agenda paper ordinary meeting of council...ordinary meeting of council meeting tuesday, 27 october...

Agenda Paper

for an

Ordinary Meeting of Council

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

on

Tuesday, 27 October 2015 at 7.00pm

Mayor: Cr Felicity Frederico Councillors: Cr Alex del Porto

Cr Laurence Evans Cr Michael Heffernan Cr James Long BM JP Cr Bruce Lowe Cr Heather Stewart

of 106

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 Chairman of Council

of 106

Order of Business

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 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 Council held on 22 September 2015.

5.2 Confirmation of the Minutes of the Special Meeting of Council held on 20 October 2015

6. Public Question Time

7. Petitions to Council

7.1 Petition: Amendment C140

8. Minutes of Advisory Committees

8.1 Assembly of Councillors Record

8.2 Minutes of the Chief Executive Officer Employment Matters Committee held on 19 October 2015

9. Reports by Special Committees

10. Reports by the organisation

10.1 Request to lease land 3 Hansen Street .............................................. 16

10.2 Review of the Residential Zones ........................................................ 21

10.3 Playground Improvement Plan ............................................................ 24

10.4 Retail, Commercial and Employment Strategy – Issues and Options Paper, Appointment of Community Representative Group and Terms of Reference ....................................................................................... 31

10.5 Bayside Planning Scheme Amendment C113 – Proposed Mandatory Height Controls – Sandringham Village Major Activity Centre ............ 36

10.6 Bayside Planning Scheme Amendment C114 – Proposed Mandatory Height Controls – Bay Street Major Activity Centre ............................. 40

10.7 Bayside Planning Scheme Amendment C115 – Proposed Mandatory Height Controls – Church Street Major Activity Centre........................ 44

10.8 Proposed Changes to Design and Development Overlay Schedule 4 . 48

10.9 Panel of Consultants for Architectural, Engineering and Quantity Surveyor Services .............................................................................. 51

10.10 The Victorian Local Government Women’s Charter ............................ 55

10.11 Instrument of Delegation – From Council to Members to Staff ............ 59

10.12 Financial Report for 8 months to 31 August 2015 ............................... 61

10.13 VCAT Decisions ................................................................................. 75

10.14 Council Action Awaiting Report ........................................................... 80

11. Reports by Delegates

12. Urgent Business

13. Notice of Motions

13.1 Notice of Motion 239 - 131-143 Bluff Road, Black Rock

13.2 Notice of Motion 240 - Draft Heritage Action Plan

14. Confidential Business

Schedule of Meetings for 2015

Tuesday 24 November 2015 Tuesday 15 December 2015

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 22 September 2015

5.2. Confirmation of the Minutes of the Special Meeting of Council held on 20 October 2015

6. Public Question Time

7. Petitions to Council

8. Minutes of Advisory Committees

9. Reports by Special Committees

Page 4 of 106

Ordinary Meeting of Council Tuesday 27 October 2015 6. Public Question Time

Ordinary Meeting of Council Tuesday 27 October 2015 7. Petitions to Council 7.1 Petition: Amendment C140

Ordinary Meeting of Council Meeting Tuesday, 27 October 2015

7.1 Petition: Amendment C140

Corporate Services - Governance

File No: FOL/15/1234

Petition requesting Council to abolish Amendment C140 (56 signatures)

“We the undersigned hereby petition Bayside City Council to abolish proposal of Amendment C140.

Petition Requirements

The attached petition meets the required format of a petition in accordance with Council’s Governance Local Law Clause 65.

It should be noted that the petitioners’ name, address and signature have been suppressed in accordance with the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014.

Recommendation

That the petition be considered at the December 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council in conjunction with the scheduled report on Amendment C140.

Page 7 of 106

Ordinary Meeting of Council Tuesday 27 October 2015 8. Minutes of Advisory Committees 8.1 Assembly of Councillors Record 8.2 Minutes of the Chief Executive Officer Employment Matters Committee

held on 19 October 2015


8.1 Assembly of Councillors Record



1. Purpose of the Report

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

2. Background

On 24 September 2010, the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment Act 2010 was proclaimed.

As a result of that legislation the definition of an ‘Assembly of Councillors’ was amended together with the requirements for an assembly of Councillors.

The definition of an ‘Assembly of Councillors’ was amended to:

a) include a meeting of an Advisory Committee of the Council, if at least 1 Councillor is present; and

b) apply to a scheduled / planned meeting comprising half of the Councillors and at least 1 officer.

A requirement was also included to require the written record of an assembly of Councillors to be reported to the next practical Ordinary Meeting of the Council, and recorded in the minutes of that meeting.

Guidance material has been provided by the Department of Planning and Community Development which provides that a record of an assembly of Councillors should be a simple document that records the following:

Date, time and location of the assembly

Attendees: The names of all Councillors and staff;

Items discussed at the assembly

Any disclosures of interest by a Councillor attending the assembly and whether that Councillor left the assembly prior to the discussion on the matter.

3. Discussion

Since the introduction of the new requirements for an Assembly of Councillors, the following assemblies have taken place and a copy of the record for each is attached:

Date Name

6 October 2015 CEO and Councillor Briefing

6 October 2015 Councillor Briefing Session

12 October 2015 Councillor Only Briefing

Page 8 of 106


4. Implications

4.1. Policy

There are no policy implications associated with this report.

4.2. Legal/Statutory requirements

This report is presented in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 1989.

4.3. Financial and resource implications

There are no financial or resource implications associated with this report.

4.4. Environmental impacts

There are no environmental impacts associated with this report.

4.5. Social impacts

There are no social impacts associated with this report.

Recommendation

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

Date Name

6 October 2015 CEO and Councillor Briefing

6 October 2015 Councillor Briefing Session

12 October 2015 Councillor Only Briefing

Page 9 of 106


Page 10 of 106


Page 11 of 106


Page 12 of 106


Page 13 of 106




File No: COR 1234


To advise Council of the business transacted at the Chief Executive Officer’s Employment Matters Committee Meeting held on 19 October 2015.

The Minutes of the Chief Executive Officer’s Employment Matters Committee held on 19 October 2015 are presented in-camera in accordance with the Local Government Act 1989 Section 89(2)(a) and (d) given the minutes relate to a personnel matter and a contractual matter.

2. Background

Council at its meeting held on 20 May 2014 resolved to establish an Advisory Committee of Council known as the Chief Executive Officer’s Employment Matters Committee.

The responsibilities of the Committee are to:

Make recommendations to Council on contractual matters relating to the Chief Executive Officer or the person appointed to act as the Chief Executive Officer including the following:

The appointment of the Chief Executive Officer

Remuneration and conditions of appointment of the Chief Executive Officer

Any extension of the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer under section 94(4) of the Local Government Act 1989;

Conduct performance reviews of the Chief Executive Officer; and

Perform any other prescribed functions and responsibilities.

The membership of the Committee consists of 1 suitably qualified externally appointed Chairperson, Ms Paula Giles and four Councillors comprising of the Mayor Cr Frederico and Councillors Stewart, Long and Heffernan.

3. Discussion

The Chief Executive Officer’s Employment Matters Committee was held on 19 October 2015 to discuss the following matters:

1st Quarter 2015/16 Performance Report

Review of the Position Description for the role of Chief Executive Officer

Chief Executive Officer contract matter

The Chief Executive Officer tabled the performance report for the first quarter and highlighted some of the achievements to date.

Following the consideration of the First Quarter Report, the Chief Executive Officer and the Governance Officer left the meeting to enable the Committee to discuss the remaining items and prepare a recommendation to Council as a confidential item at the meeting.

Page 14 of 106


4. Implications

4.1. Policy



It is a requirement of the Advisory Committee of Council that the minutes of meetings be considered by Council to formally resolve on matters considered by the Advisory Committee.





4.5. Social impacts


5. Consultation and engagement

Consultation and engagement has occurred between all Councillors and the Chief Executive Officers Employment Matters Committee.

6. Summary

It is proposed that the minutes of the Chief Executive Officer’s Employment Matters Committee held on 19 October 2015 be noted and the actions of the Committee be endorsed.

Recommendation

That the minutes of the Chief Executive Officer’s Employment Matters Committee held on 19 October 2015 be considered in-camera, given the matters raised in the minutes relate to a personnel and contractual matter in accordance with section 89(2)(a) and (d) of the Local Government Act 1989.

Page 15 of 106

Ordinary Meeting of Council Tuesday 27 October 2015 9. Reports by Special Committees

There were no reports by Special Committees submitted to the meeting.

Ordinary Meeting of Council Tuesday 27 October 2015 10. Reports by the organisation

10.1 Request to lease land 3 Hansen Street ....................................................... 16

10.2 Review of the Residential Zones .................................................................. 21

10.3 Playground Improvement Plan ..................................................................... 24

10.4 Retail, Commercial and Employment Strategy – Issues and Options Paper, Appointment of Community Representative Group and Terms of Reference ..................................................................................................... 31

10.5 Bayside Planning Scheme Amendment C113 – Proposed Mandatory Height Controls – Sandringham Village Major Activity Centre ................... 36

10.6 Bayside Planning Scheme Amendment C114 – Proposed Mandatory Height Controls – Bay Street Major Activity Centre ..................................... 40

10.7 Bayside Planning Scheme Amendment C115 – Proposed Mandatory Height Controls – Church Street Major Activity Centre................................ 44

10.8 Proposed Changes to Design and Development Overlay Schedule 4 ........ 48

10.9 Panel of Consultants for Architectural, Engineering and Quantity Surveyor Services ......................................................................................... 51

10.10 The Victorian Local Government Women’s Charter .................................... 55

10.11 Instrument of Delegation – From Council to Members to Staff ................... 59

10.12 Financial Report for 8 months to 31 August 2015 ....................................... 61

10.13 VCAT Decisions ............................................................................................ 75

10.14 Council Action Awaiting Report .................................................................... 80


10.1 Request to lease land 3 Hansen Street

Corporate Services - Commercial Services



To determine if a lease should be granted to the owner of 3 Hansen Street East Brighton (Owner) over part of the adjoining section of road reserve in front of the property (Property).

2. Background

In 2006 the owner of 3 Hansen Street sought to have the bike path onto Hansen Street from Nepean Highway relocated to the opposite side of Hansen Street citing safety issues. Council subsequently completed the bike path relocation in 2008.

This resulted in the creation of a large triangular shaped wedge of road reserve land (Land) abutting the Property and Nepean Highway (see attachment 1).

In May 2010, the owner then sought to acquire the Land from Council via discontinuance and sale, in accordance with Council’s Discontinuance and Sale of Roads, Rights of Ways and Drainage Reserves Policy. The request was denied after internal referral process deemed the Land was reasonably required for future use and disposal would remove any prospect of future community use of the land.

In 2013 the owner erected a fence over the footpath and road reserve to enclose the Land into the Property.

In August 2014 Council commenced investigation into the illegal occupation of Council land and removal of a street tree which led to a Notice to Comply being served on the Owner in September 2014. This precipitated a further request by the Owner to purchase the Land which again was denied and the Notice to Comply was reissued in December 2014.

In January 2015 the Owner complied with the Notice to Comply and removed the fence. There has been significant correspondence, phone calls and meetings between the Owner and officers regarding the reasons for denying the request to occupy the Land. This led to a request from the owner for a long term lease of the Land rather than purchasing it.

3. Discussion

Council has a significant role to ensure road reserves are effectively maintained to deliver community benefit. Land in front of properties is usually required to be retained as it is generally used (or reserved) for footpath connectivity, tree planting and for Council and other authority assets (such as water and sewer mains, telecommunication and drains).

The Owners request to acquire or lease the land is unusual as the Land forms part of the road reserve in front of the property. Whilst Council has discontinued and sold land in the past, such land is generally former laneways or drainage reserves to the side or rear of properties, and the land is no longer required. Therefore, granting a lease over the Land would create a precedent in permitting exclusive occupancy over required road reserve land at the front of a property.

Initially the Owner requested the lease of the Land to construct a garage. However, after discussion with officers, the Owner now proposes to construct a fence, gate and carport (with a roller door) on the Land as this will allow any structures to be easily removed if the Land is returned to the road reserve at a future time

A small portion of the Land is owned by VicRoads. Discussion with VicRoads indicates that it does not show consent to this occupation. Approving a lease would have the negative outcome of effectively enclosing non-Council owned land.

Page 16 of 106


3.1 Options

Option 1: Retain the status quo and do not lease the land

Reject the Owners proposal to lease and the Land as it is required for its ongoing purpose as a road reserve and there is little community benefit to the proposal. A small part of the area which would be enclosed is also not Council land. This option protects Council’s rights to access the Land as needed by Council or another Authority.

This option is recommended to Council.

Option 2: Lease the land

The proposed rental has been calculated based on a return of 5% of the market valuation of the Land, being $4,860 per annum. This is consistent with Council’s Leasing Policy and would be increased annually by 5%. The owner believes that any rental on the Land should be charged at a community ground rental under the Leasing Policy. This is not supported as this category applies to sporting surfaces such as tennis courts and bowling greens. Failing this consideration, the Owner has suggested a peppercorn rental would be appropriate as the use is “not for profit”. If a lease is supported market valuation should be used to set the rental.

The proposed leased area is approximately 108 sqm. The Owner believes the area of the lease should be calculated excluding the area covered by the existing crossover. This equates to only 35 sqm. The argument from the Owner is the crossover is currently required to access his Property and the use will not change. Any proposed lease must consider the total land area to be exclusively occupied from the road reserve which includes the existing crossover.

The lease conditions would require any improvements constructed on the land to be removable at the owners cost should any Council or other authorities works be required.

If a lease is supported, there are two potential options in relation to the term of lease:

(a) Lease on a short term renewable lease

A two year lease could be offered which can be renewed at Council’s discretion. This allows for the removal of any improvements on the Land should Council have a future need of the Land and allows the time to design and construct any changes to the road reserve e.g future footpath connectivity. Rental would be based on market valuation.

(b) Lease the land on a longer term as per the owners request

A longer term lease term of nine years could be offered. This is the Owner’s preferred option as it provides some additional certainty in terms of construction of the Owner’s Improvements. It would require less ongoing administration, but would make it more difficult to address any future work issues that may be required to be carried out on, or over the Land. This Option is not preferred.

Leasing a section of the road reserve to the Owner is not recommended.

4. Implications

4.1. Policy

In accordance with Council’s Leasing Policy 2008, the Owner would be deemed a “Group One” Tenant as there is no community benefit to leasing the Land to an individual. As such the Owner would be required to pay a rental that is market driven and determined by a market rental assessment carried out by a valuer.

The Owner would also be required to have appropriate insurance to occupy the Land.

Page 17 of 106



A lease agreement would be required. Statutory advertising in relation to the proposed lease is not required if the term is less than 10 years, however, Council may wish to undertake this should the proposal to lease be agreed to.

The land in question is road reserve. Road reserves are established for community use and for the installation of services like water, sewerage, telecommunications and gas. Future use of this land has not been determined at this time however to encumber the land would restrict the rights of Council and service authorities to access the land for community purposes.


A valuation on the land indicates that the commercial return on such land would be 5% of the market valuation. The land in question is approximately 108sqm and this equates to $4860 per annum.

Should a lease be agreed, the owner would be required to modify the footpath to allow an additional pram crossover to be installed. Additional costs for site survey, any advertising and legal support would be at the Owner’s expense.

A small ongoing cost would accrue to manage the lease arrangement.


No significant environmental impacts would be presented by the proposal, however the road reserve would potentially contain additional hard impermeable surfaces.

