agenda of ordinary council meeting - 29 november 2016 · the bayside retail, commercial and...

Council Meeting Agenda

Agenda Paper

for the

Ordinary Meeting of Council

To be held at the Council Chambers, Civic Centre, Boxshall Street Brighton

on

Tuesday, 29 November, 2016 at 7:00pm

Chairman: Cr Alex del Porto

Councillors: Cr Laurence Evans Cr James Long BM JP Cr Michael Heffernan Cr Clarke Martin Cr Rob Grinter Cr Sonia Castelli

Bayside City Council Ordinary Council Meeting - 29 November 2016

of 117

Members of the Gallery Your attention is drawn to Section 92 of Council’s Governance Local Law No 1. Section 92 The Chair’s Duties and Discretions In addition to other duties and discretions provided in this Local Law, the Chair – (a) must not accept any motion, question or statement which is derogatory, or defamatory

of any Councillor, member of Council staff, or member of the community. (b) may demand retraction of any inappropriate statement or unsubstantiated allegation; (c) must ensure silence is preserved in the public gallery during any meeting (d) must call to order any member of the public who approaches the Council or Committee

table during the meeting, unless invited by the Chair to do so; and (e) must call to order any person who is disruptive or unruly during any meeting. An Authorised Officer must, if directed to do so by the Chairman, remove from a meeting any Councillor or other person who has committed such an offence. Your cooperation is appreciated Chairperson of Council


of 117

Order of Business

1. Prayer

2. Acknowledgement of Original Inhabitants

3. Apologies

4. Disclosure of any Conflict of Interest of any Councillor

5. Adoption and Confirmation of the minutes of previous meeting

6. Public Question Time

7. Petitions to Council

Nil

8. Minutes of Advisory Committees

8.1 Assembly of Councillor Record ................................................... 7

9. Reports by Special Committees

Nil

10. Reports by the Organisation

10.1 Combined Planning Scheme Amendment (C143) and Planning Permit Application (2015/0117) - 459 Bay Street, Brighton - Consideration of Submissions ................................................... 15

10.2 Cenotaph at Green Point, Brighton ........................................... 37

10.3 Beaumaris Reserve proposed telecommunication tower lease to Axicom ...................................................................................... 43

10.4 Beaumaris Secondary College - Indoor Multi Purpose Court .... 47

10.5 Council support for Black Rock Primary School's funding application to the State Government's Shared Schools Facilities program ..................................................................................... 57

10.6 Better Apartments Draft Design Standards ............................... 61

10.7 Quarter one Performance Report - July to September 2016 ..... 73

10.8 Council appointments to external organisations and Council committees and networks .......................................................... 77

10.9 VCAT Decisions ........................................................................ 91

10.10 Council action awaiting report ................................................... 97

10.11 Development Services Sustainable Staff and Resourcing Plan ......................................................................................... 109


of 117

11. Reports by Delegates

12. Urgent Business

13. Notices of Motion

Nil


of 117

1. Prayer

O God Bless this City, Bayside, Give us courage, strength and wisdom, So that our deliberations, May be for the good of all, Amen

2. Acknowledgement of Original Inhabitants

We acknowledge that the original inhabitants of this land that we call Bayside were the Boon wurrung people of the Kulin nation. They loved this land, they cared for it and considered themselves to be part of it. We acknowledge that we have a responsibility to nurture the land, and sustain it for future generations.

3. Apologies

4. Disclosure of any Conflict of Interest of any Councillor

5. Adoption and Confirmation of the minutes of previous meeting

5.1 Confirmation of the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of Bayside City Council held on 18 October 2016.

5.2 Confirmation of the Minutes of the Annual Meeting of Bayside City Council held on 10 November 2016.

6. Public Question Time

7. Petitions to Council

Nil


Item 8.1 – Minutes of Advisory Committees of 117

8. Minutes of Advisory Committees

8.1 ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLOR RECORD

Corporate Services - Governance File No: PSF/15/8758 – Doc No: DOC/16/215663

Executive summary

Purpose and background

To formally report to Council on the Assembly of Councillors records in accordance with the Local Government Act 1989.

Key issues

This report fulfils the requirements of reporting an Assembly of Councillors to the next practical Ordinary Meeting of Council in accordance with the Local Government Act 1989.

Recommendation

That Council notes the Assembly of Councillor records submitted as required by the Local Government Act 1989:

Date Name

15 November 2016 CEO and Councillor Only Briefing

15 November 2016 Councillor Briefing

17 November 2016 Councillor Induction Session

Support Attachments

1. 15 November 2016 CEO and Councillor only Record of Assembly of Councillors ⇩ 2. 15 November 2016 Councillor Briefing ⇩ 3. 17 November 2015 Assembly of Councillors - Councillor Induction ⇩



Considerations and implications of recommendation

Liveable community

Social

There are no social implications associated with this report.

Natural Environment

There are no natural environmental impacts associated with this report

Built Environment

There are no environmental impacts associated with this report.

Customer Service and Community Engagement

There are no Customer Service and Community Engagement impacts associated with this

report.

Human Rights

The implications of this report have been assessed and are not considered likely to breach or

infringe upon, the human rights contained in the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and

Responsibilities Act 2006.

Legal

It is a requirement of the Local Government Act 1989 that a record of Assembly of

Councillors be presented to an Ordinary Meeting of Council as soon as practical after the

Assembly.

Finance

There are no financial implications associated with this report.

Links to Council policy and strategy

The record of Assembly of councillors and presentation to Council provides greater

transparency to the community.


Attachment 1



Attachment 2



Attachment 3



of 117

9. Reports by Special Committees

Nil


Item 10.1 – Reports by the Organisation of 117

10. Reports by the Organisation

10.1 COMBINED PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT (C143) AND PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION (2015/0117) - 459 BAY STREET, BRIGHTON - CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS

City Planning & Community Services - Urban Strategy File No: PSF/15/8752 – Doc No: DOC/16/211723

Executive summary

Purpose

To present to Council the submissions received in relation to a privately requested combined planning scheme amendment (C143) and planning permit application (2015/0117) relating to 459 Bay Street, Brighton and to recommend Council’s response to submissions.

The application seeks to amend Schedule 424 of the Heritage Overlay (HO) of the Bayside Planning Scheme to allow prohibited uses to operate at the site in accordance with the purpose of the HO which seeks to conserve specifically identified heritage places by allowing otherwise prohibited uses where appropriate. The proposed planning permit application is consistent with this purpose as it proposes to:

Undertake works to restore the building.

Use the site as an Office; and

Construct a car parking area at the rear of the site including six car parking spaces.

Minor changes to the draft planning permit and amendment documents were made at the authorisation stage at the request of the Department of Land, Environment, Water and Planning. Following this, Amendment C143 was exhibited between 25 August 2016 and 26 September 2016. Two submissions were received, both of which opposed the amendment and the proposed use.

Background

The subject site is located on the corner of Bay Street and the Nepean Highway, Brighton, within the Bay Street Large Neighbourhood Activity Centre (refer Attachment 1).

The application has been made in order to allow the land owner to operate its company office from the premises, which is a prohibited use in the General Residential Zone. The HO cannot require the restoration of a heritage place, however the proposal affords Council the power to require the proponent to fully restore and maintain the significant features of the building, consistent with the purpose of the HO which is to:

Conserve and enhance heritage places of natural or cultural significance;

Ensure that development does not adversely affect the significance of heritage places; and

Conserve specifically identified heritage places by allowing otherwise prohibited uses where appropriate.

The primary justification for supporting the proposal are improvements to and maintenance of the heritage place, required through the draft planning permit. Further the proposed use is consistent with Council’s strategic vision for the Bay Street Large Neighbourhood Activity Centre.



The Bayside Retail, Commercial and Employment Strategy 2016 aims to support the trending shift in the economy toward professional services by ensuring that new commercial development and employment are located within the existing activity centre boundaries, where the greatest population growth is forecast. The proposal would support this direction as the subject site is located within the Bay Street Large Neighbourhood Activity and would provide additional employment opportunities within Bayside.

Similarly, the Bay Street Structure Plan 2006 aims to strengthen policy to ensure new development provides an increase in commercial floorspace to support the economic role of the activity centre by consolidating commercial activity in the centre and avoiding expansion into residential areas. The proposal supports this direction as it is located approximately 50 metres from the commercial core of the Bay Street Large Neighbourhood Activity Centre.

Whilst Council has previously not supported the rezoning of the site to a mixed use zone, the combined amendment and planning permit approach is another method to achieve the outcomes sought by Council’s strategic policy.

The site is also within the Heritage Overlay Schedule 424 and the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 10 (DDO10). No planning permission is required pursuant to the DDO10.

Key issues

Outcomes of Public Exhibition

Two submissions were received during the exhibition period. A detailed response to the submissions is included at Attachment 2. The key issues raised by submitters related to:

The building should remain a residential use as there is not enough justification for a change to a commercial use; and

An office use may impact residential amenity, particularly relating to noise, safety and traffic.

The site is located in the Bay Street Activity Centre and at the junction of several main roads.

The suitability of a commercial use at the site has been considered by Council and tested

through the public exhibition stage. The restoration and ongoing maintenance of a heritage

building provides sufficient justification to allow the proposed use given the low impact nature

of the use and the conditions to be imposed. While there may be some impact on residential

amenity, these impacts are considered to be acceptable and able to be managed.

The Delegate Report (refer Attachment 3) outlines the consideration of amenity impacts in

relation to the draft planning permit. The conditions on the draft planning permit also manage

amenity issues by restricting the number of people on site, the intensity of use and hours of

operation and managing amenity impacts during construction. The proposed use will not be

allowed to operate until the restoration works have been conducted in accordance with the

conditions of the draft planning permit.

Whilst Council has previously not supported the rezoning of this site (and adjoining

properties) to a Mixed Use Zone, the level of control by using the Heritage Overlay and

planning permit will allow the vision of the Structure Plan to be achieved without rezoning the

land to allow the broader range of uses afforded by the Mixed Use Zone.



