minutes ordinary council meeting 280311 - city of kingston€¦ · n 46 award of contract –...

City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting

Minutes 28 March 2011

1

An Ordinary Meeting of Kingston City Council was held at the Cheltenham Office, 1230 Nepean Highway, Cheltenham, on Monday 28 March 2011. 1. Apologies 2. Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meetings

Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting 28 February 2011 3. Foreshadowed Declaration by Councillors or Officers of any Conflict of Interest

[Note that any Conflicts of Interest need to be formally declared at the start of the meeting and immediately prior to the item being considered – type and nature of interest is required to be disclosed – if disclosed in writing to the CEO prior to the meeting only the type of interest needs to be disclosed prior to the item being considered.]

4. Petitions

5. Presentation of Awards

Gail Ricato

6. Reports from Village Committees 7. Reports from Delegates Appointed by Council to Various Organisations

8. Question Time 9. Environmental Sustainability Reports N 24 KP10/498 – 98-116 Cavanagh Street, Cheltenham Page 7 N 25 Winter Foreshore Restrictions Amended Times 13 N 26 Amendment to Dog Control Order Page 116 N 27 Draft Submission to Airport Regulation - Draft Significant Impact

on the Local or Regional Community Guide Page 118 N 28 Double Storey Development in Backyards – Review of Decision Making Page 120 N 29 VCAT Mediation – Major Planning Applications Page 126 10. Community Sustainability Reports N 30 Emergency Beach Markers Page 128 N 31 Liquor License for Kingston Arts Centre and Shirley Burke Theatre Page 136 N 32 Active Leisure Plan – Final Page 141 N 33 Draft Kingston Tennis Strategy Page 143 11. Organisational Development & Governance Reports N 34 Assembly of Council Report Page 147 N 35 Constitutional Recognition of Local Government Page 149 N 36 Expenditure of Ward Funds Schedule Page 152 N 37 Community Vision Page 155 12. Corporate Services Reports N 38 2010/11 Budget Forecast Page 163 N 39 Clayton Bowls Club New Lease – Officer Assessment of Community Benefit Statement Page 170 N 40 Memorandum of Understanding - Relocation of Gas Infrastructure from Highett Gas Works Page 174 N 41 Granting an Easement Over Council Land at Patterson Lakes Recreation Reserve Page 177



2

13. Notices of Motion N 42 Cr John Ronke – Green Wedge Page 180 14. Urgent Business 15. Items in Camera N 43 114 Balcombe Road Mentone – Patterson Lane Access Arrangements Page N 44 Mordialloc Creek Dredging Strategy Page N 45 Mordialloc Creek Dredging – Lambert Island Section Tender Assessment Page 183 N 46 Award of Contract – 10/147 Tom Johnston Pavilion Alterations and Editions Project Page 183 N 47 Award of Contract – 11/12 Chelsea Sportwomen’s Centre Alterations and Editions Project Page 183 N 48 Award of Contract 11/14 for Refurbishment of Shirley Burke Hall, Parkdale Page 184



3

Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Kingston City Council held at the Cheltenham Office, 1230 Nepean Highway, Cheltenham, on Monday 28 February 2011 which commenced at 7.05pm. Present: Cr Ron Brownlees (Mayor) Cr Arthur Athanasopoulos Cr Lewis Dundas Cr Dan Moloney Cr Paul Peulich Cr John Ronke (part) Cr Trevor Shewan Cr Steve Staikos In Attendance: John Nevins – Chief Executive Officer

Mauro Bolin – General Manager Community Sustainability Paul Franklin – General Manager Corporate Services Tony Rijs – General Manager Environmental Sustainability Elaine Sowerby – General Manager Organisational Development and Governance Ian Nice – Manager Statutory Planning Joanne Mulcahy – Manager Communications & Public Affairs Phil De Losa – Program Leader Governance Nicola Wright – Governance Officer

1. Apologies Cr Rosemary West OAM Crs Staikos/Athanasopoulos That the apology be noted.

Carried 2. Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meetings

Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting 28 February 2011

Crs Staikos/Athanasopoulos That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting 28 February 2011 be adopted

Carried 3. Foreshadowed Declaration by Councillors or Officers of any Conflict of Interest Nil 4. Petitions None



4

5. Presentation of Awards

The Mayor, Cr Ron Brownlees presented a certificate to Gail Ricato and thanked her for her contribution to the local community.

6. Reports from Village Committees

PRESENTATION OF VILLAGE COMMITTEE REPORTS 6.1 Cheltenham Village Committee

Chairperson – Vic Russo OAM JP Report of Meeting held on 1 March 2011

Highlight: Excellent job that Council did during the recent floods as they went out of their way to fix problems out of hours

___________________________________________________________________ 6.2 Mentone/Parkdale Village Committee

Chairperson – Claire Houston Report of Meeting held on 1 March 2011

Village Committee Motion: That Council consider making Bradshaw Park a dog free zone.

Officer Comment: Council to consider the proposal from the Village Committee. Crs Shewan/Dundas That Council respond to the Village Committee after considering the proposal.

Carried

Highlight: None ____________________________________________________________________

6.3 Mordialloc Village Committee

Chairperson – David Van Pelt Report of Meeting held on 1 March 2011 Highlight: Park Street discussion and presentation

__________________________________________________________________ 6.4 Dingley/Heatherton Village Committee Chairperson – Anne Caprackas

Report of Meeting held on 2 March 2011

Highlights: 1. Welcome to Jason Stubbs as Advisory Officer for 2011 2. Having three Councillors in attendance, Cr Steve Staikos, Cr Rosemary West OAM and Cr Paul Peulich



5

6.5 Moorabbin/Highett Village Committee

Chairperson – Les Heimann Report of Meeting held on 2 March 2011

Highlights: The Village Committee is moving forward in their 4 strategic Themes:

1 Protection of over space 2 Compressed Living 3 Climate Change 4 Encourage business activity

_____________________________________________________________________ 6.7 Patterson Lakes/Carrum Village Committee

Chairperson – Don Reed Report of Meeting held on 3 March 2011 Highlight: Young people congregating in the Carrum shops.

_____________________________________________________________________

6.8 Chelsea/Chelsea Heights/Bonbeach Village Committee Chairperson – John Bainbridge Report of Meeting held on 9 March 2011

Village Committee Motion: The Committee supports The Strand, Shelter, Lighting and Seating Improvements as proposed and enhanced lighting in the Walkway, in lieu of the budgeted cover and should funds be available, continuity of cover along Nepean Highway footpath near the walkway entrance.

Officer Comment: Given recent changes in the Chelsea Shopping Centre, with a number of new access points between the rear car park and Nepean Highway, officers consider enhancing The Strand to make it a more usable and attractive community space with enhanced lighting would deliver a better outcome for the Chelsea community than the current proposal to construct a new roof over the walkway. The Village Committee's recommendation is therefore supported.

Crs Shewan/Ronke That the Village Committee be advised of the outcome of Council’s decision concerning the proposed Walkway roof replacement.

Carried

Village Committee Motion: All residents of Thames Promenade be consulted on upgrade proposals. Officer Comment: An information bulletin was distributed to all Thames Parade residents in September 2010 advising that alternative concepts are being developed and



6

affected localised residents will be further consulted. On this basis, a questionnaire was distributed to residents during December 2010 between Station St and Baxter Ave seeking their views on two parking alignment options. Information bulletins were circulated to Thames Pde residents between Station St and Baxter Ave during December 2010 seeking feedback on two parking options. A poor response rate was received with no clear preference. Crs Shewan/Ronke That the Village Committee be advised due to a lack of support for any significant changes to current parking arrangements, the overall revised plan will be based on option 2 (minimal change). Once the overall plan has been completed for other sections (anticipated to be by September 2011), input from the Village Committee will be sought prior to placing the revised plan on public display at the Chelsea library.

Carried

Highlight: None 7. Reports from Delegates Appointed by Council to Various Organisations None 8. Question Time

The Mayor informed the meeting that question time would take place at approximately 8.00pm. (Refer to page 115 of the Minutes)



7

9. Environmental Sustainability Reports N 24 KP 10/498 – 98-116 Cavanagh Street, Cheltenham APPLICANT Contour Consultants Australia Pty Ltd ADDRESS OF LAND No. 98-116 (Lot on PS) Cavanagh Street, Cheltenham PROPOSAL Two-hundred and eight (208) dwellings PLANNING OFFICER Sebastian Lorenzo REFERENCE NO. KP498/2010 RELEVANT STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

Clause 11 Settlement Clause 12: Environmental and Landscape Values Clause 13: Environmental Risks Clause 15: Built Environment and Heritage Clause 16: Housing Clause 18: Transport Clause 19: Infrastructure

RELEVANT LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

Clause 21.03: Land Use Challenges for The New Millennium Clause 21.04: Vision Clause 21.05: Residential Land Use Clause 22.11: Residential Development Policy

ZONE Clause 32.06: Residential 3 Zone OVERLAYS Not Applicable PARTICULAR PROVISIONS Clause 55: Two or More Dwellings on a Lot &

Residential Buildings Clause 52.36: Integrated Public transport Planning

GENERAL PROVISIONS Clause 65: Decision Guidelines RESIDENTIAL POLICY AREA

Incremental Housing Change

DECISION DATE BY 23rd October, 2010 STATUTORY DAYS 84 Days as of 16th November, 2010 CONSIDERED PLAN REFERENCES/DATE RECEIVED

26th July, 2010 and 20th August, 2010

1.0 KEY ISSUES 1.1 The key planning issues arising from this proposal relate to:

• Neighbourhood Character; • Dwelling Density; • Urban Design Considerations / Built Form; • Traffic Considerations; • Amenity Considerations (internal and external); • Vegetation / Landscaping considerations; and • Environmental Considerations.



