroom. It is also noted that both first floor bedrooms along with the first floor study are served by clerestory windows that sit higher (and further setback) from the main first floor north facing wall. Assessment against the clerestory windows is provided below.

With specific regard to the impact on the north facing Bedroom 2 window to 18 Primrose Street, it is noted that the proposal has a wall height of 5.47m and the Standard requires a setback of 2.12m. The proposal will be partly built to the boundary when positioned opposite this window and partly set back 1.49m. A variation to the Standard is supported on the basis that a majority of the window is positioned opposite the proposed light court which is set back adequately from the boundary to allow sufficient solar access. This is evident by the fact that if the ground floor levels were deleted from the calculations (which is reasonable given the affected window serves a first floor room) the light court element of the arrangement would comply with Standard A13. It is also noted that this room also benefits from unobstructed western light provided by a small west facing window.

Assessment of the impact on the neighbouring first floor clerestory windows:

Page 59


The clerestory windows are set back approximately 1m from the boundary and sit higher than the main walls of all the upper level rooms in question. For the most part, the proposal will result in a wall being built on the boundary when positioned opposite these windows which technically results in a variation to Standard A13. However, given the height of these windows, the proposal will not result in any unreasonable obstruction to daylight or sunlight access to these windows.

In light of the above, the proposal can be supported.

Overshadowing

The relevant assessment mechanism for overshadowing of neighbouring areas of private open space is the Overshadowing Open Space Objective, including Standard A14. This Standard states the following:

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

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

The Objective itself states that ‘ensure buildings do not significantly overshadow existing secluded private open space’.

As demonstrated on the submitted shadow diagrams, key findings are comprised of:

To the west, the subject site adjoins Primrose Street. No secluded private open space will be unreasonably overshadowed.

To the north, due to the orientation, the proposal will not create any overshadowing.

To the east, the subject site has a direct interface with the front section of the land at 48 Duke Street, the proposed shadow will be largely contained in the side service yard or the front setback associated with the eastern adjoining land. In the absence of any overshadowing cast onto the secluded private open space (at the rear, in the south), the proposal is considered to meet the Standard.

To the south, given the sensitivity, the following aspects are examined: At 9am, the proposed shadow falls within the existing shadow. At 10am, the proposed shadow falls within the existing shadow. At 11am, the proposed shadow falls within the existing shadow. At 12pm, the proposed shadow falls within the existing shadow. At 1pm, the proposed shadow increases the total shadowed area by 0.2sqm. At 2pm, the proposed shadow increases the total shadowed area by 1.9sqm. At 3pm, the proposed shadow increases the total shadowed area by 3.16sqm.

A variation to the Standard is required due to the size of the neighbouring open space. However, it is considered that the proposal meets the Objective considering that compliance with the Standard is achieved for the most part. The Standard requires a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 22 September. As outlined above, from 9am to 2pm, there will be an increase of 0.2sqm at 1pm and an increase of 1.9sqm at 2pm. The increased 0.2sqm is considered minor in nature and

Page 60


negligible. At 2pm, although the increased shadow amounts to 1.9sqm, which is also considered a minor amount in this inner urban context,

Overlooking

The key assessment tool to determine unreasonable overlooking is the Overlooking Objective, including Standard A15. 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.

To the west and the north, the subject site adjoins Primrose Street and Duke Street respectively. The Standard therefore does not apply.

To the east, on the ground floor, a 2m brick fence is proposed thereby preventing overlooking. On the first floor, a metal louvred privacy screening is to be installed up to 1.7m above the finished floor level and thus complies.

To the south, on the ground floor, the boundary wall has a minimum height exceeding 1.7m and thus complies.

On the first floor, no screening is proposed for the south facing stair window. Given the stair is not a habitable room, screening is not required. Screening is provided to the west facing Bed 2 window and the east facing living room window respectively in order to limit unreasonable views from these windows over the light court and into the neighbouring habitable room windows at 18 Primrose Street. Screening will be provided by way of perforated metal with a maximum transparency of 25%. A condition is recommend, requiring details of the proposed screening including certificate from manufactures.

The proposal provides an adequate level of internal amenity to the occupants.

The proposed extension benefits from its northerly aspect and will provide the occupants with the necessary components for comfortable living, including the provision of windows to all habitable rooms, clear outlook and direct solar/daylight access. In addition, the provision of private open space complies with the requirements of Standard A17. Furthermore, the relevant Building Regulations are in place to ensure the proposed development meets the relevant energy efficiency standards. As a result, the proposal will provide the occupants with an adequate level of internal amenity.

The proposed car parking reduction is acceptable.

The proposal does not include any onsite car parking spaces. This is considered acceptable with the following consideration: Pursuant to Clause 52.06, 2 car parking space should be provided to the proposal (that

comprises two bedrooms and a study room). As no onsite car parking spaces are provided, the application seeks permission for the reduction in the car parking requirement.

The subject site is located with convenient access to a wide range of public transport. It is located approximately 180m east of Chapel Street and 220m south of High Street, where numerous trams and buses are operated. It is also within walking distance to Prahran Railway Station and Windsor Railway Station. Given the location, the subject site will be well serviced by public transport.

Furthermore, off street car parking and public parking space are usually accessible, allowing for the timed car parking during daylight hours and less restricted car parking during evenings and weekends.

Page 61


Policy at Clause 22.23 states that the built environment within the municipality is designed to promote the use of walking, cycling and public transport; to minimise car dependency; and to promote the use of low emissions vehicle technologies and supporting infrastructure. As such, the proposed waiver of car parking spaces responds to the Policy appropriately.

Overall, a reduction in the car parking requirement is acceptable.

Objections

The only key issue raised by the objectors that has not been discussed above concerns the existing crossover located to the north-east corner of the subject site.

With respect to the existing crossover, the applicant provided additional information on 12 June 2018, depicting the exact location and dimensions of the existing crossover. It is noted that this crossover has a total width of 5.055m and shared with the eastern adjoining property at 48 Duke Street. As the application does not include any onsite car parking space, it is recommended to remove the portion of the existing crossover associated with the subject site, so that potentially, an additional on street car parking space may be gained. A condition is therefore recommended, requiring the reinstatement of the existing crossover associated with the subject site. This conditioned reinstatement should not have any impact on the access to the land at 48 Duke Street.

Additionally, as discussed in the design detail section, it is unclear whether an additional entry is provided from the eastern end of the northern boundary. A condition will be included below, seeking clarifications.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION


CONCLUSION

Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons: The proposal provides an appropriate response to the character of this neighbourhood. The proposed extension will not unreasonably impact on the amenity of the adjoining

properties. The proposal will offer the occupants an adequate level of internal amenity. The reduction in car parking requirement is acceptable.

ATTACHMENTS

1. 44 Duke Street Windsor Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 498/17 for the land located

Page 62


at 44-46 Duke Street, Windsor be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for the construction of a new dwelling on a lot less than 300sqm in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone and reduction to the car parking requirement subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development, 1 copy 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 (Council date received on 2 May 2018) but modified to show:

a) The existing crossover adjacent to the site boundary is to be reinstated while maintaining appropriate access to 48 Duke Street.

b) The proposed second entry access at the eastern end of the north elevation to be clearly depicted with dimensions. Notations should be included, indicating that this access is for pedestrian only.

c) The south elevation brickworks (in white finish) amended to be consistent with the materials / colours on the north and west elevations.

d) The first floor windows on the north elevation amended to provide a more finely scaled and vertically-proportioned windows.

e) A certificate of verification from the manufacturer certifying that the proposed perforated panels are no more than 25% transparent.

f) A section plan detailing circumference of each puncture and calculation of total transparency of the proposed perforated panels.

g) All permeable surfaces to be identified on the ground floor level plan and shown to equate to a minimum of 20% of the overall site area.

h) Notations to be included on all site / floor plans, confirming that all new works will be constructed within the title boundaries on the subject site. Any subsequent amendments to the proposal to ensure that all new works (including boundary fencing) are clearly depicted within the title boundaries.

i) Any requirements in Condition 3. j) Any subsequent changes required by Condition 3.

All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans pursuant to Condition 1, a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The report must include, but not limited to, the following:

a) A site plan showing the location of proposed stormwater treatment measures and the location and area (square metres) of impermeable surfaces that drain to each treatment measure.

b) A report outlining how the application achieves the objectives of this policy including stormwater treatment modelling. Please note that for the modeling requirement you can use the following free program to demonstrate best practice, which is equivalent to a score of 100% or more: http://storm.melbournewater.com.au

c) If any water tank is proposed the plans must indicate the tank’s capacity

Page 63


in litres and what the tank is connected to (e.g. toilets). d) If any rain garden is proposed, design details must be provided including

cross sections which show details of the depth and materials for each layer of the rain garden.

e) Details of proposed maintenance measures for stormwater treatment measures including location of maintenance access to rainwater tanks if below ground.

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

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

6. 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.

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a request may be submitted to the Responsible Authority within the prescribed timeframes for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

NOTES:A. This permit does not constitute any authority to carry out any building works

or occupy the building or part of the building unless all relevant building permits are obtained.

B. Any crossover must be constructed to Council’s Standard Vehicle Crossover Guidelines unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority. Separate consent for crossovers is required from Council’s Building and Local Law Unit.

C. 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; orc) listed on the Significant Tree Register.

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

Page 64


D. At the permit issue date, Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 stated that the Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing within the following timeframes:

i.Before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has not yet started; and

ii. Within 12 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully started before the permit expires.

Page 65


4. SECONDARY CONSENT AMENDMENT TO APPROVED PLANS FOR PLANNING PERMIT 0200/11 - 9 - 22 - 32 TOORAK ROAD &, 37 CAROLINE STREET SOUTH, SOUTH YARRA VICTORIA 3141- REVISED MATERIALS FOR BOUNDARY FENCE.


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a secondary consent amendment to the approved plans of Planning Permit 200/11 for revised materials for the boundary fence at 22 - 32 Toorak Road &, 37 Caroline Street South, South Yarra.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Urbis Pty LtdWard: NorthZone: Activity Centre ZoneOverlay: Design & Development Overlay Neighbourhood Precinct: N/ADate lodged: 25 May 2018Total days: (as at council meeting date)

47


Councillor Call up

Number of objections: Correspondence received from local residentConsultative Meeting: No Officer Recommendation: Approve Secondary Consent Amendment

BACKGROUND

Planning Permit No. 200/11 was issued by Council at the direction of VCAT on 11 September 2012. The permit allowed partial demolition, construction of buildings and construction and carrying out of works (including multi-level building and basements); use of land in a Business 1 Zone for dwellings, a reduction of the car parking requirement associated with the use of the land for shops and dwellings and a waiver of the loading bay requirement. The permit was issued subject to a number of conditions, including Condition 3 which required the owner to enter into a Section 173 Agreement with Council with regard to remediation works within Caroline Gardens which adjoins the subject site to the south. Condition 1 included the following requirement:

The interface of Townhouses 2-5 with Caroline Gardens to be of solid fencing.

An amended permit was issued on 20 December 2013 at the direction of VCAT. Parties attended the hearing having come to an agreed position regarding changes to the plans and conditions of the permit. New Conditions 15-16 relating to Southwick Lane were added. There was no change to the condition relating to the fence.

The Section 173 Agreement was approved by Council in 2015 and subsequently lodged at the Titles Office and executed.

The Remediation Plan for Caroline Gardens was approved on 16 November 2016. This plan shows:

Page 67


A 6m long and 3.5m high replacement tennis hit-up wall constructed of double-skin red bricks along the northern boundary of Caroline Gardens. This wall is located in its original position within Caroline Gardens to the east of the existing toilet block in Caroline Gardens and along the common boundary with the development site. This wall is located to the south of Townhouse 1 of the development site;

A 16m long and 1m wide new at-grade garden bed located to the east of the tennis hit-up wall and along the common boundary with the development site. This garden bed is located to the south of Town Houses 2 and 3 (formally Town Houses 2, 3 and 4 in the plans approved at VCAT).

A bond/security deposit of $25,000 was paid to Council in November 2016 to permit the issuing of the Statement of Compliance for subdivision of the development. The bond was in lieu of the reconstruction of the tennis wall. The subdivision plans were approved and certified on 7 November 2016.

A Section 72 Amendment Application was submitted to Council on 13 October 2016 and amended 11 April 2017. The application sought to alter the wording of Condition 3(a) to remove reference of the 'replacement tennis wall' which was required to be reconstructed in Caroline Gardens as part of the remediation works resulting from the demolition and development of the site.

A Section 178A request was made to Council on 1 March 2017 to amend the wording of the Section 173 Agreement which applies to the titles of the land by deleting reference to the replacement of the tennis wall within Caroline Gardens which was removed to facilitate the construction of the development on the site.

Both the Section 72 Amendment Application and the Section 178A request were considered by Council at its meeting on 21 August 2017, where it resolved to:

Not provide ‘in principle’ support pursuant to Section 178B of the Planning & Environment Act 1987 for the amendment to the S173 Agreement.

Refuse the Application to Amend Condition 3 a) of Planning Permit No: 200/11 on the ground that:

1. The tennis wall is a valued community asset and is required to be reconstructed in its original location. The owner/developer is obliged to reconstruct this public asset which was removed as a consequence of the construction of the development.

An Application for Review was lodged with VCAT and a hearing was held in April 2018. VCAT handed down a decision on 15 June 2018 where it set aside Council’s decision and determined that the amendment to the permit be approved as follows:

The existing approved Remediation Plan (RP) forming part of the Permit must be amended to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, to show the replacement tennis hitting wall re-located (with a minimum width of five metres and a height of three metres) to the position generally as shown with the red biro highlighting in Option 2, as set out in Attachment 4 to the Contour Consultants expert planning report dated April 2018. The amended RP must include notations to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority dealing with the following points: The new wall must incorporate some form of netting extending somewhat higher

above the main wall, so as to catch mis-hit tennis balls that would otherwise have cleared the top of the wall. This new netting must include the option of there

Page 68


being some limited netting ‘wings’ extending obliquely out at each end of the main wall (similar to an oblique fin-wall on each end), so as to catch any obliquely mis-hit tennis balls.

The new wall must include some form of creeper/climbing wall (or alternatively some form of ‘climbing wall’) on its eastern side.

Assuming the garden bed to the immediate east of the asphalt area still exists at the time of construction of the replacement tennis hitting wall, that garden bed and associated trees must be modified/cut back as necessary, to facilitate the installation of the replacement wall.

Upon being provided by the applicant with a suitably updated RP, the Responsible Authority is directed to approve that plan.

A further Section 72 Amendment was approved on 22 December 2017 to permit the use of one of the shop tenancies for a restricted recreation facility (gym). At this time, the permit preamble was amended to include reference to the new use and to reflect the change in zoning to the land from Business 1 Zone to Activity Centre Zone which occurred in August 2017.

Another Section 72 Amendment was approved on 19 February 2018 relating to the boundary fence/screening adjoining Townhouses 1 to 3 of the approved development. The amendment sought replacement of the approved 1.8m high timber boundary fence along the southern boundary with a solid fence comprising timber vertical battens with solid timber panels behind to create a solid (no visual permeability) fence to 1.8m height. The wording of Condition 1h) of the permit was varied to read as follows:

The interface of Townhouses 1 to 3 with Caroline Gardens (excluding the solid vertical features) to be of 1.8m high fixed solid (not visually permeable) screening.