4.5. Social impacts

The land may be required at a future time for footpath connectivity, road alignment, or access for other authorities assets. The footpath currently terminates near the Nepean Highway fence and does not directly connect to the other side of Hansen Street. The proposed lease would require the existing footpath to terminate at the neighbouring property and a pram crossing to be installed directing pedestrians to cross Hansen Street to gain access to Nepean Highway. At this time the future use of the road reserve can not be fully determined with changing transport and infrastructure options. At some significant time in the future, transport needs may require Hansen Street to again connect to the Nepean Highway road reserve.


In August 2015, Council consulted with local residents in the form of a streetscape change survey in relation to the proposal to lease the Land to the Owner.

21 surveys were sent out with a 38% response rate.

6 responses supported the proposal. Of these supporting responses the following issues were identified:

Must be for strictly private use

Any lease must be at a commercial rate not a peppercorn

Lessee responsible for maintenance and regularly inspected by Council

The land must not be offered to purchased/included/claimed in title of 3 Hansen Street at a future time

There were 2 responses which objected to the proposal on the following grounds:

Not consistent with amenity of the area

Council land should be dedicated to public not private use

Not appropriate to construct private infrastructure on Council reserve

Page 18 of 106


Want footpath connectivity works

Not available to other residents

6. Summary

Council manages road reserves to deliver significant community benefits such as footpath connectivity, road alignment, water, sewerage and other underground assets. Where such land is not required by Council an approach to occupy by an owner is addressed via an application to discontinue and sell the land. The request to lease the Land is due to a number of unsuccessful attempts by the Owner to purchase the Land.

A lease over the Land will encumber the road reserve and potentially impact access at a future time should Council or another Authority require the Land for works. This would set a precedent should a similar set of circumstances occur in the future if a lease is supported.

Consultation with residents was undertaken in relation to the proposed change in streetscape with mixed feedback. There are strongly divergent views between the owner and Council in relation to the lease area and appropriate rental return.

A lease of the Land is not supported as there is no notable community benefit to the proposal.

Recommendation

That Council does not lease a section of the road reserve land abutting 3 Hansen Street to the owners of 3 Hansen Street and advises the owner accordingly.

Page 19 of 106


Attachment 1 Land requested for lease

Red – Council land sought for lease – approx 108 sqm triangle

Green VicRoads Land – small triangle over old bike path access

Page 20 of 106


10.2 Review of the Residential Zones

City Strategy - Urban Strategy

File No: PSF/15/4019


To inform Councillors of the State Government’s intention to undertake an independent review of the new residential zones. At this stage the Minister for Planning is seeking Council’s view on the new residential zones from a technical perspective, to understand how the tools used to implement the zones are working, including parent controls and/or zone schedules and to identify what improvements could be made.

2. Background

The State Government position on planning when elected in late 2014 indicated that an independent review on the residential zones changes would commence in late 2015. The Minister for Planning has written to Council (refer Attachment 1) , seeking initial comments from Council to understand what elements within the planning provisions of the Planning Scheme are working well and potential improvements to the residential zones provisions. This opportunity for input with respect to the technical aspects of the zones is the initial step in the review.

The entire intent of the overall review is not clear at this time. The scope, purpose and Terms of Reference have not been defined. Based on conversations with the Senior Project Manager at the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP), information obtained in this first stage of the process will shape the scope and purpose of the overall review and frame the Terms of Reference for a future independent Advisory Committee process. Correspondence from the Department indicates that there will be future opportunities for Council to provide further input.

The new zones were introduced into the Victorian Planning System in July 2013, and came into effect into the Bayside Planning Scheme in 19 June 2014.

Council was actively involved during the consultation opportunities available during the reformed residential zones process. This included a submission to the New Residential Zones Discussion Paper and a submission on the New Residential Zones Consultation Draft. In summary, Council’s submissions raised issues that at the time related to the implementation of the zones and the uncertainty about the final form and content of the new provisions.

The form and content of the new provisions and the way in which the new residential zones have been applied in Bayside have addressed most of the issues raised in previous submissions with the exception of:

The inclusion of density controls into the General Residential Zone and Residential Growth Zone;

The lack of provision of transitional height arrangements at the interface between two zones; and

No inclusion of Environmental Sustainable Design provisions in the schedules to the zone, such as creating higher energy rating for new residential developments.

Further, the implementation of the new residential zones saw 14 Councils across Victoria go through stage 1 of the Residential Zones Standing Advisory Committee who reviewed each of the residential zones proposals and accompanied submissions. Reports were prepared for each of the Advisory Committee processes and included detailed recommendations. The Stage Government at the time agreed with a range of proposals in response to the recommendations of the Advisory Committee and made a commitment to progress these recommendations through a VC Amendment. A total of 6 recommendations were agreed to be progressed, including:

Consolidation and update of 3 Planning Practice Notes as part of the ongoing program review of practice notes;

Page 21 of 106


Review the integration of the zone schedules and overlay to provide guidance on the relationship between zones and overlays;

Remove reference to four storey development from the purpose of the Residential Growth Zone; and

Amend Clause 32.09-8 to allow for the applicable flood level to be included in the maximum building height.

Recommendations provided by the Residential Zones Standing Advisory Panel have not been progressed.

3. Discussion

Officers have undertaken a technical review of the operation of the new zones since implementation in June 2014. This work has assisted to inform Council’s submission.

3.1. Draft Submission

A draft submission (refer Attachment 2) addresses the technical issues and opportunities for improvement within the residential zone provisions. A detailed table is provided in the draft submission which clearly outlines the zone or schedule (specific clause), proposed change and/or issue.

In summary issues and opportunities for improvement identified relate to:

The existing wording within the zone schedules is confusing and leads to various interpretations of when a permit or an exemption is required, this applies to:

o Permit requirements to construct or extend a front fence within 3 metres of the street

o Provisions in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone for a permit requirement to construct or extend a dwelling on a lot of less than 300m2 or a lot less than the lot size specified in the schedule to this zone

Addressing a loophole where by planning permits for new dwellings or extensions are issued under an Overlay control only (e.g. Special Building Overlay or Design and Development Overlay), are not required to meet maximum height limits specified under the relevant zone (e.g Neighbourhood Residential Zone) because the zone does not trigger a planning permit.

Providing clarification as to the meaning of meeting the ‘requirements’ of Clause 54 and 55 in relation to whether it means objectives, standards or both.

4. Implications

4.1. Policy

The implementation of the residential zones is a reflection of The Bayside Housing Strategy 2012 and Council’s strategic planning framework. Both policies are consistent with the following Strategic Objectives contained in the Council Plan:

Strategic objective 1.1: Ensuring decisions are informed by community input and clearly communicated what we decided and why.

Strategic objective 3.1: Protecting and enhancing amenity, liveability and neighbourhood character.

Strategic objective 4.1: Achieving positive environmental outcomes.

Strategic objective 7.2: Ensuring open and transparent decision making and strong accountability to the community.

Page 22 of 106


Adoption and implementation of the Bayside Housing Strategy 2012 is also consistent with the directions contained in the Bayside Planning Scheme Review 2011.


There are no immediate legal or statutory requirements relevant to this report. The statutory operation of the zones has been reviewed and identified issues and options for improvement may be considered as part


There are no financial or resource implications as a result of this report.


There are no environmental impacts as a result of this report.

4.5. Social impacts

There are no social impacts as a result of this report.


No public consultation has occurred to inform this initial stage of the review. Information obtained in this first stage of the process will shape the scope and purpose of the overall review and frame the Terms of Reference for a future independent Advisory Committee process. Correspondence from the Department indicates that there will be future opportunities for Council to provide further input.

6. Summary

The State Government have started the review process of the reformed residential zones, introduced into the Bayside Planning Scheme in June 2014. The review is in its early stages and the Minister for Planning is seeking comments from Council that relate to the technical aspects of the zones, to understand how the tools used to implement the zones are working, including, parent controls and/or zone schedules and identify what improvements could be made.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. adopts the draft submission at Attachment 2 as its response to the State Government’s Technical Review of the Residential Zones;

2. authorises the Director City Strategy to make any necessary editorial changes to the submission; and

3. advocates to the State Government to provide further opportunities as part of an extensive engagement process for the Review of the Residential Zones.

Page 23 of 106


10.3 Playground Improvement Plan

Community Services - Youth, Recreation & Events

File No: FOL/14/57


This report presents for Council’s adoption, the Playground Improvement Plan (2015 -2025) (Attachment A) and recommends funding to implement the Plan over a 10 year period.

2. Background

Council has 61 existing playgrounds with the majority requiring various levels of renewal and upgrade. Council receives over 70 complaints each year regarding the condition of playgrounds in Bayside. Of a total of 350 pieces of play equipment in Bayside, just over 30% or 125 individual pieces of play equipment do not meet current Australian Standards. The oldest piece of equipment located at Spring Road, Hampton East dates back to 1970.

To plan and guide playground improvements a Playground Improvement Plan (2015 – 2025) (the Plan) has been prepared.

The Plan identifies that the majority of Bayside is generally well serviced with playgrounds and the community has access to a playground within a walkable distance of 400 – 500 metres. The investigation of a new playground in St. James Park, Brighton will address a gap in the provision of playgrounds in the north of the City. The Plan also recommends investigating the installation of a new playground to service new residents of the proposed CSIRO development site in Highett.

Playgrounds are classified in the Plan as either pocket, local, district or regional/municipal, which determines the level of service required and infrastructure that can be expected.

A ‘Precinct’ planning approach is recommended for the future provision and planning of playgrounds within Bayside. A Precinct is defined as a residential catchment within an area defined by busy roads or railway lines which children cannot be expected to cross independently. Precinct assessments are based on the principle that within most residential catchments or precincts, children and families could reasonably expect to find a range of play opportunities that suit their needs.

3. Discussion

3.1 Public Exhibition - Feedback

A draft Playground Improvement Plan (2015 – 2025) was publicly exhibited from 28 August 2015 to 25 September 2015.

Council received one submission and 26 comments on Council’s Have Your Say webpage in response to the draft Playground Improvement Plan. These submissions are summarised and responded to within Attachment B. Comments primarily focussed on improvements to individual playgrounds. This feedback has been kept on file for reference when each specific playground is scheduled for upgrade.

Points of feedback are:

The classification of the Sandringham Beach Playground as a regional/municipal playground rather that a district playground, which recognises the ancillary facilities, including car park, toilet, BBQ and high its profile location; and

All contributors supported the addition of two new playgrounds within Bayside.

Page 24 of 106


3.2 Funding

The Plan estimates that $10.48M (current costs) is required to upgrade Council’s playground facilities to current standards. This includes an additional facility in Brighton (pocket playground).

Council’s 10 year Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) nominates annual funding of approximately $520,000 towards the annual renewal and upgrade of playground facilities. With Council’s current investment, the implementation of the Plan is not expected to be completed until 2035 (20 years).

A proposed funding model (refer Table 1. All figures are in current day $) has been developed that will enable Council to ambitiously complete the implementation of the Plan in 10 years (2015 – 2025). In addition to existing provisions within Council’s Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP), this funding model incorporates funding from Council’s Early Years Facilities Fund and additional funding from the Open Space Reserve Fund.

Table 1: Proposed funding model to implement the Playground Improvement Plan (2015 – 2025)

Year of Implementation

Long Term Financial Plan

Early Years Facilities Fund

Open Space Reserve Fund

TOTAL FUNDING

2015/2016 $780,000 $425,000 $1,205,000

2016/2017 $520,000 $25,000 $420,000 $965,000

2017/2018 $520,000 $500,000 $1,020,000

2018/2019 $520,000 $520,000 $1,040,000

2019/2020 $520,000 $480,000 $1,000,000

2020/2021 $520,000 $695,000 $1,215,000

2021/2022 $520,000 $490,000 $1,010,000

2022/2023 $520,000 $545,000 $1,065,000

2023/2024 $520,000 $805,000 $1,325,000

2024/2025 $520,000 $130,000 $650,000

TOTAL FUNDING

$5.5M

$0.45M

$4.68M

$10.48M

This proposed funding model will exhaust the remaining funding within Council’s Early Years Facilities Fund in 2016/17 (estimated at $450,000). Approximately $9M is held in the Open Space Reserve Fund that is unallocated at this time. Annually Council allocates approximately $1M from the Open Space Reserve Fund to fund capital works projects, including playground improvements. Given the forecast growth (potentially $1.5M per annum) of the Open Space Reserve Fund, there is capacity for Council to allocate additional funding to ensure the implementation of the Plan within the proposed 10 year timeframe.

4. Implications

4.1. Policy

The need to develop a strategic approach for Council’s playgrounds is identified in the ‘Active by the Bay’ Recreation Strategy, Wellbeing for All Ages and Abilities Strategy – Early Years Action Plan and the Recreation and Open Space Asset Management Plan (OS-AMP).

Page 25 of 106



The Plan recommends the importance for playground facilities to meet relevant Australian Standards.


The funding model to implement the Plan incorporates additional contributions from Council’s Early Years Facilities Fund and Open Space Reserve Fund. The allocation of funding from these Funds towards playground improvements is consistent with their purpose and intent.

Council may revisit the allocation of the funding to playground improvements as part of the preparation of a strategic framework/plan to guide the allocation of the Open Space Reserve Fund (expected to be completed by the end of 2015). It is anticipated that this strategic framework/plan will assist Council to prioritise the allocation of the Open Space Reserve Fund for the purpose of improving or enhancing open space facilities.


Council is committed to achieving positive environmental outcomes through sustainable design principles, which will be considered as part of the design development phases for the proposed playground redevelopments.

4.5. Social impacts

The Bayside ‘Active by the Bay’ Recreation Strategy (2013-2022) supports the development of plans to prioritise the renewal and development of recreation and sporting facilities. Improved playground facilities provide an opportunity for increased community connectivity and greater community health outcomes.


In response to a draft Playground Improvement Plan (2015 – 2025), Council received 27 submissions and/or comments on Council’s Have Your Say webpage.

Detailed consultation will be carried out with local residents during the planning/design phase of each playground improvement project. All consultation will be conducted in accordance with Council’s Community Engagement Policy and Framework.

6. Summary

The Playground Improvement Plan (2015 – 2025) provides an approach to ensure safe, challenging and engaging playgrounds for children within Bayside. The Plan is based upon technical assessments and ensures community access to playgrounds.

Approximately $10.48M is required to implement the Plan. A funding model incorporating funding from Council’s Early Years and Open Space Reserve Funds is proposed to implement the Plan over a 10 year period.

Page 26 of 106


Recommendation

That Council:

1. adopts the Playground Improvement Plan (2015 – 2025) as set out as Attachment A;

2. allocates $450,000 from the Early Years Facilities Fund and $4.68M from Council’s Open Space Reserve Fund to implement the Playground Improvement Plan (2015 – 2025);

3. considers the implementation of the Playground Improvement Plan (2015 – 2025) as part of the preparation of Council’s future annual budget processes; and

4. advises submitters of the outcome of Council’s consideration of the Playground Improvement Plan (2015 – 2025).

Page 27 of 106


10.3 Playground Improvement Plan

Community Services - Youth, Recreation & Events

File No: FOL/14/57

Attachment B

COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK

Council received one submission and 26 comments on Council’s Have Your Say webpage in response to the draft Plan.

The submission and comments are summarised within the following table:

No. Summarised feedback Council response

1 Request for outdoor gym equipment in proximity to playground equipment. Outdoor gym infrastructure has not been identified as playground equipment and therefore is not considered as part of the Plan.