8

2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 It is proposed to develop two-hundred and eight (208) dwellings comprising a mix of two

(2) and three (3) storey dwellings on this site. Further details of the proposal can be summarised as follows:

• There are five (5) different types of dwellings, these being dwelling types A, B, C, D

and E. Within each general ‘dwelling type’ there are further particular variations. The plan below illustrates the location of each type of dwelling proposed. Dwellings vary in sized with floor areas ranging between 119m2 and 202m2. The architectural expression is contemporary and incorporates a range of modern materials and finishes. Further details of the dwelling types are located below:

• Dwelling Type A (located along the site’s north, south and east side property

boundaries): o Sixty (63) by three (3) bedroom, double storey attached dwellings; o The dwellings are generally paired in two (2) types, one with a garage and the

other with a carport; o Medium front and rear setbacks are provided; and o Private open space is located at the rear of the dwellings.

• Dwelling Type B (located centrally fronting the site’s north and south side property boundaries): o Fifty-six (56) by three (3) bedroom, double storey, attached dwellings; o Each dwelling is provided with a double carport accessed via a rear laneway; o Front and rear setback areas are provided; and o Private open space is located at the rear of the dwellings.

• Dwelling Type C & D (located centrally through the subject site):



9

o Eighty (80) by two (2) bedroom, triple storey attached dwellings; o Each dwelling is provided with a single garage accessed via a rear laneway; and o Private open space areas are in the form of a large balcony space.

• Dwelling Type E (located along the site’s west – Cavanagh Street property boundary): o Nine (9) by three (3) bedroom, double storey detached and semi-detached

dwellings have frontage to Cavanagh Street; o Each dwelling is provided with individual vehicle crossovers and driveways to

access a double garage; o Generous front, side and rear setbacks are provided; o Both pitched and sloped skillion roof styles are provided; and o Private open space is located at the rear of the dwellings.

• The central mews component of the proposed development provides communal public open space for the future residents of the development and consists of a man parcel of open space 10 metres in width by approximately 198 metres in length totalling and area of approximately 2,617m2. Additional walk ways and communal open space (not including roadways) takes the communal open space component of the proposed development to 3,073m2.

• Vehicle access to the development is provided via two (2) new access points from Cavanagh Street to a new internal road network which is used to access the individual dwellings throughout the subject site. The internal road network will form part of the body corporate / owners corporation associated with the development and the communal open space areas will be common property. The internal road network is to be privately owned and it is not intended to become a public road.

• All dwellings are provided with car parking in accordance with the requirements of Standard B16 of the Kingston Planning Scheme. Further, a total of sixty-eight (68) visitor car parking spaces are provided on site within the internal road network of the proposed development.

• New landscaping is proposed throughout the proposed development. 2.2 Development Assessment Table: Criteria ResCode Requirement Proposed Development Provision Private Open Space

Incremental Housing Change requirements – Schedule to the Residential 3 Zone: 40m2, located to the side / rear of the dwelling, achieving a minimum dimension of 5 metres for a 2 bedroom dwelling with convenient access from a living room. An additional 20m2 is required for each additional bedroom, which achieves a minimum dimension of 3 metres.

The proposal does not comply with the minimum private open space requirements of the Schedule to the Residential 3 Zone. This area of non-compliance is discussed in more detail below in this report.



10

Car Parking

One (1) car parking space for one (1) or two (2) bedroom dwelling. Two (2) car parking spaces for each three (3) or more bedroom dwelling, with one (1) space under cover. One (1) visitor car parking space per every 5 dwellings proposed.

All two (2) bedroom dwellings are provided with one (1) individual under cover car parking space in the form of a single garage. All three (3) bedroom dwellings are provided with two (2) on site car parking space. These are provided in various ways including double garages, single garage with a tandem space in front Sixty-eight (68) visitor car parking spaces are proposed within the internal road network. This complies with the minimum visitor car parking requirements of this Standard. Refer to traffic section of this report for further details and discussion.

Front Setback

The average distance of the setbacks of the front walls of the existing buildings on the abutting allotments facing the front street or 9 metres, whichever is the lesser.

The proposal does not comply with the minimum front setback requirements of this Standard. A variation is to the sought as part of the application. This is discussed in more detail below.

Site Coverage

Maximum 50% - as per Schedule to the Residential 3 Zone

The proposal has an overall site coverage of approximately 35.2% and therefore complies with the minimum requirements of this Standard.

3.0 SITE & SURROUNDS 3.1 The subject site is located on the east side of Cavanagh Street, Cheltenham, between

Warren Road located to the north of the subject site and Dewrang Street located to the south of the subject site. The overall subject site comprises of two (2) allotments. Details of each allotment are as follows:

• Lot 1 on TP758036M: This allotment is irregular in shape and size, has a frontage

width of 159.57 metres to Cavanagh Street, a maximum depth of 255.5 metres and overall area of approximately 38,020m2 (3.802 hectares); and

• Lot 1 on TP599611M: This allotment is irregular in shape with a maximum width of 30.14 metres, a maximum depth of 84.52 metres and an overall area of approximately 2588m2 (0.25 hectares). This allotment is located approximately 170 metres to the east of Cavanagh Street and is located in the north-east corner of the overall subject site known as No. 98 – 116 Cavanagh Street, Cheltenham.

3.2 For the purposes of this application, Lot 1 on TP758036M and Lot 1 on TP599611M will

be referred to as one single site unless otherwise noted. 3.3 The subject site is irregular in shape and size. The subject site has a frontage width of

159.57 metres to Cavanagh Street, a maximum depth of 255.5 metres and an overall site



11

area of approximately 40,608m2 (4.06 hectares). The aerial photograph below illustrates the size and location of the subject site in relation to adjoining and surrounding properties that can be found in the immediate neighbourhood.

WARREN ROADWARREN ROADWARREN ROADWARREN ROADWARREN ROADWARREN ROADWARREN ROADWARREN ROADWARREN ROAD

KAYDEN STREETKAYDEN STREETKAYDEN STREETKAYDEN STREETKAYDEN STREETKAYDEN STREETKAYDEN STREETKAYDEN STREETKAYDEN STREET

CLA

RA C

OU

RTCL

ARA

CO

URT

CLA

RA C

OU

RTCL

ARA

CO

URT

CLA

RA C

OU

RTCL

ARA

CO

URT

CLA

RA C

OU

RTCL

ARA

CO

URT

CLA

RA C

OU

RT

DEWRANG STREETDEWRANG STREETDEWRANG STREETDEWRANG STREETDEWRANG STREETDEWRANG STREETDEWRANG STREETDEWRANG STREETDEWRANG STREET

JOA

MI

STRE

ETJO

AM

I ST

REET

JOA

MI

STRE

ETJO

AM

I ST

REET

JOA

MI

STRE

ETJO

AM

I ST

REET

JOA

MI

STRE

ETJO

AM

I ST

REET

JOA

MI

STRE

ET

PEM

BRO

KE C

RESC

ENT

PEM

BRO

KE C

RESC

ENT

PEM

BRO

KE C

RESC

ENT

PEM

BRO

KE C

RESC

ENT

PEM

BRO

KE C

RESC

ENT

PEM

BRO

KE C

RESC

ENT

PEM

BRO

KE C

RESC

ENT

PEM

BRO

KE C

RESC

ENT

PEM

BRO

KE C

RESC

ENT

UNNA

MED

UNNA

MED

UNNA

MED

UNNA

MED

UNNA

MED

UNNA

MED

UNNA

MED

UNNA

MED

UNNA

MED

DELACOMBE CO URT

DELACOMBE CO URT

DELACOMBE CO URT

DELAC OMBE CO URT

DELAC OMBE CO URT

DELAC OMBE CO URT

DELAC OMBE CO URT

DELAC OMBE CO URT

DELAC OMBE CO URT

AGE STREETAGE STREETAGE STREETAGE STREETAGE STREETAGE STREETAGE STREETAGE STREETAGE STREET

BERNARD STREETBERNARD STREETBERNARD STREETBERNARD STREETBERNARD STREETBERNARD STREETBERNARD STREETBERNARD STREETBERNARD STREET