Plans to comply with this condition were approved on 6 April 2018. The plans show the use of timber vertical battens with solid timber panels behind, creating a screen with no visual permeability. Plan A403 Southern Elevation notes that SCR4 is a 1.8m high fixed timber batten screen and a note on the plan further states that it is not visually permeable.

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration are known as Plan Detail of Screen (opposite bedroom window) and Plan Detail of Screen (adjoining balcony) and Council date stamped 25 May 2018.


Replacement of the approved horizontal timber panels fixed behind the vertical timber battens with solid aluminium panels fixed behind the vertical timber battens.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the south side of Toorak Road and fronts Toorak Road, Ralston Street and Caroline Street South. The mixed use development approved by Permit 200/11 has been completed and the tenancies/apartments are largely occupied.

The site adjoins and shares a common boundary with Caroline Gardens, an established parcel of public open space. The subject fence is located along the eastern portion of the common boundary adjoining the three-storey townhouses which front Caroline Street South.

Page 69


It is noted that part of the fence in front of Townhouse 1 adjoins the area where the former tennis wall was located.


There are no relevant planning applications beyond those outlined earlier in the background section of this report.

The Title

The site/location of the boundary fence/screen is on common property and forms part of Common Property 1. The title is described on certificate of title Volume 11841 Folio 427 on Plan of Subdivision 732040F and no covenants affect the land. A Section 173 Agreement is registered on the title which requires remediation of areas within Caroline Gardens adjoining the site.

Planning Controls

The following controls affect the site:

Clause 37.08 Activity Centre ZonePursuant to Clause 37.08-5, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works unless a schedule to the zone states otherwise. It is noted that a fence does not trigger the need for a permit under these provisions given the exemption of Clause 62.02-2.

Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay Pursuant to Clause 43.01-1, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry works, including a fence if it is visible from a street (other than a lane) or public park. It is noted that a portion of the subject site is not affected by the Heritage Overlay, and the fence is located within is area. It is further noted that had approval been required for the fence under the provisions of this overlay, it would be exempt from the notice requirements and review rights pursuant to the provisions of Clause 43.01-4.

Clause 43.02 Design & Development Overlay Pursuant to Clause 43.02-2, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry works, however Clause 62 exempts a fence from needing a permit unless specifically listed. A fence is not listed in the Overlay or Schedule.

Advertising

The application for a secondary consent amendment to the approved plans was not advertised (secondary consent provisions do not allow for the giving of public notice).

Correspondence was received from a local resident questioning the change in the material of construction of the fence and advising that the fence was not constructed to a height of 1.8m as required.

KEY ISSUES

Condition 2 of Permit No 200/11 states that "The use and development must be in accordance with the endorsed plans unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority”.

The applicant has sought secondary consent approval for the changes under the terms of Condition 2. The tests for deciding whether a development may be altered under a

Page 70


secondary consent provision are set down in Westpoint Corporation Pty Ltd v Moreland CC (Red Dot) [2005] VCAT 1049 and recently updated in Oz Property Group (Flemington) Pty Ltd v Moonee Valley CC (Red Dot) [2014] VCAT 397 where it was held that the following tests must be met:

Do not result in a transformation of the proposal Do not authorise something for which primary consent is required under the

planning scheme Is of no consequence having regard to the purpose of the planning control

under which the permit was granted Is not contrary to a specific requirement as distinct from an authorisation

within the permit, which itself cannot be altered by consent.

These matters are considered in turn below:

Is it a transformation?

The proposed works (change to the backing material of the fence) will not transform the proposal. The permit provides authorisation for the partial demolition, construction of buildings and construction and carrying out of works (including multi-level building and basements), use of land for dwellings and restricted recreation facility (gym) in an Activity Centre Zone and Heritage Overlay, a reduction of the car parking requirement associated with the use of the land for shops and dwellings, a waiver of the loading bay requirement, and reduction to the bicycle parking requirements associated with use of the land as a restricted recreation facility (gym). The proposed changes are relatively minor changes to the details/materials of the fence. The changes are minor to the overall development and will not be a transformation.

Does it authorise something that requires primary consent?

The proposed changes do not require primary consent. The primary consent of the permit allowed the partial demolition, construction of buildings and construction and carrying out of works within the Activity Centre Zone. The controls and provisions of the Activity Centre Zone (compared to the previous Business 1 Zone affecting the land at the time of the original approval) as they affect the construction of a fence have not changed.

Clause 62.02-2 of the Planning Scheme sets out buildings and works not requiring a permit unless specifically required within the planning scheme, and includes the construction of a fence. Construction of a fence within the Activity Centre Zone and Design & Development Overlay does not trigger the need for a permit given this exemption. Approval for a new fence would be required only under the provisions of the Heritage overlay, however, as noted earlier in this report the Heritage Overlay does not affect the land in the location of the fence.

Will it have a consequential impact? (in regard to the purpose of the planning control under which the permit was granted)

The changes are relatively minor. The building envelope will remain unchanged and the changes would not impact on the appearance of the development from the adjoining Caroline Gardens, with the change in material behind the timber batten screens being indiscernible.

Provisions of the Activity Centre Zone seek to: encourage a mix of uses and intensive development of the activity centre; deliver diverse housing at high densities; and create through good urban design an attractive, safe and stimulating environment. The

Page 71


changes proposed as part of the secondary consent amendment would not compromise these objectives, and there would be no consequential impact resulting from the changes noting that the overall development is six storeys in height (the townhouses adjoining the fence are three-storeys) and the site is within an Activity Centre Zone.

Is it contrary to a specific requirement within the permit?

Condition 1h) of the permit states as follows:

The interface of Townhouses 1 to 3 with Caroline Gardens (excluding the solid vertical features) to be of 1.8m high fixed solid (not visually permeable) screening.

An inspection of the fence indicates that the height of the screen-components onto Caroline Gardens is not 1.8m, however, the finished floor level of the bedrooms and balconies of the development on the Caroline Gardens interface is below the level of the garden bed and ground levels of the gardens (generally approximately 0.3m difference). Spot measures taken at various levels along the interface indicate that the top of the fence/screen is 1.8m from the finished floor levels.

Review of the Council report assessing the original development and of internal referral comments received at that time has found that the requirement for solid screening at the interface with Caroline Gardens arose from a requirement of the Parks & Environment Department. The comment noted that no part of the fence be open and that it be solid. Neither the internal referral comments nor the wording of the condition on the original permit set a requirement that the screening be 1.8m. It is only on the plans submitted for approval to comply with the permit conditions that the 1.8m height was noted and, as stated above, the height is generally 1.8m above the finished floor levels of the ground level of the townhouses.

The intent of the condition is to provide visual screening to prevent occupants of the ground floor level of the dwellings from having a direct view into Caroline Gardens, provide security for residents of the development and ensuring the park is accessible to all the community. The proposed amendment will achieve this.

On the basis of the above, it is considered that the proposed amendments are consistent with the requirements and conditions on the permit.

Planning Merits

The amended scheme achieves the overall intent of the condition, which was to restrict views from the ground level residential areas of the development into Caroline Gardens by the use of a solid screen/fence. The original approved plans noted the use of a solid timber boundary fence to 1.8m height. The approved amended fence consisted of solid screens comprised of vertical timber battens with horizontal timber panels fixed directly to the timber battens for their full height, providing a solid screen. The proposed secondary consent amendment proposes replacement of the horizontal timber panels fixed directly to the timber battens with solid aluminium panels fixed behind the timber battens.

It is considered that the proposed change in the material behind the timber battens from timber to aluminium (a fabric that is more durable and easier to maintain) will result in a better outcome at this public interface. There are no implications or impact of the proposed changes to the Heritage Overlay of the site, noting that the overlay does not affect this part of the site. The overlay considerations relate primarily to the heritage buildings fronting Toorak Road and the development behind these heritage buildings.

Page 72


The proposed amendment is considered to be minor in nature and whilst visible from Caroline Gardens, would have negligible amenity impact.

Given that the intent of the condition is achieved, it is recommended that the secondary consent amendment be approved.

Objections

The correspondence received from a local resident cannot be considered as an objection. The correspondence questions the change in the material of construction of the fence and notes that the fence has not constructed to a height of 1.8m. As outlined above, the intent of the condition relating to the height of the fence was to provide adequate visual screening to restrict occupants of the ground floor level of the dwellings from having a direct view into Caroline Gardens. Approval of the secondary consent amendment (once the works are completed) will ensure that this is achieved.



CONCLUSION

Having assessed the secondary consent proposal against the relevant planning considerations, it is recommended that the proposal be supported.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PA - 200-11 - 22-32 Toorak Road & 37 Caroline Street South Yarra - Attachments 1 of 1

Plans

Page 73


RECOMMENDATION

The proposed changes to the plans may be approved as an amendment.

The amendments are as follows: Replacement of the approved horizontal timber panels fixed behind the

vertical timber battens with solid aluminium panels fixed behind the vertical timber battens

The following plans are recommended for endorsement:

Drawing Ref Council Date Stamp

Proposed Endorsement No

Plan Detail of Screen (opposite bedroom window)

25 May 2018 Sheet 24 of 25 – Condition 1

Plan Detail of Screen (adjoining balcony)

25 May 2018 Sheet 25 of 25 - Condition 1

Page 74


5. APPOINTMENT OF AUTHORISED OFFICERS PURSUANT TO THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT ACT 1987 – STATUTORY PLANNING


PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to recommend that Council approve new Instruments of Authorisation to various staff members.

BACKGROUND

Section 224 of the Local Government Act 1989 and numerous other Acts and Regulations require that authorised officers (Council staff or the staff of contractors) be appointed for the purposes of the administration and enforcement of any Act, regulations or local laws which relate to the functions and powers of the Council.

Authorisations are reviewed regularly and are updated due to:

a) Appointment of new staff;b) changes in the names of Acts;c) the introduction, amendment or revocation of legislation;d) changes in position titles; ande) changes in roles.

In most cases, the authorisations are approved by the Chief Executive Officer, but the Planning and Environment Act 1987 specifically requires that authorisations under that Act be issued by resolution of the Council and sealed.

As a result of staff departures and recent appointments, it is recommended that new authorisations pursuant to the Planning and Environment Act 1987 be approved. Following is an updated list of the people required to be authorised in the Statutory Planning Unit.


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

ATTACHMENTS

1. PA - Appointment Of Authorised Officers Pursuant To The Planning And Environment Act 1987 - Attachment 1 of 1

Excluded

Page 75


RECOMMENDATION

That Council:1. Approve and seal the attached Instrument of Authorisation pursuant to the

Planning and Environment Act 1987 from Council to:

a) Fiona Singleton;b) Amanda Connolly;c) Emily Blyth; andd) Humayara Alam

Page 76


6. C221 - SPECIAL BUILDING OVERLAY AND LAND SUBJECT TO INUNDATION REVIEW - CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS

Manager City Strategy: Susan Price General Manager Planning & Amenity: Stuart Draffin

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider: The submissions received in response to Amendment C221. A response to the submissions for the purpose of Council’s position at Panel. Requesting the Minister for Planning to appoint an independent Panel to consider

submissions on Amendment C221.

BACKGROUND

Special Building Overlay (SBO)

In urban areas, during extreme storms of a 1 in 100 year magnitude, inundation (flooding) caused by overland flows can occur. A significant amount of rainfall runoff is produced during these storms and this can exceed the capacity of the piped drainage system. During such a storm event, the excess water flows overland across public and private properties. The SBO identifies those areas which could experience these stormwater overland flows in a 1 in 100 year storm event.

Melbourne Water and Council are responsible for different parts of the SBO depending on whether the proposed inundation is associated with the ‘main’ drainage system (Melbourne Water drains) or the ‘local’ drainage system (Council drains).

Council’s Infrastructure Projects unit has an ongoing program of drainage improvements which reduce these impacts where practical and feasible.

Other Council initiatives also have the objective of reducing the impacts of storm events including Council’s Water Sensitive Urban Design Local Policy (Clause 22.18 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme) and Environmentally Sustainable Development Local Policy (Clause 22.05 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme). Where appropriate, this can result in storm water detention and retention responses as part of development applications.

Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO)

Low lying areas in proximity to streams or rivers can experience inundation when there has been a period of heavy rainfall and the rainfall runoff overflows the banks of the watercourse causing flooding. This is called mainstream flooding. The LSIO identifies areas which could be affected by mainstream flooding.

Melbourne Water is responsible for the LSIO in its capacity as the floodplain management authority.

The provisions of the SBO and the LSIO ensure that drainage and flooding issues are addressed early in the development process (i.e. through triggering a planning permit for buildings and works) rather than at the later building permit stage. The extent of the overlays

Page 77


can influence the siting of buildings and set appropriate conditions such as raised floor levels to address any flood risk to developments.

Why is an amendment required?

Melbourne Water and Council, in their respective roles, have undertaken further flood mapping since the initial application of the overlays in 2000 (LSIO) and 2005 (SBO).

This mapping has taken into consideration several factors that, over time, can influence where mainstream flooding and stormwater inundation occurs. Influencing factors include:

Flood mitigation works by Melbourne Water and/or Council Major infrastructure works such as the Metro Tunnel Rail Project and Level Crossing

Removals Modifications to overland flow paths, developments and roadworks Changes in land use and new development

These factors together with new land survey data and updated flood modelling techniques have all formed the basis of the background documents which underpin the amendment and result in updated boundaries to the SBO and LSIO.

Updating the Special Building Overlay and Land Subject to Inundation Overlay is an iterative process that must be undertaken periodically as technology is improved, new flood studies are undertaken and drainage infrastructure is constructed. Notably, Melbourne Water is currently undertaking significant improvement works to the Murrumbeena Main Drain which runs from Gardiners Creek under O T Flight Reserve and Sydare Reserve both located in Malvern East. These works will impact the shape of the Special Building Overlay in this area when it is next updated.

Preparation of Amendment C221At its meeting on 5 February 2018, Council endorsed the preparation of Amendment C221 – Special Building Overlay and Land Subject to Inundation Overlay Review. The Amendment seeks to update the two overlays in the Stonnington Planning Scheme. Specifically, the changes include:

Modifying the LSIO and SBO boundaries on Planning Scheme maps to reflect revised flood mapping extents

Separating the SBO into two schedules to differentiate the responsibility of the applicable drainage assets. Specifically:

o Schedule 1 to the Special Building Overlay (SBO1) relates to Melbourne Water’s ‘main’ drainage system, and;

o Schedule 2 to the Special Building Overlay (SBO2) relates to Council’s ‘local’ drainage system

The proposed SBO1 schedule includes a number of additional exemptions beyond those normally provided for in the Special Building Overlay at the request of Melbourne Water. The proposed SBO2 schedule does not include any additional exemptions, which is consistent with the existing SBO schedule in the Stonnington Planning Scheme. The exemptions in schedule 1 were not applied to schedule 2 as the potential risks of the exempted developments are considered commensurate with the burden of making a fast-track planning application.