2 Would like a basketball ring and or tennis wall included at Curly Rourke Reserve, Hampton East. Outdoor fitness equipment should be added to a handful of playgrounds around the Bayside area.

Will be kept on file for consideration when the playground at Curley Rourke Reserve is scheduled for upgrade.

3 Wishart Reserve is missing from the Plan. NG Wishart Reserve is included in the Plan.

4 The playground (rubber playing area) on Hampton Beach isn't mentioned. The playground needs a complete overhaul with decent play equipment installed. In its current state it's a waste of space. Hampton beach appears to be the only Bayside beach without a proper playground.

The playground at Hampton Beach is listed as Hampton Foreshore Recreation Node. The Plan suggests that when the existing rubber reaches the end of its usable life an alternative design, more in keeping with a beach setting is developed.

5 The playground at Basterfield Lake should be fenced. A risk assessment will be undertaken in October 2015 to determine any level of risk and if required recommend an appropriate risk management strategy.

6 Consider including playground equipment in the John Batman Gardens, Sandringham.

It is not considered appropriate to install play equipment in John Batman Gardens (Bay Road Sandringham), due to its small size and the close proximity of the Allambee Park playground.

Page 28 of 106


No. Summarised feedback Council response

7 Should be on the Council's plan to include more (playgrounds) and to notify where the nearest is.

The Council website will be updated to include clearer information regarding the location of playgrounds

8 & 9

Sandringham Beach Park should also be in the municipal park list. It has all facilities, is located near station and is not near any of the other municipal parks.

The Sandringham Beach playground was incorrectly classified in the draft Plan as a district level playground. The Sandringham Beach Playground has been classified as a regional/municipal level playground in the Plan.

10 FE Tricks Reserve needs a toilet facility. The playground at FE Tricks Reserve is a District playground and a site of high dependence, the installation of a public toilet will be considered when the playground is scheduled for upgrade.

11 Disappointed Train Street Highett is not scheduled for upgrade until 2021/2022.

Playgrounds are prioritised based on their condition as determined by an independent auditor.

12 Disappointing the Wilson St Reserve in Middle Crescent is not listed for an upgrade until 2018/19. Need to fix the broken boat and horse.

Playgrounds are prioritised based on their condition as determined by an independent auditor. An open space maintenance request has been lodged for repairs and/or replacement to the broken boat and horse equipment.

13 Expenditure should not be set in stone and the Council should be open as to how much they spend per playground.

Noted.

14 The new flying fox at Cheltenham Park should have a double wire. Will be kept on file for consideration when the playground at Cheltenham Park is scheduled for upgrade.

15 Would really like to see more parks classified to have toilet facilities, Where no toilet facilities can be made available could the council consider a sign which indicates where the nearest public toilets are located.

Public toilet needs in Bayside are identified and implemented in accordance with Council’s Public Toilet Strategy.

16 Cheltenham Park has been classified correctly based on the criteria you have established for municipal parks.

Noted.

Page 29 of 106


17 Council should “buy local” when they purchase new equipment. Supportive of two new additional playgrounds

Where appropriate and subject to Council’s procurement policies and processes locally manufactured materials and equipment is sourced.

18 There don’t seem to be enough playgrounds that cater to all abilities. Supportive of two new additional playgrounds.

Council aims to provide playgrounds that offer and encourage play experiences that promote independence for people of all abilities.

The Plan recommends the installation of inclusive playground elements in each precinct to ensure that everyone can play on something. While the Plan also recognises that not everyone can play on everything.

19 -26

Submitters supported the addition of two additional playgrounds within Bayside.

Noted.

Page 30 of 106


10.4 Retail, Commercial and Employment Strategy - Issues and Options Paper, Appointment of Community Representative Group and Terms of Reference


File No: FOL/14/841


To present the draft Retail, Commercial and Employment Strategy Issues and Options Discussion Paper for endorsement by Council for the purposes of community consultation and engagement, and to appointment members to the Community Representative Group and adopt the Terms of Reference.

2. Background

2.1. Background

A recommendation of Council’s Economic Development Strategy 2014 and the Bayside Planning Scheme Review 2011 is to prepare a Retail, Commercial and Employment Strategy (RCE Strategy). The RCE Strategy will provide a vision for Council’s commercial areas and guide future investment across activity centres and the Bayside Business Employment Area (BBEA).

The Strategy will be informed by the background analysis which has included investigating the existing policy context for commercial uses in Bayside, a review of commercial land uses in Bayside’s key employment areas and a detailed demographic analysis and floor area forecasts. The background analysis informs a draft Background Issues and Options Paper which is the subject of this report.

A community consultation program was endorsed by Council at its 25 August 2015 Ordinary Meeting, which included appointing a Community Representative Group (CRG). The role of the CRG is to provide local knowledge through input and feedback to assist in the development of the strategy. The CRG is one element of the community engagement program, with a range of other activities occurring throughout the engagement stages of the project.

Councillors were provided an opportunity to inform the draft Background Issues and Options Paper at the Strategic Issues Discussion held on 15 September 2015.

3. Discussion

3.1. Background Issues and Options Discussion Paper

Following a comprehensive review of the background information, a draft Background Issues and Options Paper has been prepared (refer Attachment 1), which outlines:

The history of Bayside’s economy and its influencing factors;

Bayside’s population profile and demographic trends; and

Detailed analysis of the Bayside Business Employment Area (BBEA) and Major Activity Centres (MACs), including the current context and future growth scenarios.

As Council continues to receive pressure to rezone parts of the BBEA to allow residential uses, a range of scenarios have been analysed to understand the impact on the BBEA under each scenario, including ‘business as usual’ option, ‘advanced manufacturing’ option, ‘residential redevelopment’ option and a ‘hybrid’ option. The implications of each option are detailed in the draft Background Issues and Options Paper. However, of the four scenarios the ‘advanced manufacturing’ option creates the highest number of employment opportunities in the BBEA, with the ‘residential redevelopment’ option creating the lowest number of jobs.

Page 31 of 106


Analysis of the activity centre conditions indicates that each centre is generally performing well, due to the distinct characteristic of Bayside activity centres which possess strong specialty retailers. The small local retailers play an important role in job creation. Retail and hospitality will continue to grow and evolve. One such example is the emergence of growth of online retailing. With the growth of online retailing, it is possible for warehousing opportunities to be established within the BBEA which support specialty retailers who possess a strong online presence.

The background analysis has indicated that incremental growth in the retail sector should be managed and that there are challenges in balancing ground level retail uses, encouraging office and commercial uses and residential demand within activity centres. Redevelopment in activity centres often sees ground level retail frontages retained, however first and upper floors are converted to residential uses, losing the opportunity for offices and other commercial uses to be provided.

As part of the first stage of community consultation, relevant data will be presented to the CRG and key stakeholders to discuss the scenarios, implications and what level of intervention may be appropriate.

3.2. Membership to Community Representative Group

A nomination process occurred throughout September 2015 with 31 nominations received. The mixture of respondents is summarised at Attachment 2.

It is proposed that the CRG include 20 members and represents a balance of residents, developers, community group representatives, business owners from all wards and the primary commercial areas of Bayside.

The nominations were largely high quality and where not selected for the CRG, many have indicated an interest in attending a separate community workshop as part of the consultation process.

Having reviewed the nominations, a shortlisting process was undertaken to ensure a broad range of skills and experiences could be brought to the discussion and avoiding duplication where possible.

It is recommended that the following members be appointed to the CRG:

Catherine Symes

Catherine Taylor

Linda Graudins

Louise Kay

Cameron Gregson

William Meares

Warwick Pattinson

Michael O’Neill

Dr Julie Rosengren

Andrew Warner

Tony Shepherd

Amy Shaw

Jenny Stefos

Kylie Charlton

Venendra Pal

Troy Jansen

Matt Nichols

Michael Hoyle

Danielle King

Paul Stoner

The nominees represent a range of ages, gender, geographic distribution across Bayside, length of residence in Bayside and commercial and residential interests.

Both the successful and unsuccessful nominees will be notified in writing and will be encouraged to participate in the community engagement stages of the project.

Page 32 of 106


3.3. Terms of Reference

The community representative group terms of reference has been prepared by Council officers to ensure that participants and stakeholders are aware of the purpose, requirements and process of the community representative group. The draft Terms of Reference is included as Attachment 3 to this report.

The Terms of Reference confirm that the purpose of the group is to facilitate discussion and ideas, and that the group or its members are not authorised to speak on behalf of Council and do not have any decision making delegation. Each participant will be asked to sign and acknowledge the Terms of Reference prior to the first CRG workshop.

3.4. Next Steps

Following Council’s adoption of the draft Issues and Options Paper, the first stage of community consultation will occur throughout November 2015, as outlined in the engagement program presented to Council at its August 2015 Ordinary Meeting. The outcomes of the first stage of community consultation will inform the development of the RCE Strategy, a draft of which will be presented to Council in early 2016 before a second round of community consultation occurs.

4. Implications

4.1. Policy

The preparation of an RCE Strategy is an action from the Economic Development Strategy 2014 and the Bayside Planning Scheme Review, and is identified in the Annual Action Plan for 2015/16.


There are no direct legal implications from adopting the draft Background Issues and Options Paper for the purpose of consultation, or as a result of the appointment of the CRG and its Terms of Reference.


Funding has been provided in the 2015/16 Budget to progress the RCE Strategy including an allocation of funds to implement the community consultation program.


Adopting the draft Background Issues and Options Paper for consultation will not result in any direct environmental impacts.

4.5. Social impacts

The proposed community engagement program will allow Bayside residents and key stakeholders to become involved in the development of the RCE Strategy.


A community consultation approach was adopted by Council at its 25 August 2015 Ordinary Meeting. Following adoption of the draft Issues and Options Paper the community consultation process will commence in November 2015. This will include the CRG, drop-in sessions, individual meetings, a community workshop and static and online displays throughout the two community consultation stages of the project.

Page 33 of 106


6. Summary

As part of the development of the RCE Strategy a Background Issues and Options Discussion Paper has been prepared to inform the first stage of community consultation. The Paper summarises the economic conditions for commercial land in Bayside and analyses scenarios for future growth.

Following a nomination process, 20 participants have been selected for a CRG and are presented to Council for appointment. Further, the Terms of Reference for the CRG are also provided for adoption.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. endorses the draft Issues and Options Discussion Paper for the purpose of community consultation;

2. appoints the membership of the Community Representative Group;

3. adopts the attached Terms of Reference for the Community Representative Group; and

4. authorise the Director City Strategy to make any necessary editorial changes to the Issues and Options Paper.

Page 34 of 106


Attachment 2

Summary of Community Representative Group Applications

Criteria Responses

Total 31 applications

Age Range

2 people aged between 18-35



3 people aged over 65

Gender

13 Female

18 Male

CALD / ATSI / DISABILITY 2 CALD 1 Disability

Representation:

(noting that some may meet more than one category)

25 Residents

13 Business Owners

3 Community Groups

Representation

8 Northern Ward

7 Central Ward

14 Southern Ward

2 Other/Unclear/Not disclosed

Page 35 of 106


10.5 Bayside Planning Scheme Amendment C113 - Proposed Mandatory Height Controls - Sandringham Village Major Activity Centre




To present Council with Planning Scheme Amendment C113 for a decision, following the Planning Panel’s recommendation that the Amendment be abandoned and Council’s subsequent correspondence with the Minister for Planning.

2. Background

Amendment C113 seeks to change the preferred commercial precinct height controls to mandatory height controls in the Sandringham Village Major Activity Centre (MAC). Current height controls in the Sandringham Village MAC are contained in the Design and Development Overlay, Schedule 8 (DDO8), which was approved by the Minister for Planning through Amendment C100 in 2013. The DDO8 provides six built form precincts within the following height controls:

Commercial Precincts

Precinct A – 16.0 metres (5 storeys) preferred

Precinct B – 13.5 metres (4 storeys) preferred

Precinct C – 11.0 metres (3 storeys) preferred

Mixed Precinct

Precinct E2 – 11.0 metres (3 storeys) preferred and 19.0 metres (5 storeys) mandatory maximum

Residential Precincts

Precinct E – 11.0 metres (3 storeys) mandatory maximum

Precinct F – 11.0 metres (3 storeys) mandatory maximum and the third storey must be an attic.

Council was authorised in 2012 to prepare and exhibit Amendment C113 to the Bayside Planning Scheme, which proposed to change the preferred commercial precinct height controls to mandatory. At its Ordinary Meeting of 27 August 2013 Council resolved to remove the E2 Precinct and incorporate this area within Precinct E, and seek reauthorisation of C113. The Amendment was reauthorised to include these changes on 11 December 2013. Amendment C113 was publicly exhibited between 3 April 2014 and 5 May 2014 with 121 submissions received (including ten late submissions).

At Council’s request, an independent Planning Panel was appointed under delegation from the Minister for Planning on 10 October 2014. The Panel Hearing was held for Amendments C113, C114 and C115 on 1, 2 and 5 December 2014 with Council represented by Maddocks Lawyers.

The Panel concluded that there was not sufficient justification for the amendment, and recommended that Council abandon C113. Council considered the Planning Panel’s report (refer Attachment 1) at its Ordinary Meeting of 24 February 2015, and resolved to request a meeting with the Minister for Planning to discuss the Panel’s recommendation and advocate to the Minister the approval of the Amendment. Cr Frederico wrote to the Minister for Planning in March 2015 (refer Attachment 2) seeking to discuss the matters outlined in Council’s letter.

On 13 May 2015 the Mayor, Chief Executive Officer and staff met with the Minister for Planning and discussed a range of current Bayside projects with a view to obtaining his support.

Page 36 of 106


3. Discussion

3.1. Planning Panel’s Recommendations

The Planning Panel Report for C113 recommends that the Amendment be abandoned as it considered that there was insufficient justification to pursue mandatory height controls in the Sandringham Village MAC.

Having considered submissions from Council and submitters, the Planning Panel considered:

‘There are insufficient strategic bases to justify the application of mandatory maximum heights in the Commercial zones of the three activity centres;

A separate Precinct E2 is warranted in Sandringham Village to recognise existing and approved development that is higher than 3 stories. There is insufficient strategic justification to warrant a mandatory maximum 11 metre (3 storeys) building height;

The existing mandatory 11 metre (3 storey) building height in Precinct E provides the buffer to protect low density residential areas outside the activity centre from larger scale development in the activity centre core; and

A review of built form and design related provisions in each overlay would have been of greater benefit because not all concerns were related to the height.’ (page i)

In reaching these conclusions, the Panel considered a range of previous Panel reports including the Planning Panel report in relation to Bayside’s Amendment C2 and C100, regarding the use of mandatory provisions. The Panel referred to the following key messages of the various Panel reports:

‘The Victoria Planning Provisions are performance based;

Mandatory provisions should be applied only in exceptional circumstances and only where justified and necessary;

A mandatory maximum height should not be applied where approved or existing buildings already exceed that height; and

Preferred maximum heights are not to be exceeded unless the proposal provides an exemplary response to the site, its context, design objectives and other policy in the planning scheme.’ (p14)

The Panel considered that whilst a revised metropolitan planning strategy has been adopted for Melbourne and the classification of activity centres has changed, the fundamentals of planning for activity centres has not changed significantly and that there was not any compelling evidence to justify the introduction of mandatory height controls.

The Panel referred to the Planning Panel Report relating to C100-103 which implemented the Structure Plans for the four MACs (Sandringham, Bay Street, Church Street and Hampton) into the Bayside Planning Scheme and proposed specific height provisions. The C100-103 Panel commented that the role of MACs is to ‘accommodate growth and change’ (p81), a sentiment reiterated in the C113-115 Panel Report.