CAVA

NAG

H S

TREE

TCA

VANA

GH

STR

EET

CAVA

NAG

H S

TREE

TCA

VANA

GH

STR

EET

CAVA

NAG

H S

TREE

TCA

VANA

GH

STR

EET

CAVA

NAG

H S

TREE

TCA

VANA

GH

STR

EET

CAVA

NAG

H S

TREE

T

WIL

LEN

STR

EET

WIL

LEN

STR

EET

WIL

LEN

STR

EET

WIL

LEN

STR

EET

WIL

LEN

STR

EET

WIL

LEN

STR

EET

WIL

LEN

STR

EET

WIL

LEN

STR

EET

WIL

LEN

STR

EET

DISS

IK S

TREE

TDI

SSIK

STR

EET

DISS

IK S

TREE

TDI

SSIK

STR

EET

DISS

IK S

TREE

TDI

SSIK

STR

EET

DISS

IK S

TREE

TDI

SSIK

STR

EET

DISS

IK S

TREE

T

R O W YR O W YR O W YR O W YR O W YR O W YR O W YR O W YR O W Y

FAIR

VIEW

AVE

NUE

FAIR

VIEW

AVE

NUE

FAIR

VIEW

AVE

NUE

FAIR

VIEW

AVE

NUE

FAIR

VIEW

AVE

NUE

FAIR

VIEW

AVE

NUE

FAIR

VIEW

AVE

NUE

FAIR

VIEW

AVE

NUE

FAIR

VIEW

AVE

NUE

HERA

LD S

TREE

THE

RALD

STR

EET

HERA

LD S

TREE

THE

RALD

STR

EET

HERA

LD S

TREE

THE

RALD

STR

EET

HERA

LD S

TREE

THE

RALD

STR

EET

HERA

LD S

TREE

T

MAYNE STREETMAYNE STREETMAYNE STREETMAYNE STREETMAYNE STREETMAYNE STREETMAYNE STREETMAYNE STREETMAYNE STREET

REG

ENT

PA

RAD

ERE

GEN

T P

ARA

DE

REG

ENT

PA

RAD

ERE

GEN

T P

ARA

DE

REG

ENT

PA

RAD

ERE

GEN

T P

ARA

DE

REG

ENT

PA

RAD

ERE

GEN

T P

ARA

DE

REG

ENT

PA

RAD

E

PIKE STREETPIKE STREETPIKE STREETPIKE STREETPIKE STREETPIKE STREETPIKE STREETPIKE STREETPIKE STREET

0 100.00 200.00

meters 3.4 The subject site is generally vacant except for an existing shed which is proposed to be

removed as part of the development of the site. It is noted that currently, environments and geotechnical works are currently being conducted on the subject site.

3.5 The subject site has a varied topography with the land rising approximately 0.5 metre

from the site’s west (Cavanagh Street) property frontage towards the centre of the site before falling approximately 7 metres towards the site’s east (rear) property boundary. The subject site is also generally lower than the floor level of adjoining properties to the north and south of the subject site. This is a result of soil compaction over time since the land was filled.

3.6 There are a number of trees located towards the front of the subject site, along the site’s

Cavanagh Street property frontage. These trees are proposed to be removed as part of the application. Further, the remaining vegetation located on the subject site can be described as shrubs and overgrown weeds. Generally, it is considered that all vegetation on the subject site is not of any significant value, however, this is discussed in more detail below in this report

3.7 Vehicle access to the subject site is via two (2) existing vehicles crossover located along

the site’s Cavanagh Street property frontage. These vehicle crossovers are proposed to be removed as part of the proposed development with new vehicle access point proposed.

3.8 The subject site is located within an established urban area in Cheltenham and has

convenient access to a range of community facilities and services. This includes local shops located approximately 150 metres to the south of the subject site along Cavanagh Street and approximately 350 metres to the north-west of the subject site along Bernard Street. Additionally, supermarket, retail and specialty shopping and entertainment facilities are located at the Westfield Southland Shopping Centre which is located



12

approximately 8.50 metres to the south- west of the subject site. Furthermore, in addition to the abovementioned retail facilities, the subject site is also in close proximity to primary and secondary schools, public open space and other community facilities and everyday services such as public transport including bus services which operate along Cavanagh Street (directly in front of the site) and along Bernard Street.

3.9 A search of Council records and other information available suggest that the subject site

was used and operated as a sand quarry between 1933 and 1985. The site has since been filled and has been allowed to settle over time. This is discussed in more detail below in this report.

3.10 It should also be noted that the subject site now known as No. 11 Hannah Street,

Cheltenham which is located to the east of the south-east corner of the subject site also formed part of the sand quarry as described above. This land was also filled (similarly to the subject site) and has since been developed for thirty-three (33) single storey villa units as approved by Planning Permit No. MBN/2404 issued by the City of Moorabbin on 27th December, 1984. This permit was acted upon by the applicant and thirty-three 933) dwellings are developed on this site for residential purposes.

4.0 TITLE DETAILS 4.1 The Permit Applicant has completed the planning application form declaring that there is

no restrictive covenant on the title. 5.0 PLANNING CONTROLS 5.1 The subject site is located within a Residential 3 Zone. No overlay provisions apply to

the subject site.

6.0 PLANNING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 6.1 Pursuant to Clause 32.06, a Planning Permit is required to construct two (2) or more

dwellings on a lot. 7.0 RELEVANT SITE HISTORY 7.1 Council Records indicate that the following Applications for Planning Permits have been

decided upon in relation to the subject site:

• Planning Permit No. MBN/1750 was refused by the City of Moorabbin for the use of the site for a private rubbish tip on 4th August, 1981;

• Planning Permit No. MBN/2746 was issued by the City of Moorabbin for the use of the site for a private rubbish tip on 4th July, 1986;

• Planning Permit No. MBN6677 was issued by the City of Moorabbin for the development of the site for one-hundred and thirty (130) single storey villa units on 28th March 1988;

• Planning Permit No. MBN/6677 was refused by the City of Moorabbin and refused by VCAT for the development of the site for ninety-four (94) dwellings on 17th November, 1994; and



13

• Planning Permit No. KP98/458 was issued by the City of Kingston for the development and use of the site for a residential park comprising one-hundred and thirty-two (132) dwellings and community and recreational facilities on 8th January, 1999.

7.2 As noted above, the subject site was used for the purpose of a sand quarry between 1933

and 1985. The site was filled between 1976 and 1989 with various types of fill. The site was also used for the purpose of a private rubbish tip between 1986 and 1989 when filling and compaction was completed. The site has since been left to settle over time.

7.3 It is noted that two (2) previous Environmental Audits have been conducted on the

subject site. The first of which occurred in 1994 and the second of which was conducted in 1998. In both instances, the appointed Environmental Auditor issued a Statement of Environmental Audit subject to certain requirements being carried out. However, in both instances, the Environmental Auditor refused to issue a Certificate of Environmental Audit as the site was contaminated or potentially contaminated and would be detrimental or potentially detrimental to beneficial use of the land at the site. It is also noted that the applicant is currently in the process of preparing a third Environmental Audit for the subject site which is likely to be finalised by approximately March-April, 2011.

8.0 ADVERTISING

8.1 The proposal was advertised by sending notices to adjoining and opposite property

owners and occupiers and by maintaining a notice on site for fourteen (14) days. Twenty-six objection(s) to the proposal were received. The valid grounds of objection raised are summarised as follows: • Amenity based concerns (including overshadowing, overlooking and visual impact

concerns etc); • Car parking and Traffic Concerns (including lack of car parking, increase in traffic

movements and safety considerations etc); • Overdevelopment of the site (including height, scale, visual bulk and mass,

neighbourhood character, drainage concerns etc); • Environmental Considerations (including vegetation removal and previous filling of

the subject site). 8.2 It is noted that following the formal notification period / preliminary conference, a

further thirty (35) objections have been received by Council. The nature of the objections generally correlate with those previously submitted.

8.3 This brings the total number of objections received by Council to date sixty-one (61)

objections.



14

9.0 PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE 9.1 A preliminary conference was held on 14th October, 2010 with the relevant Planning

Officer, Ward Councillor(s), the Permit Applicant and objectors in attendance. The above-mentioned issues were discussed at length.

9.2 The above concerns were unable to be resolved at the preliminary conference, and the

objections still stand. 10.0 REFERRALS 10.1 The application was referred to the following external authorities. Where appropriate

amended applications have been re-referred:

• Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria; • Director of Public Transport; and • Metropolitan Fire Brigade (MFB).

10.2 The abovementioned referral Authorities advised of no objection to the proposal subject

to the inclusion of suitable conditions being placed on any permit issued. These are discussed individually below:

Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria: The referral responses provided by the EPA are discussed in more detail in the Environmental Considerations section of this report below. This section also provides details of current work being undertaken by the applicant in relation to the Environmental Audit which is required to be carried out on the subject site. Director of Public Transport: Pursuant to Clause 52.36 – Integrated Public Transport Planning of the Kingston Planning Scheme, an application of sixty (60) or more dwellings must be referred to the Director of Public Transport, who advised of no objection to the proposal subject to the inclusion of the following condition on any permit issued: • The permit holder must ensure that public transport infrastructure in Cavanagh Street

is not altered without the consent of the Director of Public Transport or damaged. Any damage or alteration to public transport infrastructure must be rectified to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Transport at the full cost of the permit holder.

The abovementioned condition has been included as part of Council Officers recommendation below. Metropolitan Fire Brigade (MBF): The following comments were provided by the MBF in relation to the width of access roads and the location of fire hydrants and water main configuration. • The minimum width of the access roads serving the estate shall be:

o 3.5 metres in width where no parking is permitted within that roadway;



15

o 5.8 metres in width where parking is to be permitted along one (1) side of the roadway; and

o 8.1 metres in width where parking is to be permitted along both sides of the roadway.

• That water main configuration and fire hydrant locations within the estate comply with the following requirements: o 120 metre intervals on residential streets and at each intersection.