Due to the issues raised in submissions it is recommended that Council requests the Minister for Planning to appoint an independent Planning Panel to consider the submissions received for Amendment C143. This will allow all parties to present to the independent Planning Panel, which will provide Council with a recommendation as to whether to proceed with the amendment.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. receives all submissions made in response to the statutory exhibition of Bayside Planning Scheme Amendment C143;

2. requests that the Minister for Planning appoints an independent Planning Panel in accordance with part 8 section 153 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, to consider the submissions;

3. authorises the Director City Planning and Community Services to make minor modifications and editorial changes to Amendment C143 to be presented to the Planning Panel to address issues raised in submissions; and

4. writes to submitters notifying them of Council’s decision.

Support Attachments

1. Zoning and locality map ⇩ 2. Amendment C143 - Response to submissions ⇩ 3. Delegate Report - Amendment C143 ⇩


Liveable community

Social

The proposed use is consistent with the vision of the Bay Street Structure Plan 2006 and the nature of the use is sufficiently justified. The development will allow additional employment to be created within the activity centre, in an area where offices and similar developments are encouraged.

Natural Environment

Requirements to protect the two Yellow Gums located on Council land to the east of the site are considered appropriate to maintaining their health and are addressed by a condition on the draft planning permit.

Built Environment

Conditions have been placed in the draft planning permit which require specific actions regarding the built form on the site, to preserve and restore the heritage building on the site and manage amenity impacts.




The exhibition of Amendment C143 followed the statutory process prescribed by the

Planning and Environment Act 1987 (‘the Act’) and was publicly exhibited between 25 August

2016 and 26 September 2016.

Notice of the Preparation of an Amendment was published on the Bayside City Council

website, the Government Gazette and the Bayside Leader.

A letter was sent to owners/occupiers in close proximity to the site, prescribed Ministers

under the Act and relevant referral authorities notifying them of the exhibition of Amendment

C143 and inviting them to comment.

Human Rights




Legal

The Act governs the process for combined Planning Scheme Amendments and planning permit applications. The progress of the application has been in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

Finance

The applicant has signed an Acceptance of Costs form and has agreed to cover the costs associated with a Planning Panel hearing.

Any additional resources are predominately in officer time and can be accommodated within Council’s normal operating budget.


The combined planning permit and planning scheme Amendment application is consistent

with the following strategic objectives in the Bayside Council Plan 2013–2017:

Strategic Objective 3.1: Protecting and enhancing amenity, liveability and neighbourhood

character: The proposal would see the restoration of a heritage building that is in need of

repair. Amenity impacts are able to be managed by conditions on the draft planning permit.

Strategic Objective 6.1: Supporting the creation of a strong, creative and innovative local economy: If approved, the proposal would see the creation of additional jobs within the Bay Street Large Neighbourhood Activity Centre.

The combined planning permit and planning scheme amendment application is also consistent with Strategy 8 of the Bayside Retail, Commercial and Employment Strategy 2016 which is to “continue to grow Bay Street’s strengths in many facets of retail and commercial businesses which service the needs of the population.” If approved, the proposal would add to the diversity of commercial businesses which service the community.



Options considered

Option 1

Summary Request that the Minister for Planning appoint an independent Planning Panel to consider the submissions received for Amendment C143.

Benefits An independent Planning Panel will provide the opportunity for the proponent and submitters to have their issues and concerns considered by an independent body.

Issues None.

Option 2

Summary Seek to negotiate with submitters to achieve an outcome that is mutually acceptable.

Benefits Will provide an additional opportunity to negotiate changes with submitters and may reduce the number of submissions.

Issues Due to the range of issues raised in the submissions and the proponent of the amendment not likely to remove their application, a mutually acceptable outcome is unlikely to be achieved. It is likely that a Planning Panel would still be required.

Option 3

Summary Abandon Amendment C143.

Benefits There are no obvious benefits to this option.

Issues Encouraging low impact commercial uses at the site is consistent with the Bay Street Structure Plan vision.


Attachment 1



Attachment 2


Combined Planning Scheme Amendment (C143) and Planning Permit Application (2015/0117) – 459 Bay Street, Brighton Response to Submissions No. Comments/Summary Response to Submission Proposed

Changes

1 The submitter is not supportive of the amendment for the following reasons: 1. The proponent’s argument that the

property is not suitable for residential use is dubious because it has been used as a residence for many years and there are many dwellings in similar proximity to the Nepean Highway.

2. The building has been allowed to deliberately deteriorate over time, therefore providing a rationale for a change of use. There are opportunities to conserve and adapt the building for residential use, which have not been explored.

3. Traffic survey does not consider traffic movements, car parking demand at peak times and cumulative impact of new additional development. Traffic conflict issues may arise as some laneway users cannot exit the laneway in a forward direction. In addition, a 2 hour parking limit is not suitable for office workers.

4. Amenity will be impacted by an office operating from site.

1. It is noted that the current building was previously used as a residence and that there are other dwellings which are in similar proximity to the Nepean Highway. The proponent has made an application to Council. As independent heritage, traffic and arboricultural advice has been provided to Council, it is considered there is sufficient strategic justification for the proposal to be considered by a planning panel. Commercial uses currently operate along the south side of Bay Street in the General Residential Zone, close to the subject site. Encouraging low impact commercial uses at the site is consistent with the Bay Street Structure Plan 2006 vision and the Bayside Retail, Commercial and Economic Strategy 2016.

2. The Heritage Overlay cannot force an owner to restore or maintain their property. Permit conditions will require the building to be maintained in accordance with a Conservation Management Plan prepared to Council’s satisfaction. The proposed use will not be allowed to operate until the restoration works have been conducted in accordance with the planning permit.

3. The proponent has provided an independent traffic report which has been reviewed by

Council’s Traffic Engineer. The report found that there would be no more than five vehicle movements per hour which Council’s Traffic Engineer has determined to be acceptable. Six car parking spaces will be provided on site complying with the car parking requirements of Clause 52.06 of the Bayside Planning Scheme (no car parking waiver is being sought). This is supported by permit conditions requiring the reconstruction of the laneway and other measures to support the safe movement of vehicles.

4. The site is located in the Bay Street Large Neighbourhood Activity Centre and at the

junction of several main roads. While there may be some impact to amenity, these impacts are not to an unreasonable standard relative to the site’s location. Conditions included on the draft planning permit manage amenity issues by restricting the number

No proposed changes.


Attachment 2


No. Comments/Summary Response to Submission Proposed Changes

of people on site, the intensity of use and hours of operation and managing amenity impacts during construction.

2 The submitter is not supportive of the amendment for the following reasons: 1. Providing car parking at the rear of

the building will create amenity impacts for neighbouring properties, in particular noise from laneway users. Increase in traffic from laneway will increase the possibility of damage to adjoining residences.

2. The value of neighbouring properties will be devalued as a result of a change in use.

3. The office use in combination with additional mixed use and residential development within the precinct will increase the amount of traffic in Bay, Warriston and surrounding streets.

4. Providing car parking at the rear of the building is unsafe and will invite undesirable behaviour.

1. The site is located in the Bay Street Large Neighbourhood Activity Centre and at the junction of several main roads. While there may be some impact to amenity, these impacts are not to an unreasonable standard relative to the site’s location. Conditions included on the draft planning permit manage amenity issues by restricting the number of people on site, the intensity of use and hours of operation and managing amenity impacts during construction.

2. Impact on property values are not generally relevant when preparing planning scheme amendments as property values are influenced by a variety of factors, including market conditions.

3. The proponent has provided an independent traffic report which has been reviewed by Council’s Traffic Engineer. The report found that there would be no more than five vehicle movements per hour which Council’s Traffic Engineer has determined to be acceptable. Six car parking spaces will be provided on site complying with the car parking requirements of Clause 52.06 of the Bayside Planning Scheme (no car parking waiver is being sought). This is supported by permit conditions requiring the reconstruction of the laneway and other measures to support the safe movement of vehicles.

4. The site is fully fenced and side and rear gates will be installed at the rear entrance to

prevent entry to the property outside of hours of operation. The building will present as a residential dwelling to the streetscape with some small scale business identification signage. The laneway that provides access to the site is an existing laneway which would be required to be reconstructed to the satisfaction of Council. Approving this proposal is not considered to increase the risk of undesirable behaviour occurring proximate to the site.

No proposed changes.


Attachment 3




10.2 CENOTAPH AT GREEN POINT, BRIGHTON

Environment, Recreation & Infrastructure - City Assets & Projects File No: PSF/15/8763 – Doc No: DOC/16/172070

Executive summary


The purpose of this report is to present to Council the outcomes of an audit of the state of the Green Point Cenotaph and the feasibility of installing a security camera over the Cenotaph. At the 21 June 2016 Council meeting it was resolved:

That Council:

1. acknowledges the importance of large scale community participation events and continues to support the use of Green Point, Brighton as a staging site for some of these events;

2. continues to implement its Event Permit process including a requirement of major event organisers to securely fence immediately around the Cenotaph at Green Point, Brighton;

3. receives a report to include the outcome of an audit of the state of the monument and a feasibility study of installing a camera over the Cenotaph; and

4. notifies the lead petitioner of the outcomes of this Report.

Key issues

Condition Audit Report A structural engineer’s assessment on the condition of the Cenotaph has been received. The consultant engineer concludes that the Cenotaph is in a stable and structurally sound condition with no immediate works necessary. A review of Council’s maintenance system shows that there has only been the one unfortunate instance of graffiti/vandalism to the Cenotaph in the last three years. As the condition of the Cenotaph is sound and there are no ongoing issues, it is recommended that the current regime of routine inspections and maintenance continue. There is no need for any works at this time.

Security Cameras

Council currently has no security camera coverage of any public areas. Councils ‘Surveillance and CCTV Policy’ (Attachment 1) states:

Security cameras or other surveillance equipment may be installed at Council owned or managed buildings where a potential risk to the security of staff, customers or members of the community, or the buildings or contents of these buildings, exists or is seen to exist.

As there are no identified personal safety risk issues, there has only been one instance of vandalism/graffiti at the Cenotaph in the last three years and that it is a highly public area and is inspected regularly, the installation of security cameras at this site is not recommended at this time.