Further, the Panel commented that the ‘2006 Structure plans are outdated and require review.’ (p29). Throughout the report, the Panel indicates that in order to warrant the imposition of mandatory height controls, an up to date structure plan including a detailed built form analysis would first need to provide sufficient strategic justification.

Having regard to the comments made in the Panel Report, it is unlikely that undertaking further strategic work would justify the change from preferred to mandatory controls.

Page 37 of 106


3.2. Meeting with the Minister for Planning

At the meeting with the Minister for Planning, the Hon Richard Wynne MP, Council outlined Council’s disappointment with the Planning Panel’s recommendation that C113 be abandoned and outlined its case for Amendment C113 to be approved. There was no clear direction from the Minister for Planning at that meeting in relation to Amendment C113.

Following the meeting, Council again wrote to the Minister for Planning to advocate for the approval of Amendment C113 (refer Attachment 3).

The Minister responded in writing on 30 August 2015 (refer Attachment 4) and advised that he considers it “premature and inappropriate” to express a position before Council has resolved to adopt or abandon the Amendment.

Given Council’s strong commitment to pursuing mandatory height controls, and the significant resources invested in the process, it is considered that rather than Council abandoning the Amendment, that Council should adopt Amendment C113 and request the Minister for Planning to approve the Amendment.

4. Implications

4.1. Policy

The following represents relevant Planning Policy, including recent changes to planning policy, guidance and population projections:

4.1.1. Bayside Planning Scheme

The State Planning Policy Framework and the Municipal Strategic Statement of the Bayside Planning Scheme currently provide guidance in relation to Activity Centres in Clause 11 and Clause 21.11 respectively. The State Planning Policy has been recently amended following the approval of Plan Melbourne but continues to advocate for increased densities in Activity Centres.

Bayside Planning Scheme Amendment C106 zoned 83% of residential land in Bayside in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. This will potentially increase the development pressure for higher density development in the Sandringham Village Activity Centre.

4.1.2. Plan Melbourne

The State Government adopted Plan Melbourne in June 2014 as a policy position to guide Melbourne’s development through to 2050. Direction 4.1, “Create a city of 20-Minute Neighbourhoods”, is relevant to this matter. Plan Melbourne, the metropolitan planning strategy, has continued state government support for increased density in Activity Centres.

4.1.3. Bayside Housing Strategy 2012

The Bayside Housing Strategy 2012 identifies Sandringham Village as a location for future moderate and key focus residential growth with medium and high density residential development. It is therefore important to ensure built environment controls facilitate built form outcomes for these centres that achieve this future role.

4.1.4. Council Plan 2013-2017

Planning Scheme Amendment C113 responds to the following strategic objectives of Council Plan:

Strategic Objective 1.1 – Ensuring decision are informed by community input and clearly communicate what we decided and why; undertaking the Planning Scheme Amendment exhibition process offered the opportunity for the community to engage with Council’s decision making and to participate in the decision making process by lodging submissions in response to Amendment C113.

Page 38 of 106


Strategic Objective 7.2 – Ensuring open and transparent decision making and strong accountability; a thorough public exhibition of Amendment C113 was undertaken to ensure an open and transparent process to pursue the amendment therefore achieving this strategic objective.

4.1.5. Sandringham Village Structure Plan 2006

The preparation of height controls within the Sandringham Village MAC area is consistent with the objectives of the Sandringham Village Structure Plan 2006, which seek to ensure that development conserves and enhances the valued urban character.


The Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) governs the Planning Scheme Amendment process. The progression of the amendments has been undertaken in accordance with the Act. The Minister for Planning makes the final decision on Amendment C113.


Council has allocated funds to progress Amendment C113 in the 2015/16 Budget.


The amendment will not have any direct environmental impacts.

4.5. Social impacts

The amendment will not have any direct social impacts.


Amendment C113 was widely advertised as part of the statutory exhibition of the Amendment with submissions received. Submitters were provided an opportunity to present at the Panel hearing in December 2014.

6. Summary

Amendment C113 that seeks to introduce mandatory height controls in the Sandringham MAC has progressed through the exhibition and Planning Panel process. The independent Planning Panel has recommended that Council abandons Planning Scheme Amendment C113 as there was not sufficient strategic justification. Council subsequently resolved to defer consideration of Amendment C113 to further advocate to the Minister for Planning for the approval of the Amendment. Following a meeting on 13 May 2015 and subsequent correspondence with the Minister for Planning, Amendment C113 is now being presented to Council for a decision. Whilst from a technical perspective there are no further grounds to pursue, it is recommended on the basis of Council’s strong preference for mandatory height controls that Council adopts Amendment C113 and requests the Minister for Planning approve the Amendment.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. adopts Amendment C113;

2. requests the Minister for Planning approve Amendment C113; and

3. writes to all submitters and advises them accordingly.

Page 39 of 106


10.6 Bayside Planning Scheme Amendment C114 - Proposed Mandatory Height Controls - Bay Street Major Activity Centre





2. Background

Amendment C114 seeks to change the preferred commercial precinct height controls to mandatory height controls in the commercial precincts of the Bay Street Major Activity Centre (MAC). Current height controls in the Bay Street MAC are contained in the Design and Development Overlay, Schedule 10 (DDO10), which was approved by the Minister for Planning through Amendment C101 in 2013. The DDO10 provides four built form precincts within the following height controls:






Precinct E1 – 11.0 metres (3 storeys) preferred or 12.0 metres (3 storeys) maximum.

Council was authorised in 2012 to prepare and exhibit Amendment C114 to the Bayside Planning Scheme, which proposed to change the preferred commercial precinct height controls to mandatory. At its Ordinary Meeting of 16 September 2014 Council resolved to request the Minister for Planning appoint an independent Planning Panel to consider the submissions received in response to Amendment C114.

At Council’s request an independent Planning Panel was appointed under delegation from the Minister for Planning on 10 October 2014. The Panel Hearing was held for Amendments C113, C114 and C115 on 1, 2 and 5 December 2014 with Council represented by Maddocks Lawyers.

The Panel concluded that there was not sufficient justification for the amendment, and recommended that Council abandon C114. Council considered the Planning Panel’s report (refer Attachment 1) at its Ordinary Meeting of 24 February 2015, and resolved to request a meeting with the Minister for Planning to discussion the Panel’s recommendation and advocate to the Minister the approval of the Amendment. Cr Frederico wrote to the Minister for Planning in March 2015 (refer Attachment 2) seeking to discuss the matters outlined in Council’s letter.

On 13 May 2015, the Mayor, Chief Executive Officer and staff met with the Minister for Planning and discussed a range of current Bayside projects with a view to obtaining his support.

3. Discussion


The Planning Panel Report for C114 recommends that the Amendment be abandoned as it considered that there was insufficient justification to pursue mandatory height controls in the Bay Street MAC.

Page 40 of 106


Having considered submissions from Council and submitters, the Planning Panel considers:

‘There are insufficient strategic bases to justify the application of mandatory maximum heights in the Commercial zones of the three activity centres (Page i).’

In reaching this conclusion, the Panel considered a range of previous Panel reports including the Planning Panel report in relation to Bayside’s Amendment C2 and C101, regarding the use of mandatory provisions. The Panel referred to the following key messages of the various Panel reports:














Page 41 of 106


4. Implications

4.1. Policy




Bayside Planning Scheme Amendment C106 zoned 83% of residential land in Bayside in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. This will potentially increase the development pressure for higher density development in the Bay Street Major Activity Centre.




The Bayside Housing Strategy 2012 identifies the Bay Street MAC as a location for future moderate and key focus residential growth with medium and high density residential development. It is therefore important to ensure built environment controls facilitate built form outcomes for these centres that achieve this future role.

4.1.4. Council Plan 2013-2017




4.1.5. Bay Street Centre Final Structure Plan 2006

The preparation of height controls within the Bay Street MAC area is consistent with the objectives of the Bay Street Centre Final Structure Plan 2006, which seek to ensure that development conserves and enhances the valued urban character.





Page 42 of 106




4.5. Social impacts



Amendment C114 was widely advertised as part of the statutory exhibition of the Amendment with submissions received. Submitters were provided an opportunity to present at the Planning Panel hearing in December 2014.

6. Summary

Amendment C114 that seeks to introduce mandatory height controls in the Bay Street MAC has progressed through the exhibition and Planning Panel process. Having regard to the recommendation of the Planning Panel to abandon Amendment C114, Council resolved to defer consideration of Amendment C114 to further advocate to the Minister for Planning for the approval of the Amendment. Following a meeting on 13 May 2015 and subsequent correspondence with the Minister for Planning, Amendment C114 is now being presented to Council for a decision. Whilst from a technical perspective there are no further grounds to pursue, it is recommended on the basis of Council’s strong preference for mandatory height controls that Council adopts Amendment C114 and requests the Minister for Planning approve the Amendment.

Recommendation

That Council:




Page 43 of 106


10.7 Bayside Planning Scheme Amendment C115 - Proposed Mandatory Height Controls - Church Street Major Activity Centre





2. Background

Amendment C115 seeks to change the preferred commercial precinct height controls to mandatory height controls in the Church Street Major Activity Centre (MAC). Current height controls in the Church Street MAC are contained in the Design and Development Overlay, Schedule 11 (DDO11), which was approved by the Minister for Planning through Amendment C102 in 2013. The DDO11 provides four built form precincts within the following height controls:




Precinct D – 9.0 metres (2 storeys) to 11.0 metres (3 storeys) preferred



Council was authorised in 2012 to prepare and exhibit Amendment C115 to the Bayside Planning Scheme, which proposed to change the preferred commercial precinct height controls to mandatory. At its Ordinary Meeting of 16 September 2014, Council resolved to request the Minister for Planning appoint an independent Planning Panel to consider the submissions received in response to Amendment C114.

At Council’s request, an independent Planning Panel was appointed under delegation from the Minister for Planning on 10 October 2014. The Panel Hearing was held for Amendments C113, C114 and C115 on 1, 2 and 5 December 2014 with Council represented by Maddocks Lawyers.

The Panel concluded that there was not sufficient justification for the amendment, and recommended that Council abandon C114. Council considered the Planning Panel’s report (refer Attachment 1) at its Ordinary Meeting of 24 February 2015, and resolved to request a meeting with the Minister for Planning to discussion the Panel’s recommendation and advocate to the Minister the approval of the Amendment. Cr Frederico wrote to the Minister for Planning in March 2015 (refer Attachment 2) seeking to discuss the matters outlined in Council’s letter.

On 13 May 2015, the Mayor, Chief Executive Officer and staff met with the Minister for Planning and discussed a range of current Bayside projects with a view to obtaining his support.

3. Discussion


The C113, C114 and C115 Panel Report (Attachment 3) recommends that Amendment C115 to the Bayside Planning Scheme be abandoned. The Panel considered that there was insufficient justification to pursue mandatory height controls in the Church Street MAC.

Having considered submissions from Council and submitters, the Planning Panel considers:

‘There are insufficient strategic bases to justify the application of mandatory maximum heights in the Commercial zones of the three activity centres (Page i).’

Page 44 of 106


In reaching this conclusion, the Panel considered a range of previous Panel reports including the Planning Panel report in relation to Bayside’s Amendment C2 and C102, regarding the use of mandatory provisions. The Panel referred to the following key messages of the various Panel reports:














Page 45 of 106


4. Implications

4.1. Policy




Bayside Planning Scheme Amendment C106 zoned 83% of residential land in Bayside in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone. This will potentially increase the development pressure for higher density development in the Church Street MAC.




The Bayside Housing Strategy 2012 identifies the Church Street MAC as a location for future moderate and key focus residential growth with medium and high density residential development. It is therefore important to ensure built environment controls facilitate built form outcomes for these centres that achieve this future role.

4.1.4. Council Plan 2013-2017




4.1.5. Church Street Centre Final Structure Plan 2006

The preparation of height controls within the Church Street MAC area is consistent with the objectives of the Church Street Centre Final Structure Plan 2006, which seek to ensure that development conserves and enhances the valued urban character.





Page 46 of 106




4.5. Social impacts



Amendment C115 was widely advertised as part of the statutory exhibition of the Amendment with submissions received. Submitters were provided an opportunity to present at the Planning Panel hearing in December 2014.

6. Summary

Amendment C115 that seeks to introduce mandatory height controls in the Church Street MAC has progressed through the exhibition and Planning Panel process. Having regard to the recommendation of the Planning Panel to abandon Amendment C115, Council resolved to defer consideration of Amendment C115 to further advocate to the Minister for Planning for the approval of the Amendment. Following a meeting on 13 May 2015 and subsequent correspondence with the Minister for Planning, Amendment C115 is now being presented to Council for a decision. Whilst from a technical perspective there are no further grounds to pursue, it is recommended on the basis of Council’s strong preference for mandatory height controls that Council adopts Amendment C115 and requests the Minister for Planning approve the Amendment.

Recommendation

That Council:




Page 47 of 106


10.8 Proposed Changes to Design and Development Overlay Schedule 4


File No: PSF/15/4019


To inform Council about a request from VicTrack seeking a letter of support to enable a Ministerial Planning Scheme Amendment to the Bayside Planning Scheme to include an exemption to the existing mandatory height controls to the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 4(DDO4), Highett Shopping Centre, to facilitate the replacement of railway infrastructure in accordance with the Bayside Railway Improvements Project.

2. Background

Metro Trains Melbourne is seeking to replace outdated overhead power structures along the Frankston Railway Line. The works are to be completed by the end of 2015 in line with the Government’s $100 million Frankston Line Improvement Project. The proposal involves removing the existing overhead at Highett Station and relocating it further north with a new improved gantry that will respond to the current safety standards and needs of the railway infrastructure system. The proposed replacement structure is approximately 15m in height.

The DDO4 applies to Highett Shopping Centre and seeks to implement the findings of the Highett Structure Plan in relation to building height and form in the part of the activity centre located within the City of Bayside. The boundary of the DDO4 runs along the midway point of the railway line as this is the defining boundary between the City of Kingston and the City of Bayside.

The DDO4 provides a mandatory maximum overall height of 11 metres which prohibits a permit to be granted for any buildings and works exceeding the prescribed height.

Given the nature of the project and the inability of the works to proceed without a Planning Scheme Amendment to the Bayside Planning Scheme to facilitate the railway improvements, VicTrack has requested Council support for the proposal (refer Attachment 1). The Department of Environment Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) has indicated its willingness to process the amendment to the DDO4 by way of a Section 20(4) amendment, which provides an exemption from notice of the amendment, conditional upon Council providing written support for the Amendment.

3. Discussion

The DDO4 applies to Highett Shopping Centre and seeks to implement the findings of the Highett Structure Plan in relation to building height and form in the part of the activity centre located within the City of Bayside. The boundary of the DDO4 runs along the midway point of the railway line as this is the defining boundary between the City of Kingston and the City of Bayside.

The DDO4 provides a mandatory maximum overall height of 11 metres which prohibits a permit to be granted for any buildings and works exceeding the prescribed height.

Metro Trains Melbourne is seeking to replace outdated overhead power structures along the Frankston Line. Many of these overhead structures have been in place for almost 100 years and are at the end of their service life. The proposed replacement structure is approximately 15m in height. The proposal involves removing the existing overhead at Highett Station and relocating it further north with a new improved gantry that will respond to the current safety standards and needs of the railway infrastructure system. The gantry will be located within the railway land and does not pose any direct amenity impact to properties within the Highett Activity Centre as there are no direct sensitive interfaces facing the railway corridor on the Bayside side of the railway line. Properties within close proximity to the proposed gantry are within the Commercial 1 Zone and have frontage to Highett Road. A service Road provides an extra buffer between the railway environments and these properties.