It is considered that the abovementioned requirements can easily be incorporated into the proposed development. As such, it is considered that suitable conditions should be placed on any permit issued in accordance with the abovementioned MFB requirements. These conditions have been included as part of Council Officers recommendation below.

10.3 The application was referred to the following internal departments within Council (where

appropriate amended applications have been re-referred): • Council’s Development Engineer; • Council’s Vegetation Management Officer; • Council’s Roads and Drains Department; • Council’s Environmental Sustainability Officer; • Council’s Urban Designer; • Council’s Strategic Planning Department; • Council’s Waste Management Officer; and • Council’s Traffic Engineering Department.

The relevant comments from each of the abovementioned departments are detailed below. Development Approvals Engineers: Council’s Development Approvals Engineers advised of no objection to the proposed development subject to the inclusion of suitable drainage conditions being placed on any permit issued. These conditions have been included as part of Council Officers recommendation below. Vegetation Management Officers: Council’s Vegetation Management Officer advised of no objection to the proposed development subject to the inclusion of suitable vegetation conditions being placed on any permit issued. Council’s vegetation Management Officer’s advised that there was no vegetation on the site worthy of retention and that it would be more appropriate to provided new landscaping throughout the subject site. The conditions requested by the Vegetation Management Officers have been included as part of Council Officers recommendation below. Roads and Drains Department: Council’s Roads and Drains Department advised of no objection to the proposed development subject to the inclusion of suitable conditions being placed on any permit issued. These conditions include: • The provision of a footpath along the site’s Cavanagh Street property frontage is to

be shown on the plans and constructed at the full cost of the developer/ applicant to the Satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;



16

• Detail engineering drawings are to be submitted to Council for approval by Council Engineers for the following works: o Drainage; o Road intersections; and o Footpath and vehicle crossings.

These conditions are included as part of Council Officers recommendation below.

Environmental Sustainability Officer: Council’s Environmental Sustainability Officer advised of no objection to the proposed development, however provided a number of suggestions to improve the energy efficiency and sustainability of the proposed development. These include the use of double glazed windows, solar treatments to east and west facing windows, the use of water and energy efficient fixtures and fittings. This has been considered and a number of these elements have been provided as conditions included as part of Council Officers recommendation below. Urban Designer: In light of additional documentation and some changes to address earlier Urban Design comments the architecture of this proposal achieves a high standard of design. Dwellings are well-articulated with the proposal including variations between like-built forms in the same street. This has been achieved through varied materiality, architectural detailing and landscaping design for a visually interesting streetscape. Dwellings are also provided with a practical internal layout which provides for a high level of internal amenity and contemporary living. Issues that still remain of some concern include the width and design of main roads within the proposed development and two (2) main vehicle access points to Cavanagh Street. It was advised that further consideration should be given to widening main roads within the site and the possible reconfiguration of dwellings beside the main vehicle access points to Cavanagh Street. The widening of roads should provide for safer and more convenient shared access for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles alike. As discussed in further detail below, (and as per the requirements of the MFB above) the two (2) main roads are required to be widened to 5.8 metres in width. This will in turn widen the vehicle entry points for Cavanagh Street. While the increase in road width is minimal, it is considered that such an increase will provide for improved safety and manoeuvrability for vehicles to and from the site. The landscape plans provided by the applicant illustrate the location of all internal footpaths which are considered to be appropriate in width and location and will allow for safe and efficient pedestrian movements within the proposed development, as well as, in and out of the subject site. Strategic Planning Department: In light of additional documentation the following comments are provided from Strategic Planning having assessed the application against the Local Planning Policy Framework of the Kingston Planning Scheme.

• The subject site is located a walking distance of approximately 1.2 kilometres from

the nearest activity centre and approx 2.3 kilometres walking distance from the nearest train station at Cheltenham. The subject land is zoned Residential 3 and lies within an Incremental Change area in accordance with Kingston’s Residential Policy.

• The Planning Panel which considered Planning Scheme Amendment C8* to the

Kingston Planning Scheme accepted the principal that Increased Housing Diversity



17

areas where generally those which fell within approximately a 400 metres radius of public transport / commercial activity centres. As this site is located in excess of 400 metres from the nearest railway station, it is self evident as to its categorisation as an Incremental Change area.

• The Residential Strategy that supported the above mentioned Planning Scheme

Amendment did identify the subject land as a Major Residential Opportunity site which would be able to accommodate a medium density housing project subject to the qualification that particular attention to provision of supporting facilities is necessary for more isolated sites. Large Residential Opportunity Sites are those that have a total area in excess of 2,000m2. Although the subject site was provided this designation in the policy, it is apparent that it is not identified on the Residential Framework Plan at Clause 21.05 – Residential Land Use of the Kingston Planning Scheme. However, it is felt that due to the unique size of the site, a contemporary medium density development could be justified provided the facilities required to support such a proposal and appropriate design issues are addressed.

• Clearly in accordance with the provisions of the Kingston Planning Scheme, any

development of the subject site should respond to neighbourhood character, particularly with respect to the site’s frontage to Cavanagh Street in order to ensure neighbourhood character cohesiveness. Accordingly the design of proposed development should be able to retain the predominantly single dwelling character of the established surrounding neighbourhood. The development must be of high design and quality and must be serviceable and accessible to appropriate social infrastructure. Any proposal should also demonstrate a high mix of lot sizes and dwelling types / sizes.

Maintenance Contracts and Waste Department: The applicant submitted a Waste Management Plan with the application which was referred to Council’s Maintenance Contracts and Waste Management Department for comment. Council’s Maintenance Contracts and Waste Department advised of no objection to the proposed development and had the following comments regarding the proposed Waste Management Plan submitted with the application:

• The Waste Management Plan provides good detail for storage and collection of bins

and there are not any foreseeable issues for Council collection in this regard; • Given the internal road network it proposed to be privately owned, an indemnity will

be required for trucks to enter the property and it is recommended that the roads be constructed to Council standards;

• The truck swept paths seem tight but adequate so long as parked cars do not inhibit turning circles. If on street parking is to be permitted within the site ‘no parking’ areas will need to be set up to allow for truck turning.

Given the abovementioned comments, it is considered that the proposed Waste Management Plan submitted with the application is acceptable and should form part of any endorsed plans to the permit. Therefore, a condition of any permit issued should require that a Waste Management Plans for the proposed development be approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. This condition has been included as part of Council Officers recommendation below.



18

Traffic Engineers: The comments provided by Council’s Traffic Engineers with regard to the proposed development are based around the proposed internal road network being a public road network. As a result, the minimum standards and comments provided by Council’s Engineers are in essence stricter than those that would normally be applied to a private road. As noted above, it is proposed that the internal road network will be owned and managed by the body corporate / owner corporation effectively making the internal road network private roads. Therefore, it is considered that the comments and standards provided by Council’s Traffic Engineers should be considered, however, discretion should be used as to the level that these requirements are implemented and / or included within the proposed development. As such, further discussions were had between relevant Council Officer’s and it is considered that Council’s Planning Officers have adequately considered the comments and requirements of Council’s Traffic Engineers. In general terms, Council’s Traffic Engineers raised a number of concerns with regard to the proposed development. Amongst other elements of the proposal, concerns were raised with regard to accessway widths, sightlines, car parking location and swept paths. The following can be said in relation to the concerns raised by Council’s Traffic Engineers with regards to road widths, sightlines, car parking location and swept paths: • A condition of any permit issued will require road widths to be in accordance with the

Metropolitan Fire Brigade requirements as discussed above (i.e. where streets are proposed to have parking along one (1) side, these should be widened to 5.8 metres in width). Such a condition will also correlate with the comments provided by Council’s Urban Designer. Furthermore, a widening of the road width will allow improved pedestrian and vehicle sightlines and improved manoeuvrability for vehicles within the internal road network. Vehicle would be able to easily access the individual driveways of dwellings while allow on-street visitor car parking which does not detrimentally impact on the entering and exiting of vehicles from individual dwellings of the subject site itself.

• The visitor car parking proposed along the proposed Maple Street are to be reduced in number (i.e. from 20 spaces to 10 spaces) and relocated on the north side of this street in between the driveways of each dwelling to improve turning circles for residents entering and exiting their individual dwellings. Similarly, the visitor car parking proposed along the proposed Jasmine Street are to be reduced (i.e. from 20 spaces to 10 spaces) and relocated on the south side of this street in between the driveways of each dwelling to improve turning circles for residents entering and exiting their individual dwellings. While the abovementioned conditions will provide for an overall reduction in the number of visitor parking spaces being provided within the proposed development (i.e. from 68 car spaces to 48 car spaces), it is considered that the benefit of these reductions and re-locations far outweighs the reduction of visitor spaces. As noted above, such a change will allow for improved sightlines, improved manoeuvrability and improved safety for drivers and pedestrians alike. Furthermore, it should be noted that the reduction in visitor car parking will not impact on the minimum visitor car parking requirements of Standard B16 of Clause 55 (ResCode) of the Kingston Planning Scheme. The proposed 48 visitor car parking spaces (as per the Condition including within the recommendation of this report) is still in excess of the 41.6 visitor car parking spaces as required by Standard B16.