Exhibition

Page 78


Following authorisation from the Minister for Planning, amendment C221 was placed on public exhibition from 8 March to 23 April 2018. Notification and exhibition of the Amendment was carried out via the following measures:

Direct notification (via letter) to all owners who were currently or proposed to be located within or being removed from the SBO or LSIO as well as prescribed authorities on 5 March 2018.

Public viewing file of amendment documentation at Council’s Planning Counter, Malvern.

An Interactive Map on the City of Stonnington website, showing the extent of the Overlays and searchable via property address.

Fact Sheets and Frequently Asked Questions pamphlet available on the City of Stonnington website.

Notices placed in the Stonnington Leader on 6 March 2018 and the Government Gazette on 8 March 2018.

Information regarding the amendment available on the Melbourne Water website. Full amendment documentation on the Department of Environment, Land, Water and

Planning and City of Stonnington’s websites.

Further, Council also offered 5 drop-in information sessions across March and April attended by Strategic Planners, Statutory Planners, Council Drainage Engineers and Melbourne Water Officers if affected parties wished to obtain more detailed information on the Amendment. In addition to taking phone enquiries, Council and Melbourne Water Officers also made themselves available for on-site meetings as required.

DISCUSSION

As a result of exhibition, Council received forty four (44) submissions. Two (2) of these support the Amendment as exhibited and forty two (42) take an alternative position.

Twenty-four (24) submissions relate exclusively to Council assets and SBO2, sixteen (16) submissions relate exclusively to Melbourne Water assets, SBO1 and/or the LSIO, and four (4) submissions relate to both Melbourne Water and Council assets.

One of the sixteen (16) submissions relating to Melbourne Water assets has subsequently been withdrawn following a response from Melbourne Water.

The forty two submissions base their alternate positions on the amendment on a number of factors. The following section provides a general response to the four key themes of the submissions.

Summary of submissions

Strategic Justification

Some submissions raise concern regarding the merits of applying the Special Building Overlay and determining the extent of a 100-year Average Recurrence Interval storm event (commonly known as 1 in 100 year flood).

Officer Response

It is considered that the proposed application of the Special Building Overlay and Land Subject to Inundation Overlay is strategically justified and sound.

Objective 1 at Clause 21.07-4 states:

Page 79


To identify areas within the municipality which are liable to flooding damage, so as to take into account the health and safety of residents and flood protection of properties.

The purpose of the Special Building Overlay is to identify areas subject to flooding and ensure that new development is designed to mitigate these flood risks.

Modelling by both Melbourne Water and GHD Consultants on behalf of Council identifies areas subject to flooding during a 100-year ARI (average recurrence interval) storm event and therefore in accordance with Planning Practice Note 12 (Applying the Flood Provisions in Planning Schemes), a Special Building Overlay or Land Subject to Inundation Overlay has been applied. The 100-year ARI is the standard for determining flood extent adopted by the Water Act 1989, Building Act 1993 and forms the basis for applying the Special Building Overlay in a given planning scheme.

Extent of Overlay Applying to Land

Some submissions challenge the application of the overlays over a given property (or not) using anecdotal or historical information and in some cases survey levels.

Officer ResponseWhere Council’s mapping was challenged, the submission was referred to Council’s Infrastructure Projects Unit for review and in some cases to GHD Consulting (who undertook the background work for the Amendment).

Melbourne Water undertook independent reviews of all challenges to their mapping methodology.

As a result of these reviews some of these properties are recommended to be removed from the overlays and these are described later in this report.

Drainage Infrastructure Maintenance & Improvement

A number of submissions raised concern with the maintenance of both Council’s and Melbourne Water’s existing drainage infrastructure as well as requesting improvements to this infrastructure.

Officer ResponseMelbourne Water has independently responded to these requests where it relates to their assets.

In relation to Council’s assets, Council’s Infrastructure maintenance Unit has an ongoing program of maintaining existing drainage infrastructure and periodically upgrading drainage infrastructure especially in areas subject to overland flooding.

In accordance with legislation, Council sets a budget to ensure that drains within the municipality are maintained in a safe and operable condition. When developing the roads and drainage capital works program, highest priority is given to areas that pose a high risk to public safety.

Where infrastructure upgrade or improvement has been requested, it has been referred to Council’s Infrastructure Projects Unit for consideration for future inclusion in Council’s roads and drainage capital works program. Requests for maintenance have also been referred. Specific details are included in the individual responses to submissions.

Insurance/Property Value Impact

Page 80


A number of submissions raise concern with the potential impact of the overlay on insurance premiums and property value.

Officer ResponseThe value of any property is determined by the complex interplay of many different factors such as location, streetscape and amenity, and it is difficult to assign what effect, if any, the identification of land liable to flooding may have on the value of a property.

Specifically, the SBO and LSIO do not cause or change the likelihood of flooding, but recognise the existing condition of land. In previous instances where an independent planning panel has been asked to consider and report on submissions opposing the application of a flooding overlay, the issue of property devaluation has been considered and deemed outside the scope of consideration for a SBO and LSIO amendment.

Further, insurance premiums are based on the most up-to-date available flood studies, rather than the Planning Scheme controls. The insurance industry has its own National Flood database where this information is kept. Flood information is important as it can ensure properties are not under-insured. In line with the recommendations of previous panel findings, this issue is beyond the scope of this amendment.

Summary

A response and recommendation to all 44 submissions is provided in detail in Attachment 1. In consultation with Melbourne Water, GHD Consultants (who undertook the background work on behalf of Council), Council’s Infrastructure Projects Unit and various other areas of Council, the following changes since exhibition are proposed for Council to adopt as its position to Panel on Amendment C221:

Remove or change the extent of the overlay on the following properties in accordance with the position of Melbourne Water on overlays associated with Melbourne Water assets:

o 12-20 Weir Street, Glen Iriso 113 Claremont Avenue, Malverno 13 Lambert Road. Toorako 54 Aintree Road, Glen Iris

Remove the flood areas along Coppin Street, George Street, and Beaver Street in

Malvern East associated with Council assets due to drainage improvement works taking place after modelling was undertaken.

Remove 7 Merriwee Crescent, Toorak from the SBO (associated with Council assets) following identification of a mapping error.

Exemption from Ministerial Direction No. 15

On 7 May 2018 Council wrote to the Minister for Planning and requested exemption from the following requirement of Ministerial Direction No. 15:

The planning authority must request the appointment of a Panel under Part 8 of the Act within 40 business days of the closing date for submissions unless a Panel is not required.

Page 81


Instead it is anticipated that a request to Panel will be made within 10 business days of thisCouncil meeting.

On 8 May 2018, the exemption from Ministerial Direction No. 15 was granted under delegation.

Next steps

Council must forward submissions received on Amendment C221 to an independent Panel, if it is not prepared to vary the amendment to address all the issues raised in submissions, and it intends to continue with the amendment process.

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

On receipt of the Panel report for Amendment C221, a report will be prepared for Council to consider the Panel's recommendations.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Amendment C221 implements both State and Local Planning Policy Framework relating to floodplain management, protecting properties and improving water quality.

At the State level; Clause 13.02-1 - Floodplain Management, has objectives that assist in the protection of; life, property and community infrastructure; the flood carrying capacity of waterways and the flood storage function of floodplains and waterways. To do this, Clause 13.02-1 states the following applicable strategies that Amendment C221 will assist in implementing:

Identify land affected by flooding, including floodway areas, as verified by the relevant floodplain management authority, in planning scheme maps.

Avoid intensifying the impacts of flooding through inappropriately located uses and developments.

In the Municipal Strategic Statement; Clause 21.07-4 Flooding has an objective to:

Identify areas within the municipality which are liable to flooding damage, so as to take into account the health and safety of residents and flood protection of properties

With implementation approaches that include:

Applying the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay to flood prone areas along the Yarra River and Gardiners Creek.

Applying the Special Building Overlay to land affected by inundation from the drainage system.

In terms of Melbourne Water policy, Amendment C221 is also consistent with “Guidelines for Development in Flood-prone Areas” (2008). This document is currently in the process of being revised for 2018, with a greater emphasis being placed on having up-to-date planning controls in flood-prone areas.

Amendment C221 also responds to Council’s Flood Management Plan (April 2013) which includes updating the SBO as a specific action.

Page 82


FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

Stonnington Amendment C221 is a combined amendment between Council and Melbourne Water. Council’s costs associated with the administration of the amendment have been included within the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 City Strategy and Infrastructure budgets. Costs associated with the Amendment will be proportionally shared with Melbourne Water.

The anticipated timeframe for Amendment C221 is as follows:

February 2018

March-April 2018

July 2018 September 2018

October 2018

February 2019

Authorisation Exhibition Consideration of Submissions

Directions Hearing

Panel Hearing

Council Adoption

LEGAL ADVICE & IMPLICATIONS

All affected parties have been given the opportunity to make submissions on Amendments C221 and will have the opportunity to be heard by an independent Planning Panel as required.

CONCLUSION

Council and Melbourne Water have updated flood modelling for the municipality and the SBO and LSIO mapping needs to be revised to reflect this new data. Council has a responsibility to keep the planning scheme up to date, and these Overlays provide an important statutory mechanism for identifying sites that are subject to inundation in a severe storm event or from mainstream flooding.Amendment C221 proposes to update the SBO and LSIO Planning Scheme maps and introduce two new schedules under the SBO at Clause 44.05 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

Council received forty four (44) submissions to Amendment C221. In response to the submissions received, it is recommended that Council request the Minister for Planning to appoint a Panel to hear all submissions and consider Amendment C221. Council’s proposed position at Panel is outlined in this report and attachment 1.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Responses to Submissions Excluded

Page 83


RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Requests that the Minister for Planning appoint a Panel pursuant to Section 23

of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to hear and consider submissions to proposed Amendment C221 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

2. In its submission to the Panel hearing, adopts a position in support of Amendment C221, generally in accordance with the officer's response to the submissions as contained in this report and attachment 1.

3. Refers the submissions and any late submissions received prior to the Directions Hearing to the Panel appointed to consider Amendment C221.

4. Advises the submitters to proposed Amendment C221 of Council’s decision.

Page 84


7. COMMUNITY GRANTS 2018-2019

Civic Support Officer: Judy Hogan Manager Governance & Corporate Support: Fabienne ThewlisGeneral Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to assist Council in determining on community grants, both cash and in-kind, to a wide range of groups within the Stonnington Community.

BACKGROUND

A review of the Council Community Grants Program was undertaken on 5 February 2018 where Council approved the following recommendation:

1. That Council approve and adopt the Community Grants Policy and revised Community Grant Guidelines;

2. That Council Establish a Community Grants Working Group comprised of all Councillors to review the applications and Officer comments and to make a recommendation to Council for decision;

3. That applications open Tuesday 13 February 2018 and close Tuesday 27 March 2018; and

4. All prior applicants in the 2017-2018 Community Grants funding round be advised of the Community Grant deadlines

The Community Grants Program was developed to maximise partnership opportunities with a wide range of community groups to develop activities and provide services which are not available through Federal, State or private funding sources.

The Council provides an opportunity for community groups and organizations to apply for funding through the annual community grants program. This is an annual program which aligns with the financial year July to June.

Funding priority will be given to applications that respond to identified community needs and align with Council’s vision, pillars, and strategies.

In addition, priority will be given to programs, services and activities that propose: New and existing project services that are targeted toward a demonstrated high need

area with a clear benefit to the Stonnington community;

Generally take place within the City of Stonnington boundaries, or subject to conditions be cross border services that are provided to the Stonnington community;

Projects and services that enhance the health and wellbeing of residents especially in line with the Stonnington Public Health and Wellbeing Plan 2017-2021;

Projects that strengthen volunteer participation in planning, management and provision of services;

Groups demonstrating an innovative approach to an issue or problem;

Projects that promote access and inclusion especially in line with Council’s Access and Inclusion Plan 2014-17;

Page 85


Projects that encourage participation by young people, older people, people with disabilities and people from culturally diverse backgrounds that minimise social isolation and build community connectedness;

Demonstrate sustainability; and

Align with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

In preparing this report, the Committee has taken into account a balance of interests given the variety of community groups requesting Council’s support, the number of Stonnington residents who are members as well as each group’s financial position.

In accordance with an audit recommendation Council has used the Smarty Grants online program to manage the community grants process which was first used in 2015/16 financial year. Applications were received from 150 community groups/organisations for over 450 funding requests which initially totalled over $ 938,584 in cash requests. Not all applications meet the criteria and have either been recommended for refusal or reduced while still making every effort to distribute the available funds in a fair and equitable manner.

Categories of Community grants available in 2018/2019

Annual Grants Annual Grants are provided to organisations to deliver programs, projects and activities that benefit Stonnington residents and align with Council priorities and strategic direction.

Examples include: Social and cultural programs; Minor capital works (less than $2,000) Equipment purchases (less than $2,000): Environmental initiatives; Public health and wellbeing activities; and Activities that increase opportunities for organised and

passive physical exercise.

Funding agreements and reporting requirements are customised according to the level of funding provided.

An annual acquittal is required to be completed in June.

Partnership Grants

(service agreements)

Partnership Grants are available to organisations that provide programs and services within Stonnington.

This grant category is available for community groups that provide continuous and significant services to the community that align with Council priorities.

These groups include but are not limited to: Neighbourhood Houses; Citizen Advice Bureau; Emergency relief and material aid providers; and Large service providers.

Partnership Grants provide funding on a recurrent triennial (3 years) basis to ensure the on-going operations of the organisation. This funding is CPI adjustment indexed annually, as approved by Council

Page 86


and is subject to meeting the following requirements: The setting and meeting of Key Performance Indicators, set

with, and reported to, Council. Acknowledgement of Council support submission of annual acquittal documents

Funding agreements and reporting requirements are customised according to the level of funding provided.

An annual acquittal is required to be completed in June.

In Kind Grants (community facilities)

In Kind Grants provide subsidised use of Council owned venues and facilities, including community transport.

The Council venues available for subsidised use include: Malvern Town Hall Malvern Banquet Hall Chris Gahan Training Room Phoenix Park Community Centre Functions on Chapel (FOC) available up to September 2018 Grattan Gardens Community Centre (Community Hall) Chapel Off Chapel Malvern Library Meeting Room Toorak Library Meeting Room

The Community Transport Service available for use Council Bus – 22 seater Council Bus – self-drive 12 seater

DISCUSSION ON ASSESSMENT

All applications must be received via the Smarty Grants Program. A pre – eligibility check was undertaken to ensure applications meet the eligibility criteria.

All applications were then assessed by Council Officers across various areas of Council against the Community Grants Program Policy and Guidelines supplied to each applicant, together with a review of previous funding. The applications with Council Officer recommendations were reviewed at two meetings of the Council Community Grants Working Committee.