Page 48 of 106


It was not the intention of the DDO4 that it would prevent ongoing upgrades to railway infrastructure, as the wording of the height control refers specifically to commercial and residential buildings rather than the railway gantries, which are broadly considered to fall within the ‘building’ definition within the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act).

Officers have prepared a revised DDO4, following VicTrack request to ensure the exemption relates only to upgrades to railway infrastructure and does not provide a loop hole to facilitate any other form of development within the site(refer Attachment 2).

The proposed amendments to the DDO4, will have minimal impact to adjoining properties and will result in the provision of better transport infrastructure to the Bayside community. Providing a letter of support for this amendment process is considered to be appropriate. Further, it will also facilitate an opportunity to update the DDO4 to remove reference to the Residential Zone 1(R1Z) and replace it with the current General Residential Zone 1 (GRZ1).

4. Implications

4.1. Policy

Bayside Planning Scheme

The State Planning Policy Framework and the Municipal Strategic Statement of the Bayside Planning Scheme provide guidance in relation to improving and integrating sustainable transport services and ensuring adequate facilities at Clauses 18 and 21.09.


The amendment will be processed as a Ministerial Planning Scheme Amendment in accordance with the relevant sections of the Act.


There are no significant financial or resourcing implications as a result of the amendment to the DDO4.


There are no significant environmental impacts as a result of the amendment to the DDO4 or the works it facilitates.

4.5. Social impacts

The social impacts of the amendment to the DDO4 include ensuring that facilitated works improve railway infrastructure benefiting Bayside residents along the Frankston Railway Line.


Given the nature of the exemption is in the greater interests of the Victorian Public Transport System, there is no consultation or engagement required for the Amendment.

6. Summary

Metro Trains Melbourne is seeking to replace outdated overhead power structures along the Frankston Line. Many of these overhead structures have been in place for almost 100 years and are at the end of their service life. The proposed replacement structure is approximately 15m in height. The DDO4 applies to Highett Shopping Centre and seeks to implement the findings of the Highett Structure Plan in relation to building height and form in the part of the activity centre located within the City of Bayside. The boundary of the DDO4 runs along the midway point of the railway line as this is the defining boundary between the City of Kingston and the City of Bayside.

Page 49 of 106


The DDO4 provides a mandatory maximum overall height of 11 metres which prohibits a permit to be granted for any buildings and works exceeding the prescribed height. There are no DDO provisions for this area under the Kingston Planning Scheme. In order to facilitate the railway improvements proposed, it is recommended that a letter of support to enable a Ministerial Planning Scheme Amendment to the Bayside Planning Scheme to include an exemption to the DDO4 is provided to the Minister for Planning.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. writes to VicTrack expressing its support for the upgrade to the railway infrastructure;

2. writes to the Minister for Planning supporting an amendment to the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 4 pursuant to Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 as per Attachment 2 to this report;

Page 50 of 106


10.9 Panel of Consultants for Architectural, Engineering and Quantity Surveyor Services

Infrastructure Services - City Works

File No: CON/14/47


To consider the tenders received and to appoint a panel of consultants for CON1447 Panel of Consultants for Architectural, Engineering and Quantity Surveyor Services.

2. Background

Council invited tenders for a panel of consultants to provide Architectural, Engineering and Quantity Surveyor Services for a range of projects across Council.

Establishment of this panel will strengthen compliance with Council’s Procurement framework and Local Government Act procurement provisions. It will also ensure Council has a list of approved consultants and reduce the administrative processes required for the procurement of low value consultative services.

The scale of projects under this contract is expected to vary from project to project, with a general price range of between $15,000 and $150,000 per project. Appointed consultants will be invited to quote on a project by project basis in accordance with their submitted pricing schedules. The panel will comprise suitable contractors that have the prerequisite experience, relevant insurances and certifications, Quality Systems and work methodologies and directly employ a range of staff to adequately deliver projects for Council.

Successful firms will be placed on the panel of consultants for an initial period of three years with the option to extend by a further one plus one years.

It is intended that the majority of Council’s consultant service requirements will be sourced from the approved panel. Council reserves the right to seek tenders from consultants not on the panel if work is of a specialist nature not well served by firms or the panel, or if it is considered that for some other reason an open tender process would benefit Council. Council does not guarantee that any consultant named on the panel will receive a minimum quantity, or any, work.

3. Tenders Received

This Request for Tender (RFT) was undertaken in accordance with the Bayside City Council’s Quotation and Tendering Procedure and section 186 of the Local Government Act 1989.

A public tender was advertised in The Age and released through TenderSearch on Saturday 25 July 2015. The RFT closed Wednesday 19 August 2015 with 63 submissions received, of the submissions, some responded to multiple service areas, while others responded to a single discipline.

4. Selection Criteria

The following criteria (listed in order of importance) were used to evaluate the tenders:

1. Financial benefit: Points are allocated based on the competitiveness of the schedule of rates provided;

2. Relevant Experience (Company): Points are allocated on the basis of the tenderer’s involvement with contracts of a similar nature;

3. Technical Skills and Resources: Points are allocated on the basis of the resources experience and qualifications;

4. Project Methodology: Points are allocated on the basis of the understanding the common challenges dealing with various community groups and managing key stakeholders;

Page 51 of 106


5. Quality Systems: Points are allocated on the QA qualifications and certification provided; and

6. Local Suppliers: Points are allocated on the locality of the office, any specific contributions to the Bayside community and residence in Bayside.

5. Tenders Analysis

The Tender Evaluation Panel carried out the tender analysis using the weighted selection criteria. The result of the analysis is attached in Council’s Confidential Attachment 1: CON1447 Tender Evaluation Matrix.

The consultants recommended for inclusion on the panel are:

Architectural

1. Greenway Hirst Page Pty Ltd 2. Crosier Scott Architects t/a Crosier Scott and Associates Pty Ltd 3. K20.AU Pty Ltd t/a K20 Architecture 4. Dale Cohen Architects Pty Ltd 5. Hede Architects Pty Ltd 6. James O Millar Pty Ltd t/a James Millar Architects & JMA Architects 7. Katz Architecture Pty Ltd

Civil (Road & Drainage)

8. SMEC Australia Pty Ltd 9. CRE Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd 10. Fisher & Fisher Pty Ltd 11. Koukourou Pty Ltd t/a FMG Engineering 12. Civil Road Solutions Pty Ltd 13. TGM Group Pty Ltd 14. W& Engineers Victoria Pty Ltd t/a Wallbridge & Gilbert

Landscaping

15. Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd 16. Group GSA Pty Ltd 17. 2MH Consulting Pty Ltd

Quantity Surveyor

18. Slattery Australia Pty Ltd 19. Donald Cant Watts Corke (VIC) Pty Ltd 20. Prowse Quantity Surveyors Pty Ltd 21. Muller Pty Ltd atf Muller Unit Trust 22. Sweett (Australia) Pty Ltd t/a Sweett Group

All recommended tenderers achieved above the minimum required scores in the selection criteria and conform with Council’s form of contract.

6. Implications

6.1. Council Plan

This project is consistent with the 2013–17 Council Plan as identified under Strategy 3.2.1: Ensuring community assets and infrastructure meet current and expected needs. The establishment of the panel will provide access to a range of consultants required to deliver asset and infrastructure related services.

Page 52 of 106


6.2. Financial

The implementation of a panel of consultants has no direct financial implications for Council. Approved consultants will be invited to a selective quotation process for projects valued between $15,000 and $150,000 that are funded as part of the Capital Works approved budgets.

The appointment of a Panel of approved Consultants for Architectural, Engineering and Quantity Surveyor Services will strengthen compliance with Council’s Procurement Framework and the Local Government Act procurement provisions.

6.3. Service

The panel will improve the service to the community by providing a streamlined approach to procure services from a list of compliant consultants (refer Confidential Attachment 2).

7. Implementation/Communication

Upon Council resolution to establish the Panel, and approval of the recommended Consultants, Award Letters will emphasise that this Contract does not guarantee any work and all projects will still be subject to competitive quotation in accordance with Council’s procurement framework. This Contract is a pre-qualifying Contract only.

8. Performance Measurement

Time, cost and quality targets will be achieved by monitoring performance of the contract at regular intervals on specific projects.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. awards contract CON1447 Panel of Consultants for Architectural, Engineering and Quantity Surveyor Services to:

2MH Consulting Pty Ltd (ABN: 83 090 539 503)

Civil Road Solutions Pty Ltd (ABN: 13 151 174 104)

CRE Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd (ABN: 11 078 132 804)

Crosier Scott Architects t/a Crosier Scott and Associates Pty Ltd (ABN: 56 006 330 070)

Dale Cohen Architects Pty Ltd (ABN: 83 106 604 648)

Donald Cant Watts Corke (VIC) Pty Ltd (ABN: 77 147 657 010)

Fisher & Fisher Pty Ltd (ABN: 26 934 726 804)

Greenway Hirst Page Pty Ltd (ABN: 33 006 574 241)

Group GSA Pty Ltd (ABN: 76 002 113 779)

Hansen Partnership Pty Ltd (ABN: 20 079 864 716)

Hede Architects Pty Ltd (ABN: 17 089 721 139)

James O Millar Pty Ltd t/a James Millar Architects & JMA Architects (ABN: 59 007 406 206)

K20.AU Pty Ltd t/a K20 Architecture (ABN: 49 101 332 503)

Katz Architecture Pty Ltd (ABN: 92 101 078 415)

Koukourou Pty Ltd t/a FMG Engineering (ABN: 58 083 071 185)

Muller Pty Ltd atf Muller Unit Trust (ABN: 33 650 179 041)

Prowse Quantity Surveyors Pty Ltd (ABN: 83 097 049 548)

Slattery Australia Pty Ltd (ABN: 13 668 345 421)

SMEC Australia Pty Ltd (ABN: 47 065 475 149)

Sweett (Australia) Pty Ltd t/a Sweett Group (ABN: 97 128 823 843)

TGM Group Pty Ltd (ABN: 11 125 568 461)

Page 53 of 106


W&G Engineers Victoria Pty Ltd t/a Wallbridge & Gilbert (ABN: 59 127 466 997)

2. authorises the Chief Executive Officer to sign the contract documents; and

3. advises the unsuccessful tenderers accordingly.

Page 54 of 106


10.10 The Victorian Local Government Women's Charter


File No: COR 1234


To re-affirm Council’s commitment to the Victorian Local Government Women’s Charter: to outline a number of activities to consider as actions against 2013/2017 Council Plan Goal 1; and to actively demonstrate support for the Charter and the promotion of gender equity, diversity and women’s participation in active citizenship.

2. Background

In 1996 the Women’s Participation in Local Government Coalition (WPILG) was formed to work towards the equal participation of women and men in local government.

2010 was declared the Australian Local Government Women’s Association (ALGWA) Year of Women in Local Government and the Coalition received funding from the Victorian Government to work with local government to adopt the Victorian Local Government Women’s Charter and create 3x3 actions plans (3 actions for each of the 3 principles: build gender equity, invite diversity and support women’s active citizenship.)

Council in 2010 was one of a number of Victorian Councils that endorsed the Local Government Women’s Charter and supported the Year with focussed activities promoting women in leadership roles by hosting a number of lunches for women leaders in the community. At the same time Council adopted a Statement of Commitment to promote greater women’s participation in local government.

By 2012, 64 of Victoria’s 79 local governments had signed on to the Charter with many creating actions plans to implement the three principles.

The Women’s Charter is a significant agreement between three peak bodies which represent the interests of local government namely:

The Municipal Association of Victoria;

The Victorian Local Governance Association; and

The Women’s Participation in Local Government Coalition.

“Victorian Local Government Women’s Charter

Recognising the need for increased women’s participation in the key decision making forums in the community and in democratic governance, we, the local governments of Victoria, on behalf of our communities support the following principles:

Gender Equity That women and men have an equal right to be representatives in local government, committees and decision-making positions.

Diversity The inclusion of different experiences and perspectives in local governments and community decision-making strengthens local democratic governance and helps build cohesive communities. Council and communities encourage and welcome the participation of all women.

Active Citizenship Local governments will work with the community to increase the numbers and participation of women in public life, so that decision making more clearly represents and reflects the interests and demographies of communities.”

Page 55 of 106


Furthermore, many Councils have also taken the next step in supporting the Women’s Charter by also endorsing the following statement of commitment:

Statement of Commitment

“We will work towards increasing the representation of women in local government, both as elected members and as senior managers and professionals. We will undertake ongoing reviews of policies and practices to remove barriers to women’s participation and to engender safe, supportive working and decision making environments that encourage and value a wide range of views.”

3. Discussion

It is proposed that Council reaffirms its support and endorses the Victorian Local Government Women’s Charter and reaffirms its support to the Statement of Commitment.

It is also considered appropriate that Council considers the further opportunities to support the Women’s Charter within local government. Some opportunities proposed could be accommodated during this financial year which are as follows:

Actions for Gender Equity

1. Conduct an annual Women Matter in Local Democracy workshop encouraging women’s leadership and participation in political civic and community decision-making processes. This could be very similar to the luncheon conducted in May 2015.

2. Develop a mentoring program for newly elected women councillors.

3. Review Council policies and entitlements to ensure they are family and carer friendly.

4. Scheduling Council and Committee meetings as much as possible to try and avoid clashes with peak family times and ensure child care is available and accessible for Councillors with parental responsibilities.

5. Continue to review representation to improve gender equity on Council various committees, networks and forums.

Actions for Diversity

1. Promote Access for All and encourage people of all abilities to participate in Council activities by identifying and rectifying any exclusion barriers.

Actions for Active Citizenship

1. Avoid exclusionary processes and procedures and meeting times that create barriers and make it difficult for women to participate.

Page 56 of 106


4. Implications

4.1. Policy

Council has previous resolved to support the Victorian Local Government Women’s Charter and the Statement of Commitment and the recommended opportunities for Council’s consideration are intended to support women and the spirit of the of the Charter and are consistent with the Human Rights Charter.


Whilst there is no legal or statutory requirement to endorse a Women’s Charter, the proposal to re-confirm the Charter and the actions proposed in the action plan are consistent with the Human Rights Charter to provide diversity and access to all in civic life.


The opportunities identified within the Action Plan can be accommodated within the current financial year budget.



4.5. Social impacts

Increasing women’s participation in decision making has the potential to strengthen local democracy and improve the quality of community representation. The participation of women in civic life also assists in building more connected and cohesive communities.


The Action Plan will be widely communicated across the organisation and also attached to the Women’s Charter on the website, Corporate Centre and Libraries.

6. Summary

It is proposed that Council re-affirms its strong commitment to the Victorian Local Government Women’s Charter and Statement of Commitment and supports the activities outlined in the Action Plan that align against the 2013/2017 Council Plan Goal 1.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. reaffirms its commitment to the Victorian Local Government Women’s Charter and the Statement of Commitment; and

2. endorses the Action Plan as outlined in the report to support Goal 1 of the 2013/2017 Council Plan.

Page 57 of 106


Action Plan

KEY GENERAL ACTIONS

Action Responsible Timeline

1. Council reaffirm its commitment to the Victorian Local Government Women’s Charter

Council October 15

2 Publish the Women’s Charter on Council’s website and display it at the Corporate Centre and other work premises.

Council October 2015

3. Review the Charter Action Plan on an annual basis Council October 2016 and annually thereafter.

ACTIONS FOR GENDER EQUITY (Principle 1)


1.1 Conduct an annual Women Matter in Local Democracy Workshop encouraging women’s leadership and participation in political civic and community decision-making processes.