• It is considered that all truck swept paths work adequately, particularly at changes of direction and entering the laneways. While these may be tight, they are considered to



19

be acceptable. Furthermore, the applicant has provided details that the proposed curbs / channel sections of the internal road network are to be roll-over curbs to allow for any accidental mounting of curbs by waste removal trucks and other vehicles. Therefore, it is considered that while adequate space is provided for vehicle manoeuvrability, safe guards in the form or roll-over curbs have been incorporated into the proposed development to allow for accidental and / or otherwise mounting over the internal road networks curbs.

• Standard C20 requires that 3 metre by 3 metre wide splays should be provided at changes of direction so as to provide adequate sightlines for vehicles and pedestrians alike. The proposed development does not satisfy this requirement of Standard C20. However, the provisions of Clause 56 allows Council to consider an alternative design solution and / or suitable conditions if such a design solution / conditions would still meet the objective of the Standard. In this instance, it is considered that lesser spays are appropriate having regard to the overall design of the proposed development, the layout of the internal road network, the sightlines provided at changes of direction and the anticipated low speed that vehicles will be travelling at throughout the proposed road network. Therefore, it is considered that while the specific Standard is not met, the objective of Standard C20 is adequately met.

• The applicant has agreed to make Park Lane and Ivy Lane one-way in a east to west direction (i.e. rear of the site towards the front of the site) thereby improving safety for both pedestrians and vehicles alike, especially with regard to vehicles entering and exiting the respective garages / car ports of each dwelling. This condition has been included as part of Council Officers recommendation below.

It should also be noted that Council’s Traffic Engineers concurred with the applicant’s Traffic Engineers with regard to the estimated traffic to be generated by the proposed development. While it is acknowledged that the proposed development would no doubt result in an increase in vehicles movements both along Cavanagh Street as well as the surrounding road network (i.e. Bernard Street / Friendship Square etc), it was suggested by both Council’s Traffic Engineers and the applicants Traffic Engineers that the proposed development would not have a significant effect on the surrounding road network further a field. Further, it was noted that the traffic impact of the development could not be considered unacceptable in traffic engineering terms. Therefore, it is considered that the existing road network surrounding the subject site will be able to accommodate the anticipated increase in traffic. The applicant has also advised that they are prepared to contribute to the installation of speed humps / traffic calming initiatives and / or pedestrian crossings along Cavanagh Street. This was as a result of safety concerns raised by residents with particular regard to the anticipated increase in vehicle movements along Cavanagh Street. This management plan will require the applicant to consult with representatives of Cheltenham Secondary College, Le Page Primary School and Council’s Traffic Engineering Department. A condition requiring the applicant prepare a Traffic Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority has been included as part of the recommendation below. Overall, Council’s Planning Officers consider that the development adequately addresses the requirements of the Kingston Planning Scheme with regard to car parking, accessways and traffic consideration subject to the inclusion of suitable conditions being placed on any permit issued. These conditions have been included as part of Council Officers recommendation below.



20

11.0 RELEVANT POLICIES 11.1 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)

Clause 11 (Settlement) Clause 12 (Environmental and Landscape Values) Clause 13 (Environmental Risks) Clause 15 (Built Environment and Heritage) Clause 16 (Housing) Clause 18 (Transport) Clause 19 (Infrastructure)

11.2 Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF)

Clause 21.05 (Residential Land Use) Clause 22.11 (Residential Development Policy)

11.3 Zoning

Clause 32.06 (Residential 3 Zone)

11.4 Overlays

There are no overlay provisions which apply to the subject site 11.5 Particular Provisions

Clause 55 (Two or More Dwellings on a Lot & Residential Buildings) – Refer to Appendix A for the Planning Officer’s full assessment against this Clause. Clause 52.36 (Integrated Public Transport Planning)

11.6 General Provisions

Clause 65 (Decision Guidelines)

11.7 Other

Neighbourhood Character Area Guidelines (Incorporated Document under Clause 21.05 – Residential Land Use of the LPPF).

• As noted above, the subject site is unique with regard to it’s overall size and frontage

to Cavanagh Street, Cheltenham. As noted above, the proposal provides for various types of built form, with conventional wider lots with double storey dwellings fronting Cavanagh Street and a different form of housing (in the form of double storey and triple storey attached dwellings) which does not impinge on the streetscape of Cavanagh Street as a whole. As a result, the applicant has sought to provide two (2) forms of built form: The first of which fronts Cavanagh Street and which is consistent with the general neighbourhood character and streetscape of the surrounding area. The second of which is quite a distinctive modern product (those



21

dwellings set back behind the dwellings fronting Cavanagh Street) which provides a variety in the built form and dwelling diversity of that found in the surrounding area, while providing elements such as roof form, window shapes, colours and building materials which are a modern interpretation on the existing built form of the neighbourhood character of the surrounding area.

Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development is generally consistent with the neighbourhood character guidelines of the Kingston Planning Scheme

Design Contextual Housing Guidelines (April 2003 – reference document within Clause 22.11 – Residential Development Policy) • The Design Contextual Housing Guidelines offer a range of design techniques and

suggestions to assist with residential design, which is responsive to local character. It is considered that the proposed development does not raise any issues of non-compliance with these guidelines.

12.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 12.1 State Planning Policy Framework

The State Planning Policy Framework sets out the relevant state-wide policies for residential development at Clause 11 (Settlement), Clause 15 (Built Environment and Heritage) and Clause 16 (Housing). Essentially, the provisions within these clauses seek to achieve the fundamental objectives and policy outcomes sought by the Metropolitan Strategy – ‘Melbourne 2030’ and its recent update ‘Melbourne @ 5 Million’, which have been removed from an individual clause and integrated throughout the State Planning Policy Framework. The settlement policies at Clause 11 seek to ensure a sufficient supply of land is available for all forms of land use in Victoria. Of particular relevance to housing, Clause 11 promotes housing diversity and urban consolidation objectives in the established urban realm. Clause 11.02-1 states that Planning Authorities should plan to accommodate projected population growth over at least a 15 year period, taking account of opportunities for redevelopment and intensification of existing urban areas as well consideration being had for environmental aspects, sustainable development and the costs associated with providing infrastructure. This clause states: • Planning for urban growth, should consider:

o Opportunities for the consolidation, redevelopment and intensification of existing urban areas;

o Neighbourhood character and landscape considerations; o The limits of land capability and natural hazards and environmental quality; o Service limitations and the costs of providing infrastructure.

Clause 11.01-2 places particular emphasis on providing increased densities of housing in and around activity centres or sites that have good access to a range of services, facilities and transport options.



22

Clause 13 (Environmental Risks) aims to ensure that planning adopts a best practice environmental management and risk management approach which aims to avoid or minimise environmental degradation and hazards. Further, planning should identify and manage the potential for the environment, and environmental changes, to impact upon the economic, environmental or social well-being of society. Clause 13.03-1 (Use of Contaminated and Potentially Contaminated Land) provides for the following policy directions and objectives: • Objective: To ensure that potentially contaminated land is suitable for its intended

future use and development, and that contaminated land is used safely. • Strategies: Require applicants to provide adequate information on the potential for

contamination to have adverse effects on the future land use, where the subject land is known to have been used for industry, mining or the storage of chemicals, gas, wastes or liquid fuel.

• Policy Guidelines: Planning must consider as relevant: o State Environment Protection Policy (Prevention and Management of

Contamination of Land). o Ministerial Direction No. 1 – Potentially contaminated land. o National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure

(National Environment Protection Council, 1999). Clause 15 (Built Environment and Heritage) aims to ensure all new land use and development appropriately responds to its landscape, valued built form and cultural context, and protect places and sites with significant heritage, architectural, aesthetic, scientific and cultural value. Housing objectives are further advanced at Clause 16. This Clause aims to encourage increased diversity in housing to meet the needs of the community through different life stages and respond to market demand for housing. In much the same vein as Clause 11, this Clause advances notions of consolidation of existing urban areas, particularly in and around activity centres and employment corridors that are well served by all infrastructure and services. The policies contained within Clause 16.01-4 encourage the provision of range of housing types to meet the increasingly diverse needs of the community. Emphasis is placed on development of well-designed medium density housing with respect to neighbourhood character. Further, this Clause aims to make better use of the existing infrastructure and provide more energy efficient housing. Policies pertaining to urban design, built form and heritage outcomes are found at Clause 15 of the State Planning Policy Framework. Of particular significance, Clause 15.01 encourages development to achieve high quality architectural and urban design outcomes that contribute positively to neighbourhood character, minimises detrimental amenity impacts and achieves safety for future residents, and the community, through good design. The provisions of Clause 15.02 promote energy and resource efficiency through improved building design, urban consolidation and promotion of sustainable transport. It is submitted that the proposed development satisfies the aforementioned State strategies and policy direction. Specifically, the subject site is located on land earmarked



23

for residential purposes, whereby residential development is an ‘as of right’ use under the zoning provisions. The development itself achieves an acceptable design outcome for the site and its immediate abuttals, whilst enjoying convenient and direct access to community facilities and the like, including public transport nodes. It is considered that the proposed development generally complies and satisfies the State Planning Policy Framework guidelines which aim to encourage well-designed medium density housing in appropriate locations. The Environmental Risks provisions of Clause 13 as detailed above are discussed in more detail below in the Environmental Considerations section of this report.