Recommendation

That Council notes this report.



Support Attachments

1. Attachment 1 - Surveillance and CCTV Policy ⇩


Liveable community

Social

Memorials such as the Cenotaph at Green Point, Brighton play an important role in recognising the past deeds of members of the local community. The way we pay our respect to fallen service men and women and reflect on past conflicts in part defines who we are as a society. This important memorial is routinely inspected and maintained to ensure it is in good condition.

Natural Environment

Green Point, Brighton is a highly valued environment overlooking Port Phillip Bay. It is regularly maintained for the community to enjoy.

Built Environment

There are no built environment implications associated with the recommendations included in this report. The Cenotaph has been assessed to be in good condition and is routinely inspected and maintained.


The Cenotaph is a valuable community asset and meeting point for paying respects to our past and current service men and women.

Human Rights

People have a right to celebrate history in ways that are most meaningful to them. The Cenotaph at Green Point, Brighton provides opportunities for residents and visitors to reflection past conflicts and the sacrifices of those who served in them.

Legal

There are no legal implications associated with the recommendations included in this report.

Finance

There are no financial implications within this report. The routine inspection and maintenance program is part of Council’s ongoing service.


The Council Plan, Goal 3 is relevant as it has a strategic objective of providing infrastructure that meets the current and expected needs of the Bayside community. The Cenotaph is a significant asset that is inspected and maintained accordingly. Councils Surveillance and CCTV Policy establishes a clear framework for the use of CCTV being mindful of the privacy of individuals while providing appropriate security to Councils assets.


Attachment 1




10.3 BEAUMARIS RESERVE PROPOSED TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER LEASE TO AXICOM

Corporate Services - Commercial Services File No: PSF/15/8762 – Doc No: DOC/16/187231

Executive summary


The lease for the telecommunication tower at Beaumaris Reserve is due for renewal. On November 11 1996, Council entered into a ten year lease, that included 2, 5 year options with the Telecommunications Company Vodafone Network Pty Ltd. The lease is now held by Axicom Pty Ltd. Axicom is requesting that Bayside Council approve a new 15 year lease for the existing infrastructure located at the Beaumaris Reserve.

The lease is over a small part of Beaumaris Reserve, located at 84 Reserve Rd, Beaumaris and contained in Certificate of Title Volume 8161 Folio 613. The new lease is for the existing pole and an area of land measuring 6m x 4.5m for a ground equipment shelter as shown on the attached plan. The telecommunication infrastructure also hosts a street light over a car park area and a spotlight onto the RSL memorial wall.

Axicom is seeking a further term of 15 years at a commencing rental of $35,000 p.a. plus GST with annual rent increments of 5%.

Key issues

Initial advice to Council was that Axicom was to terminate the lease on expiry due to the rental as the site was a loss making site. This would have meant a loss of all rental from the site. Council’s valuers have assessed the proposed rent as reflecting the current market value and the rental reflects a downturn in attractiveness of some mobile phone sites in recent times.

Recommendation

That Council

1. commences the statutory procedures to lease to Axicom Pty Ltd part of the land at Beaumaris Reserve, 84 Reserve Road Beaumaris for the installation, operation and maintenance of a telecommunications facility for a term of 15 years at a commencing rental of $35,000 per annum plus GST with annual increases of 5%;

2. Establishes a Special Committee of Council in accordance with section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 consisting of all Councillors with a quorum of four Councillors to consider any submissions received, at a meeting to be held 1 February 2017 at 6:30pm in the Council Chambers, Boxshall Street Brighton in relation to the proposed lease to Axicom Pty Ltd; and

3. In the event no section 223 submissions are received that Council authorises the Director Corporate Services to execute the lease for part of the land at Beaumaris Reserve with Axicom Pty Ltd.



Support Attachments

1. Location Plan Existing Telecommunication Tower Beaumaris Reserve ⇩


Liveable community

Social

The tower supports some public lighting to the RSL memorial and carpark at the site. This

may need to find alternative housing if the facility was to be removed.

Natural Environment

There is no impact to the environment in granting a new lease on the site.

Built Environment

There is no impact on the built environment in granting a new lease on the site as no new

infrastructure is proposed. Should Axicom leave the site and remove the

telecommunications infrastructure lighting to the carpark and RLS memorial would need to

be accommodated on an alternative pole.


The lease is proposed on an existing tower and infrastructure. As no new installation is to

occur consultation on the new lease will occur via the statutory consultation process required

under section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act). This provides an opportunity

for interested community members to make a submission in relation to the proposed lease.

Human Rights




Legal

Council is required to give public notice of its intention to lease the site in accordance with

section 190 of the Act. Council must also consider submissions received in accordance with

section 223 of the Act.

Finance

The site is currently leased at $50,608pa plus GST, however AXICOM had proposed to hand

back the lease as it was deemed unprofitable. A sworn market valuation has been

undertaken and valued the site at $35,000pa plus GST in the current market environment. It

was anticipated that this site would be handed back in November at the end of the lease

term. The continuation of a lease at the site provides ongoing rental return. The income will

increase at 5% per annum.




Council’s Property Strategy Principle One

Seeks Council to maximise community benefit and public value from the property portfolio.

Council Plan Goal 7 – Financial Responsibility and Good Governance

7.1.1 Developing alternative income sources to take pressure off rate increases and improve

long term financial viability.

The proposed lease terms and conditions are consistent with Council’s Leasing Policy 2008.


Attachment 1


Beaumaris Reserve Proposed Lease Existing Telecommunication Tower Site



10.4 BEAUMARIS SECONDARY COLLEGE - INDOOR MULTI PURPOSE COURT

Environment, Recreation & Infrastructure - Environment, Recreation & Infrastructure File No: PSF/15/8761 – Doc No: DOC/16/214507

Executive summary


This report relates to suggested Council investment in new and additional indoor multipurpose courts in Bayside. Specifically it responds to a suggestion of Council investment in an indoor multipurpose court and associated facilities at the new Beaumaris Secondary College.

Beaumaris Secondary College

In mid-2015 the State government announced that a standalone Beaumaris Secondary College would be developed on the school site at the corner of Reserve Road and Balcombe Road, Beaumaris. Since this announcement Council has worked with the State government to ensure the continuation of community access, particularly sporting activities at the Beaumaris Secondary College. Council has previously allocated after school hours use of the sports fields.

Council considered a report on 23 February 2016 regarding community use of the School site, particularly the sports grounds and resolved as follows:

That Council: 1. endorses the letter sent by the Mayor to the Minister for Education dated

22 January 2016; and 2. advocates to the Minister for Education seeking the following outcomes for

the Beaumaris Secondary College site: a. Soccer – after school hours access to FIFA compliant all-weather

synthetic soccer pitch (all year); b. Cricket – after school hours access to the second oval (summer); c. AFL Football - after school hours access to the second oval (winter); d. Farmers Market – weekend access to school surrounds to conduct

monthly market (all year); e. Basketball/Netball – after school hours access to indoor court facilities

(all year); f. The design of the indoor stadium facilities to allow for additional courts

to be added at a later time; g. A joint use agreement that secures all of the long term after hours

sporting uses; h. Dog Walking and passive recreation – after school hours access

through and around school site (all year); and i. Modified stormwater drainage system to enable hydrological flow to

Long Hollow Heathland; j. Retention of as many of the mature native and in particular remnant

indigenous trees as possible.

Negotiations regarding access to the School site have been undertaken in accordance with the above resolution.



In various meetings and correspondence the Department of Education and Training (the Department) has outlined that it was seeking to formalise a joint use and funding agreement with the Melbourne Cricket Club (MCC) which has expressed a desire to construct various outdoor recreation facilities at the site to be managed and allocated by the MCC outside of school hours.

The design for the new Beaumaris Secondary College includes a single indoor court facility that will be available for after school hours community use, allocated by the School. It is understood that the design of the new buildings has been arranged so that a second indoor multipurpose court could be accommodated at the site. The indicative cost for a second indoor multipurpose court is in the order of $2 million.

The former School buildings (that have been demolished) had a single indoor court that provided community access for non-school related activities.

Supporters of additional indoor multipurpose courts at the Beaumaris Secondary College suggest that there is unmet demand for community activities and that the former indoor court failed to provide a suitable facility for all activities due to it being a single court arrangement. The additional sport uses that could be accommodated by an additional indoor multipurpose court have been explained to Council staff in recent weeks as netball training, basketball training, indoor hockey, roller blading, gymnastics, aerobic and general indoor (wet weather) training for soccer and football. Other uses of an expanded facility could include other community events as it would be the only facility in the area capable of accommodating large numbers of people. Some of these activities are currently held in venues outside of the Bayside area and it has been said there is a community desire for a local facility to accommodate the activities. These needs have been described by a community member but no formal evaluation or needs assessment, other than for basketball and netball, has been undertaken to date.

Stadium Needs Assessment (Basketball)

A Stadium Needs Assessment was presented to the 24 June 2014 Council meeting. The Needs Assessment highlights that there is an undersupply of indoor basketball courts in Bayside. It identifies an additional four indoor courts are required to meet forecast basketball participation requirements through to the year 2031.

The Sandringham Family Leisure Centre (SFLC) was assessed as the preferred site to accommodate the needs for basketball. At the June 2014 meeting Council resolved to undertake a feasibility study for basketball courts at SFLC.

Council has worked closely with the Southern Basketball Association in developing the 2014 Stadium Needs Assessment and 2015 Feasibility Study. Council has adopted the SFLC (Tulip Street, Sandringham) as the preferred site to develop the additional four indoor basketball courts required to meet the projected year 2031 needs of basketball in Bayside.

At its 22 March 2016 meeting, Council endorsed a concept plan and made an allocation of $400,000 for the detailed design of four additional indoor basketball courts at the Sandringham Family Leisure Centre in Council’s 2016/17 Budget.

A report recommending the appointment of a design consultant is being prepared for consideration by Council at the December Council meeting.