All Councillors were invited to attend such meetings which were held on Wednesday 30 May 2018 and Wednesday 6 June 2018 and chaired by the Mayor where consideration was given to each of the Council Officer recommendations. Attachment One has the detailed listing of individual applications and recommendations from Officers are in the green marked columns.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Council Officer recommendations for the cash and in-kind grants applications and total funding available under the 2018/19 budget are as follows:

Financial Recommendations by Council Officers for discussion

Page 87


Cash 2018/19 budget

Budget 2018/19 $657,790

Recommended Cash grants 18/19 $626,103

Balance Uncommitted cash $31,687

In kind (Venue waiver & Council bus use)

Budget 2018/19 $480,190

In Kind venue recommendation $407,528

In Kind Council Bus recommendation $19,184

Total in kind recommendation $426,712

Balance Uncommitted in kind $53,478

Total 2018/19 Budget $1,137,980

Total cash and In-kind recommendations $1,052,815

In assessing the 2018/19 applications Officers have endeavoured to balance out the provision of existing services while also providing for new services/programs. The cash recommendation is an increase of 1.5% on the 2017/18 grants however there has been a 22.4% decrease in the recommended in-kind grants This has provided the opportunity to review, and in compliance with an Internal Audit recommendation, the trial 25% contribution payable by some groups in 2017/18 towards the hire of facilities. It is considered that this charge be discontinued rather than expanded as the hire costs have all been reviewed and such community use can be accommodated.

Cash and in kind funding has been recommended for projects that benefit people from disadvantaged backgrounds, increase community participation and support the health, wellbeing and connectedness of Stonnington residents.


These applications have been assessed and recommendations made that are in keeping with the principles of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

ATTACHMENTS

Page 88


1. Community Grant Recommendations Attachment 1 of 1 Excluded

RECOMMENDATION That the Council adopt the recommendations from Council Officers for the

2018/2019 Community Grants Program as shown in (Attachment One) totalling: $ 626,103 Cash (GST exclusive); and $ 426,712 In kind (GST exclusive)

Page 89


8. RETURN OF 2018 GENERAL REVALUATION

City Valuer: Peter FitzgeraldManager Governance & Corporate Support: Fabienne Thewlis General Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to return the 2018 General Revaluation of all rateable and non-rateable leviable properties within the City of Stonnington in accordance with Section 11 of the Valuation of Land Act 1960. A General Valuation has been required to be returned to Council every two years to satisfy the requirements of the Valuation of Land Act and enable Council, under the Local Government Act 1989 to raise general rates on rateable and non-rateable leviable land within a Council’s municipal district.

BACKGROUND

Council resolved at its meeting on 20 March 2017 to cause a general valuation of all rateable and non-rateable leviable land within the municipality.

As a result, the valuations contained in the General Valuation Report represent the statutory value of every rateable and non-rateable leviable property as at 1 January 2018. The General Rate and Fire Services Property Levy for the year commencing 1 July 2018 are levied based on these values.

Pursuant to Section 13DA(1) & (2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1960, Mr Peter John Fitzgerald, Council’s Valuer, was appointed to be responsible for undertaking the General Revaluation. While in-house staff have carried out the greater majority of the task, a contract valuations firm has been used to do some sections.

In accordance with the Valuation of Land Act 1960 the Council’s Valuer has made a Statutory Declaration confirming that the valuation is the final and complete return of all rateable and non-rateable leviable properties as at 1 January 2018 levels of value. The Statutory Declaration is attached.

DISCUSSION

The aggregate of the valuation of rateable properties as returned is summarised in the following table with a comparison to the previous valuation.

* Stonnington levies its rates upon the Capital Improved Value (CIV), which is the value of the land and buildings combined.

* Net Annual Value (NAV) is a notional rental value of all properties in the municipality (or in relation to residential properties, 5% of the CIV).

Page 91


The overall increase in the Capital Improved Value of 19.25% is the change over the two years since the previous (i.e. 2016) valuation. Significantly, again this increase was fairly uneven, though more in terms of property type rather than location. This can be demonstrated by considering the following two tables, particularly if they are viewed in conjunction.

Table 1

Table 1 gives a reasonable perspective on the relative movements between residential and retail properties, including locational / geographic influences.

Table 2

Table 2 however demonstrates that there was a significant divergence in value changes with residential assessments, dependant primarily on property type.

In summary, any property with a significant land component generally experienced a greater lift in value. An associated effect derived from the fact that there are agglomerations of property types in particular locations – e.g. significantly more townhouse and unit type properties in areas such as South Yarra and less in Malvern East. The outcome in

Page 92


geographic terms is, for example, that higher increases will be experienced on average in Malvern East and less in South Yarra, with the associated shifts in rate liability.

Broadly similar characteristics applied to commercial and retail property; the higher the land component the greater the overall value shifts, though geographic influences were generally more evenly spread. Retail strips still carrying elevated average rent levels (e.g. Chapel Street, South Yarra) saw lower than average increases. This generally correlated with higher retail vacancy rates and a trend over time to a reduction in rental levels in the premium end of the market.

Continuing strength in the value of development land generally will likely see elevated levels of objection in this category, particularly due to the implications on Land Tax liabilities.

In addition to properties that are rateable for Municipal / Council purposes, values assessed in the General Revaluation are also used for the State Fire Services Property Levy. However, since the Fire Services Property Levy applies over a broader range of properties than those liable for Council rates, there are some properties that are non-rateable but leviable that need to be returned / reported. Accordingly Table 3 (below) sets out a summary of these Non-Rateable Leviable properties which are as follows:

Table 3

Involving some 659 properties, they consist of properties that include charitable uses, public benefit land, schools, etc.... Largely as the rates of tax for these Non-Rateable Leviable properties is relatively low, the concept and implementation of the Fire Services Property Levy seems to have been broadly accepted. As a consequence their valuation is generally non-contentious.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

There are no policy issues as the General Revaluation is a required statutory process.


The General Revaluation is undertaken over two financial years and is budgeted accordingly. Since the Site Values that are also undertaken as part of the General Revaluation process are provided to and used for Land Tax purposes, the State Revenue Office contribute a significant proportion of the direct and on-going costs.

Supplementary Valuations are undertaken to progressively update and maintaining the rate base over the 2 year life of this Revaluation.


Page 93


There are no immediate legal implications, though statutory procedures enable individual ratepayers to ultimately pursue Valuation Objections through the courts. This however is part of the statutory processes.

CONCLUSION

Statutory procedures require that the Council receive and adopt the General Revaluation as tabled.


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

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment One - Declaration on return of 2018 General Revaluation Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:

1. receives and adopts the valuations as tabled as the statutory assessment of all rateable property within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1989 in the City of Stonnington, on which the General Rate for the year commencing 1 July 2018 will be based;

2. notes that in accordance with the provisions of Section 13DH of the Valuation of Land Act 1960 the Valuation has been returned;

3. notes that a statutory declaration has been signed by Mr Peter Fitzgerald, the Valuer for the City of Stonnington confirming that the valuation is the final and complete return of all rateable properties as at level of date 1 January 2018 and a copy of the required statutory declaration be placed in the minutes.

Page 94


9. AUDIT COMMITTEE CHAIR'S REPORT 2017 AND STRATEGIC INTERNAL AUDIT PROGRAM

General Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram Chief Executive Officer: Warren Roberts

PURPOSE

To submit to Council the 2017 annual report of the Chair of the Audit Committee and the 2018/19 – 2022/23 Strategic Internal Audit Program.

DISCUSSION

Audit Committee Chair’s Report 2017Audit Committee

The Audit Committee comprises two independent members being Mr. Bruce Potgieter (Chair) and Mr. David Ashmore (Deputy Chair) and two Councillors. Council representatives for 2017 were Cr. Marcia Griffin and Cr. Sally Davis.

Audit Committee Terms of Reference

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

Objectives

Reporting to Council.

These two sections are reproduced below:

Objectives

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

Monitor Council’s exposure to risk and management of risk.

Maintain open lines of communication among the Councillors, internal auditors, external auditors and officers enabling an exchange of views and information.

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

Assist in establishing and maintaining appropriate corporate conduct, and good governance.

Oversee and appraise the quality of the audits conducted by the City’s internal and external auditors.

Review the annual financial statements of the Council.

Provide advice in determining Council’s risk control audit programs and risk minimisation measures.

Reports to Council

Page 95


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

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

Audit Committee Chair’s Report

The report from the Chair of the Audit Committee for the period 1 January to 31 December 2017 is attached. The Audit Committee met on four occasions during 2017:

16 February 11 May 21 August 16 November

Both External and Internal Auditors are invited to attend all meetings. Council Officers attend as required. The External Auditor is the Auditor-General Victoria and the Internal Auditor is Pitcher Partners Consulting Pty. Ltd.

2018/19 – 2022/23 Strategic Internal Audit ProgramThe attached Strategic Internal Audit Program for 2018/19 to 2022/23 was prepared by Council’s Internal Auditor Pitcher Partners following discussions with Management. The program outlines the audits proposed to be undertaken over the five year period and provides a detailed Internal Audit Plan for the 2018/19 financial year.

The Audit Committee endorsed the 2018/19 – 2022/23 Strategic Internal Audit Program and 2018/19 Detailed Internal Plan at its meeting on 10 May 2018 meeting.

2017 Audit Committee Chair’s Report and 2018/19 – 2022/23 Strategic Internal Audit Program PresentationThe Chair of the Audit Committee Mr. Bruce Potgieter in company of the Deputy Chair Mr. David Ashmore, attended the Councillor Briefing on 2 July 2018 to present the Chair’s report and Strategic Audit Program to Councillors.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Audit Committee Chair's Report 2017 Excluded

2. 2018/19 – 2022/23 Strategic Internal Audit Program Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council notes:1. the 2017 annual report from the Chair of the Audit Committee; and2. the 2018/19 – 2022/23 Strategic Internal Audit Program.

Page 96


10. DRAFT TOWARDS ZERO ROAD TRAVEL SAFETY STRATEGY 2018-2022

Road User Behaviour Officer - Transport & Parking: Penne Mithen General Manager Assets & Services: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE To seek approval to exhibit the draft “Towards Zero Road Travel Safety Strategy 2018-2022“ for community consultation. Dr Bruce Corben will be presenting on the draft strategy at 6:15pm.

BACKGROUND

Council is committed to creating an inclusive, healthy, creative, sustainable and smart community. Encompassed within this vision is Council’s continual commitment to provide safe travel for all road users within Stonnington. Over the past decade this commitment has been met via the Road Safety Policy 2008 – 2017. Some of the outcomes of the policy were:

The installation of wall mounted breathalysers in seven of Stonnington’s sporting pavilions

Implementation of 40km/h area zones from Punt Road to Williams Road

Delivery of behaviour change programs (including: Responsible Service of Alcohol; Wiser Driver; Fit2Drive; L2P; road safety and cycling skills)

School road safety workshops for primary aged students

Various local street road safety works (e.g. speed cushions in Chatsworth Road and Aintree Road; Edgar Street road redesign; Hornby Street raised pavement; Greville Street shared zone; Blackspot funded pedestrian crossing on Dandenong Road service road)

To update and modernise this policy, Council has developed a draft “Towards Zero Road Travel Safety Strategy 2018-2022” (TZRTSS). The shift from a policy to strategy allows for a more targeted response to an increasing population and heightened community expectations. The draft TZRTSS is intended to be Council’s key strategic document to guide and implement the vision for road safety over the next five years (2018 – 2022).

Closely aligned with the Victorian Government’s road safety strategy ‘Towards Zero 2016-2020’, the aim of the TZRTSS is to promote safe road-based travel by reducing death and serious injury on Stonnington’s roads. This aim is achieved through the continued implementation of evidence-based infrastructure, behavioural and educational strategies using the Safe Systems (SS) approach.

With Stonnington’s population forecast to grow to around 143,000 by 2036 (an increase of 23 per cent) there will be even greater demand on the local traffic network. Road space availability at present is limited, with little capacity to be extended to any significant degree. Therefore, in alignment with Council’s vision and current plans for enhancing urban liveability and well-being of residents, the challenge is to cater for increased trips by all modes while improving the safety of all road users.

To achieve this, a road safety steering committee was established and a project brief sent to three specialist road safety consultants. Under direction from Council’s Road Safety Strategy Steering Committee, Council officers appointed road safety consultants Corben Consulting. The following section of this report will detail the development of the strategy.

DISCUSSION

Page 97


The following details the methodology and data used in the development of the strategy.

Summary of TZRTSS

The TZRTSS is presented in three main documents compiled by Corben Consulting and the Monash University Accident Research Centre.

Attachment 1: Draft “Towards Zero Road Travel Safety Strategy 2018 – 2022”

Attachment 2: Draft “Towards Zero Road Travel Safety Strategy Implementation Plan”.

Attachment 3: Draft “Towards Zero Road Travel Safety Strategy Technical Report.”

The Safe System Principles (SS)

The SS principles use research, data and evaluation to understand crashes and risks, and guides the TZRTSS to address safety through the following four key pillars:

1. Safe roads.

2. Safe speeds (by better matching and managing speeds).

3. Safe people (through behaviour change involving community engagement, education and enforcement support).

4. Safe vehicles (through good governance and management).

The SS principles have been acknowledged globally as the most advanced and effective long-term approach to eliminating road trauma, and is recognised by institutions such as the International Transport Research Centre (2008) and the Australian Government (National Road Safety Strategy 2011 – 2020). This approach was previously adopted by Council for Stonnington’s Road Safety Policy 2008 – 2017.

By continuing to implement the SS approach, the draft TZRTSS will focus on the most prevalent road safety issues within the municipality, rather than attempting to spread Council resources across a broad range of non-prevalent issues.

Fatality and Serious Injury Data

To ensure the draft TZRTSS targeted the most prevalent road safety issues within the municipality, a clear understanding of the crash history for all road users within the City of Stonnington was sought. In partnership with Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC), Corben Consulting sourced the most recent dataset available (1 July 2011 – 30 June 2016) of fatal and seriously injured persons within the City of Stonnington, directly from the Transport Accident Commission (TAC).

Comprehensive data analyses was then conducted using this dataset. Results revealed that over the five-year period (July 2011 to June 2016) there were a total of 10 fatalities and 632 serious injuries that occurred on Stonnington’s roads (for the purpose of this report, serious injuries are; police reported, TAC validated serious injuries where a person has been recorded as admitted to hospital with at least one overnight stay). A gradual increase in serious injuries was found over this period, however no reliable trend was evident for fatalities. The five-year period break down of serious injuries and fatalities are found in Figure 1 below.

Page 98


Figure 1. Deaths and serious injuries in City of Stonnington from July 2011 to June 2016

The locations of the fatal and seriously injured data are presented in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2. All fatalities (red) and seriously injured persons (green) over the five-year period

Summary of Serious Injuries and Fatalities from July 2011 – June 2016

Road Class Highly-trafficked arterial roads accounted for 72 per cent of serious injuries.

CityLink accounted for 9 per cent of serious injuries.

Local streets accounted for 19 per cent of serious injuries.

Tram Routes

Page 99


Serious injuries are prevalent along tram routes in Stonnington, with Malvern Road having a higher spatial concentration (65 serious injuries; or 10 per cent) than any other route.

Speed Zone 60km/h speed zones claimed the most serious injuries (45 per cent).

40km/h or 50km/h speed zones accounted for 30 per cent of serious injuries.

Road User Type Strong majority of serious injuries (62 per cent) arose from “vehicle to vehicle” crashes

including cyclists and motorcyclists.