12.2 Local Planning Policy Framework

CLAUSE 21.05 – RESIDENTIAL LAND USE The City of Kingston’s MSS at Clause 21.05 (Residential Land Use) of the Kingston Planning Scheme, seeks to provide guidance to development in residential zoned land, mixed use zoned lands and land within activity centres. The Residential Land Use Framework Plan illustrates the range of housing outcomes sought across the City of Kingston. The MSS seeks to promote medium density housing in locations better suited to accommodating housing change, and to moderate the rate and type of housing change in other locations. The Residential Land Use Framework Plan identifies the range of housing outcomes sought across the City. The subject site can be said to fall within two (2) specific categories of preferred residential development, these being, Large Residential Opportunity Sites and Incremental housing Change Areas. However, it should be noted, the Residential Land Use Framework Plan of Clause 21.05 does not identify the subject site as a “Residential Opportunity Site.” This is discussed in more detail below in this report. Incremental Housing Change Area: The type of housing change anticipated in these areas will take the form of extensions to existing houses, new single dwellings or the equivalent of new two dwelling developments on average sized lots. The existing single dwelling character of these areas is to be retained. The objectives of the Municipal Strategic Statement (as relevant to this application) include: • Objective 1: To provide a wide range of housing types across the municipality to

increase housing diversity and cater for the changing needs of current and future populations, taking account of the differential capacity of local areas in Kingston to accommodate different types and rates of housing change.

• Objective 2: To ensure new residential development respects neighbourhood character and is site responsive, and that medium density dwellings are of the highest design quality.

• Objective 3: To preserve and enhance well landscaped/vegetated environments and protect identified significant vegetation.

• Objective 4: To promote more environmentally sustainable forms of residential development.



24

• Objective 5: To manage the interface between residential development and adjoining or nearby sensitive / strategic land uses.

• Objective 6: To ensure residential development does not exceed known physical infrastructure capacities.

• Objective 7: To ensure all residential neighbourhoods in Kingston are provided with supporting social infrastructure adequate to the population’s needs.

• Objective 8: To recognise and respond to special housing needs within the community. Relevant strategies to achieve these objectives (as relevant to this application) include:

Key strategies to achieve the above objectives (as relevant to this application) are as follows:

• Encourage residential development within activity centres via shop-top housing and

mixed use developments, and on transitional sites at the periphery of activity centres. The intensity and scale of such development will need to be in keeping with the scale of these centres.

• Support innovative residential infill development on former industrial sites adjacent to established residential areas, and on other mixed use or traditionally non-residential sites where appropriate.

• Promote a range of lot sizes and housing types, including medium density housing, on large residential opportunity sites, particularly where such sites have good access to public transport and other facilities.

• Ensure development plans are prepared and implemented for all large residential opportunity sites to address the provision of a diversity of housing opportunities and to ensure that other site and contextual issues are addressed.

• Promote lower density housing in established suburban areas that do not have direct access to activity/transport nodes and “encourage” only incremental change in housing density (incremental housing change areas). Such areas will retain their predominantly single dwelling character and incremental change will occur in the form of single dwellings or the equivalent of dual occupancy developments on average sized lots.

• Promote new residential development which is of a high standard, responds to the local context and positively contributes to the character and identity of the local neighbourhood.

• Promote new residential development which provides a high standard of amenity and quality of life for future occupants.

• Improve landscape character by accommodating appropriate landscaping within new residential developments.

• Ensure that the planning, design, siting and construction of new residential development responds to best practice environmental design guidelines for energy efficiency, waste and recycling, and stormwater management.

• Promote medium density housing development in close proximity to public transport facilities, particularly train stations.

• Ensure that where medium and higher density residential areas are proposed adjacent to lower density residential areas, the design of such development takes proper account of its potential amenity impacts.

• Ensure that the siting and design of new residential development is consistent with Urban Stormwater Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines.



25

• Ensure that new residential development contributes to the maintenance and upgrading of local drainage infrastructure as required, where such new development will impact on the capacity of such infrastructure.

• Manage development on land that is identified as being liable to flooding. • Require the provision of car parking to satisfy the anticipated demand having regard

to average car ownership levels in the area, the environmental capacity of the local street network and the proximity of public transport and nearby on and off street car parking.

• Ensure that all new medium density housing provides adequate private open space that is appropriately landscaped.

• Ensure that large residential opportunity sites provide contributions towards the creation and/or enhancement of public open space within, or in reasonable proximity to, such sites.

• Support opportunities for the innovative provision of housing specific to housing needs not well catered for in the mainstream housing market such as aged accommodation and housing for low income groups.

• Support the provision of affordable housing, including low cost rental accommodation, particularly in areas designated for increased housing diversity.

As noted above, it is considered that the subject site can be categorised as being a Large Residential Opportunity Site. While not specifically, identified as same within the Residential Land Use Framework Plan at Clause 21.05 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, it is considered that given the unique size and location of the subject site (i.e. 40,608m2 parcel of land in close proximity to a Principal Activity Centre – Westfield Southland Shopping Centre) it is considered that the subject site should have been included as a Large Residential Opportunity Site as part of the Residential Land Use Framework Plan. Therefore, due consideration should be given to this section of Clause 21.05 – Residential Land Use of the Kingston Planning Scheme. It is acknowledged by the applicant and Council Officers that the proposed development clearly does not satisfy the intention of the Incremental Housing Change Area as described above with regard to dwelling density on average sized lots. However, it is the opinion of Council Planning Officers, that a variation to the policy directions of Clause 21.05, with specific regard to the Incremental Change Area, is appropriate in this instance in order to achieve the broader State Planning Policy Framework policies of urban consolidation, housing diversity and housing the anticipated population growth within Kingston and Melbourne as a whole. Further, while it is considered that the dwelling density policy directions are not met by the proposed development, it is considered that the remaining policy directions of Clause 21.05 – Residential Land Use of the Kingston Planning Scheme (as relevant to this application) have been adequately addressed and satisfied by the proposal. As noted above, while the site is not specifically identified as a Large Residential Opportunity Site, the subject site possesses the characteristics of a site which lends itself to redevelopment at a greater density than the immediately surrounding area. These characteristic include the following: • The overall size of the subject site being 40,608m2 or 4.06 hectares; • The regular shape of the subject site;



26

• The extensive frontage of the subject site to Cavanagh Street being 159.57 metres; • The site’s location with respect to the only Principal Activity Centre within the City

of Kingston (i.e. Westfield Southland Shopping Centre located approximately 850 metres to the south- west of the subject site);

• The subject’s site close proximity to a range of community facilities and services including: o Local shops located approximately 150 metres to the south of the subject site

along Cavanagh Street and approximately 350 metres to the north-west of the subject site along Bernard Street;

o Local primary and secondary schools; o Public open space and recreational facilities such as Waves Leisure Centre

located approximately 850 metre to the north-west of the subject site or LePage Park located approximately 100 metres to the south-east of the subject site;

o Public transport including bus services which operate along Cavanagh Street (directly in front of the site) and along Bernard Street and Cheltenham and Highett Railway Stations accessible via bus.

• The subject site is also located in close proximity to significant arterial roads in Nepean Highway to the west of the subject site and Warrigal Road to the east of the subject site which form part of the City of Kingston’s major arterial road network; and

• The subject site is located within an established residential area.

Therefore, having regard to the abovementioned characteristics, it is considered appropriate that the subject site can be treated as a Large Residential Opportunity Site as described within Clause 21.05 – Residential Land Use of the Kingston Planning Scheme. Having justified that the subject site can be treated as a Large Residential Opportunity Site, it is important to provide a response to the dwelling density of the proposed development, with specific regard to the Incremental Change Area policy directions. The type of housing change anticipated in these areas will take the form of extensions to existing houses, new single dwellings or the equivalent of new two dwelling developments on average sized lots with the existing single dwelling character of these areas is to be retained. The proposal is clearly contrary to this policy direction. The following can be said in response to this area of non-compliance with the Incremental Change Area: • As previously noted, the subject site is located within and established residential

neighbourhood and is currently vacant of any residential dwellings; • A variety of dwelling types, sizes, lot configurations and densities can already be

found surrounding the subject site; • With particular regard to dwelling density, the proposal seeks to provide a dwelling

density of 1 dwelling per 195.23m2; • As a comparison, the adjoining site to the south of the subject site known as No. 94-

96 Cavanagh Street, Cheltenham, is developed for thirty-five (35) dwellings on an overall site area of approximately 6,500m2 and therefore providing a dwelling density of approximately 1 dwelling per 185.71m2;

• Based on the abovementioned dwelling density of the adjoining lot to the south of the subject site, the subject site would indeed be able to accommodate 218 dwellings.