CEO DComm EMC&CS

May 2016

1.2 Develop a mentoring program for newly elected women councillors

CEO November/ December 2015

1.3 Review Council policies and entitlements to ensure they are family and carer friendly

CEO EMOD

Ongoing

1.4 Scheduling Council and Committee meetings as much as possible to try and avoid clashes with peak family times and ensure child care is available and accessible.

DCorp Ongoing

1.5 Review representation to improve gender equity on Council’s various Committees and forums

CEO Ongoing

ACTIONS FOR DIVERSITY (Principle 2)


2.1 Promote Access for All and encourage people of all abilities to participate in council activities by identifying and rectifying any exclusion barriers.

DComm On going

ACTIONS FOR ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP (Principle 3)


3.1 Avoid exclusionary processes and procedures and meeting times that create barriers and make it difficult for women to participate.

DCorp Ongoing

Page 58 of 106


10.11 Instrument of Delegation - From Council to Members to Staff


File No: COR.1234


To review the Instrument of Delegation from Council to Members of Staff as a result of organisational changes.

2. Background

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

Delegations are essential to enable Council staff to specifically carry out professional duties particularly in areas which involve enforcement, such as Planning, Local Laws, Environmental Health, Animal Management, Parking Control and Road Management.

Council currently has in place an Instrument of Delegation from Council to Members of staff specifically relating to various Acts of Parliament, however as a result of an organisational change some departments are now reporting to changed directorates, therefore it is necessary to amend the Instrument of Delegation to correctly reflect these changes.

3. Discussion

This Instrument provides delegation from Council to specific members of Council staff to undertake a specific duty or power in accordance with a specific section of an Act of Parliament.

This Instrument has been updated to reflect new directorates titles and titles of specific officers and reallocation of duties to specific officers as a result of the organisational changes.

Of note to Council, no change has been made to existing delegations that trigger the reporting of planning permit applications and VCAT related Secondary Consent applications to the Planning Committee as previously resolved at the Council Meeting on 21 May 2013.

4. Implications 4.1. Policy


Page 59 of 106



The proposed Instrument of Delegation is based on a document prepared by Council’s Lawyers and is the template commonly used by many Victorian municipalities. The review of this specific Instrument of Delegation is in accordance with section 98 of the Local Government Act 1989.





4.5. Social impacts



Relevant Managers and Directors have been consulted in the updating of the proposed amended delegations.

6. Summary

Having reviewed the Instrument of Delegation from Council to Members of Council Staff, it is proposed that Council revokes those delegations previously approved by Council and adopts the new Instrument of Delegation to Members of Council Staff to reflect the organisational changes which take effect from 30 October 2015.

Recommendation

In the exercise of the powers conferred by section 98(1) of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act) and the other legislation referred to in the attached instrument of delegation, dated 27 October 2015 of Bayside City Council (Council), that Council: -

1. Resolves that there be delegated to the members of Council staff holding, acting in or performing the duties of the offices or positions referred to in the attached Instrument of Delegation to members of Council staff, the powers, duties and functions set out in that instrument, subject to the conditions and limitations specified in that Instrument;

2. The instrument comes into force immediately the common seal of Council is affixed to the instrument;

3. On the coming into force of the instrument all previous delegations to members of Council staff (other than the Chief Executive Officer) dated 25 August 2015 are revoked;

4. The duties and functions set out in the instrument must be performed, and the powers set out in the instruments must be executed, in accordance with any guidelines or policies of Council that it may from time to time adopt; and

5. Signs and seals the Instrument of Delegation.

Page 60 of 106


10.12 Financial Report for 8 months to 31 August 2015

Corporate Services - Finance

File No: COR 1234


The following financial report provides a summary and analysis of Council’s financial performance for two months to 31 August 2015.

2. Background

The financial report is designed to report against the 2015/16 adopted budget to ensure consistency and compliance with the Adopted Budget, and to measure Council’s overall financial performance.

The reports include:

Operating Result

Capital Result

Cash Position

Victorian Auditor-General’s Office Indicators

Balance Sheet

The report also includes the following detailed financial schedules:

Income Statement (Attachment 1)

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

Capital Projects (Attachment 2)

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

Cash Flow Statement (Attachment 3)

This report 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.

Balance Sheet (Attachment 4)

The balance sheet reports the assets and liabilities to show the net worth of Council.

Page 61 of 106


3. Discussion

3.1 Operating Result

Line Item in $'000s

YTD

Adjusted

Budget

YTD

Actuals

YTD

Budget

Variance

2015/16

Adjusted

Budget

Current

Forecast

Full Year

Forecast

Variance

Operating Services & New Initiatives Budget

Income

Rates & Charges 13,905 13,944 39 82,350 82,350 -

Statutory Fees & Charges 635 706 71 3,990 4,042 52

User Fees 1,371 1,440 69 7,462 7,480 18

Rental Income 1,298 1,340 42 3,970 3,970 -

Contributions-Cash-Operating 167 465 299 1,025 1,084 59

Grants-Operating 2,355 2,049 (306) 10,075 8,837 (1,237)

Grants-Capital - 187 187 1,749 1,533 (216)

Contributions-Cash-Capital - - - 1,699 287 (1,412)

Interest Income 243 315 72 1,460 1,714 254

Other Income 337 347 10 1,700 2,317 617

Net Profit/(Loss) on Disposal of assets - 327 327 - 1,226 1,226

Total Income 20,310 21,120 809 115,480 114,840 (640)

Expenditure

Employee Costs 6,987 6,718 269 38,840 38,631 208

Materials and Services 8,103 7,066 1,036 42,538 42,720 (182)

Bad and Doubtful Debts 1 3 (2) 172 172 -

Depreciation and Amortisation 2,533 2,565 (31) 15,206 15,389 (183)

Other Expenses 97 40 57 519 438 81

Finance Costs 138 138 - 730 730 -

Total Expenditure 17,859 16,530 1,329 98,004 98,080 (75)

Operating Result - Surplus 2,451 4,589 2,138 17,476 16,761 (715)

2015/16 Year to date operating Result

The August year to date result is a surplus of $4.6M which is $2.1M favourable to Budget.

2014/15 Forecast operating result

The current forecast for the year represents a surplus of $16.7M which is ($715k) unfavourable to Budget.

The unfavourable forecast variance of ($715k) includes a number of one off items totalling ($1.165M):

($1.267M) – 50% Grants Commission funding received in 2014/15.

($1.628M) – Forecast Capital funding lower than budget mainly due to: o ($2.155M) – Banksia Reserve Beaumaris Pavilion Redevelopment funding to now

be received in 2016/17 when project completed. o $129k – Unbudgeted grant funding to be received for Half Moon Bay Boat Ramp

Reconstruction.

Page 62 of 106


o $180k - Unbudgeted grant funding to be received for North Road Jetty Storm Damage reconstruction

o $267k Unbudgeted grant funding to be received for Half Moon Bay catwalk & Carpark Storm Damage.

$1.226M – Net proceeds for the sale of Sandringham Child Care Centre. Deposit received in July.

$598k – One-off reimbursement from the waste disposal contract for carbon price paid in 2014/15. This is to be used to offset 2016/17 waste management charges which will have the full year impact of the organic waste contract.

$254k – Interest income from term deposits forecast to increase due to favourable operating cash position and the cash collected on behalf of State Revenue Office for Property Fire Services Levy which are invested in short term deposits.

$130k – Latest estimate for the installation of Sustainable Public Lighting to result in savings.

($303k) – Forecast expenditure for the Aged Care Regional Projects where the funding was received in advance in 2014/15

$63k – 2015/16 Insurance premiums lower than the estimate in the budget

($183k) – Depreciation increase due mainly to building assets found in 2014/15 and unbudgeted foreshore capital projects.

($56k) – Forecast expenditure for the Integrated Water Management Plan where the funding was received in 2014/15.

Once these items above are accounted for the underlying forecast variance is $450k favourable to budget.

$215k – Decrease in workcover premiums relating to a reduction in the workcover rate.

Page 63 of 106


Operating result by Division

3.2 Operating Surplus by Division

Division (in '000s)

2015/ 16

YTD

Adjusted

Budget

2015/ 16

YTD

Ac tuals

2015/ 16

YTD

Adjusted

Variance

2015/ 16

Adjusted

Budget

Current

Forecast

2015/ 16

Adjusted

Budget

less

Forecast

Variance

2015/16

Adjusted

Budget

Percentage

Variance

1. Executive 673 684 (11) 4,006 4,025 (19) -0.5%

2. Corporate Services 1,550 1,118 432 7,139 7,037 103 1.4%

3. Infrastructure 4,562 3,869 693 29,976 29,855 122 0.4%

4. City Strategy 432 375 57 3,748 3,700 48 1.3%

5. Community Services 1,587 1,433 154 11,710 11,896 (186) -1.6%

Underlying Operating 8,805 7,480 1,325 56,579 56,512 67 0.1%

Rates (13,654) (13,694) 40 (82,245) (82,245) 0 0.0%

Corporate Finance (134) (752) 618 (3,568) (4,596) 1,028 -28.8%

Capital Income - (187) 187 (3,448) (1,820) (1,628) 47.2%

Depreciation 2,533 2,565 (32) 15,206 15,389 (183) -1.2%

Grand Total (2,451) (4,589) 2,138 (17,476) (16,761) (715) -4%

Executive forecast unfavourable ($19k)

($18k) – Higher than expected legal expenses relating to Human Resources.

Corporate Services forecast favourable $103k

$63k –2015/16 Insurance premiums lower than the estimate in the budget.

$56k – Savings in fleet costs mainly due to a decrease in leasing costs.

Infrastructure forecast favourable $122k

$130k – Latest estimate for the installation of Sustainable Public Lighting to result in savings.

$42k – Lower expenditure required for Building Maintenance Program.

($58k) – Integrated Water Management Plan funding received in 14/15.

City Strategy forecast favourable $48k

$18k – Footpath permit applications increase due to building activity.

$14k – Increase in the number of Animal Registrations.

$19k – Savings relating to vehicle leasing costs in Building.

$40k – Increase in income for planning fee applications due to strong property market.

($10k) – Lower than expected grant funding for Economic Development.

($33k) – Other minor variances

Page 64 of 106


Community Services unfavourable ($186k)

($303k) – Aged Services Regional projects funded from 2014/15 grants – timing.

$30k – Regional Assessment expenditure unbudgeted.

$21k – Additional Library Grant funding received unbudgeted.

$10k – Increase in Maternal and Child Health funding.

$56k – Other minor variances

Corporate Finance favourable $1.028M

$1.226M – Net proceeds for the sale of Sandringham Child Care Centre. Deposit received in July.

$598k – One-off reimbursement from the waste disposal contract for carbon price paid in 2014/15. This is to be used to offset 2016/17 waste management charges which will have the full year impact of the organic waste contract.

$254k – Interest income from term deposits forecast to increase due to favourable operating cash position and the cash collected on behalf of State Revenue Office for Property Fire Services Levy which are invested in short term deposits.

($1.267M) - 50% Grants Commission funding received in 2014/15.

$215k – Decrease in workcover premiums relating to a reduction in the workcover rate.

3.3 Cash and Investments

The cash position of $63.28M has increased by $6.54M from $56.7M and is $5.25M favourable to budget as at August 2015 due to $7.7M greater cash balance than budgeted.

Restricted funds include trust funds, reserves, and long service leave commitments.

Major Reserves Movements in 2015/16 include:

Opening balance of Infrastructure reserve includes $2.53M of savings from capital works in 2014/15.

$3.26 million unbudgeted sale of Sandringham St Child Care to be quarantined in the Early Childhood Facilities Reserve.

$0.5 million annual top-up of the Defined Superannuation Reserve subject to 2015/16 LTFP

Council’s investments totalling $57.5M at 31 August are 100% term deposits. They are as follows:

Page 65 of 106


Financial Institution Long Term Short Term

Suncorp A+ A-1 Term Deposit 1,000 10/09/2015 3.12% 182

CBA AA- A-1+ Term Deposit 1,000 24/09/2015 3.20% 213

CBA AA- A-1+ Term Deposit 1,000 24/09/2015 3.20% 209


BOQ A- A-2 Term Deposit 1,000 12/10/2015 2.30% 47


NAB AA- A-1+ Term Deposit 4,500 29/10/2015 2.92% 174




ANZ AA- A-1+ Term Deposit 4,000 27/11/2015 3.04% 154














NAB AA- A-1+

Floating Rate

Deposit 4,000 29/02/2016

2.93% to 27

Sept 186

Total 57,500 WOA 2.98%

Investment

Term (Days)

S & P Rating

Investment Type

Principal

Investment

( $'000) Maturity Date

Interest

Rate %

A+, 17%

A-, 14%

AA-, 69%

Investments by S & P Rating

Page 66 of 106


3.4 Victorian Auditor – General’s Office (VAGO) indicators

Indicator

VAGO Target

(to maintain

low risk)

Forecast

Performance

Forecast

Achievable

Liquidity

(Current assets / Current liabilities) > 1.5 2.51 Yes

Self-financing

(Net operating cash flow / Underlying revenue) > 20.0% 27.07% Yes

Capital Replacement

(Total Capital spend : Depreciation) > 1.5 1.99 Yes

Indebtedness

(Non-current liabilities/Own source revenue) < 40.0% 3.15% Yes

Underlying result

(Net surplus/Revenue) > 0% 14.59% Yes

Renewal gap

(Renewal capital spend:Depreciation) > 1.0 0.95 No

Definitions:

Liquidity - the ability to pay liabilities within the next 12 months.

Self Financing - the ability to replace assets using cash generated from day to day operations.

Capital Replacement - to ensure sufficient spending on capital renewal and new capital works.

Indebtedness - the ability to repay debt from own source revenue being revenue not tied to specific projects.

Underlying result - sufficient operating income to cover operating expenses.

Renewal gap - to ensure sufficient spending on existing capital assets.

Page 67 of 106


3.5 Capital Results

Capital expenditure is running behind budget by $483k year to date.

$'000's

15/16 YTD

Adjusted

Budget

15/16 YTD

Actuals Variance

2014/15

Adjusted

Budget

Current

Forecast

Forecast

Budget

Variance

Forecast

rollover to

2016/17

Variance

including

rollover

Capital Income - 187 187 3,448 1,820 (1,628) (2,155) 2,342

Capital Expenditure 1,694 1,211 483 33,846 30,560 3,286 4,000 (3,517)

Grand Total 1,694 1,024 670 30,398 28,741 1,658 1,845 (1,175)

4541,694

2,921

5,003

6,928

9,214

12,144

14,594

17,478

20,933

25,021

30,398

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mch Apr May Jun

$(0

00

's)

Capital Programs Status

2015/16 Actual 2015/16 Budget

YTD Capital Revenue - favourable $187k

YTD capital income is favourable mainly due to:

$63k – Sportsground Lighting - Boss James Reserve grant funding received earlier than budgeted.

$63k– Sportsground Lighting - Simpson Reserve grant funding received earlier than budgeted.

$54k – Sportsground Lighting - Synthetic Green and Lighting-Brighton Beach Bowls Club grant funding received earlier than budgeted.

YTD Capital Expenditure - favourable $483k

YTD capital expenditure is favourable by $483k mainly due to:

$151k – Dendy Park Ground Stabilisation Works to commence in September 2015.

$65k – IP Telephony-Renew Telephone System project to commence in September 2015.

$57k – Upgrade to MS Outlook roll out to organisation by December 2015

$40k – Hampton Street Sense of Place Works, continuation from 14/15.