Vulnerable road users comprised the majority of serious injuries (56 per cent).

o From June 2011 to July 2016, there were:

o 141 (22 per cent) serious injuries involving motorcyclists.

o 107 (17 per cent) involving pedestrians.

o 104 (16.5 per cent) involving cyclists. 71 per cent of ‘loss of control’ crashes involved vulnerable road users (more common

with cyclists and motorcyclists).

Age Younger residents aged 15-24; the 25-39 age group; and those aged 75 years and older

are were over-represented in the data relative to their percentages in the population.

Intersections 53 per cent of total serious injuries within Stonnington have occurred at an intersection.

The vast majority of these (85 per cent) occurred on the arterial network.

Roadside Hazards 90 serious injuries (14 per cent) resulted from vehicles striking trees, roadside poles and

other rigid objects or losing control.

The key crash types and associated analyses identified above, were the most prevalent road safety issues within the municipality. Under the SS approach, these key crash types are required to be addressed.

Strategic Actions to Address Key Crash Types

To address the issues highlighted by the crash analyses presented above, the following key strategic directions form the foundation of the draft TZRTSS:

1. Ensure Safe System thinking is included within Stonnington’s range of policies and programs that intersect with road safety interests such as the Stonnington Health and Wellbeing Plan 2017 – 2021; the Sustainable Transport Policy and the Cycling Strategy 2013 – 2018; Access and Inclusion Plan 2014 – 2017; and various activity centre structure plans.

2. Identify and introduce Safe System-compatible measures either temporarily or permanently (i.e. traffic trials or occupations such as road works).

3. Communicate with the Stonnington community through program delivery to inform, explain and respond to concerns.

4. Ensure that the greatest emphasis is placed on protecting those who are most vulnerable when using Stonnington’s roads.

Page 100


5. Reconfigure speed limits and infrastructure to align the traffic system with Safe System principles so that people are safer and vehicles are safer.

6. Promote and actively support innovation and demonstration projects that align with Safe System thinking.

7. Advocate and promote the purchase and use of vehicles with best available levels of crash avoidance and injury prevention (mainly aimed at Council Fleet Vehicles).

8. Partner with key agencies to maximise safety impact and access to supporting resources.

To achieve this, it was proposed that a draft five-year implementation plan be established to accompany the draft TZRTSS (Attachment 2).

Five-year Implementation Plan

An implementation plan was developed to achieve the goals and recommendations of the draft TZRTSS 2018 - 2022. Some of the recommended key strategic directions on the draft plan included:

Identify and support cycle links between principal bike routes.

Support low risk walking and cycling by reviewing the designs of existing roundabouts within the municipality for the potential to retro-fit raised pedestrian crossings (as used successfully in the City Port Phillip) and identify opportunities to build new roundabouts with this safety feature.

Investigate, scope and develop pedestrian priority treatments at T-intersections.

Trial left-in/left-out management of traffic at intersections on a designated arterial road segment in partnership with VicRoads. Intersections on routes with 60 km/h or higher speed limits and low-risk turning provisions would be candidates for a trial.

In partnership with VicRoads, encourage the implementation at major intersections of advance profile treatments, fully controlled right turn signals and dwell-on-red functionality.

Continue to roll out 40 km/h in local streets and, in partnership with VicRoads, identify and implement 40 km/h speed limits around public transport hubs to support safe travel; support with community education and traffic-calming, where appropriate. Where communities are supportive, lower limits should be introduced to make further substantial reductions in the risk of injury to our most vulnerable road users.

Continue productive dialogue and building relationship with the Safe System Road Infrastructure Team (SSRIP), given the Team’s aim of helping to transform Victoria’s road network to a vastly safer form, as well as its role as a funding agent.

With the SSRIP Team support, develop innovative treatments and further explore the possibility of reducing speeds on approaches of roads intercepting 40km/h arterials.

It was recommended that additional work be carried out by Council to establish a comprehensive set of key performance indicators for implementing the strategy. While examples of potential safety performance indicators are included in the implementation plan, further work may be required to ensure all aspects of managing delivery of the strategy have been adequately addressed, including the setting of targets, responsible officers and departments, and more specific timelines.

To gather external feedback on the proposed implementation plan, a series of stakeholder consultation forums were undertaken to further advise the development of the draft RTSS.

Page 101


Stakeholder Consultation

Significant consultation was undertaken with key stakeholders to inform the development of the strategy and accompanying implementation plan. This included:

TAC and VicRoads Safe Systems Road Infrastructure Program (SSRIP) Teams VicRoads and TAC SSRIP Team was established during 2015 to coordinate expenditure

of TAC and Towards Zero road safety funds. Several areas were identified of relevance to the SSRIP team.

The Kew to Highett cycle route is a priority for infrastructure investment, with the SSRIP Team set up to assist with the design of cycling facilities aligning with Safe System principles.

A TAC-funded program is likely to be initiated with the goal of managing speeds in local streets to not more than 40 km/h. To be eligible, LGAs will be required to contribute 1:1 matched funding from Council, some of which could be directed to the development of ideas and for associated planning ahead of implementation. There is no minimum BCR requirement to be met. The program also includes an innovation component to support the development and trial of new design and project delivery ideas.

Stonnington’s cycling reference group favours the early upgrading of the City’s existing pedestrian/cyclist shared paths. Other options include the Sandringham rail route, the existing cycle lanes on Malvern Road and full-time reductions in on-road speed limits to 40 km/h. Council also has priorities for upgrading cycling infrastructure.

Funding of $70m has already been approved for high priority cycling projects. Chapel Street, while not included in current funding plans, may be eligible for review should sufficient funds become available.

Road Safety Strategy Group (Victoria Police, City of Stonnington, City of Port Phillip, Yarra Trams and VicRoads South East Region)

All member organisations, except for VicRoads, were represented.

Discussed and acknowledged potential discrepancies between Traffic Information System and TAC-validated crash and injury data. Some discrepancies are due to differences in final injury severity outcomes and others related to full reporting on municipal boundary roads. Also, there is a significant level of under-reporting of cyclist crashes (perhaps others too, such as pedestrian falls).

Hoping the Chapel Street Masterplan can assist with addressing cyclist and other areas of safety but aware that any changes to parking will be strongly resisted. If any one of the following can be achieved, the Chapel Street safety problem would be substantially diminished – removal of cars, trams, cyclists or on-street parking.

As part of making Acland Street car-free, City of Port Phillip Council engaged experts to monitor and assess the effects on business outcomes. Setting and achieving transport safety targets has been key to City of Port Phillip progress.

Maybe scope to renegotiate contract with PTV if any proposals to eliminate serious injuries also impact on tram services – Melbourne is growing rapidly and the transport system is being further strained and cannot perform as it did in the past, tram speeds now average around 18 km/h across the network.

Page 102


VicRoads Metropolitan South East Region and SSRIP Team

Substantial funds have been allocated to the three major crash types (head-on and run-off-road; intersection; pedestrian and cyclist) in relation to the size and spatial concentration of serious injuries and considering systemic risk. It was emphasised that the Victorian state strategy focuses on systemic risk not solely on crash occurrence. Importantly, there is scope to depart from road design standards provided there is a sound evidence base to do so.

In the case of proposals within the strategy that involve lower speed limits, a smoother implementation path may be achieved using infrastructure design. For measures that require speed limit reductions, timing will be important. In such cases, planning and community engagement should be happening in readiness.

Speed limit reductions and traffic-calming infrastructure options on local streets will require positive community engagement, whereby the community should not only be informed but will also provide feedback to gain state government support. Both the SSRIP team and TAC could provide assistance with the content and communication of messages.

Chapel Street was identified as a high priority at both council and state level, with further discussions required to solve what is a complex and challenging problem. It was agreed that the parties would work together on this and consider both short and long-term solutions. A substantially lower speed limit would be a viable short-term option, with full recognition of the sensitivities around speed limit reductions.

The main opportunities for addressing motorcyclist safety in the draft RTSS are directed at intersection safety, such as full control of right turns, safety platforms and lower speed limits.

Stonnington Access and Inclusion Committee

Given the prevalence of vulnerable road users (pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists) in Stonnington’s serious injury numbers, and the over-representation of older people (75 years of age and older) in serious crash statistics, the potential for introducing 40 km/h speed limits to reduce risk was discussed.

There was general support for the 40 km/h initiative, particularly as a means of supporting residents with difficulties accessing local commercial areas, public transport and community services to move around more easily and at lower risk.

Stonnington Cycling Reference Group A productive meeting with representatives from the Cycling Reference Group was

undertaken with a summary of the serious injury problem presented by Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC), with an emphasis on cycling-related issues.

The importance and value of cycling to transport within Stonnington was reinforced and a range of potential initiatives for improving cycling safety canvassed. These included lower speed limits on priority bicycle routes and the feasibility of establishing dedicated cycle routes that would encourage cycling.

Page 103


Excellent written input was provided after the meeting by reference group members Cameron Munro and Maggie Knight. These notes are provided within the Appendices to the draft TZRTSSs technical report.

Summary

The City of Stonnington’s ten-year Road Safety Policy 2008 - 2017 (RSP) has recently expired. To update and modernise this policy, Council officers appointed road safety consultants Corben Consulting, who partnered with Monash University Accident Research Centre. The shift from a policy to strategy allows for a more targeted response to an increasing population and heightened community expectations.

Comprehensive analyses was conducted on TAC validated crash data. Some of the key findings from the analyses included:

Vulnerable road users comprised the majority of serious injuries (56 per cent).

o From June 2011 to July 2016, there were:

o 141 (22 per cent) serious injuries involving motorcyclists.

o 107 (17 per cent) involving pedestrians.

o 104 (16.5 per cent) involving cyclists. Highly-trafficked arterial roads accounted for 72 per cent of serious injuries.

The key crash types identified by the analyses were the most prevalent road safety issues within the municipality. Under the SS approach, these key crash types are required to be addressed.

To help address these key crash types, strategic actions included:

1. Ensure that the greatest emphasis is placed on protecting those who are most vulnerable when using Stonnington’s roads.

2. Reconfigure speed limits and infrastructure to align the traffic system with Safe System principles.

3. Promote and actively support innovation and demonstration projects that align with Safe System thinking.

An accompanying five-year strategic implementation plan was developed to achieve the goals and recommendations of the draft TZRTSS 2018 - 2022.

The strategic actions and implementation plan was reviewed by significant stakeholders including:

1. Victoria Police

2. VicRoads South East Region

3. Safe Systems Road Infrastructure Program team and directors (VicRoads and TAC)

4. Yarra Trams

5. Stonnington Cycling Reference Group

6. Stonnington Access and Inclusion Committee

Public exhibition of the draft TZRTSS will provide an opportunity for residents, local traders and other members of the Stonnington community to provide invaluable feedback that may

Page 104


assist in refining the draft TZRTSS. This will ensure that the final strategy will be the most innovative and effective road safety strategy that Stonnington has developed to date.

Next Steps

It is proposed that community engagement be undertaken for a period of four weeks from July - August 2018, using the public exhibition online forum “Stonnington Connect” to exhibit the draft with a concurrent media release; an advertorial in the Leader; and social media advertising. Following community consultation and the implementation of community feedback into the draft, the amended draft strategy will be presented to Council for adoption.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

The draft TZRTSS falls within the Transport and Parking budget allocations for the purpose of community consultation and review. A Transport Accident Commission (TAC) grant for the amount of $25,000 + GST was awarded to Council to align the proposed strategy with Victoria’s RSS ‘Towards Zero 2016 // 2020’. Existing Council budgets were used to fund the balance.

It is anticipated that following endorsement, the implementation of the TZRTSS may require bids for new capital projects and further external grant funding. Capital project bids will be sought through the budget process and applications for external funding sources (i.e. through the Transport Accident Commission and VicRoads joint Safe Systems Infrastructure Program) will be applied for by Council’s Road User Behaviour Officer.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATIONS

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

CONCLUSION

Council has an important role within the area of road safety. Through the implementation of evidence-based infrastructure, behavioural and educational strategies, Council’s focused approach will continue to assist with the prevention of fatalities and serious injuries within the municipality.

Following Council’s endorsement of the draft TZRTSS, it is proposed that community consultation will commence. Following community consultation, all appropriate and relevant feedback received, will be incorporated into the draft. The amended TZRTSS draft will then be submitted for Council’s consideration to adopt the strategy.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Road Travel Safety Strategy 2018 - 2022 Excluded

2. Draft Implementation Plan for Road Travel Safety Strategy 2018 - 2022 Excluded

3. Draft Road Travel Safety Strategy Technical Report Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:

1. Endorses the draft “Towards Zero Road Travel Safety Strategy 2018 – 2022”

Page 105


for community consultation.

2. Endorses the proposed consultation process of public exhibition for a period of four weeks on the “Stonnington Connect” website using the consultation process as outlined in report.

3. Receives a further report at the conclusion of the consultation process to consider adoption of the draft “Towards Zero Road Travel Safety Strategy 2018 – 2022”.

Page 106


11. GARDINERS CREEK BIODIVERSITY PROJECT

Coordinator Sustainable Environment: Jane Spence Manager Parks & Environment : Simon HollowayGeneral Manager Assets & Services: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to seek Council endorsement to progress with the proposed Gardiners Creek Biodiversity Project that would build on the significant effort and success to-date of the Yarra River Biodiversity Project.

In the first instance, endorsement is sought to proceed with the scoping and planning phase of this project only, with a future Council report to facilitate endorsement of a project masterplan and subsequent staged implementation.

BACKGROUND

Commitment to enhance biodiversity and waterways

Council has a strong commitment to protecting and enhancing biodiversity and improving waterway health throughout the municipality. Environment is one of the four pillars of the Council Plan 2018-2021, which includes strategies to:

Maximise efficiency of water use and improve water quality entering waterways. Enhance biodiversity values throughout the City to protect and increase flora and

fauna. Protect, maintain and grow the City’s street tree population to enhance the

character, identity and liveability of the City of Stonnington.

These commitments are given further direction through the Sustainable Environment Strategy 2013 – 2017 and the draft Sustainable Environment Strategy 2018 – 2023.

In practice, these commitments have been given effect over recent years through a range of initiatives, including:

Implementation of the Yarra River Biodiversity Project since 2010. Extensive tree planting and weed control in key biodiversity sites. Annual staff, school and community tree planting days. Enhanced maintenance of biodiversity planting areas. Construction of 36 habitat tree hollows and nesting boxes at 12 sites throughout

Stonnington. Support for the Friends of Gardiners Creek Valley to undertake volunteer tree

planting. Creation of biodiversity-supporting habitat and plantings in parks and gardens. Community engagement and education on sustainable gardening and backyard

biodiversity opportunities. Installation of more than 100 water sensitive urban design (WSUD) assets

throughout the municipality including raingardens, tree pits and wetlands.

Key biodiversity sites

Page 107


Following a significant biodiversity assessment in 2007, Council has focused its revegetation efforts on seven key biodiversity sites across the City. These sites were identified as having the most significant and intact ecological values and the strongest opportunity to build on these to create natural environments, enhance biodiversity and provide habitat for native wildlife. These sites are:

Glenburn Bend Park Muswell Bend Park Glen Iris Wetlands Darling Park Malvern Valley Golf Course Urban Forest Reserve Yarra River Corridor

Of these, the first five are located along Gardiners Creek. The remaining two key biodiversity sites have close links to Gardiners Creek, with the Yarra River being its receiving waterway and the Urban Forest Reserve being located just 500m away. In light of this, Gardiners Creek is central to Council’s efforts to protect and enhance biodiversity values.