Stadium Needs Assessment (Netball)

A Stadium Needs Assessment was presented to the 24 June 2014 Council meeting. To meet the expected netball demand over the next 20 years, the Needs Assessment recommended that three additional netball courts (one indoor and two outdoor) are required. The Thomas Street Netball Centre was assessed as the preferred site to accommodate the needs for netball. At this meeting Council also resolved to undertake a feasibility study for netball facilities at Thomas Street Netball Centre.

Key issues

Community access

While Council has been strongly advocating for Council and community users to be provided with access to the Beaumaris Secondary School facilities outside of school hours, Council’s level of influence is minimal: the project is being shaped by the Department and its funding partner the MCC. Some community representatives on the Department of Education New School Planning consultative panel have previously requested that Council negotiates with the Department to secure community access by offering to co-invest in the site. Council has to date declined to co-invest in the site. No funding has been identified as a contribution in the current Capital Works Program or forward works program.

Indoor multipurpose court facilities

The current School plan includes a single indoor court with an opportunity to expand this to a two multipurpose court facility in the future. A single indoor court is a standard level of facility in each new secondary school site. Council has no usage agreement and it is understood that community access to this facility will be managed by the School. The Department has not sought to have Council consider any investment to develop a proposed second indoor multipurpose court.

If a need for an additional indoor multipurpose court was established, Council could consider constructing an indoor multipurpose court facility on Council land for which Council would have total control.

Council funding into Department sites and Joint Usage Agreements

Local Government funding into community facilities development on school sites and subsequent guarantees of community access involve both the Department and the Council negotiating and signing a Joint Usage Agreement (JUA). Experience shows that a JUA typically takes a long period of negotiation to determine the facility design, investment amount and community access arrangement.

In this instance, there is limited time to negotiate on an additional multipurpose court because design for a single court facility is close to being finalised, with construction to commence early in 2017.

Therefore the alternatives, should Council seek to make funding available for an additional indoor multipurpose court at the School, appear to be:

a) Council pre-commits funding for modifying design of the School to include a second indoor multipurpose court, before a budget allocation is made and a JUA negotiated. In this instance Council would be conceding negotiating control;



b) Council asks the development to be slowed until a JUA is negotiated and funding is determined by Council. The Department will not, it is expected, compromise its commitment to the School opening in Term 1 2018; and

c) Council negotiates a JUA and financial contribution before committing funding. In this instance a second multipurpose court would be constructed as part of a second phase of the project. The current single court design allows for the later addition of a second multipurpose court.

Community value and Council priorities

The indicative cost of an additional indoor stadium multipurpose court is $2 million.

A co-investment by Council into any facilities on the Beaumaris Secondary College should be on the basis of a Joint Usage Agreement which Council could demonstrate is worthy of contributing Council funds toward. This should have regard to intended community access over the long term.

As previously outlined, community members have suggested a range of various indoor team sports and potential non-sporting community uses. The previous indoor court facility was managed, outside of school hours, directly by the School, user by user. No after-hours management model that a Council JUA over a two indoor multipurpose court plus facilities, has been discussed.

Various School/Council/community member/user group driven management models should be considered before it can be determined who will benefit and how responsibilities for oversight are arranged.

What additional community benefit should a Council financial contribution realise?

The community benefit to be achieved from Council investment in a single indoor multipurpose court at the Beaumaris Secondary College is to be fully established. While an additional indoor multipurpose court at the School may provide a local multipurpose court for access by some groups that currently utilise alternate facilities outside of Bayside, there has been limited time to better evaluate a proposal to allocate Council funding to a facility on School land nor to detail Council’s forward budgets and financial plans to accommodate an allocation.

It would be usual and preferable for Council to commit funding of this nature with a feasibility or needs assessment. Projects of this nature would usually be considered and developed, then funding considered as part of the Budget development process by comparing the relative merits of each proposal against the available budget. If an allocation of $2 million were to be made to the Beaumaris Secondary School site, a decision on where this funding would be sourced is required. Consideration of deferring other projects to a similar value is one option available.

An arrangement whereby Council was to fully fund a second multipurpose court and the School/community benefit is apportioned 50/50 does not necessarily achieve the best possiblecommunity benefit from Council funds. If however Council seeks, in return for such a contribution, further guaranteed community access benefit to other facilities on the site, Council’s contribution could be very effective in securing greater overall community benefit.



A negotiated JUA between Council and the School should consider after-hours access to some or all of the following facilities:

Two indoor multipurpose courts;

Multipurpose synthetic field (understood to be substantially funded by the MCC);

Two sporting ovals during non-school/MCC allocated times; and

Pavilion facilities associated with the two ovals and multipurpose synthetic field.

Timing

It is understood that a contract for the works has been let and the construction of the new Beaumaris Secondary College is scheduled to commence soon, with the School to be opened in 2018.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. conducts negotiations with the State government on the potential community benefit of a joint education/Council/community facility agreement for community use of Beaumaris Secondary College facilities as a matter of urgency; and

2. subject to the outcome of these negotiations, considers the allocation of a capital contribution to an expanded indoor stadium facility at the Beaumaris Secondary College.

Support Attachments

Nil


Liveable community

Social

The benefits of an additional indoor multipurpose court at the Beaumaris Secondary College

has not yet been established through a needs analysis, however a body of community

members has been actively pursuing improved community use of the School’s facilities.

The development of improved basketball facilities at SFLC and netball facilities at Thomas

Street will provide positive benefits for young people and adults through their participation

and engagement in sport and recreation activities.

Natural Environment

It is expected that the Beaumaris Secondary College will incorporate sustainable design

features.

Council is committed to achieving positive environmental outcomes through environmentally

sustainable design principles for projects.



Built Environment

No documented need for additional indoor multipurpose court facilities at Beaumaris

Secondary College has been established at this stage.

If a need for additional multipurpose courts was to be established, Council could consider co-

investing in the Beaumaris Secondary Site, with appropriate use agreements, or building a

facility on Council land for which Council would maintain management control.


Discussions and meetings are continuing with Department of Education representatives

regarding planning and use of the Beaumaris Secondary College sporting infrastructure.

Council has collaborated with the basketball and netball associations on the need for courts

in Bayside.

The examination of basketball and netball has also been informed by discussions and

feedback provided by State and local sporting associations, Sport and Recreation Victoria,

other government authorities and schools.

Human Rights




Legal

Beaumaris Secondary College is a State government site and any facility development would

need to be approved by the Minister for Education.

Council would be required to enter into a formal funding agreement with the State

government and a Joint Use Agreement with the Department of Education and Training and

Beaumaris Secondary College. Previous experience shows that the Joint Usage Agreement

process can take in excess of 12 months to draft and reach final agreement.

Finance

Council’s 2016/17 budget includes an allocation of $400,000 for the detailed design of a four

basketball court extension to the Sandringham Family Leisure Centre.

A Council contribution to any sporting facilities, including an additional indoor multipurpose

court, at Beaumaris Secondary College is not currently included in any of Council’s plans or

Budgets or Long Term Financial Plan.


Improvement to sport and recreation facilities is supported by a number of key strategy and

policy documents including Council Plan 2013 - 2017, Bayside 2020 Community Plan, Open

Space Strategy 2012, Recreation Strategy 2013, Sportsground Pavilion Improvement Plan

2013 and Wellbeing for All Ages and Abilities Strategy 2013 - 2017.



Council investment in basketball facilities at SFLC is a key driver of the outcomes described

in Domain Six of the Bayside Community Plan 2025, Community Health and Participation

and Domain Seven, Infrastructure. Council investment in community infrastructure based on

community needs and future trends directly contributes to achieving the community

aspirations detailed in these and other liveability domains of the Plan.

The demand for additional indoor multipurpose courts, at Beaumaris Secondary College or

elsewhere, has not been established through any needs assessment at this time.

Options considered

Option 1

Summary Do not provide Council funding for an additional indoor multipurpose court at the Beaumaris Secondary College.

Benefits The status quo would remain where the School will have similar indoor multipurpose court facilities to the former (demolished) School.

Issues The community has identified a need for indoor multipurpose court space to provide local access to indoor facilities that are currently met by facilities outside of Bayside.

Option 2

Summary Undertake a needs assessment for an additional indoor multipurpose court at the Beaumaris Secondary College.

Benefits Should the needs assessment demonstrate that there is demand for an additional indoor multipurpose court and Council agrees to consider providing additional indoor facilities, negotiations with the Department of Education could commence to establish the most appropriate method of delivering the additional indoor multipurpose court capacity. Any financial contribution by Council could result in Council having the ability to allocate after school hours use of the indoor multipurpose court.

Issues The need for additional indoor multipurpose courts has not been established. It is apparent that the need as articulated by the community is largely met by facilities outside of Bayside. Council has not committed to funding additional facilities on the School site and has no provisions for funding such facilities in its current of planned future budgets.



Option 3 (a)

Summary Council pre-commits funding for modifying design to include a second indoor multipurpose court, before a budget allocation is made and a JUA negotiated.

Benefits A JUA between Council and the School could potentially include after-hours access to the following facilities: • Two indoor multipurpose courts; • Multipurpose synthetic field (understood to be substantially funded by

the MCC); • Two sporting ovals during non-school/MCC allocated times; and • Pavilion facilities associated with the two ovals and multipurpose

synthetic field.

Issues A co-investment by Council into any facilities on the Beaumaris Secondary College should be on the basis of a Joint Usage Agreement which Council could demonstrate is worthy of contributing Council funds toward. Council has not committed to funding additional facilities on the School site and has no provisions for funding such facilities in its current of planned future budgets.

Option 3 (b)

Summary Council asks the development to be slowed until a JUA is negotiated and funding is determined by Council.



synthetic field.

Issues The Department will not, it is expected, compromise its commitment to the School opening in Term 1 2018.

Option 3 (c)

Summary Council negotiates a JUA and financial contribution before committing funding.



synthetic field. In this instance a second multipurpose court would be constructed as part of a second phase of the project. The current single multipurpose court design allows for the later addition of a second multipurpose court.

Issues Experience shows that a JUA typically takes a long period of negotiation to determine the facility design, investment amount and community access arrangement.



Option 4

Summary Council considers constructing a multipurpose court on Council owned land if a need for such a facility is established.