27

Therefore, the dwelling density proposed on the subject site is actually in excess of that density which is already found in the surrounding neighbourhood and indeed found directly abutting the subject site. This alone does not quantify the dwelling density of the proposed development, however, having consideration to those densities already found within the immediately surrounding area, as well as, the unique opportunity that the subject site provides given its size, frontage and location, it is considered that a variation to the dwelling density guidelines of the Incremental Change Area is appropriate in this instance. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposed development is generally consistent with the relevant policy objectives and strategies of Clause 21.05 – Residential Land Use of the Kingston Planning Scheme as outlined above. The proposal seeks to provide a variety of accommodation types in the form of two (2) and three (3) bedrooms dwellings within a two (2) or three (3) storey attached or semi-detached built form. The proposal creates an adequate standard of amenity for the future occupants of each dwelling, as well as for occupants of existing dwellings directly adjoining the subject site and in the immediate area. Therefore it is considered that the proposal adequately satisfies the relevant policy directions and strategies of Clause 21.05 – Residential Land Use of the Kingston Planning Scheme. CLAUSE 22.11 – RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY

This policy builds upon the policy objectives and strategies found at Clause 21.05 – Residential Land Use of the Kingston Planning Scheme. As previously outlined, it is considered that the proposal with regard to dwelling density is appropriate and has been adequately discussed above. Therefore, rather than re-justify the proposal with regards to the Incremental Housing Change Area, this section will specifically respond to the general policy objectives and strategies of neighbourhood character, site landscaping, built form, car parking and vehicle access and stormwater requirements. The policy objectives of Clause 22.11 – Residential Development Policy of the Kingston Planning Scheme (as relevant to this application) are as follows: • To promote a managed approach to housing change, taking account of the differential

capacity of local areas in Kingston to accommodate increased housing diversity, incremental housing change, residential renewal or minimal housing change, as identified within the MSS;

• To encourage new residential development to achieve architectural and urban design outcomes that positively respond to neighbourhood character having particular regard to that identified in the Kingston Neighbourhood Character Guidelines – August 2007;

• To promote on-site car parking which is adequate to meet the anticipated needs of future residents;

• To ensure that landscaping and trees remain a major element in the appearance and character of the municipality’s residential environments;

• To limit the amount and impact of increased stormwater runoff on local drainage systems; and

• To ensure that the siting and design of new residential development takes account of interfaces with sensitive and strategic land uses.



28

Key strategies to achieve the above objectives (as relevant to this application) are as follows:

Neighbourhood character • Apply the Kingston Neighbourhood Character Guidelines – August 2007 in the

consideration and assessment of local neighbourhood character in Kingston; • Ensure that new development is responsive to the character elements identified in the

Kingston Neighbourhood Character Guidelines – August 2007, particularly those identified as making a major or critical contribution to neighbourhood character; and

• Encourage all new residential development to respond positively and creatively to neighbourhood character. Unless a preferred character is specified, the existing character is that which is to be considered.

Site landscaping • Encourage the retention of existing semi-mature and mature canopy trees wherever

possible; and • Unless significant existing vegetation is to be incorporated as part of a

redevelopment, encourage the planting of semi-mature canopy trees with spreading crowns in front setbacks and open space areas, with at least one semi-mature tree with a spreading canopy provided in the front setback area.

Built form, siting and scale of development • Encourage the two storey component of new medium density housing to be located

towards the front of a site; • Ensure that two storey dwellings are designed to respond to the character of the local

neighbourhood; • Ensure that any upper storey components towards the rear of sites are sensitively

designed to avoid unreasonable adverse amenity impacts on neighbours; • Encourage well articulated and graduated elevations in order to avoid ‘box-like’

double storey designs, thus reducing visual bulk; • Ensure that the siting of new buildings respects the amenity of adjoining neighbours

with regard to rear yards and garden outlooks from habitable living room windows; • Ensure that the design and layout of new dwellings incorporate features which

minimise overlooking of adjacent properties; and • Address potential overlooking through site layout planning as well as individual

dwelling planning.

Car parking and vehicle access • Ensure that adequate on-site car parking is provided to meet the needs of future

residents and visitors and sited to reduce its impact on the streetscape. Performance measures include: o Locating garages or carports at the rear of dwellings fronting a street wherever

possible. o Ensuring that where garages are located in the street elevation, they are set back a

greater distance than the front wall of the building. o Ensuring that garages and carports are sited so that a tandem car parking space

can be provided in front of the garage or carport. o Incorporating garages and carports within the main roof line of the dwelling.



29

Stormwater run-off mitigation and quality management • Ensure that new residential development limits the impact of increased stormwater

run-off on drainage systems. On-site infiltration should be maximised by: o Wherever possible, using unpaved landscape areas or porous paving. o Where appropriate, constructing on-site stormwater detention with delayed

release into the stormwater drainage system. o Designing to limit the impervious area. o Incorporating on-site water re-cycling systems for stormwater run-off. o Directing stormwater run-off into garden areas to reduce watering and the demand

on drainage infrastructure.

In summary, it is considered that the proposal is generally consistent with the abovementioned objectives and strategies of Council’s Local Planning Policy Framework. Importantly, the proposal delivers on specific objectives relating to the development of a large residential opportunity sites which seek to encourage well-designed medium density housing in appropriate locations, as well as, providing diversity in housing choice to assist in meeting the anticipated future population forecasts. The proposal is consistent with the existing and emerging neighbourhood character, provides significant opportunities for landscaping of the site, provides a variety in built form, provides suitable vehicle and pedestrian access and car parking within the site and subject to suitable conditions will provide an improvement in the existing stormwater management of the site.

12.3 Zoning Provisions

CLAUSE 32.06 – RESIDENTIAL 3 ZONE It is considered that the proposed development satisfies the purpose of the zone. The Schedule to the Residential 3 Zone specifies variations to three standards of Clause 55 (ResCode), namely:

Standard B8 – Site Coverage: The local variation is nominated as a maximum of fifty (50%) percent. The proposed site coverage for the development is thirty-five (35%) and is therefore consistent with the requirements to the Residential 3 Zone Schedule.

Standard B28 – Private Open Space: The local variation requires an area of 40m2, with one part of the private open space to consist of secluded private open space at the side or rear of the dwelling or residential building with a minimum area of 40m2, a minimum dimension of 5 metres and convenient access from a living room. If a dwelling has more than 2 bedrooms an additional ground level private open space area of 20m2 with a minimum width of 3 metres is required to be provided for each additional bedroom, with a maximum of 80m2 of private open space required for the dwelling. A number of the dwellings proposed dwellings within the overall development do not satisfy the minimum private open space requirements as per the Schedule to the Residential 3 Zone. Generally all dwellings located along the site’s north (side), south (side), east (rear) and west (Cavanagh Street) property boundaries are compliant with the dimension and area requirements of this Standard. The following dwellings within the



30

proposed development do not comply with the minimum private open space requirements of this Standard with regard to dimension and / or overall size (m2) of private open space: • Dwellings nominated as H2, H3 and H5 located along the site’s east (rear) property

boundary towards the north-east corner of the site do not comply with the minimum size (m2) or dimension requirements of this Standard. These dwellings are generally provided with a minimum of 35m2 to the rear of these dwellings with a minimum dimension of 4 metres. These dwellings are also provided with additional private open space within the front setback area of each dwelling;

• Dwelling H4, H6, H7 and H8 located along the site’s east (rear) property boundary towards the north-east corner of the site do not comply with the minimum dimension requirements of this Standard. However, these dwellings are provided with minimum dimensions of between 4.2 metres and 4.9 metres in minimum width;

• All Type B dwellings located through the middle section of the site facing the north (side) or south (side) property boundaries do not comply with the minimum size (m2) or dimension requirements of this Standard. These dwellings are generally provided with approximately 24m2 at the rear and approximately 18m2 of private open space towards the front of each dwelling; and

• All Type C and Type D dwellings located within the middle section of the site facing the central mews area (public open space) do not comply with the minimum size (m2) or dimension requirements of this Standard. These dwellings are generally provided with first floor balconies measuring 8-10m2 in size with a small front courtyard generally measuring approximately 10m2 in size.

Approximately one-hundred and fifty-seven (157) dwellings of the proposal do not comply with the minimum size (m2) or dimension requirements of this Standard. However, the applicant is seeking a variation to the minimum requirements of private open space as required by this Standard. The following can be said in response to the developments non-compliance with the requirements of this Standard: • The subject site represents a unique opportunity to provide high quality infill

development with a variety of dwelling types and sizes suitable for accommodating families, couples and singles within an established residential area which provides the necessary community services and facilities required by current and future residents;

• Dwellings are provided with a variety of private open space areas in the form of ground floor backyards / deck areas / courtyards and first floor private balconies;

• The design of Type B dwellings located through the middle section of the site facing either the site’s north (side) or south (side) property boundaries have the ability to use their respective double carports as additional parcels of private open space. These areas are under cover and could potentially be used as part of social gathering by future residents. If these areas were included within the private open space calculation of these dwellings, they would generally meet the private open space requirements of this Standard;

• The Type C and Type D dwellings proposed through the middle section of the site facing the central mews (communal public open space) are provided with large first floor balconies accessed from a living room / family room. These balcony areas are considered to be similar to the private open space provision generally associated with apartment style dwellings in medium to higher density housing developments. These



31

dwellings are provided with direct access and overlook the central mews area of the proposed development;

• The proposed development provides a combined total of 3,073m2 of communal public open space in the form of a central mews area in between the Type C and Type D dwellings. The central communal public open space is a minimum of 10 metres in width and approximately 198 metres in length in is designed to supplement the private open space areas provided to each individual dwelling. All Type C and Type D dwellings will have direct access from their front yards to this communal open space, as well as, all their respective balconies overlooking the central open space. Furthermore, future residents of all dwellings within the overall development will have access to the public open space area as it is proposed to be managed by the body corporate. It is also noted that the communal public open space will be provided with a playground, street furniture and barbeque facilities (see attached plan within the appendix of this report) for the use and enjoyment of future residents.