Stonnington waterways

The two major waterways in Stonnington are the Yarra River and Gardiners Creek. Together these essentially form the northern boundary of the City of Stonnington.

Gardiners Creek enters the Yarra, which then flows into Port Phillip Bay. Scotchmans Creek is a secondary waterway that flows into Gardiners Creek through the Malvern Valley Golf Course.

Stonnington’s waterways provide important ecological processes such as draining stormwater from urban areas, providing wildlife corridors and habitat and helping to improve the quality of water entering Port Phillip Bay. These waterways also provide opportunities for the community to experience local wildlife, find quiet natural areas in a busy city and support sport and recreation activities.

Yarra River Biodiversity Project

In 2010, the City of Stonnington began the Yarra River Biodiversity Project – one of the largest river regeneration projects in the Yarra River’s history.

To date, Council has invested over $6.4 million to improve water quality, increase habitat connectivity, grow the urban forest and provide enhanced recreational and educational opportunities for the community along the Yarra River.

This project is being delivered through seven key stages:

Stage 1 – completed 2011-12 Construction of an ephemeral wetland system to remove sediment and filter

pollutants from stormwater, treat water through vegetation before it is discharged into the Yarra River and provide habitat for local wildlife.

Indigenous revegetation. Bicycle path upgrade and installation of a pedestrian boardwalk.

Page 108


Stages 2 and 3 – completed 2013-15 Construction of bio retention ponds with integrated walkways. Realignment and widening of the cycle path. Improved seating and viewing sites to enable people to interact with the surrounding

environment. Indigenous revegetation.

Stages 4 and 5 – completed 2015-17 Construction of rest areas with bicycle parking and seating. New three metre-wide shared path, retaining walls and handrails. Improved access to the bus stop. Indigenous revegetation.

Stage 6 – to be completed December 2018 Recreational improvements will include a new three metre-wide shared path. Rest area seating, drinking fountain and the replacement of handrails and new

retaining walls. Indigenous revegetation.

Stage 7 – scope and timing to be confirmed (aiming for 2018/19) Completion of two short sections of the three metre-wide shared path where

additional bridge investigation and engineering options are required. These are the remaining missing links to complete the project.

As the Yarra River Biodiversity Project is scheduled to be completed in 2018-19, there is a significant opportunity for Council to extend this ‘biodiversity corridor’ east along Gardiners Creek, supported by enhanced cycling and passive recreation infrastructure.

Gardiners Creek

Gardiners Creek is a significant waterway within Stonnington that provides an important wildlife corridor within an increasingly urban environment.

Originally known as Kooyongkoot by the Wurundjeri people, Gardiners Creek extends for approximately 30km from its source in Blackburn, through Box Hill South, Burwood, Ashwood, Malvern East, Ashburton, Glen Iris, Malvern and Kooyong before entering the Yarra River near St. Kevin’s College.

Within the City of Stonnington, Gardiners Creek extends for approximately 8.7km from Warrigal Road through to its junction with the Yarra River. The creek largely forms the northern municipal boundary between The City of Stonnington and City of Boroondara.

In a few sparse locations along the creek’s length remnant riparian bushland survives, however the vast majority of the creek environment has been heavily urbanised and the waterway itself degraded in much the same way as other inner suburban waterways have.

Five of Stonnington’s seven key biodiversity sites are located along Gardiners Creek including Glenburn Bend Park, Muswell Bend Park, the Glen Iris Wetlands, Darling Park and the Malvern Valley Golf Course. This signifies the ecological importance of Gardiners Creek within the City of Stonnington context. While substantially degraded in many ways,

Page 109


Gardiners Creek offers some of the highest ecological values intact within the municipality and represents a major opportunity to enhance these.

The area requires regeneration work to re-instate biodiversity values, support stormwater treatment and provide improved passive and active recreation opportunities, supporting community interactions with nature.

Gardiners Creek Trail

A key feature of the Gardiners Creek landscape is the Gardiners Creek Trail, a shared use path for pedestrians and cyclists that meanders along the creek through the eastern suburbs, crossing in and out of multiple local government areas.

The Gardiners Creek Trail is defined by the Victorian Government as a Strategic Cycling Corridor. Such corridors are developed to improve cycling to and around major activity centres in metropolitan Melbourne.

Gardiners Creek Trail extends from Blackburn Train Station, Blackburn to Heyington Train Station, Toorak, where it connects with the Main Yarra Trail that runs into the CBD. While a significant commuter route, the Gardiners Creek Trail also supports short local trips by bicycle and connects with multiple train stations, sports grounds, public open spaces and other on and off road cycle routes, including the Scotchmans Creek Trail.

Upgrading the Gardiners Creek Trail is a key strategic priority in Council’s effort to enhance cycling infrastructure and support sustainable transport modes. The upgrade of Gardiners Creek Trail is set to feature as a significant priority of Council’s next Cycling Strategy, due for updating in 2018.

In addition to upgrading the shared path trail, a significant opportunity exists to extend the ‘biodiversity corridor’ east from the Yarra River along Gardiners Creek and enhance passive recreation infrastructure.

Melbourne Water Grant – Living Rivers

The City of Stonnington has received various grants in recent years to support aspects of its biodiversity, stormwater and waterway improvement initiatives.

Council has recently received two Melbourne Water grants to support waterway biodiversity activities. A Corridors of Green grant has been received to contribute to the completion of Stage 6 of the Yarra River Biodiversity Project. In addition to this a Living Rivers grant has been received to support Council to develop a masterplan for the enhancement of Gardiners Creek environment. Timing of these grants was driven by the grant program requirements.

The proposed Gardiners Creek Biodiversity Project Masterplan would be similar to the plan developed in 2010 for the Yarra River Biodiversity Project and is expected to inform the scope, design and staging of works along the Gardiners Creek area within the City of Stonnington. The plan is expected to be developed in consultation with neighbouring municipalities and other authorities to identify opportunities for complementary works along the waterway and surrounds. This is further set out below.

DISCUSSION

Page 110


Extending the Yarra River Biodiversity Project along Gardiners Creek provides Council with an opportunity to continue to demonstrate its commitment and leadership to enhance waterway health, increase habitat, grow the urban forest, improve urban cooling and provide health and wellbeing benefits for the community.

Gardiners Creek Biodiversity Project

The proposed Gardiners Creek Biodiversity Project aims to transform and enhance Gardiners Creek through extensive revegetation and biodiversity improvements, water sensitive urban design (WSUD) treatments, shared path upgrades and enhancing opportunities for passive and active recreation.

The proposed project will focus on the areas of Gardiners Creek that border the City of Stonnington from Warrigal Road through to Kooyong Road. This area is 8.7 kilometres long and runs through the Malvern Valley Golf Course and alongside the City of Boroondara.

Staged approach

The first phase of the project would involve the development of a Masterplan to create a vision for the future development of the site. The Masterplan will aim to integrate the natural and human landscapes of the area based on ecology, biodiversity, urban cooling, health and wellbeing.

The expected outcomes of the Gardiners Creek Biodiversity Project Masterplan will include: A framework for the future development of the site. Broad understanding of the site issues and opportunities. A high level concept plan outlining the design intent of the site area. Specific recommendations for future development and enhancements. A plan to re-establish appropriate vegetation to enhance biodiversity and improve

aquatic habitats. Recommendations for improved cycling and pedestrian links, including connecting

links with other cycling networks and destinations. Recommended design guidelines for furniture, signage, lighting and fencing. Recommendations for passive and active recreation enhancements along the route. Development of individual stages of project works for delivery over multiple years. Development of maintenance plans. Extensive community and stakeholder consultation to reach agreed outcomes.

The Masterplan and its principles will be used to guide the design development and detailed design of the project.

Consultation

The primary agency involved in the management of the Gardiners Creek area is Melbourne Water for river habitat and terrestrial management. Preliminary discussions have been held with Melbourne Water who has demonstrated interest and support for the proposed works.

Initial discussions have also been held with Council Officers at the Cities of Boroondara and Monash, who have expressed interest in further consultation and opportunities for collaboration.

Page 111


A stakeholder and community consultation and engagement process will be undertaken to gather information and feedback on existing conditions and current use of the Gardiners Creek area. The outcome of the consultation process will inform the development of the Masterplan.

Project timeframe

It is proposed that Council commence the scoping and planning phases of the Gardiners Creek Biodiversity Project in August 2018, with the appointment of a consultant to develop the overarching Masterplan.

Through this process, it is envisaged that community and stakeholder engagement would be undertaken in the latter half of 2018.

It is expected that a draft Masterplan will be brought to Council for consideration and endorsement in late 2018 / early 2019, together with a report seeking support to progress with a staged program of project implementation.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The Gardiners Creek Biodiversity Project is supported by the following strategic Council documents:

Council Plan 2017-2021 Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan 2018-2021 Sustainable Environment Strategy 2018-2023 (draft) Urban Forest Strategy 2017-2022 Stonnington Cycling Strategy 2013-2018 Positive Ageing Strategy 2018-2021 Children, Youth and Family Strategy Strategies for Creating Open Space


The recently adopted Council Budget contains funding in the Four Years Capital Works Program 2018/19 - 2021/22 for the Yarra River and Gardiners Creek Biodiversity Projects.

Funding is allocated under capital account X8727 Environment - Yarra River / Gardiners Creek Biodiversity Projects for “Implementation of the final stages of the Yarra River Biodiversity Project. Scoping and design of a comparable project along the Gardiner's Creek.”

Funding of $990k is allocated in 2018/19, with a further $990k per annum allocated for the following three years 2019/20 – 2021/22.

The proposed Gardiners Creek Biodiversity Project Masterplan will quantify scope of works and indicative cost estimates of the project by stage.

It is anticipated that any future funding for the Gardiners Creek Biodiversity Project would be sought and ratified through the annual Council Budget process.

Page 112


CONCLUSION

With the landmark Yarra River Biodiversity Project due for completion in 2018-19, there is an opportunity for Council to extend its regeneration work along Gardiners Creek to continue to protect and enhance biodiversity within the municipality and enhance the recreation environment along the waterway.

As a major Stonnington waterway, many areas of Gardiners Creek also comprise key biodiversity sites within the city including Glenburn Bend Park, Muswell Bend Park, the Glen Iris Wetlands, Darling Park and the Malvern Valley Golf Course. Additionally, the Gardiners Creek Trail has been highlighted as a Strategic Cycling Corridor by the Victorian Government and a key priority for Council to upgrade in coming years.

A healthy and attractive physical environment supports a high level of biodiversity and essential ecosystem services, facilitates educational opportunities and recreational activities, and adds to the colour and amenity of a community.

It is proposed that Council build on the significant effort and success to-date of the Yarra River Biodiversity Project through the commencement of a Gardiners Creek Biodiversity Project.

Protecting and enhancing Gardiners Creek will provide a range of environmental benefits, create improved opportunities for passive and active recreation and support improved community health and wellbeing in the City of Stonnington.

The first phase of the project would involve the development of a Masterplan to establish a vision to transform and enhance Gardiners Creek through extensive revegetation and biodiversity improvements, water sensitive urban design (WSUD) treatments, shared path upgrades and enhancing the recreation environment along the waterway.

In the first instance, endorsement is sought to proceed with the scoping and planning phase of this project only, with a future Council report to facilitate endorsement of a project masterplan and subsequent staged implementation.



Page 113


RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Develop a Gardiners Creek Biodiversity Project Masterplan to articulate a clear,

overarching vision for the restoration of the creek and surrounds, define the scope of proposed works and provide a framework for staged implementation over multiple years.

2. Note the primary objective of the project being to transform and enhance Gardiners Creek corridor including extensive revegetation and biodiversity improvements, water sensitive urban design (WSUD) treatments, shared path upgrades and enhanced opportunities for passive and active recreation along the creek.

3. Undertake stakeholder and community consultation through the process of developing the Masterplan.

4. Identify opportunities for collaborative or aligned efforts and investments by stakeholders with an interest in Gardiners Creek.

5. Receive a future Council report to facilitate endorsement of the project Masterplan including a staged implementation program, associated capital costs and ongoing operational and capital maintenance requirements.

Page 114


12. STREET TREE PRUNING PROGRAM - RESIDENT NOTIFICATION

Manager Parks & Environment : Simon Holloway General Manager Assets & Services: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to update councillors on Council’s current street tree pruning program, including resident notifications, and present an overview of options and cost of notifying residents via letter box drop.

This report follows a resident request regarding enhanced community notifications ahead of street tree pruning works and a previous Council report on this matter (23 April 2018).

BACKGROUND

Street tree pruning program

The City of Stonnington manages approximately 55,000 trees in the public realm including street trees, park trees, trees in Council-managed facilities and trees in the Malvern Valley Golf Course.

Of these, there are approximately 32,500 street trees in total, comprised of: 7,200 on designated streets 25,300 on non-designated streets

Designated streets are typically major arterials and streets containing high-voltage power lines. Designated streets are inspected and pruned on an annual basis.

Non-designated streets include all other streets in Stonnington, and are typically local streets. Non-designated streets are inspected and pruned on a biennial basis.

Given this inspection and pruning regime, approximately 20,000 street trees are pruned each year in the City of Stonnington, representing 61% of all street trees.

Pruning of Council’s street trees is undertaken by two contractors, one that manages trees in designated streets and one that manages trees in non-designated streets.

Tree pruning is undertaken in accordance with Council’s contract specifications, Australian Standards and where relevant, the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015 Code of Practice.

The Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015 specify mandatory clearance requirements from electric lines of various voltage. Compliance with these clearance distances is a legislative obligation and is routinely audited by power distribution businesses and enforced by Energy Safe Victoria. Pruning in accordance with these regulations can have a dramatic impact on the structure, amenity and shade value of street trees located under power lines.

Pruning schedule

All street trees in the City of Stonnington are pruned to a specific schedule, which is published on Council’s website.

For non-designated streets, the municipality is divided into 48 tree maintenance zones. Each calendar month in the two year pruning cycle has one, two or three tree maintenance zones allocated for completion in that month. See Attachment 1.

Page 115


For designated streets, there are 61 streets pruned each year. Each month of the calendar year has between 2 and 14 streets allocated for completion in that month. See Attachment 2.

In addition to the scheduled maintenance program, Council has a reactive tree maintenance program to address any out of cycle pruning needs, action community requests and respond to emergency situations.

Resident notifications

The City of Stonnington currently notifies residents of upcoming street tree pruning in accordance with its obligations under the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015.

See discussion in the following section of this report on the interpretation and application of these Regulations.

In addition to the information provided on its website, Council publishes a written notice in the Stonnington Leader newspaper each month advising residents of the programmed street tree pruning to occur in the month following. See Attachment 3 for an example notification.

The notice advises residents of pruning that will occur in a particular area bound by certain streets (non-designated streets) and pruning that will occur in particular streets (designated streets) in the following calendar month. The notice does not specify a day or week that the pruning will be undertaken. This provides Council’s contractor with the flexibility required to manage variable pruning rates (depending on extent of cutting required) and variable site access.