Benefits Should a needs assessment demonstrate that there is demand for an additional indoor multipurpose court and subsequently Council agrees to consider providing an additional court, the identified need would be addressed.

Issues Council has not committed to funding additional facilities on the School site and has no provisions for funding such facilities in its current of planned future budgets.



10.5 COUNCIL SUPPORT FOR BLACK ROCK PRIMARY SCHOOL'S FUNDING APPLICATION TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT'S SHARED SCHOOLS FACILITIES PROGRAM

Environment, Recreation & Infrastructure - Open Space, Recreation & Wellbeing File No: PSF/15/8761 – Doc No: DOC/16/214567

Executive summary


To seek Council’s formal approval for a letter signed by the Mayor (as set out in Attachment A) supporting Black Rock Primary School’s funding application to the State Government’s Shared School Facilities program.

Black Rock Primary School (BRPS) has submitted an application to the State Government’s Shared School Facilities program for funding towards the development of a multi-purpose synthetic sports field and improvements to surrounding landscaped areas. As part of the application process applicants are required to provide evidence of formal support from their local Council.

The application deadline was 18 November 2016. To enable the BRPS to meet this deadline, the Mayor was requested to provide a letter of support for this project as the project is in accordance with Council’s adopted policy position. Council is now asked to formally approve the support provided to the BRPS.

Key issues

Current sports field condition at BRPS

The current natural turf sports field at BRPS is in poor condition and has been severely impacted by historic drought conditions and applicable water restrictions. As a result the sports field has little grass coverage and is generally unfit for use during the summer months and following periods of rain.

The BRPS community has spent considerable funds to plan a suitable response to this issue. The master plan includes the development of a multi-purpose synthetic sports field and general improvements to the surrounding natural landscape areas.

Council and community support for the proposed multi-purpose synthetic sports field

Council’s recently developed Bayside 2025 Community Plan captures the community’s long-term aspirations for the municipality. One of these aspirations is community access to quality, fit for purpose sporting facilities. The development of multi-purpose synthetic sports fields will better enable this aspiration to be met.

Council’s ‘Active by the Bay’ Recreation Strategy (2013-2022) encourages Council to ‘create partnerships with State Government agencies and public schools to secure access to strategically important recreation facilities’. The development of a multi-purpose synthetic sports field at BRPS is an example of how schools can work together with the community to provide quality recreation outcomes.



BRPS’s funding application to the State Government’s Shared School Facilities program has received strong support from a number of Bayside community sporting groups including Beaumaris Soccer Club, Black Rock Football Club, Hampton Cricket Club and Beaumaris Basketball Club. This strong community support resulted in a number of these groups making a financial contribution to the master planning phase of the project.

Recommendation

That Council supports the application made to the State Government’s Shared School Facilities Program by Black Rock Primary School and approves the letter of support (as set out in Attachment A) provided to the School to form part of the application.

Support Attachments

1. Letter of Support - Black Rock Primary School ⇩


Liveable community

Social

The development of multi-purpose synthetic sports fields provides positive benefits for young people through their participation and engagement in sport and recreation activities.

Natural Environment

The development of synthetic sports fields reduces the reliance on potable water and provides a durable and robust playing surface.

Built Environment

There are no built environment implications associated with the recommendation included in this report. The synthetic sports field will be located on the site of the existing sports field.


Council has collaborated with members of the Black Rock Primary School community during the master planning process and the development of the applicable funding application. A number of sporting clubs have provided support to the school to enable an application to the State Government’s Shared School Facilities Program to be made.

Human Rights

The implications of this report have been assessed and are not considered likely to breach or infringe upon, the human rights contained in the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

Legal

There are no legal implications associated with the recommendation included in this report.

Finance

There are no financial implications associated with the recommendation included in this report. There is no financial contribution from Council requested or proposed.




Improvement to sport and recreation facilities is supported by a number of key strategy and policy documents including Council Plan 2013 - 2017, Bayside 2025 Community Plan, Open Space Strategy 2012, Recreation Strategy 2013 and Wellbeing for All Ages and Abilities Strategy 2013 - 2017.


Attachment 1




10.6 BETTER APARTMENTS DRAFT DESIGN STANDARDS

City Planning & Community Services - Urban Strategy File No: PSF/15/8752 – Doc No: DOC/16/214499

Executive summary

Purpose

To present to Council the State Government’s intention to implement a clear set of standards

to facilitate the delivery of high quality apartment development in Victoria and Council’s

response to the Better Apartments Draft Design Standards .

A submission to this process has been prepared and is attached to this report for Council’s

adoption. (Attachment 1).

Background

Medium and higher density residential development will be a key component in supporting

sustainable growth and accommodating the anticipated increase in population across

Melbourne.

The Bayside Housing Strategy identifies how Council proposes to plan for new housing, to be

focused within activity centres where there is existing infrastructure and good transport

connections. These areas are to accommodate a variety of housing types and densities

including a limited number of 5+ storey buildings for which there are no specific guidelines to

address internal and external amenity issues.

Bayside is recognised for retaining and enhancing its high quality residential amenity. It is

considered that a robust set of guidelines comparable to the set of provisions that apply to

lower scale residential development (ResCode at Clause 54 and 55 of the Planning Scheme)

will facilitate the delivery of high quality apartment development that accords with the

expectations of the Bayside community.

The increasing trend toward apartment living means that good apartment and building design

are critical in providing Bayside’s residents with a high quality of life and to improve the overall

liveability and amenity of the surrounding urban environment. Council supports the

development and implementation of a set of unambiguous planning controls for higher density

development. This was the view expressed in the Better Apartments (Discussion Paper)

submission to the Department of Environment Land Water and Planning, July 2015.

Key issues

Response to Council submission and proposed standards

It is pleasing to see that The Better Apartments Draft Design Standards responds to the

recommendations presented by Council in its Better Apartments (Discussion Paper)

submission.



Issues identified in relation to apartment design are now further explored and addressed

through specific design standards that address the majority of the issues previously presented.

Building setbacks, light wells, room depth and windows

The proposed building setback, light wells, room depth and window standards will address

issues relating to lack of adequate natural light and optimise the provision of daylight and

privacy to dwellings, communal and private open spaces.

The proposed standards address all Council recommendations in relation to daylight issues

presented in the Better Apartments (Discussion paper) submission.

Storage

The proposed storage standards will provide convenient access to usable and secure

storage space in addition to storage that would normally be provided in a kitchen, bathroom,

bedroom etc.

Whilst storage was not identified as a specific issue in the Better Apartments (Discussion

Paper). The introduction of this standard will facilitate a good design outcome that results

in improved amenity thorough meeting the needs of different household requirements.

Noise impacts

The proposed noise impact standards address Council recommendation by ensuring that

acoustic treatment is provided to meet the maximum acceptable noise level for bedrooms

and habitable rooms.

Energy efficiency and solar access

The proposed standards will optimise the provision of sunlight to dwellings and private and

communal open spaces, ensuring that living rooms, private and communal open spaces

receive at least 2 hours of sunlight at the winter solstice.

Natural ventilation

The proposed standard ensures natural ventilation is optimised to provide for thermal

comfort through passive heating and cooling.

Council’s recommendations as presented in the Better Apartments (Discussion Paper) to

address natural ventilation to habitable rooms and maximising the number of cross

ventilated dwellings are addressed in the proposed draft standards.

Private open space and communal

The proposed standard will ensure that functional and usable private open space is

provided for all dwellings and that communal open spaces are integrated within the overall

site layout and building design.



Landscaping

The proposed standard will ensure that higher density buildings enhance the urban

landscape and respond to the existing and desired landscape context.

Standards for the retention and provision of mature trees and vegetation have been

incorporated.

Accessibility

The proposed standards will ensure that apartments are suited for people of all ages and

abilities.

Dwelling entry and internal circulation

The proposed standards provide a sense of place and an identifiable street address.

Recommendations provided in Council’s submission have been addressed through the

provision of clear design guidelines that address the layout and design of buildings.

Waste

The proposed standards will ensure that the large amount of waste produced in apartment

developments is addressed through the provision of sustainable waste management

facilities and services.

Water management The proposed water management standards provide clear direction for collection and reuse of rainwater. Whilst water management was not identified as a specific issue in the Better Apartments (Discussion Paper). The introduction of this standard will facilitate a positive environmental outcome for Bayside.

The draft design standards seek to address specific apartment design and amenity issues

raised through public consultation. Many of the design standards presented in The Better

Apartments Draft Design Standards are new and developed from existing Rescode standards

to specifically address apartment design issues.

A preferred minimum apartment size has not been specified in the proposed standards, the

testing of this standard concluded that a minimum standard will not prevent a bad design

outcome. The layout of apartments which more logically refers to the positioning of kitchens,

bathrooms bedrooms and living spaces is addressed primarily through the daylight access and

natural ventilation standards.



Referring to this standards when formulating floorplans will result in good design outcomes

regardless of the apartment size whilst still providing for housing choice and affordability

outcomes.

The proposed 16 design standards address Council issues raised in the submission to the

Better Apartments (discussion paper) adequately. All standards demonstrate a clear purpose

and explanation of how the standard should be applied.

Clear direction is also provided on the proposed implementation and in relation to the type of

tools to be used to achieve the planning and development outcomes needed to achieve better

apartments.

Implementation

A detailed implementation plan is outlined in The Better Apartments Draft Design Standards.

This responds to Council’s submission on the Better Apartments (discussion paper) by

providing 3 clear steps for implementation:

Step 1: Education and training

Training to all planning officers has been identified as well as 1,000 free places for industry

participants, and registered architects and registered building practitioners.

Step 2: New apartment design guidelines

New guidelines will be prepared to help facilitate well designed apartments in Victoria.

Step 3: New planning provisions

The new standards will be introduced through a new particular provision in the Victoria

Planning Provisions. The provision will apply to all apartments and will adopt the same

performance based approach currently used to assess residential development in the

planning scheme. The new provision will contain:

o Objectives

o Standards

o Decision guidelines

Recommendation

That Council: 1. adopts the draft submission at Attachment 1 as its position in response to the

Better Apartments Draft Design Standards;

2. authorises the Director City Planning and Community Services to make any necessary editorial changes to the submission; and

3. lodges the submission with the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP).