$45k – Library Resources and Collections delay in expenditure

Page 68 of 106


Capital Forecast Revenue – unfavourable ($1.62M)

Forecast capital funding lower than budgeted mainly due to:

($2.1M) – Banksia Reserve Beaumaris Pavilion Redevelopment funding to be received at completion of project in 16/17.

$267k – Half Moon Bay Catwalk & Carpark Storm Damage, funding to be received at completion of project.

$128k – Half Moon Bay Boat Ramp Reconstruction, funding to be received at completion of project in 15/16.

$180k – North Road Jetty Storm Damage Reconstruction, funding to be received at completion of project in 15/16.

Capital Forecast Expenditure – favourable $3.3M

YTD capital expenditure is favourable mainly due to:

$2.4M – Banksia Reserve Beaumaris Pavilion Redevelopment, continuation from 14/15 to be completed in 16/17.

1.2M – Dendy Street Masterplan Implementation, continuation from 14/15 to be completed in 15/16.

$300k – Hurlingham Park Pavilion Redevelopment, continuation from 14/15 to be completed in 16/17.

($200k) – Half Moon Bay Boat Ramp Reconstruction, continuation from 14/15 to be completed 15/16.

($200k) – North Road Jetty Storm Damage Reconstruction, continuation from 14/15 to be completed 15/16.

($150k) – Cheltenham Recreation Reserve Pavilion, unbudgeted project to commence in 15/16.

4. Implications

4.1. Policy

The monthly financial report is identified within Goal 7 in the Council Plan 2013-2017 Strategic Objective 7.2.2- Reporting regularly to our community on Council’s performance.


Section 138 of the Local Government Act 1989 prescribes that, at least every three months, a financial report of revenue and expenditure be presented to Council.


The year-end forecast is a surplus of $16.7M which is ($715k) unfavourable to budget.

The unfavourable forecast operating result of ($715k) includes a number of one off income items totalling ($1.165M). Once these one off items are accounted for, the underlying forecast variance is $450k favourable.

The capital result forecast including the anticipated rollover of projects to 2015/16 is $1.175M unfavourable to budget.



Page 69 of 106


4.5. Social impacts



There is no consultation or engagement required with this report.

6. Summary

This report represents the financial result to 31 August 2015 for both Operating and Capital. The forecast year end surplus for the operating budget is (715k) unfavourable. Excluding the one-off items, the underlying result is 450k favourable to budget.

The capital result forecast including the anticipated rollover of projects to 2015/16 is $1.175M unfavourable to budget.

Recommendation

That Council notes the financial report for operating and capital for the two months ending 31 August 2015.

Page 70 of 106


Attachment 1

Income Statement

Line Item in $'000s

YTD

Adjusted

Budget

YTD

Actuals

YTD

Budget

Variance

2015/16

Adjusted

Budget

Current

Forecast

Full Year

Forecast

Variance

Operating Services & New Initiatives Budget

Income

Rates & Charges 13,905 13,944 39 82,350 82,350 -

Statutory Fees & Charges 635 706 71 3,990 4,042 52

User Fees 1,371 1,440 69 7,462 7,480 18

Rental Income 1,298 1,340 42 3,970 3,970 -

Contributions-Cash-Operating 167 465 299 1,025 1,084 59

Grants-Operating 2,355 2,049 (306) 10,075 8,837 (1,237)

Grants-Capital - 187 187 1,749 1,533 (216)

Contributions-Cash-Capital - - - 1,699 287 (1,412)

Interest Income 243 315 72 1,460 1,714 254

Other Income 337 347 10 1,700 2,317 617

Net Profit/(Loss) on Disposal of assets - 327 327 - 1,226 1,226

Total Income 20,310 21,120 809 115,480 114,840 (640)

Expenditure

Employee Costs 6,987 6,718 269 38,840 38,631 208

Materials and Services 8,103 7,066 1,036 42,538 42,720 (182)

Bad and Doubtful Debts 1 3 (2) 172 172 -

Depreciation and Amortisation 2,533 2,565 (31) 15,206 15,389 (183)

Other Expenses 97 40 57 519 438 81

Finance Costs 138 138 - 730 730 -

Total Expenditure 17,859 16,530 1,329 98,004 98,080 (75)

Operating Result - Surplus 2,451 4,589 2,138 17,476 16,761 (715)

Page 71 of 106


Attachment 2

Capital Projects

CAPITAL in $'000's

Adjusted

Budget

YTD

Actual

Budget

Actual

Variance

fav./

(unfav)

2015/16

Adjusted

Budget

Current

Forecast

2015/16

Adjusted

Budget

less

Forecast

variance

2015/16

Carry

Forward

Balance

to 2016/17

Property Expenditure

Buildings 244 247 (3) 10,957 7,041 3,915 4,000

Building Improvements 192 75 117 2,376 2,574 (199)

Heritage Buildings 12 2 10 317 317 -

Plant & Equipment Expenditure

Fixtures, Fittings and Furniture 41 6 34 221 221 -

Arts and Culture 3 - 3 30 30 -

IT Systems, Network, Servers and

Communication 162 71 91 1,444 1,534 (90)

Library Assets 66 21 45 395 395 -

Infrastructure Expenditure

Foreshore and Conservation 32 198 (166) 1,183 1,632 (449)

Parks and Recreation 415 175 240 7,233 7,143 90

Off-Street Car Parks 10 (15) 25 418 391 27

Drainage Infrastructure 118 85 33 2,537 2,537 -

Road Infrastructure 400 346 54 6,735 6,743 (8)

Total Expense 1,694 1,211 483 33,846 30,560 3,286 4,000

Revenue

Grants - Capital - (187) 187 (1,749) (1,533) (216) (755)

Contributions - Cash- Capital - - - (1,699) (287) (1,412) (1,400)

Total Revenue - (187) 187 (3,448) (1,820) (1,628) (2,155)

Total 1,694 1,024 670 30,398 28,740 1,658 1,845

Page 72 of 106


Attachment 3

Cash Flow Statement

30.Jun.15

Actual Actual Budget Variance Budget Forecast Variance

$' 000 $' 000 $' 000 $' 000 $' 000 $' 000 $' 000

Inflows Inflows Inflows Inflows Inflows Inflows Inflows

(Outflows) (Outflows) (Outflows) (Outflows) (Outflows) (Outflows) (Outflows)

Cash flows from operating activities

Receipts

Rates and charges 79,011 17,124 17,274 (150) 82,246 81,915 (331)

Statutory fees and fines 4,384 772 664 108 3,865 4,061 196

User charges 8,289 1,406 1,296 110 8,743 8,769 26

Rental income 3,876 1,340 1,201 139 4,115 3,905 (210)

Contributions - monetary 2,833 465 416 49 2,024 1,371 (653)

Grants - Operating 11,534 2,049 1,860 189 10,458 9,002 (1,456)

Grants - Capital 854 187 171 16 2,177 1,653 (524)

Interest 1,968 514 413 101 1,473 1,745 272

Trust funds and deposits 428 2,229 2,280 (51) 148 176 28

Other receipts 1,714 - - 0 2,734 3,356 622

Net GST refund 5,367 910 773 137 5,044 4,849 (195)

Employee costs (37,945) (7,415) (7,636) 221 (38,732) (38,865) (133)

Payments to suppliers (47,633) (12,162) (12,333) 171 (50,480) (50,855) (375)

Net cash provided by (used in) operating

activities 34,680 7,419 6,379 1,040 33,815 31,082 (2,733)

Cash flows from investing activities

Payments for property, infrastructure, plant &

equipment (19,075) (1,221) (1,383) 162 (32,380) (30,590) 1,790

Proceeds from sale property, infrastructure,

plant & equipment 2,560 343 - 343 - 3,420 3,420

Proceeds from term deposit investments (15,000) (2,500) (6,500) 4,000 2,000 3,000 1,000

Net cash used in investing activities (31,515) (3,378) (7,883) 4,505 (30,380) (24,170) 6,210

Cash flows from financing activities

Finance costs (920) - 16 (16) (721) (735) (14)

Proceeds from borrowings - - - 1,500 - (1,500)

Repayment of borrowings (2,174) - - - (4,181) (4,181) -

Net cash used in financing activities (3,094) - 16 (16) (3,402) (4,916) (1,514)

Net increase(decrease) in cash and cash

equivalents 71 4,041 (1,488) 5,529 33 1,996 1,963

Cash and cash equivalents at the

beginning of the period 3,675 3,746 4,022 (276) 4,022 3,746 (276)

Cash and cash equivalents at the end of

the period 3,746 7,787 2,534 5,253 4,055 5,742 1,687

Term Deposits 53,000 55,500 55,500 4,977 43,000 50,000 1,411

Total cash and cash equivalents at the

end of the period 56,746 63,287 58,034 10,230 47,055 55,742 3,098

Unrestricted 24,255 30,109 31,570 (1,461) 21,339 23,418 2,079

Restricted and Committed funds 32,491 33,178 26,464 6,714 25,716 32,324 6,608

56,746 63,287 58,034 5,253 47,055 55,742 8,687

Cash and cash equivalents (including

investments) consists of:

Retail banks 52,000 57,500

Community banks 2,000 -

Cash on hand and at bank 2,746 7,787

Total cash and cash equivalents 56,746 65,287

Total interest bearing loans and

borrowings 11,503 11,503 11,503 0 8,823 7,322 1,501

Cashflow Statement - period ended 31 August 2015

31.Aug.15 31.Aug.15

Page 73 of 106


Attachment 4

Balance Sheet

30.Jun.15

Actual Actual Budget Variance Budget Forecast Variance

$' 000 $' 000 $' 000 $' 000 $' 000 $' 000 $' 000

Current assets

Cash and cash equivalents 3,746 7,787 2,534 5,253 4,055 5,742 1,687

Trade and other receivables 5,822 78,230 78,745 (515) 4,665 4,207 (458)

Other financial assets 53,000 55,500 55,500 - 43,000 50,000 7,000

Inventories 124 124 55 69 54 127 73

Non current assets classified

as held for sale 2,194 2,194 - 2,194 - - -

Other assets 1,065 397 423 (26) 768 1,513 745

Total current assets 65,951 144,232 137,257 6,975 52,542 61,589 9,047

Non-current assets

Trade and other receivables 184 184 115 69 123 162 39

Property, infrastructure, plant

and equipment 2,562,271 2,560,916 2,285,819 275,097 2,304,142 2,577,472 273,330

Financial assets 230 230 230 - 230 230 -

Other assets 69 55 69 (14) 69 69 -

Total non-current assets 2,562,754 2,561,385 2,286,233 275,152 2,304,564 2,577,933 273,369

Total assets 2,628,705 2,705,617 2,423,490 282,127 2,357,106 2,639,522 282,416

Current liabilities

Trade and other payables 9,572 2,873 2,932 59 7,200 6,821 379

Trust funds and deposits 3,517 3,227 3,282 55 3,099 3,693 (594)

Provisions 7,751 8,055 8,058 3 8,673 8,208 465

Interest bearing loans and

borrowings 4,183 4,183 4,183 - 5,420 5,190 230

Income in Advance 438 - - - - 596 (596)

Suspense/Clearing Accounts 79,423 78,612 (811) - - -

Total current liabilities 25,461 97,761 97,067 (694) 24,392 24,508 (116)

Non-current liabilities

Provisions 920 943 943 - 1,054 1,117 (63)

Interest bearing loans and

borrowings 7,320 7,320 7,320 - 3,403 2,132 1,271

Total non-current liabilities 8,240 8,263 8,263 - 4,457 3,249 1,208

Total liabilities 33,701 106,024 105,330 (694) 28,849 27,757 1,092

Net assets 2,595,004 2,599,593 2,318,160 281,433 2,328,257 2,611,765 283,508

Equity

Accumulated surplus 814,359 818,519 819,159 (640) 834,593 831,760 (2,833)

Asset revaluation reserve 1,757,485 1,757,485 1,481,633 275,852 1,477,633 1,757,485 279,852

Other reserves 23,160 23,589 17,368 6,221 16,031 22,520 6,4892,595,004

Total equity 2,595,004 2,599,593 2,318,160 281,433 2,328,257 2,611,765 283,508

Balance Sheet as at 31 Aug 2015

31.Aug.15 31.Aug.15

Page 74 of 106


10.13 VCAT Decisions

City Strategy - Statutory Planning

File No: COR/1234


To inform Council of VCAT determinations received in the month of September 2015.

2. Background

Summary details for the seven decisions handed down during the month of September are attached – four were overturned and three were varied.

Month Year

Co

un

cil

Up

he

ld

Co

un

cil

Ove

r-tu

rned

De

lega

te

Up

he

ld

De

lega

te

Ove

r-tu

rned

Oth

er

(e.g

. V

arie

d

or

by C

onse

nt

With

dra

wn

Total

LGPRF* Outcome

Se

t A

sid

e

Aff

irm

ed

July 2015 1 4 1 3 0 1 10 8 1

August 2015 0 0 1 1 2 0 4 1 1

September 2015 0 2 0 2 3 0 7 4

TOTAL: 1 6 2 6 5 1 21 13 2

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

Recommendation

That the report on the VCAT decisions on the planning applications handed down during the month of August be received and noted.

Page 75 of 106


Subject Site: 184-186 Bay Street, Brighton

Application No. 2012/25/2

VCAT Reference No. P487/2015

Applicant: Bayside Health Care Pty Ltd

Respondents: Mr Chris Strong and Mr Brent Agius

Before: Elizabeth Bensz, Member

Date of hearing: 28 August 2015

Date of order: 8 September 2015

Proposal:

Use of the site as a medical centre and the development of fourteen (14) apartments, basement car parking for 25 cars and car parking reduction in a Special Building Overlay (SBO)

Officer recommendation: Amend a Permit

Council determination: N/A

Appeal type: Amend a Permit

Plans substituted prior to hearing? No

VCAT determination: Varied Permit to Issue

LGPRF outcome: Varied

Subject Site: 9 Roosevelt Court, Brighton East



Applicant: Anthony and Susan Mason

Before: Jeanette G Rickards, Senior Member

Date of hearing: 8 September 2015


Proposal: Construction of two double storey dwellings

Officer recommendation: Notice of a Decision to Grant a Permit


Appeal type: Conditions




Page 76 of 106


Subject Site: 21 Rosemary Road, Beaumaris



Applicant: George & Panagiotis Kapiniaris

Respondents:

Cameron Duncan, Susan & Robert Raverty, Richard Morley, James Dalgleish, Patrick Brody, Phillip Pearson, Shelly Joughin, Thomas Paul Gray, Rodney and Jane Allen, Paul Di Fiore, Ian and Maree Clark, Elizabeth McNeish and Daryl Grigg, Helen Bromilow and John Rabak, Donna Pingiaro, Kylee Rundan, George Fisher, Cedric Manson, Patricia and Jeff Hoffert, David and Paula Doyle, Tom Graham

Before: Alison Slattery, Member

Date of hearing: 28th May 2015 and 9th July 2015

Date of order: 8th September 2015

Proposal: The construction of two double storey dwellings

Officer recommendation: Not Support


Appeal type: Failure to Grant a Permit


VCAT determination: Permit to Issue

LGPRF outcome: Set Aside

Subject Site: 372 Beach Road, Beaumaris



Applicant: Kylie Ann Garcia

Respondents: M Paz & B Walters

Before: Elizabeth Bensz, Member

Date of hearing: 7 September 2015


Proposal: Removal of native vegetation (Tree nos. 1, 2, 5, 9 and 11)

in a Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 3 (VPO-3)


Council determination: Permit Refused

Appeal type: Refusal



Page 77 of 106



Subject Site: 8B Lindsay Street, Brighton



Applicant: JacMax Lindsay St Pty Ltd

Respondents: Daniel Mrocki

Before: S. R. Cimino, Member

Date of hearing: 28 July 2015


Proposal:

Construction of a three-storey building consisting of 11

dwellings and a front fence exceeding a height of 1.5

metres

Officer recommendation: Support

Council determination: Support

Appeal type: Failure to Grant a Permit




Subject Site: 6 Centre Road, Brighton East


VCAT Reference No. P793/2015 & P961/2015

Applicant: Dimitrios Tryfonopoulos (in P793/2015)

Peter Chau (in P961/2015)

Referral authority: VicRoads - Metropolitan South East Region

Respondents: Dimitrios Tryfonopoulos (in P793/2015)

Peter Chau (in P961/2015)

Before: J A Bennett, Member

Date of hearing: No Hearing


Proposal:

Construction of two double storey dwellings, a front fence

exceeding a height of 2m, subdivision of the land into two

lots and creation of access to a Road Zone Category 1



Appeal type: Notice of a Decision to Grant a Permit




Page 78 of 106


Subject Site: 550 New Street, Brighton



Applicant: Jamie Kennedy

Before: Tracy Watson, Member

Date of hearing: 18 August 2015


Proposal: Extension of a dwelling on a lot less than 300 square

metres

Officer recommendation: Refused


Appeal type: Refusal




Page 79 of 106


10.14 Council Action Awaiting Report




This report presents to Council a schedule of actions pending for the period to 30 September 2015.