The regulations require that the pruning of street trees must not occur earlier than 14 days from the date of the notice or later than 60 days from the date of the notice. If works do not occur within the timeframes specified, Council is obliged to renotify residents via public notice.

Each public notice costs Council $542 + GST, equating to $6,504 + GST per year.

Resident complaints

Council typically receives very few resident complaints regarding its street tree pruning program, totalling in the order of 5-10 per year.

Almost all of these relate to the extent of pruning undertaken and the impact on streetscape amenity, with very few relating to the notification provided by Council or other issues, such as saw dust or debris.

DISCUSSION

Councillor request

Following the tabling of a resident complaint relating to inadequate notification of street tree pruning, Cr Atwell raised a question as to whether Council could consider additional resident notifications ahead of street tree pruning. Specifically, it was noted that doing a letterbox drop closer to the date of the pruning would enable people to move cars and take any other actions they need to do for the equipment in the street.

Page 116


Interpretation and application of notification requirements under the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015

Currently, the City of Stonnington notifies its residents of upcoming street tree pruning works in accordance with widely understood obligations under the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015.

The Regulations (Schedule 1, Division 3, Clause 16, Section (3)) specifically requires:

(3) A written notice published under subclause (2) must be published in a newspaper circulating generally in the locality of the land in which the tree is to be cut or removed.

The Guidelines to the Electrical Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015, provide further clarification and defines ‘Newspaper’ as follows;

Newspaper includes:o major dailyso leader groupso council newsletterso etc.

Following discussion at Council on 23 April 2018 about the interpretation and application of the requirement to publish a notice in a circulating newspaper, written clarification was sought from Energy Safe Victoria (ESV), the authority responsible for the administration of the Electrical Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015.

Specifically, Council sought formal clarification from ESV as to whether a resident notification regime involving hand delivered notices to properties (1-4 weeks ahead of proposed pruning works), combined with the provision of information on Council’s website and social media channels (that is without publishing a notice in a newspaper or Council newsletter circulating generally in the locality of the land in which the tree is to be cut or removed) would satisfy the above regulatory requirement.

Energy Safe Victoria provided a written response indicating that it ‘considers the notification methodology described in your letter would satisfy the intent of Clause 16 of the Code provided that the notification meets the above requirements.’

The requirements referred to in the ESV letter include a description of pruning works to be undertaken; the days or period in which the intended pruning will occur; and the timeframe of pruning works from the date of notification. The response from ESV does not specifically answer the question as to whether the proposed notification regime would satisfy the regulatory requirements.

Following receipt of this advice from ESV, further advice was sought from Council’s Corporate Counsel in relation to the interpretation and application of notification requirements under the regulations.

The advice of Council’s Corporate Counsel is clear that the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015 require Council to publish a written notice regarding upcoming street tree pruning works in the vicinity of power lines in a newspaper – in the ordinary meaning of the term newspaper, or potentially a Council newsletter / bulletin which is circulated widely on a periodical basis. This advice is based on an assessment of the specific, prescriptive wording of s.16 of the Regulations and the context in which they are written.

It light of this advice, it is considered by Council Officers that publishing a notice in a newspaper, such as the Stonnington Leader, will remain an ongoing requirement of Council. This does not prevent consideration of other, additional means of notifying residents of upcoming street tree pruning works.

Page 117


Additional notification - letter box drop option

The following summarises how Council could notify residents via a letterbox drop and the associated costs.

The assumed model would involve placing a notification card in each letterbox of properties in streets where pruning is to occur at an agreed timeframe before works, for example one week. To minimise costs and labour, it is assumed that this would be a generic notification card (no customised information) that indicates the street tree pruning will occur in the following week and other information about Council’s management of trees and obligations.

The City of Stonnington has 63,311 rateable properties. On the basis that 61% of Council’s street trees are pruned each year, this translates to approximately 38,700 resident notifications that would require delivery each year.

The most practical option would be for Council’s two tree management contractors to print and deliver the resident notifications in the week prior to their crews working in specific streets.

Cost estimates have been obtained to deliver this activity, which is outside of current contract requirements.

Cost estimate

The estimated cost of this option include:

Printing of notification cards - $5,267 + GST Delivery of notifications - $21,199 + GST

The total estimated cost would be $26,466 + GST.

This would be in addition to the cost of publishing a written notice in the local newspaper, at an annual cost of $6,500 + GST, in accordance with its obligations under the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015.

Implications of letter box drop option

Key implications of a letter box drop resident notification include:

CostThis notification option would cost Council in the order of an additional $26k per annum, over and above existing spending on advertising.

Staff resourcingThis option, depending on how delivered, may require additional allocation of Council staff resources to assist with the planning and management of notifications to correct streets. This would be significantly reduced if able to be implemented seamlessly by existing tree pruning contractors.

Heightened expectation on timing of worksCurrently, Council’s tree management contractors have one month to schedule and complete the programmed pruning works. This provides the flexibility required to manage variable pruning rates (depending on extent of vegetation growth discovered and associated cutting required) and variable site access.

Page 118


Council’s contractors frequently need to return to a site multiple times in order to secure adequate access and need to adjust their program depending on conditions at the time.

The exact timing that contractors will be in specific streets is not currently known and to achieve this may require additional pre-pruning inspections, planning, programming and site securing on their part, which may not be covered under the existing contract.

Notifying residents that pruning will occur in the following week is likely to increase expectations that it will definitively occur in that time window and may increase the likelihood of expectations not being met due to the variability of this service delivery.

Having the tree pruning contractors manage the resident notifications would largely avoid this implication, as they could better regulate notifications around their actual pruning program

Alternative options to improve resident notifications

Other than delivering resident notification cards, there are a number of other, lower cost options for Council to notify residents of upcoming programmed street tree pruning. These include:

Digital / social media platform – approximately $3,800 + GST per annum In Stonnington – Free Connect Stonnington – Free

Other municipalities’ approach to resident notification

A brief survey of seven inner metro municipalities and their approach to resident notifications for programmed street tree pruning reveals the following:

All include information of the pruning schedule on their web site One issues resident notification cards 7-28 days prior to pruning works Two include information in a monthly resident newsletter

Pros and cons of notifying residents via letterbox drop

The following summarises the pros and cons of introducing a direct resident notification system for informing the community of programmed street tree pruning one week before works commence:

Pros

Improved community notification Improved community awareness of street tree pruning requirements Increased opportunity to communicate with residents about Council’s tree

management program Potential to reduce community concern about lack of advanced warning

Cons

Cost – it is expected to cost Council an additional $26k plus per annum Potential additional staff resource allocation to assist with coordinating letter drops Increased expectation that service occurs in narrow window Risk of not meeting community expectations due to service timing variability Increased demand on contractor to schedule works in narrower window – potential

impact on future contract pricing

Page 119


POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The pruning and management of street trees in the City of Stonnginton is undertaken in accordance with Council’s contract specifications, Australian Standards and where relevant, the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015 Code of Practice.

Street tree management is an important function in delivering on Council’s Urban Forest Strategy.


Introducing a system of notifying residents via letter box drop one week prior to street tree pruning works is expected to result in an additional expenditure in the order of $26,000 + GST per annum.

Increasing the planning, pre-inspection, programming and site access activities by contractors to deliver the tree pruning service within narrower time window (one week compared to one month) may result in increased contract costs.


Council currently meets its statutory obligations for resident notification of street tree pruning works under the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015. See commentary under the Discussion section of this report regarding the interpretation and application of notification requirements under these regulations.

CONCLUSION

Council currently manages a total tree population of 55,000 trees, of which 32,500 are street trees. Street trees are pruned on either an annual or biennial basis, with approximately 20,000 pruned each year.

In accordance with its obligations works under the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015, Council currently notifies residents of programmed street tree pruning works via its website and a monthly public notice in the Stonnington Leader newspaper.

The interpretation and application of notification requirements under these regulations has been queried. Council’s Corporate Counsel has concluded that under the Regulations a notice is to be published in a newspaper – in the ordinary meaning of the term newspaper.

The advice from Energy Safe Victoria does not address the question of whether the alternate notification system proposed would comply with Clause 16 of the Regulations. In light of this, it is considered that publishing a notice in a newspaper, is required for Regulatory compliance. This does not prevent consideration of other, additional means of notifying residents of upcoming street tree pruning works.

Following the tabling of a resident complaint relating to inadequate notification of street tree pruning, it has been queried whether Council should consider additional resident notifications ahead of street tree pruning works. Specifically, it was noted that doing a letterbox drop closer to the date of the pruning would enable people to move cars and take any other actions they need to do for the equipment in the street.

This report outlines how such a letter box drop option would work and estimates that it would result in an additional cost to Council in the order of $26,000 per annum.

Based on the historic low level of complaints, the additional cost, other impacts and limited benefits, it is recommended that Council not introduce a direct resident notification system for its street tree pruning program.

Page 120




ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Non-designated streets pruning schedule Excluded

2. Attachment 2 - Designated streets pruning schedule Excluded

3. Attachment 3 - Example of public notice Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Note the advice received by Energy Safe Victoria and Council’s Corporate

Counsel regarding the interpretation and application of notification requirements under the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015.

2. Note the option, cost, benefits and impacts of introducing a direct resident notification system (letter box drop) for its street tree pruning program as outlined in this report.

3. Maintain its current approach to resident notification via Council’s website and monthly public notice in the local newspaper.

4. Not introduce an additional resident notification system.5. Explore alternative, low cost options, such as digital media, to further inform

residents of upcoming street tree pruning works.

Page 121


13. WAY FOUND - WAYFINDING SIGNAGE STANDARDS FOR VICTORIA

Sustainable Transport Planner: Tom Haysom Manager Transport & Parking: Ian McLauchlanGeneral Manager Assets & Services: Simon Thomas

URPOSE

As per the IMAP Implementation Committee resolution of May 2017, that Council note the development of the operational manual, ‘Way found: Wayfinding Signage Standards for Victoria’, as a technical manual to guide way finding signage in the City of Stonnington.

BACKGROUND

In 2012, the CEOs of the Melbourne Tourism Partnership (MTP), comprising of the City of Melbourne, Tourism Victoria, Victorian Major Events Co., Melbourne Convention Bureau and Destination Melbourne Ltd, resolved that a collaborative approach was required to improve way finding signage for visitors to Melbourne. To achieve this outcome the MTP established the Melbourne Visitor Signage Committee. At their meeting of 2 December 2012, the IMAP Committee resolved to join the Melbourne Visitor Signage Committee:

- That the IMAP Implementation Committee provides conditional approval for the IMAP Council’s to be part of the development of a Signage and Wayfinding Strategy for the Inner Melbourne Region including the adoption of shared principles, guidelines and, if relevant, updates of each Council’s Style Manual; and

- That IMAP Councils budget a provisional sum (estimated at $20K each) for the development of a consistent Inner Melbourne Signage Strategy and Style Manual which will enable alignment with the City of Melbourne’s signage project.

The five IMAP Councils and Wyndham City agreed to fund the work involved to develop the principles, standards and guidelines (now contained in Way found: Wayfinding Signage Standards for Victoria) and the design work was undertaken by Public Transport Victoria (PTV).

The Committee met a number of times over the years to identify key principles of signing and outline standards and guidelines (the ‘business rules’) for wayfinding signs in order to improve the consistency of signage information across municipal boundaries and across transport modes. Examples and learnings were used from work undertaken under IMAP Action 2.2, which sought to introduce a consistent pedestrian “Wayfinding Signage” system across the Inner Melbourne Region. This action was implemented via the delivery of wayfinding signage along a demonstration route, which included Chapel St, Toorak Rd and Greville St. Since this project, Stonnington has expanded these signs to all major activity centres.

The Committee’s work was assisted by David Nash, a consultant traffic engineer with Traffinity, and by Fran Madigan, copywriter and editor with The Real Business.

A review undertaken by SGS Economics and Planning in November 2015 showed that positive Benefit Cost Ratios (BCRs) have been achieved by international cities that have developed user-focused, integrated, city-wide wayfinding signage systems.

The six Councils also funded market testing of a wayfinding signage prototype in 2015, the design of which was based on application of the principles and guidelines included in Way found (originally known as the Master Style Guide).

Page 123


The progress of this work was regularly presented to the IMAP Implementation Committee. In May 2017, a copy of Way found was circulated to the IMAP Implementation Committee so that the Committee could see the final format. At that time, final edits of the various photos and symbols were still being verified for copyright. During this meeting the IMAP Implementation Committee agreed to forward Way found directly to Councils to note as an operational manual, once final checks are completed, and amended the recommendation to reflect this. 14.1 That the IMAP Implementation Committee resolved to:

a. Consider formal adoption of Way found as an operational manual.

b. Support the ongoing work of the Melbourne Visitor Signage Committee in their proposed next steps, the pilot projects and discussion of a shared basemap.

DISCUSSION

Way found: Wayfinding Signage Standards for VictoriaWay found: Wayfinding Signage Standards for Victoria (attachment 1) is a document outlining principles and standards for wayfinding signage. The document has been jointly developed by members of the Melbourne Visitor Signage Committee. The committee comprises representatives of eight local and state government authorities: IMAP Councils, Wyndham City, Public Transport Victoria (PTV) and VicRoads.

These standards and guidelines relate to the design, content and installation of wayfinding signage in metropolitan Melbourne and Victoria. They include signing principles, eligibility and selection criteria, naming conventions, symbols and arrows, placement and other guidelines.

It is intended as a guide for good signing practice for use by any Council, agency, organisation or individual responsible for design and placement of wayfinding signage. The principles and standards are expected to help Councils and agencies to provide consistent, coordinated responses to signing requests from attractions, precincts and major developments.The aim of the Way found Principles, Standards and Guidelines is to ensure Victoria has a wayfinding signage system that:

helps people orientate themselves and easily find their way to their destinations gives people confidence to stray from the main tourist routes and explore more of

Melbourne and Victoria helps people to move easily between transport modes encourages the use of sustainable modes of transport is easily recognisable, functional and aesthetically pleasing, and is well maintained and up-to-date.

The Way found Principles, Standards and Guidelines, and their application, enable the progressive implementation of a consistent, high quality approach to a wayfinding signage system across Victoria, and across all modes of travel. They are intended to help people responsible for wayfinding signs in Councils and State agencies with:

the process for developing and approving new signs coordinating and improving existing signs keeping sign information up-to-date, and

Page 124


reducing signage clutter by removing redundant signs.

They will also help Councils and agencies provide consistent, coordinated responses to signing requests from attractions, precincts and major developments.

While these signing Principles, Standards and Guidelines will initially be implemented by the councils and agencies participating in the Melbourne Visitor Signage Committee, the aspiration is that they will be adopted across the broader metropolitan area of Melbourne, and also within regional Victoria.

Council officers have been using the draft guideline to ensure that any new wayfinding signage installed adheres to these guidelines, including the wayfinding signage installed throughout the Glenferrie Road, Malvern shopping precinct in mid-2017. However, all other wayfinding signage installed before this date, including those signs installed on Chapel St, Toorak Rd and Greville St under IMAP Action 2.2, will need to be reviewed to ensure consistency and compliance with the new guideline, Way found.