Support Attachments

1. Better Apartmetns Draft Design Standards Council Submission ⇩




Liveable community

Social

While there are no social impacts as a result of this report, some of the recommendations

provided in the draft submission (Attachment 1) will result in positive social impacts including

a diverse housing stock that is accessible, adaptable and of high quality that caters for all the

needs of our Bayside community.

Natural Environment

While there are no environmental impacts as a result of this report, some of the

recommendations provided in the draft submission (Attachment 1) will facilitate sustainable

design outcomes that will result in reduced resources and energy consumption.

Built Environment

The Bayside Housing Strategy (2012) guides how residential development in Bayside will be

planned and managed over the next twenty years. A comprehensive set of assessment

provisions for higher density development will contribute to the implementation of the

Housing Strategy where limited provision for apartment buildings have been identified while

contributing with the liveability and amenity of existing and future residents.


In May 2015, the Minister for Planning released Better Apartments – A Discussion Paper for

public input and stated that the ‘right mechanisms must be put in place to promote high

quality apartment living opportunities’.

The discussion paper started a community-wide conversation about the key issues affecting

internal apartment amenity and received 145 written submissions and more than 1700

responses to an online community survey. Workshops and interviews were also conducted.

A Public Engagement report was released in December 2015 that summarised feedback

from the community, local government, industry and other stakeholders. Together with the

Office of the Victorian Government Architect (OVGA), the Department of Environment, Land,

Water and Planning (DELWP) identified options for implementing a consistent approach to

the design and amenity of apartments.

A peak body reference group and a local government working group were also established to

test a range of potential design standards and approaches. This work has resulted in the

development of a number of draft design standards.

Human Rights


infringe upon, the human rights contained in the Victorian Charter of human Rights and




Legal

There are no direct legal or statutory requirements relevant to Council in response to this

report. Relevant state legislation has been identified in the attached submission.

Finance

There are no financial implications to Council as a result of this report.


Council Plan 2013-2017

The development and implementation of planning controls for higher density development

will assist to achieve the following directions from the Council Plan:

Strategic Objective 2.1: Understanding and Responding to the diverse needs of our

community.

Strategic Objective 3.1: Protecting and enhancing amenity, liveability and neighbourhood

character.


Attachment 1




10.7 QUARTER ONE PERFORMANCE REPORT - JULY TO SEPTEMBER 2016

CEO - Strategy and Performance File No: PSF/15/8766 – Doc No: DOC/16/215076

Executive summary


The report presents the first quarter performance against the Council Plan activities, and the financial results for the period to 30 September 2016.

The report is designed to ensure consistency with the adopted 2016/17 Budget and Council Plan activities, in compliance with statutory requirements. The performance report includes the following components:

performance against Council Plan and Budget (Major Initiatives and Initiatives);

financial results (including operating results, cash position, sundry debtors and Victorian Auditor-General’s Office indicators);

capital program delivery; and

summary of community engagement activities undertaken during the reporting period.

The report also includes the following detailed financial schedules:

Income statement

This schedule indicates the major line items for operating revenue less operating expenses to arrive at the net operating result.

Capital program

This schedule comprises the capital budget by program area – capital expenses less capital revenue to arrive at net capital.

Balance sheet

This schedule reports the assets and liabilities to show the net worth of Council.

Cash flow statement

This schedule provides the status of Council’s cash movements and cash position at the completion of the current month as well as the year end forecast.

Key issues

For the first quarterly report, of the 31 activities, 26 are in progress, with 24 activities tracking at least 90% on target. Five activities are not yet due to commence.

Quarterly performance reporting allows Council to effectively measure, monitor, review and report on its performance, while providing open and transparent reporting to the community.



Financial report - 2016/17 Forecast operating result

The current forecast for the year represents a surplus of $22.5M which is $243k favourable to budget.

The underlying forecast operating result is favourable to budget by $179k and excludes the following one off or timing related items:

$550k Elsternwick Park No 1 Oval Precinct funding from the State Government

received in advance in 2016/17 rather than 2017/18.

($486k) Aged and Disability Regional projects expenditure for which funding was

received in advance in 2015/16.

Capital program result

The year to date net capital result is unfavourable to budget by $753K. Council is forecast to be net $2.3M under budget for capital works at 30 June 2017.

Capital program status

For 2016/17 there are 139 capital projects to be delivered, with 3 of these completed at the end of the first quarter, 95 projects in progress and 40 not yet started.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. notes the Quarter 1 Performance Report against the Council Plan activities for the period July to September 2016; and

2. adopts the financial report to 30 September 2016.

Support Attachments

1. Quarter One Performance Report to Council 2016-17 (separately enclosed) ⇨

../../RedirectToInvalidFileName.asp?FileName=CO_20161129_ATT_141_EXCLUDED.PDF




Liveable community

Social

The report summarises progress on a range of programs which contribute to the social

environment of the Bayside community, through the delivery of activities in line with the goals

of the Council Plan 2013-17.

Natural Environment

The report summarises progress on a range of programs which contribute to the natural

environment of the Bayside community, through the delivery of activities in line with Goal 4 ‘a

sustainable natural environment’ of the Council Plan 2013-17.

Built Environment

The report summarises progress on a range of programs which contribute to the natural

environment of the Bayside community, through the delivery of activities in line with Goal 3 ‘a

liveable city’ of the Council Plan 2013-17.


The performance report provides information within Section 6 on community engagement

activities undertaken by Council during the reporting quarter.

Human Rights


infringe upon the human rights contained in the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and


Legal

The performance report assists Council to meet the requirements of Section 131 of the Local

Government Act 1989 and the Local Government (Planning and Reporting) Regulations

2014, which require reporting against the Council Plan and preparation of an Annual Report.

Finance

The current forecast for the year represents a surplus of $22.5M which is $243k favourable to

Budget.

The underlying forecast operating result is favourable to budget by $179k.


The performance report provides information on performance against the Council Plan

2013-17 and the Annual Budget 2015-16. The seven goals outlined in the Council Plan are

also aligned to and contribute towards achievement of the Bayside Community Plan 2025.



10.8 COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS TO EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS AND COUNCIL COMMITTEES AND NETWORKS


Executive summary


To appoint Council representatives to a number of key local government sector external organisations and to a number of internal committees, networks and groups.

At the Annual Meeting of Council on 10 November 2016 Council appointed representatives to the Municipal Association of Victoria and the Audit Committee. However a number of external organisations require a Council representative which will enable Bayside City Council to be actively involved in influencing these bodies in the interests of the Bayside community.

In addition there are a number of key Council Committees, Networks and Groups that also require Councillor representation.

Attached to this report is a summary of the various external organisations and Council Committees/Networks requiring Councillor representation and specific detail relating to the purpose of the organisation / committee, meeting frequency and Councillor involvement.

Key issues

External organisations

Council is required to appoint a Councillor representative to the following external organisations:

Association of Bayside Municipalities: Representation on this Association can be extremely influential particularly making an impact on Port Phillip Bay. Bayside is one of 10 member Councils.

Inner South Metropolitan Mayor’s Forum: This forum is for the elected Mayor’s of the Inner South Councils. It is appropriate that Mayor attend these forums.

Metropolitan Transport Forum: - Bayside’s representation on this Committee is not influential given Bayside is one of many Councils and organisations participating at this forum.

Metropolitan Local Government Waste Forum: Bayside is one of the 31 participating Council’s in this forum. Whilst Bayside is required to have a Councillor representative, Bayside’s participating in this forum is not influential.

Municipal Association of Victoria Environment Committee: Bayside is one of 79 participating Councils in this Committee which includes a mixture of both Councillors and senior Council officers. This Committee is more like a Work group to help MAV progress the environmental priorities identified by the MAV. This Committee is better served by a Council officer.

Regional Kitchen Pty Ltd: Given Council is a shareholder in Regional Kitchen Pty Ltd for the provision of Meals on Wheels, it is necessary that Council appoints a representative to the Shareholder meetings.



Internal Committees

Arts and Culture Advisory Committee: This internal Advisory Committee requires one Councillor representative in accordance with the Charter.

Bayside Tourism Network: This network requires one Councillor representative.

Built Environment Awards Committee: This Committee requires one Councillor representative in accordance with its Terms of Reference but has over a number of years had two Councillors participating in this Committee.

Chief Executive Officer’s Employment Matters Committee: This Committee’s Charter requires the Mayor of the Day and at least three Councillors.

The Board @BACC (Section 86 Committee): The composition of this Board requires two Councillor representatives.

Recommendation

That Council appoints the following representatives to the various External organisations and Council Committees/Networks:

External Organisations

1. Association of Bayside Municipalities

Cr ……………………… be appointed as Council’s representative and the Open Space Co-ordinator be appointed as substitute representative to the Association of Bayside Municipalities.

2. Inner South Metropolitan Mayor’s Forum

That the Mayor of the Day be appointed to the Inner South Metropolitan Mayor’s Forum.

3. Metropolitan Transport Forum

Cr ……………………….. be appointed as Council’s representative and the Director Environment, Recreation and Infrastructure be appointed as Council’s substitute representative to the Metropolitan Transport Forum.

4. Metropolitan Local Government Waste Forum

Cr ……………………… be appointed as Council’s representative and the Director Environment, Recreation and Infrastructure be appointed as Council’s substitute representative to the Metropolitan Local Government Waste Forum.

5. Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) Environment Committee

The Director Environment, Recreation and Infrastructure or his delegate be appointed as Council’s representative to the MAV Environment Committee.

6. Regional Kitchen Pty Ltd (Meals on Wheels supplier)

The Director Corporate Services be appointed as Council’s Shareholder representative to Regional Kitchens Pty Ltd for the purpose of participating in Shareholder meetings.



Council Committees/Networks

7. Arts and Culture Advisory Committee

Cr …………………… be appointed to the Bayside Arts and Culture Advisory Committee.

8. Bayside Tourism Network

Cr ………………………… be appointed to the Bayside Tourism Network.