2. Background

The schedule of actions has been divided into two parts:

Part A – Reports awaiting internal action.

Part B – Reports awaiting external action / advice or further action pending.

Recommendation

That Council notes the Council Action Awaiting Report.

Page 80 of 106


10.14 Council Action Awaiting Report



DATE OF MEETING

COUNCIL RESOLUTION RESPONSIBLE OFFICER

COMMENTS/STATUS

8.5.12 10.3 Petition to Council – Proposed Lighting of Balcombe Park Sportsground That Council

2. investigates the potential reuse of the 20m floodlighting poles at the Sandringham College – Beaumaris campus including preliminary discussions with the College and other key stakeholders; and

3. receives a further report on the outcome of these investigations.

DComm

A meeting was held with representatives from the Department of Education and Training. Council is advised that a working party will be established to guide community input with the development of the Beaumaris Secondary College.

27.11.12 10.10 Major Activity Centre Structure Plan Review – Sandringham Village That Council:

1. endorses the approach to reviewing the Sandringham Village Final Structure Plan (November 2006) as outlined in this report; and

2. receives a further report following the ‘Issue Identification’ (Stage 2) milestone of the Review process.

DCity Report to proceed to the June 2016 Ordinary Meeting of Council.

27.11.12 10.11 Major Activity Centre Structure Plan Review – Bay Street That Council:

1. endorses the approach to reviewing the Bay Street Centre Final Structure Plan (November 2006) as outlined in this report; and


DCity Report to proceed to the June 2016 Ordinary Meeting of Council.

Page 81 of 106


DATE OF MEETING


COMMENTS/STATUS

27.11.12 10.12 Major Activity Centre Structure Plan Review – Church Street That Council:

1. endorses the approach to reviewing the Church Street Centre Final Structure Plan (November 2006) as outlined in this report; and


DCity

Report to proceed to the June 2016 Ordinary Meeting of Council.

27.11.12 10.13 Major Activity Centre Structure Plan Review – Hampton Street That Council:

1. endorses the approach to reviewing the Hampton Street Centre Final Structure Plan (November 2006) as outlined in this report; and


DCity

Report to proceed to the June 2016 Ordinary Meeting of Council.

17.12.13 10.11 Kindergarten Strategic Plan That Council

1. receives and notes this report providing an update on the Kindergarten Strategic Planning Project; and

2. receives a report on the findings of the Kindergarten Strategic Planning Project at its May 2014 meeting.

DComm As recommended by the Family Services Service Review, a ten year plan for kindergarten infrastructure will be developed.

24.06.14 10.1 Proposal to sell 461-463 Bluff Road, Hampton 8. receives a further report on specific projects in relation to the

use of the net proceeds

DComm Report to be submitted to Council later in 2015 once potential projects have been investigated in more detail.

A report will proceed to the November 2015 Council Meeting.

Page 82 of 106


DATE OF MEETING


COMMENTS/STATUS

24.06.14 10.2 Strategic Needs Assessment of Stadium Facilities Basketball and Netball 4. receives a future report presenting the findings from the

feasibility studies

DComm Preliminary finding from the netball and basketball feasibility study have been discussed with Councillors. Finalisation of financial implication to occur late November 2015.

19.08.14 10.7 Planning Scheme Amendment C116: Mandatory height controls in Hampton Street Activity Centre & Willis Street Urban Design Framework 3. receives a further report at the conclusion of the exhibition

process for both Amendments to consider submissions and legal representation requirements.

DCity Officers are currently in the process of seeking authorisation for Amendment C130. It is Council’s confirmed intention to run amendment C116 and C130 for Hampton in parallel. Due to outcome of the Panel for C113-C115, outcome also pending.

25.11.14 10.1 Parking Permits for Clubs along the Foreshore That Council:

1. notes the submission received from the Sandringham Yacht Club;

2. implements a trial Club Foreshore Parking Permit in 2015 in accordance with the details set out in Attachment 4 subject to the following amendments:

deletion of the duplication of the Australian Volunteer Coastguard – B9

inclusion of Brighton Lifesaving Club Carpark – B3

inclusion Hampton Sailing Club Carpark – B8 and B9

amend Sandringham Yacht Club to read Carpark - B8 and B9

3. sets a fee of $186 for the trial Club Foreshore Parking Permit;

DCity Report to proceed to the November 2015 Council meeting

Page 83 of 106


DATE OF MEETING


COMMENTS/STATUS

and

4. receives a report on the trial Club Foreshore Parking Permit in November 2015.

25.11.14 10.4 Home and Community Care (HACC) Service Review 8. receives further reports as information becomes available on the

arrangements to be put in place in subsequent years, in order to consider Council’s future role and contribution to meeting the needs of its community for home support services;

DCom Report to proceed to the February 2017 Council Meeting

24.03.15 10.3 Proposed Sport and Recreation Network That Council:

2. receives a report overviewing the actions undertaken by the Sport and Recreation Network Formation Working Party at the April 2016 meeting of Council.

DComm Report to proceed to the April 2016 Council Meeting

28.04.15 10.3 Brighton Secondary College Hockey Facility Annual Usage 2014/15 That Council receives a further report no later than April 2016 from the Management Committee summarising activities, including the financial position of the Brighton Secondary College Hockey Facility Management Committee.

DComm Report programmed for presentation to Council in April 2016.

28.04.15 10.12 Bayside Planning Scheme Amendments C113, C114 and C115 – Proposed Mandatory Height Controls – Bay Street, Church Street and Sandringham Village MACs That Council notes the report and receives a further report in relation to Amendments C115 Church Street Major Activity Centre after the meeting with the Minister for Planning.

DCity Report to be presented to Council following meeting with Minister 13 May 2015. Timing of meeting cycles will depend on any additional advocacy that may be required. Report to Council 27 October 2015.

Page 84 of 106


26.05.15 10.5 Establishment of a Permanent Drop Off Site for the Household Chemical Collection Program That Council:

1. approves the establishment of a permanent drop off site at Bayside Waste and Recycling Centre in Talinga Road and authorises the Chief Executive Officer to sign the Memorandum of Understanding and Funding Agreement; and

2. receives a program evaluation report at the completion on the current agreement term.

DInf 1. Complete. 2. Prior to entering into a new Memorandum of Understanding in June 2016, a report is to be presented to Council.

23.06.15 10.7 Strategic Service Review – Youth Services 11. receives a further report on the future of X-treme teen school holiday program before November 2015.

DComm Report to be presented to Council before November 2015

28.07.15 10.3 HMVS Cerberus Update That Council receives a report at the completion of the feasibility study outlining the findings and proposed actions.

DInf Awaiting the Department to finalise the variation to the funding agreement to allow the feasibility study to commence. Once the variation is finalised it will take some months to complete the feasibility study and heritage studies. The Friends of the Cerberus will complete part, and Council will complete part of the study with the National Trust project managing the overall study.

28.07.15 10.4 Hampton East Draft Structure Plan 3. receives a report on the findings of the third-round community

consultation and engagement and a final Hampton East Structure Plan at the 15 December 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council.

DCity Report to be presented to the 15 December 2015 Council Meeting

Page 85 of 106


28.07.15 10.7 Statutory Planning Services Review 1. receives advice and reports on further potential service

improvement initiatives including a streamlined format for Planning and Amenity Committee reports, and revised approaches to consultation meetings, at future Council meetings; and

2. receives a report in August 2016 on implementation of the improvement plan including achievement of performance and customer satisfaction measures.

DCity 3. Dates to be determined as the work plan is finalised. 4. Further report to be presented to August 2016 meeting.

25.08.15 10.1 Hampton Willis Street Precinct – Traffic Management and Scout Hall Site

That Council:

1. defers the item for three meeting cycles;

2. investigates further options for traffic management within the precinct and communicates with stakeholders;

3. receives a further report no earlier than the November Ordinary Meeting of Council outlining the outcomes of the traffic investigations;

4. receives a further separate report no earlier than the November Ordinary Meeting of Council regarding the future use or sale of 6A Willis Street Hampton:

a) Options in the report to include future use for

i) Public Open Space / Playground

ii) Carpark

iii) Residential purposes

5. consults with all stakeholders interested parties and individuals; and

6. writes to all submitters of Council’s decision in this matter.

DCity DCorp

2. Consultation and Engagement Strategy is being prepared to outline the process. 3. & 5. It is anticipated that a further report will be presented to the December 2015 meeting outlining the Consultation and Engagement Strategy outcomes. 4. DCorp: A report on the future use of

the Willis Street site will be presented to Council no earlier than November.

6. Submitters were notified on the

28 August 2015.

Page 86 of 106


25.08.15 10.3 Draft Elsternwick Park Master Plan 2. presents Option 3 “no golf” and Option 4 “LMS Golf Driving

Range” for community consultation as a way forward for Elsternwick Park;

3. considers the feedback from the community consultation process at the December 2015 Council meeting.

DComm Outcomes of the engagement process to be presented at the 16 December 2015 Council meeting.

25.08.15 10.4 Proposed Beaumaris Sports Club at Banksia Reserve Update No. 12 6. considers a further report confirming the above and including

Council’s formal approval of a loan guarantee to Beaumaris Sports Club and an update on the town planning amendment process no later than January 2016 Council meeting.

DComm Update to be provided to the January 2016 meeting.

25.08.15 10.8 Bayside Integrated Transport Strategy: Implementation Progress 2014/15 2. receives a further report on the implementation of the

Bayside Integrated Transport Strategy and the supporting suite of transport strategies and plans at the conclusion of the 2015/16 financial year.

DInf Report to proceed to the August 2016 Ordinary Meeting of Council.

22.09.15 10.1 Martin Street Draft Structure Plan 3. receives a report on the findings of the third-round community

consultation and engagement and a final Martin Street Structure Plan at the 24 February 2016 Ordinary Meeting of Council.

DCity Report to Council Meeting 24 February 2016.

22.09.15 10.2 Bayside Film Festival That Council resolves to consider whether or not the Bayside Film Festival is delivered in 2016 and beyond, and determines this in December 2015.

DCom Arts & Culture Service Review will be reported to Council at its December 2015 meeting.

Page 87 of 106


22.09.15 10.3 Bayside Planning Scheme Review 2015 – Final Report 3. receives a report detailing the Planning Scheme Review

Implementation Plan at its Ordinary Meeting on 15 December 2015.

DCity Report to proceed to the December 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council

Page 88 of 106

Ordinary Meeting of Council Tuesday 27 October 2015 11. Reports by Delegates Reports by Delegates from the following organisations 1. Association of Bayside Municipalities – Cr Frederico 2. MAV Environment Committee – Director City Strategy 3. Metropolitan Transport Forum – Director Infrastructure Services 4. Municipal Association of Victoria – Cr Frederico 5. Inner South Metropolitan Mayors’ Forum – Cr Frederico 6. Metropolitan Waste Management Forum – Cr Stewart

Ordinary Meeting of Council Tuesday 27 October 2015 12. Urgent Business

Ordinary Meeting of Council Tuesday 27 October 2015 13. Notice of Motions 13.1 Notice of Motion 239 – 131-143 Bluff Road, Black Rock 13.2 Notice of Motion 240 - Draft Heritage Action Plan


13.1 Notice of Motion 239 - 131-143 Bluff Road, Black Rock



I hereby give notice that I intend to move at the Ordinary Meeting of Council to be held on Tuesday 27 October at 7pm at the Council Chambers, Civic Centre Boxshall Street, Brighton the following Notice of Motion:

In respect of VCAT application for Review No. P1803/2015 regarding a proposed building at 131-143 Bluff Road, Black Rock, that Council:

1. Engage external Legal Counsel to represent Council at the impending hearing before the Victorian Civil and Administration Tribunal;

2. Seek opinion from an independent traffic engineering consultant, and if appropriate engage that consultant to appear as an expert witness at the VCAT hearing;

3. Seek opinion from other consultants as recommended by Legal Counsel, and if appropriate engage those consultants to appear as an expert witness at the VCAT hearing.

Signed: Cr Laurence Evans

Page 89 of 106


13.2 Notice of Motion 240 - Draft Heritage Action Plan



I, Cr Heather Stewart hereby give notice that I intend to move at the next Ordinary Meeting of Council to be held on Tuesday 27 October 2015 at 7pm at the Council Chambers, Civic Centre Boxshall Street, Brighton a notice of motion:

“That following the audit and completion of a Draft Heritage Action Plan currently being undertaken by Council staff, Council receives in June 2016 a report that:

1. sets out the findings of the audit identified gaps and the Heritage Action Plan that identifies a clear prioritised direction for future heritage work and the resources and funding that may be required; and

2. considers all eras of development identified in the Thematic Environmental History.”

Signed: Cr Heather Stewart

Page 90 of 106

General Committee Meeting

Confidential Business

That pursuant to Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989, the Council resolves that so much of this meeting be closed to members of the public, as it involves Council consideration of matters coming within some or all of the following categories listed in Section 89(2) of such Act.

(a) Personnel matters; (b) The personal hardship of any resident or ratepayers; (c) Industrial matters; (d) Contractual matters; (e) Proposed developments; (f) Legal advice; (g) Matters affecting the security of Council property; (h) Any other matter which the Council or Special Committee considers would

prejudice the Council or any person; (i) A resolution to close the meeting to members of the public.

AGENDA 14.1 Merindah Park (LGA 1989 Section 89(2)(f) given the content of the report relates to legal

advice

14.2 Confidential Contractual Attachments: CON1447 Panel of Consultants for Architectural, Engineering and Quantity Surveyor Services, (LGA 1989 Section 89(2)(d) Contractual matter)


As Chief Executive Officer, I hereby declare that the contents of this agenda relating to the closed meeting of the Council are deemed confidential and accordingly members of the Council are reminded that the contents of the agenda are not to be disclosed to any other party.

Adrian Robb Chief Executive Officer

Ordinary Meeting of Council 27 October 2015

agenda paper ordinary meeting of council...ordinary meeting of council meeting tuesday, 27 october...

Documents