Ownership and sharing Way found Work has started on agreements relating to ownership of Way found and sharing it under licence with other interested local and State Government authorities. Transport for Victoria (TfV)’s logo is likely to feature on Way found (PTV and VicRoads are functions within TfV).

Discussions regarding a Memorandum of Understanding between TfV and the six Councils have commenced. Further discussions / negotiations are likely to be held during June-July 2018. These discussions are expected to cover TfV’s role (if any) in actively championing Way found - its principles and standards - to local and State Government authorities across Victoria. The discussions will also cover responsibilities for updating and promoting Way found and costs associated with these responsibilities.

Decisions relating to roles and responsibilities will have a direct bearing on what’s contained within any MoU, licence or other agreements relating to ownership of the document, sharing it with third parties, and funding. Members of the Melbourne Visitor Signage Committee are kept fully briefed on these discussions and their advice sought. The resulting documents/agreements will then be submitted to the Mayors and CEOs of IMAP for consideration and, if in agreement with what is proposed, for signature.

Testing of Way found

During 2018-19 Way found version 1.0 will be tested with 5-6 public and private sector organisations in metropolitan Melbourne and regional Victoria. The test will be conducted with people responsible for designing and installing wayfinding signage in these organisations. Test participants will be asked to provide feedback on Way found, in particular on:

Content: the proposed principles and standards

Coverage: does the document cover everything needed for signage design + fabrication + installation eg product range, graphic standards, tech drawings, materials, etc? What’s missing? What’s redundant?

Written expression: the document’s clarity of expression, repetition, use of jargon, etc.

Page 125


Ease of use: as an on-line document; the logic of the sections (and headings) that divide the contents; and use of diagrams and images to illustrate text.

Amendments to the document based on feedback from the test (eg the content, expression, etc), will be made during 2019 and an updated version - Way found 2.0 – launched widely.

Way forward

It is anticipated that Way found 2.0 will also include an agreed pedestrian wayfinding signage ‘family’: product range, design, graphic standards, tech drawings etc. These designs / elements will need to be agreed to by all six Councils and endorsed by TfV before being included in Way found 2.0.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

A document outlining principles and standards for wayfinding including: the process for developing and approving new signs; coordinating and improving existing signs; keeping sign information up-to-date, and reducing signage clutter by removing redundant signs,

is supported by Council’s transport policies and strategies.


There is no financial or resource burden to noting Way found: Wayfinding Signage Standards for Victoria. All further updates and funding considerations will be submitted to the Mayors and CEOs of IMAP for consideration.

CONCLUSION

Way found: Wayfinding Signage Standards for Victoria is a document outlining principles and standards for wayfinding signage. The document has been jointly developed by members of the Melbourne Visitor Signage Committee. The committee comprises representatives of eight local and state government authorities: IMAP councils, Wyndham City, Public Transport Victoria (PTV) and VicRoads.

These standards and guidelines relate to the design, content and installation of wayfinding signage in metropolitan Melbourne and Victoria. They include signing principles, eligibility and selection criteria, naming conventions, symbols and arrows, placement and other guidelines.

It is intended as a guide for good signing practice for use by any council, agency, organisation or individual responsible for design and placement of wayfinding signage. The principles and standards are expected to help councils and agencies to provide consistent, coordinated approach to signing requests.

During 2018-19 Way found will be tested with 5-6 public and private sector organisations in metropolitan Melbourne and regional Victoria with amendments to the document to be made based on the test outcomes. It is anticipated that an updated version of Way found will be prepared by mid-2019.


Page 126



ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat:1. The development of operational manual, ‘Way found: Wayfinding Signage

Standards for Victoria’ be noted.2. Following testing of Way found: Wayfinding Signage Standards for Victoria’ and

amendments to the document based on feedback, a report be prepared for Council to consider adoption of the document as a technical manual to guide way finding signage in the City of Stonnington

Page 127


14. FESTIVALS AND EVENTS CALENDAR 2019 & 2020

Coordinator Arts & Culture : Nicole Warren Acting General Manager Community & Culture: Cath Harrod

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to seek endorsement from Council for the 2019 and 2020 Festivals and Events Annual Program (free and ticketed).

BACKGROUND

The City of Stonnington’s Festivals and Events Annual Program delivers one of the state’s largest free event programs, showcasing Stonnington’s parks, gardens and venues and increasingly attracting residents and visitors to the municipality. The Festivals and Events Annual Program aligns with the Community, Liveability and Economy pillars of the Council Plan along with the following Arts and Cultural Strategies: Promoting Stonnington as a vibrant place to live and visit. Creating accessible experiences and events for the community. Continuing to build an appreciation of the arts and culture within the municipality. Creating opportunities for artists to contribute to the cultural fabric of the municipality. Attracting visitors to the municipality.

The annual program of 12 outdoor events (free) and 3 festivals (ticketed and free) is produced by the Festivals and Events Team, within the Community and Culture Division.

DISCUSSION

Changes to 2018 dates and the proposed dates for the 2019 and 2020 Festivals and Events Annual Program are:

DATE EVENT VENUE TIME

Sunday 14 October 2018 (Change of date) Spring Into Gardening Victoria Gardens 11am – 3pm

Sunday 9 December 2018 (Change of date and time) Christmas at Central Park Central Park 5:30pm – 7:30pm

Sunday 16 December 2018 (No change – FYI only) Carols at Como Park Como Park 7:30pm – 9:30pm

Sunday 6 January 2019 Sunset Sounds Concert 1 Victoria Gardens 6pm – 8pm

Sunday 13 January 2019 Sunset Sounds Concert 2 Central Park 6pm – 8pm

Sunday 20 January 2019 Sunset Sounds Concert 3 Malvern Gardens 6pm – 8pm

Saturday 2 February 2019 The Classics: Opera Malvern Gardens 7:30pm – 10pm

Saturday 9 February 2019 The Classics: Broadway Ardrie Parkhann 7:30pm – 10pm

Saturday 23 February 2019 The Classics: Symphony Victoria Gardens 7:30pm – 10pm

Saturday 16 March 2019 Flavours Grattan Gardens 11am - 4pm

Sunday 24 March 2019 Pets in the Park Central Park 11am - 4pm

Thursday 9 – Sunday 19 May 2019 Stonnington Jazz Festival Various Various

Page 129


Monday 1 – Friday 5 July 2019

Roola Boola Children’s Festival Various Various

Monday 1 – Friday 12 July 2019 Roola Boola Satellite Program Various Various

August 2019 (TBC) Glow Winter Arts Festival Various Various

October 2019 (TBC) Spring Into Gardening Victoria Gardens* 11am - 3pm

TBC Youth Festival TBC* TBC

Sunday 8 December 2019 Christmas at Central Park Central Park 5:30pm - 7:30pm

Sunday 15 December 2019 Carols at Como Park Como Park 7:30pm - 9:30pm

Sunday 5 January 2020 Sunset Sounds Concert 1 Victoria Gardens* 6pm – 8pm

Sunday 12 January 2020 Sunset Sounds Concert 2 Central Park* 6pm – 8pm

Sunday 19 January 2020 Sunset Sounds Concert 3 Malvern Gardens* 6pm – 8pm

Saturday 1 February 2020 The Classics: Opera Malvern Gardens 7:30pm – 10pm

Saturday 8 February 2020 The Classics: Broadway Ardrie Park 7:30pm – 10pm

Saturday 22 February 2020 The Classics: Symphony Victoria Gardens* 7:30pm – 10pm

Saturday 14 March 2020 Flavours Grattan Gardens* 11am - 4pm

Sunday 22 March 2020 Pets in the Park Central Park 11am - 4pm

Thursday 7 – Sunday 17 or Thursday 14 – Sunday 24 May 2020

Stonnington Jazz Festival Various Various

Monday 29 June – Friday 3 July 2020

Roola Boola Children’s Festival Various Various

Monday 29 June – Friday 10 July 2020 Roola Boola Satellite Program Various Various

August 2020 (TBC) Glow Winter Arts Festival Various* Various

October 2020 (TBC) Spring Into Gardening Victoria Gardens* 11am - 3pm

TBC Youth Festival TBC* TBC

Sunday 6 December 2020 Christmas at Central Park Central Park 5:30pm - 7:30pm

Sunday 13 December 2020 Carols at Como Park Como Park 7:30pm - 9:30pm

*Please note, a review of Council events that could be considered for delivery at the newly opened Cato Square is currently under review and will be subject to a further report to Council.

Officers will provide a presentation reviewing the 2017 Festivals and Events program at the Councillor Briefing.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The Festivals and Events Annual Program, underpinned by the Council Plan and the Arts and Culture Strategy, provides a unique vehicle for delivering key Council outcomes including:

Encourage community connectedness by supporting local community organisations with facilities, training and resources.

Page 130


Develop public spaces as desirable places for the community to gather, connect and enjoy.

Support economic prosperity by promoting Stonnington to the wider community as a vibrant destination for entertainment, arts and culture.

An inclusive city where all people can be happy, healthy, safe, and feel part of and contribute to a creative, sustainable and smart community.


The 2018/19 Festivals and Events Annual Program expenditure falls within the draft 2018/19 budget and the 2019/20 budget which has yet to be drafted and approved. The proposed program for 2019 and 2020 is in line with the previous years approved by Council. An in principle commitment to the proposed 2019 and 2020 Festivals and Events Annual Program reflects a similar budget allocation in the 2019/20 financial year.

CONCLUSION

City of Stonnington’s Festivals and Events attracts strong attendances from residents and visitors each year, presenting a diverse and high quality program of immersive, participatory, family friendly and accessible events. Customer satisfaction rates continue to reflect the importance of these events for the community and the profile of Stonnington within Victoria.



RECOMMENDATIONThat Council endorses the 2019 and 2020 Festivals and Events Annual Program.

Page 131


15. ARTS AND CULTURE GRANTS 2018/19 PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS

Coordinator Arts & Culture : Nicole Warren Acting General Manager Community & Culture: Cath Harrod

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider projects and programs recommended for funding through Council’s Arts and Cultural Sponsorship program for the 2018/19 financial year.

BACKGROUND

Council’s support of arts and cultural activities, particularly festivals and events, is an investment in the community’s wellbeing. The City of Stonnington’s Arts and Cultural Grants program brings creative, innovative, dynamic and contemporary projects that enhance the cultural, community and economic development to the City of Stonnington.

In January 2018 Council endorsed a revised funding model and guidelines and this was successfully implemented for the 2018/19 grant round.

The Arts and Cultural Grants program reflects the strategic visions of the Arts and Cultural Strategy:

Arts and Culture to be valued and promoted.

Arts and Culture surprises, delights and engages the community and beyond.

Creative talents are encouraged and supported through sustainable links and partnerships.

The Arts and Cultural Grants and Guidelines are based upon Council’s Arts and Cultural Strategy’s four key themes:

Leadership and Advocacy

Creative Communities

Creative Spaces

Sharing the Creative City.

Applications for Arts and Cultural Grants opened on 19 March 2018 and closed on 26 April 2018. Calls for submissions were made from February to April 2018 via Arts Hub - Australian arts industry web site (advertisement and editorial), direct email, Council’s website, In Stonnington magazine, Council’s What’s On EDM, as well as other social media platforms. Potential applicants were invited to attend an Arts and Culture Grants information session held on 26 March 2018.

DISCUSSION

The 2018/19 operating budget has an allocation of $425,000 for Arts and Cultural Grants.

Council has received a total of 46 applications, for cash and in-kind support with requests totalling $717,830.

The Annual Arts and Cultural Grants are open to all artists, organisations and individuals seeking to deliver arts projects within Stonnington. Applicants do not need to be based in Stonnington, however the activity or project must be delivered within the municipality.

Assessments are made against the stated assessment criteria and applications are rated and ranked in relation to each other. Grant decisions are based primarily on information supplied in the application and support material provided. City of Stonnington receives many

Page 133


more applications than it can support. The success of an application rests ultimately on the merits of the proposal against the assessment criteria and in competition with all the other applications considered for funding. In many cases the panel will recommend funding of an amount less than requested.

A panel of assessors was convened prior to grant applications closing and submitted for General Manager approval (as per Council requirements). The panel is comprised of:

Council officers including;

1x Manager level officer

2x Coordinator level officers

2x Senior level officers

2x Arts and Culture officers

External Assessor;

1x Industry expert for peer assessment

Each panel member completed an individual assessment before convening with the panel to collate final scores and recommendations for Council.

Each applications has been assessed against the following criteria by the grants assessment panel.

Theme Criteria Weighting %Artistic 1. Provide clear and detailed information on the project

including expected outcomes.2. Propose an innovative project and prove your capacity to

deliver it by providing a detailed project timeline and relevant artistic support material

3. Include and/or celebrate local or specific communities within the City of Stonnington.

4. Demonstrate potential or confirmed career advancement opportunities for artists involved in the project. This could be through an extension of skills or development of existing and new audiences.

30%

Capacity 5. Facilitate arts and business partnerships including local businesses.

10%

Financial 6. Show a viable, accountable budget with diverse sources of income.

20%

Marketing 7. Demonstrate a commitment to maximising audience numbers and participation from the local community.

8. Provide a detailed marketing plan.9. Demonstrate a capacity to attract participation and

audience numbers from the wider metropolitan area and regional Victoria.

30%

Operational 10. Propose projects that align with City of Stonnington Council Plan.

10%

Following the assessment process, the panel have recommended funding for 28 applications (see Attachment A) totalling $414,650.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Page 134


The Arts and Cultural Sponsorship program sits within the strategic objectives of Community and Liveability in the Council Plan.

The program is aligned with Council’s strategy to recognise and enhance Stonnington’s diverse culture and indigenous heritage through programs and events which support the arts, traditions and heritage.


Council’s 2018/19 budget allocation for Arts and Cultural Sponsorship is $425,000 of which $414,650 has been recommended to be allocated to sponsoring arts and cultural projects and programs.

The $10,350 balance of funds will be distributed following future report/s to Council.


Arts and Cultural Grant recipients are required to enter into a formal sponsorship agreement with Council. Sponsorship agreements are reviewed by Council’s Risk and Integrity team and Corporate Counsel.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that Council allocate a total of $414,650 of the Arts and Cultural Sponsorship 2018/19 to 28 applicants that have been recommended for funding as shown in Attachment 1.

The remaining balance of $10,350 is to be distributed following future Council report/s.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Assessment Panel Recommendations Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Allocate a total of $414,650 of the Arts and Cultural Grants pool of funds for

2018/19 to 28 applicants that have been recommended for funding as shown in Attachment A.

2. The remaining balance $10,350 to be distributed following future Council report/s.

Page 135


o) Confidential

1. PRAHRAN MARKET PTY LTD – REPLACEMENT DIRECTOR AND/OR APPOINTMENT/RECRUITMENT OF CHAIR

General Manager Corporate Services: Geoff CockramConfidential report circulated separately.

2. PROPOSED PROPERTY PURCHASE Property Coordinator: Peter AngwinConfidential report circulated separately.

Page 137

Documents

Agenda of Council Meeting - 9 July 2018 · Web view2018/07/09 · planning application 0498/17- 44-46 Duke Street, Windsor VIC 3181- Construction of a new dwelling on a lot of less