9. Built Environment Awards Committee

Cr …………………………. be appointed to the Built Environment Awards Committee.

10. Chief Executive Officer’s Employment Matters Committee

The Mayor of the Day and Cr ……………………………, Cr ………………………... and Cr …………………………….. be appointed to the Chief Executive’s Employment Matters Committee.

Support Attachments

1. Council appointments to various organisations and Committees for Council Meeting ⇩


Attachment 1




10.9 VCAT DECISIONS

City Planning & Community Services - Development Services File No: PSF/15/8755 – Doc No: DOC/16/207719

Executive summary

To inform Council of Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) determinations received in the month of October 2016 and to show the progress of VCAT outcomes for the financial year.

Summary details for the decisions handed down during the month are attached.

Month Year

Co

un

cil

Up

he

ld

Co

un

cil

Ov

er-

turn

ed

De

lega

te

Up

he

ld

De

lega

te

Ove

r-tu

rned

Oth

er

(e.g

. V

arie

d,

by C

on

sen

t o

r

Se

c87

A

With

dra

wn

Total

LGPRF* Outcome

Se

t A

sid

e

Aff

irm

ed

July 2016 0 3 0 4 4 1 12 7 3

August 2016 0 0 4 9 0 1 14 9 4

September 2016 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 1 1

October 2016 1 0 1 3 2 0 7 3 2

TOTAL 1 3 6 17 7 2 36 20 10

*Local Government Performance Reporting Framework (Data to be reported to State Government)

Key issues

Decisions made by the VCAT may affect neighbourhood character outcomes and community perceptions of liveability in their neighbourhoods.

The number of decisions by Council or Council’s Delegate that are ‘Set Aside’ by VCAT is measured by the Local Government Performance Reporting Framework (LGPRF) as the key measure of Statutory Decision Making Quality.

It is essential for Council to monitor the outcomes of VCAT hearings to understand the effect of the decisions and opportunities to further refine planning controls.

Know Your Council

On 16 August 2016 in the Ordinary Council Meeting, Council set a target that 50% of all applications heard at VCAT in 2016/17 should be affirmed or ‘agreed with’. This information shows that in the 4 months of the year, Council achieved a 33% positive outcome. VCAT has set aside or ‘disagreed with’ 66% of Council’s decisions on permit applications so far this financial year.

It is important to note that seven (7) appeals were positively settled without a hearing e.g. varied by Consent or Sec87A and two (2) were withdrawn.



Recommendation

That the report on the VCAT decisions on the planning applications handed down during the months of October 2016 be received and noted.

Support Attachments

1. Attachment VCAT Decisions ⇩


Liveable community

Social

The recommendation will not have any social effects.

Natural Environment

The recommendation will not have any effect on the natural environment.

Built Environment

The recommendation will not have any effect on the built environment.


The recommendation will not have any effect on customer service or on community engagement.

Human Rights

The recommendation will not have any effect on human rights.

Legal

The recommendation does not create any legal issues for Council.

Finance

The recommendation does not have any strategic financial implications for Council.


The decisions of the VCAT may affect Council’s capacity to achieve objectives set out in the Council Plan.


Attachment 1


Subject land 147 Abbott Street, Sandringham

Application No. 2015/711/1

VCAT Reference No. P1090/2016

Applicant Clive Findlay Respondents Universal Planning

Before E A Bensz, Member Date of hearing 05 October 2016

Date of order 05 October 2016

Proposal: Development of a two storey dwelling on a lot less than

500m2.

Officer recommendation: Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit

Council determination: Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit

Appeal type: Conditions

Plans substituted prior to hearing? No

VCAT determination: Permit to Issue

LGPRF outcome: Affirmed

Subject Site: 1 Collingwood Street, Sandringham



Applicant: Jeffrey and Janet Campbell

Respondents: Helena Cannon, Greg Hardiman and Others

Before: Kerrie Birtwistle, Presiding Member Michael Nelthorpe, Member

Date of hearing: 7 September 2016

Date of order: 13 October 2016

Proposal: Construction of two 2 storey dwellings

Officer recommendation: Permit Refused

Council determination: N/A

Appeal type: Refusal

Plans substituted prior to hearing? Yes

VCAT determination: No permit to issue

LGPRF outcome: Affirmed


Attachment 1


Subject Site: 7 Smeed Street, Black Rock



Applicant: Garry Williams

Before: Michael Deidun, Member

Date of hearing: 19 October 2016


Proposal: Construction of two double storey dwellings





VCAT determination: Varied Permit to Issue

LGPRF outcome: N/A

Subject Site: 448 St Kilda Street, Brighton



Applicant: Pro Estate Pty Ltd

Respondents: Ian Smith, Lisa Caponio and Keith Johnson

Before: S. R. Cimino, Member

Respondents: 1 September 2016


Date of order: Pro Estate Pty Ltd

Proposal:

Construction of a three storey building including a basement and roof top terrace, reduction in the visitor car parking requirement under Clause 52.06 of the Bayside Planning Scheme of no more than 2 spaces and altering access to a Road Zone Category 1 in accordance with the endorsed plans.





VCAT determination: Varied Permit to Issue

LGPRF outcome: N/A


Attachment 1


Subject Site: 144 Oak Street, Beaumaris



Applicant: Konstandinos and Kerrie Patikes

Before: H. McM. Wright QC, Senior Member



Proposal:

Construction of a double storey dwelling in a Special

Building Overlay and removal of native vegetation in a

Vegetation Protection Overlay 3

Officer recommendation: Not Support


Appeal type: Failure to Grant


VCAT determination: Permit to issue

LGPRF outcome: Set Aside

Subject Site: 431-432 Beach Road, Beaumaris



Applicant: Bayside Property Projects Pty Ltd

Before: Helen Gibson, Deputy President

Date of hearing: No Hearing


Proposal:

Construction of a two (2) storey building containing eight (8) dwellings, four (4) roof decks in a Design and Development Overlay Schedule 1, removal of one native tree; basement car parking and the creation of access to a Road Zone Category 1.

Officer recommendation: Extension of time refused


Appeal type: Extension of time refused

Plans substituted prior to hearing? N/A

VCAT determination: Extension of time granted



Attachment 1


Subject Site: 23-31 Small Street, Hampton



Applicant: Small Street Holdings Pty Ltd

Before: Michael Deidun, Member



Proposal:

Use of the land for accommodation; To construct a

building and construct or carry out works; Reduction of

the standard car parking requirement; Waiver of the

requirement for a loading bay

Officer recommendation: Not support


Appeal type: Failure to Grant

Plans substituted prior to hearing? Yes

P Permit to issue




10.10 COUNCIL ACTION AWAITING REPORT


Executive summary


This report presents to Council a schedule of actions pending for the period to 18 October 2016.

Key issues

This report contains resolutions of Council that require a further report to Council.

Recommendation

That Council notes the Council Action Awaiting Report.

Support Attachments

1. Council Action Awaiting report November meeting attachment ⇩


Attachment 1




10.11 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SUSTAINABLE STAFF AND RESOURCING PLAN

City Planning & Community Services - Development Services File No: FOL/15/5840 – Doc No: DOC/16/216476

Executive summary

Development Services provide a land use and development assessment, advocacy, facilitation and regulation service to applicants and the community that seeks to positively contribute to the open space, transport, economic, homes and neighbourhoods, health and infrastructure aspirations of the Bayside Community.

The Service comprises some 39 identified regulatory and non-regulatory services, including the processing of Statutory Planning applications, the assessment of building ‘report and consent’ applications for single dwellings (very similar to a planning application assessment), the enforcement of the Building Act and local laws, and permits for the protection of Council assets including vehicle crossovers and street trees. The customer demand for all development services in the City has increased significantly in recent years.

In 2015, the Statutory Planning Service Review demonstrated that Council’s service was not delivering an acceptable level of service for both applicants and objectors of the City. In the 2014/15 ‘Know Your Council’ results, Bayside’s performance in many aspects of the statutory planning service was behind when compared with comparable Councils in Melbourne.

An Improvement Plan was adopted by Council to improve the service, with an understanding that significant, sustainable improvement activities were required in the service to address processes, risks, workforce planning, customer service and records management matters.

On 16 August 2016, Council received a report entitled ‘Statutory Planning - FY2015/16 Service Review Update’ which reported the status of the Improvement Plan. The report makes references to the need for significant workforce and resource planning to be undertaken. This has been proceeding.

On 13 October 2016, the Regulatory Fees for Statutory Planning were significantly increased by the Minister for Planning for the first time in many years. Based on the limited data since 13 October 2016, the average fee per application received since the regulatory fee update has doubled.

The estimated revenue increases provide Council with a welcome opportunity to increase current service levels in a sustained way through appropriate levels of skilled, experienced staff resources.

This report proposes that the immediate opportunity provided by the increased fee revenue be taken to invest in the service and improve timeliness and service standards at no additional rate revenue expense.

Historic Service levels

Know Your Council is the public website for the Local Government Performance Reporting

Framework (LGPRF). The reported measures of service regarding timeliness, service

standards, service cost and decision making provided to developers and the community in

previous years was as set out in Table 1.



As evidenced by the 2015/16 ‘Know Your Council’ results for Statutory Planning, some

timeliness, service standard and cost management improvements have been realised in the

last financial year as a result of the Statutory Planning Service Improvement Plan.

Of particular relevance to this report is the information in Table 1 regarding measure ‘SP3:

SERVICE COST’ which provides Council with a direct comparison on the cost of providing

statutory planning services with other Councils. Staff and legal representation cost are the

main costs in providing statutory planning services.

In 2014/15, more applications were determined than received. Due to the 27% increase in

the number of applications received in 2015/16, but the same level of decision making being

maintained, a backlog of undetermined applications occurred.

The number of other planning service requests has increased by the same percentage. Also,

the number of requests for customer contact by telephone and in person at the ‘planning

counter’ has almost doubled between 2014 and 2016.

Current Service Levels

Table 1: 2014/15 and 2015/16 results comparing Bayside Statutory Planning results with our comparable Inner Urban Melbourne Councils

Know Your Council (LGPRF) Measure

2015 Bayside LGPRF Result

2015 Comparable

Councils Result

2016 Bayside LGPRF Result

2016 Comparable

Councils Result

SP1 TIMELINESS – Median calendar days

taken to decide planning applications

115 86 88 86.15

SP2 SERVICE STANDARD - Planning

applications decided within 60 statutory days – subdivision, use and

development applications combined

44% 60%

57.99%

58.61%

1395 decisions out

1433 decisions out

SP3 SERVICE COST - Cost of statutory

planning service per application

$2,438

$2,022

$1,519.89

$2,008.68

1234 applications in, including

VicSmart

1572 applications in, including

VicSmart

SP4 DECISION MAKING - Council planning decisions

upheld at VCAT

41% 57% 44.05% 58.19%



In 2016/17 Quarter 1, an average of 122 applications per month were received. This data shows that the number of applications received has stabilised at the rate of 1450-1500 applications per year. The higher number of all requests of service, including telephone and in person enquiries has also been maintained in Q1.

While there has been overall improvement in the service standard over the past year, planning decisions for use and development proposals remain below the expected 60% level of service standard. In 2016/17 Quarter 1, Council made 46% of planning ‘use and development’ decisions but 92.5% of subdivision decisions within 60 statutory days.

The overall service standard result of 56% is therefore being ‘buoyed’ by significant improvements to the subdivision decision service.

Furthermore, statutory planning applications in Bayside have become more complex. This is in terms of the time taken to decide an application and the level of skill and experience needed to achieve a high quality outcome. Bayside has historically added a number of additional customer service initiatives and requirements within the planning use and development application process.

These include non-statutory Resident/Objector or ‘Consult’ meetings and significant time spent in negotiation with applicants before the determination of applications, so as to achieve better outcomes. These initiatives are excellent areas where value is added to the planning application process, but add time to the processing of application and take additional staff resources to provide.

This SP3 measure outcome in Table 1 demonstrates that the 27% increase in the level of

planning applications received in statutory planning between 2014/15 and 2015/16 was not

met with an equivalent level of resourcing per application. The SP3 comparable Council

result for 2015/16 provides evidence that overall, resourcing of the statutory planning service

in Bayside is much lower than comparable councils.

As part of the 2015 Statutory Planning Service Review, Council benchmarked staffing and

resource allocations, output and performance measures in six councils: Boroondara,

Kingston, Knox, Moreland, Port Phillip and Stonnington. This benchmarking further

demonstrated that resourcing of the service in Bayside was lower than its comparators. The

ratio of planning applications received per year per staff member in the comparison Councils

was on average 1:50, whereas the average ratio at Bayside was at least 1:75.

Therefore, despite the efficiency measures put in place, the increased and sustained service

demand over and above the current level of resourcing has resulted in the backlog of

undetermined applications growing by some 30% in the last calendar year. Where the

number of applications determined cannot meet the number of applications received over a

sustained period of time, this has an exponentially negative impact on all aspects of our

service. This growing backlog is also contributing to an upturn in expressed dissatisfaction

and complaints.

If left unaddressed, this backlog will continue and will adversely impact on the 2016/17

LGPRF outcomes and erode the achievement of improvement of timeliness and service

standards.

Increased Regulatory Planning Fees October 2016

On 13 October 2016, the Minister for Planning increased the Statutory or ‘Regulated’ Fees for

Planning and Subdivision Applications. The Planning and Environment and Subdivisions



Regulations (Fees) 2016 came into force following a 2 year period of Regulatory Impact

Assessment, where the Minister acknowledged that the revenue to Councils was significantly

lower than the actual cost of providing the providing statutory planning services.

The regulatory fee levels from 13 October 2016 are based more on a ‘user pays’ approach.

While the fee changes are significant to Council, they are not significant to the vast majority of

Bayside applicants. It is also of note that the fees are scaled, so that single dwelling

applications are considerably cheaper for Bayside residents building or altering their own

homes compared to the fees for major apartment and commercial developments by applicants.

On the basis of the Statutory Planning income data since 13 October 2016, Table 2 below

projects that income from regulated fees will increase significantly.

As the new fees will be applicable for the whole financial year in 2017/18, it is anticipated that

the statutory revenue increase (based on 1500 applications received per annum) will double

from the 2014/15 result.

Table 2: Revenue from Regulatory Fees in Statutory Planning

Financial Year Statutory Fee Average fee per application received

2015/16 $672,753

Actual received from PPARS

$440

Actual received from PPARS

2016/17 c. $1,125,000 c.$900 from 13 October 2016

2017/18 c. $1,350,000 c. $900

Proposed Resourcing and Service Levels

It is now proposed that the immediate opportunity provided by the increased fee revenue be taken to invest in planning service resources and in turn improve current timeliness and service standard levels in a sustained way. The revenue should be used to provide an improved staff to application ratio in line with comparable Councils, allow resources to be managed more effectively, and also to provide more qualified and experienced staff to further improve our customer experience.

This change to the resourcing of the service will have benefits to existing staff members stronger mentoring and growth opportunities, training, succession planning and will enable staff in leadership roles to provide enhanced supervision and devote more time to continuous improvement and customer service.

The additional resourcing can also be used effectively to improve the service across the Development Services area, as statutory planning and building surveying share many service components. The improved standards that are proposed to result from the investment of this additional revenue are shown at Table 3.

This would be achieved at no additional rate revenue expense above the 2016/17 approved budget, and with an LGPRF ‘SP3 Service Cost’ comparable to other similar Councils in Melbourne.

Table 3: Proposed improvements to Statutory Planning Services



These estimated service levels are based on the current rate of planning applications received being maintained, and that no changes to the Delegation of powers relating to the Planning & Environment Act and Subdivision Act, the Statutory Planning legislation or the Bayside Planning Scheme. These service level improvements are also predicated on some of the ongoing service, process and efficiency activities being successfully completed and fully operationalised by 2018.

Should the number of applications received reduce again in the future, resource levels can be reduced through natural attrition to maintain the workflow ratios and overall efficiencies per application.

Conclusion

While some service improvements have been made since the Service Review in 2015, sustained high levels of applications, the demand for all types of other planning services, the intensity of customer demand and the growing complexity of applications has significantly challenged our ability to reach the service improvement goals that Council had sought to achieve by this time.

The estimated revenue increases now provides Council with a welcome opportunity to increase current service levels in a sustained way through investment in additional staff resources at appropriate levels of skill and experience to meet the proposed improved timeliness and service standards at no additional rate revenue expense over the 2016/17 approved budget.

This will, in turn, assist in meeting the overall objectives of improving customer experience, recruiting and retaining a skilled and motivated workforce, and delivering value for money development services for ratepayers. Without taking this investment opportunity, the performance of the service will suffer.

In August 2016, Council resolved to receive a report in February 2017 on progress in meeting performance and customer service standards in Statutory Planning. It is proposed that a further report now be presented to Council at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 26 April 2017 on the service results of the January 2017 – March 2017 period. This report will detail progress towards the proposed improved service performance levels.

Recommendation

That Council:

Know Your Council (LGPRF) Measure 2017

Bayside LGPRF Target Result

2018 Bayside LGPRF Target Result

SP1 TIMELINESS – Median calendar days taken to decide planning applications

85 75

SP2 SERVICE STANDARD - Planning applications decided within 60 statutory

days

At least 55% overall

At least 60% overall



1. Notes the new State Planning and Environment and Subdivisions Regulations (Fees) 2016 have increased significantly;

2. Commits the additional revenue received from the increases in both the number of applications and the revenue from the revised Fee Regulations 2016 to support the achievement of the improved service levels proposed in this report, specifically that:

a) The 2018 LGPRF Result for Measure SP1 ‘Timeliness’ will improve to 75 days or less; and

b) The 2018 LGPRF Result for Measure SP2 ‘Service Standard’ will improve to 60% of all types of planning application being determined within 60 statutory days; and

3. Receives a report to the Ordinary Meeting of Council in April 2017 on progress towards these timeliness and service standard levels.

Support Attachments

Nil


Liveable community

Social

No adverse implications.

Natural Environment

No adverse implications. Positive benefits for the Natural Environment are being realised

through better Statutory Planning decisions, which are being achieved and improved upon by

the Service Improvement Plan.

Built Environment

No adverse implications. Significant positive benefits for the Built Environment are being

realised through better Statutory Planning decisions and the delivery of the Bayside Planning

Scheme, which are being achieved and improved upon by the Service Improvement Plan.


Significant improvements in the service we provide our customers have been brought about

by the continuous improvement initiatives and the Staff and Resourcing Plan as proposed

will maintain the current target service levels of 60% of in Planning Applications and ‘Report

and Consent’ applications being determined within the statutory timeframe.

Human Rights

The implications of this Amendment have been assessed and are not considered likely to

breach or infringe upon the human rights contained in the Victorian Charter of Human Rights

and Responsibilities Act 2006.



Legal

No implications.

Finance

This recommendation proposes to have no adverse impact on the long term financial plan,

as the service changes proposed can be accommodated through the additional revenue

gained in statutory planning regulatory fees.


The statutory planning service review assists Council in achieving the following goals and strategies of the Council Plan 2013-2017 (2014 review):

Goal 3: A liveable city, particularly strategic objective 3.1: ‘protecting and enhancing amenity, liveability and neighbourhood character’.

Goal 7: Financial responsibility and good governance particularly strategy 7.1.4: ‘ensuring that Council is delivering the most effective mix of services in the most efficient way possible.’


of 117

11. Reports by Delegates

1. Association of Bayside Municipalities – Cr Frederico

2. MAV Environment Committee – Director Environment & Infrastructure

3. Metropolitan Transport Forum – Director Environment & Infrastructure

4. Municipal Association of Victoria – Cr Frederico

5. Inner South Metropolitan Mayors’ Forum – Cr Long

6. Metro Waste & Resource Recovery Group – Cr Stewart

12. Urgent Business

13. Notices of Motion

Nil

agenda of ordinary council meeting - 29 november 2016 · the bayside retail, commercial and...

Documents