It should be noted that a recommendation to vary the private open space requirements of the Schedule to the Residential 3 Zone has been given significant consideration given the potential implications of such a decision throughout the municipality. However, Council Planning Officers continue to express the view that the subject site is unique and represents a Large Residential Opportunity Site which is in close proximity to a Principal Activity Centre (Westfield Southland Shopping Centre), local community facilities and services, primary and secondary schools, local parks and recreational facilities, public transport, major arterial roads and local employment. Therefore, given the exceptional circumstances of the subject site, it is considered that a variation to the private open space requirements of the Schedule to the Residential 3 Zone is considered appropriate in this instance only. Therefore, it is generally considered that a variation to the requirements of this Standard should be granted in this instance. Standard B32 – Front Fences: The local variation requires a front fence within 3 metres of a street must not exceed 2 metres in height for streets in a Road Zone – Category 1 or 1.2 metres in height for any other street. The proposed front fences along the site’s Cavanagh Street property frontage are to be low in height and of an open style to respect the surrounding neighbourhood character of the areas. Full details of the proposed front fences have not been provided, however, it is considered that a low front fence for those properties which front Cavanagh Street is appropriate. A condition requiring the applicant to provide full details of all front fence throughout the proposed development including height, type, colours and materials should be included in any permit issued. A condition to this effect has been included in the recommendation below.

12.4 Overlay Provisions No overlay provisions apply to the subject site.

12.5 Particular Provisions

CLAUSE 55 (RESCODE ASSESSMENT)



32

The proposal has been assessed against the objectives and standards of Clause 55 (ResCode) of the Kingston Planning Scheme (refer to attachment A). It is considered that the development largely satisfies the requirements of ResCode and is a well-designed development. The following section provides a response to relevant policy guidelines or a response to any non-compliance with the various requirements of Clause 55 (ResCode) of the Kingston Planning Scheme:

• Standard B2 – Residential Development Policy: As previously discussed, it is

considered that the proposal complies with the relevant policy directions and strategies of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework. Where direct compliance has not been achieved, suitable justification has been provided above in this report. Please refer to Clause 21.05 – Residential Land Use and Clause 22.11 – Residential Development Policy for further discussion on compliance with Council’s Local Planning Policy Framework.

• Standard B4 – Infrastructure: As noted previously in this report, the application

was referred to Council’s Development Engineers for comment, who advised of no objection to the proposed development subject to the inclusion of suitable conditions being placed on any permit issued. These conditions have been included as part of Council Officers recommendation below.

• Standard B6 – Street Setback: This Standard requires new dwellings be set back the

average of existing buildings on adjoining properties or 9 metres, whichever is lesser. In this instance the adjoining dwelling to the north of the subject site is setback approximately 10.98 metres from the site’s Cavanagh Street property frontage while the adjoining dwelling to the south of the subject site is set back approximately 7.9 metres from the site’s Cavanagh Street property frontage. This provides for an average setback of 9.44 metres. Therefore, given the requirements of this Standard, new dwellings on the subject site are required to be set back a minimum of 9 metres. The proposed dwellings which front Cavanagh Street are provided with a front setback of between 6 metres and 7 metres. Therefore, the applicant has sought a variation to the front setback requirements of this Standard.

While Council Officers consider that a variation to the front setback is acceptable having regard to the design response of the overall development and the variation in setbacks of dwellings along Cavanagh Street. However, it is considered that the proposed setback of between 6 metres and 7 metres for dwellings fronting Cavanagh Street is not appropriate in this instance. A front setback of between 7 metres and 8 metres is considered more appropriate and more in keeping with the existing setbacks of the surrounding area. Therefore, it is considered that a suitable condition requiring all dwellings fronting Cavanagh Street to be set back one (1) metre further east from the site’s Cavanagh Street property frontage. This condition should also require that the dwelling layout be retained so as to continue to provide a variation in front setback to Cavanagh Street. This condition has been included as part of Council Officers recommendation below.

• Standard B7 – Building Height: The Residential 3 Zone requires that the maximum building height of a dwelling or residential building must not exceed 9 metres, unless



33

the slope of the natural ground level at any cross-section wider than 8 metre of the site of the building is 2.5 degrees or more, in which case the maximum height must not exceed 10 metres.

Given the history of the site with regards to excavation and filling, the natural ground level of the subject site is difficult to ascertain. However, by using the spot levels provided by the applicant of the ground level of adjoining properties along each boundary of the site, as well as, the known slope of the site (and surrounding site) in a west to east direction, Council Officers are confident that the slope of the original natural ground level of the subject site exceeded a 2.5 degrees at any cross-section where wider than 8 metres where a building is proposed. Regardless of the above, all dwellings within the proposed development do not exceed a maximum height of 9 metres from the finished ground level of the site. Although, it is noted that the proposed three (3) storey dwellings located through the middle of the subject site are provided with roof mounted solar panels for energy efficiency requirements. The said solar panels increase the overall height of these dwellings up to approximately 10 metres. However, Clause 72 – General Terms of the Kingston Planning Scheme defines Building Height as “the vertical distance from natural ground level to the roof or parapet at any point.” As such this does not include services normal to a dwelling such as solar panels, air conditioning units or other devices (satellite dishes etc). Furthermore, Clause 62.02-2 – Buildings and Works Not Requiring a Permit Unless Specifically Required by the Planning Scheme of the Kingston Planning Scheme states that domestic services normal to a dwelling or solar energy facility attached to a building that primarily services the land on which it is situated do not require planning approval. As such, it is considered that the proposed solar panel (and any other services normal to a dwelling) are able to be mounted above the roof of each dwelling without impacting on the overall height of the dwellings. Therefore, given the above, it is considered that the proposed development adequately complies with the maximum building height requirements of Standard B7 and the Residential 3 Zone. Nevertheless, it is considered that a condition should be placed requiring that all dwellings not exceed a maximum height of 9 metres. This condition has been included as part of Council Officers recommendation below.

• Standard B13 – Landscaping: As noted previously in this report, the application

was referred to Council’s Vegetation Management Officers for comment, who advised of no objection to the proposed development subject to the inclusion of suitable conditions being placed on any permit issued. These conditions have been included as part of Council Officers recommendation below.

• Standard B14 – Access: This Standard requires that the Standards of Clause 56 must

be considered where a development is provided with accessways longer than 60 metres or serving 16 or more dwellings. The additional Standards to be considered include Standard C15 – Walking and Cycling Network Objectives, Standard C17 – Neighbourhood Street Network Objective, Standard C18 – Walking and Cycling Network Detail Objectives, Standard C20 – Neighbourhood Street Network Detail Objective and Standard C21 – Lot Access Objective. The requirements of these



34

Standards should be met, however, the Responsible Authority is able to consider an alternative design solution if it is satisfied that it meets the objective.

It is noted that given the size of the site compared to a large scale subdivision of a Greenfield site, a number of Standards can not be met given their broad neighbourhood requirements. Furthermore, where appropriate it is considered that the proposal generally meets the design requirements of the abovementioned Standards. However, where these Standards are not met, it is considered that appropriate alternative design solutions have been adopted and / or suitable conditions are included as part of Council Officers recommendation below.

• Standard B28 – Private Open Space: As discussed previously in this report above, the private open space provided for each dwelling, combined with the proposed communal private open space is considered appropriate and therefore a variation to the requirements of this Standard is appropriate in this instance. Please refer above for further discussion with regard to private open space.

• Standard B29 – Solar Access to Open Space: A number of dwellings within the

proposed development are provided with secluded private open space which is south facing and do not comply with the solar access objectives of this Standard. This is a direct result of the orientation of the site and the design of the proposed development and the site layout constraints. However, while these dwellings are provided with south facing private open space, they will continue to receive some morning and afternoon solar access. Further, as noted in the private open space section of this report, adequate communal public open space has been provided within the proposed development which achieves good solar access and is likely to be used by many of the future residents of the development for recreational and entertainment purposes.

Therefore, despite a number of dwelling not achieving optimal solar access, it is considered that a variation to the requirements of tis Standard is appropriate and that all dwelling will be provided with suitable solar access, be it in the form of private or public open space areas.

Clause 52.36: Integrated Public Transport Planning: Relevant to this application, the intention of this Clause, amongst other things, is to ensure development supports public transport usage and to ensure that development incorporates safe, attractive and convenient pedestrian access to public transport stops.

Pursuant to this Clause, an application of sixty (60) or more dwellings must be referred to the Director of Public Transport, who advised of no objection to the proposal subject to the inclusion of suitable conditions on any permit issued. This condition has been included as part of Council Officers recommendation below.

12.6 Other Policy Considerations

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

The general policy guidelines and directions found at Clause 13.03-1 – Use of Contaminated and Potentially Contaminated Land of the Kingston Planning Scheme should be applied to the subject site and proposed development given the (industrial) land



35

use history of the subject site and the environmental implications of allowing a sensitive use (residential development) to occur on the subject site. Clause 13.03-1 refers to the State Environment Protection Policy (Prevention and Management of Contamination of Land). The Planning and Environment Act 1987 requires responsible authorities and VCAT to have regarded to State Environment Protection Policy, as appropriate. As such, other SEPPs can also be relevant to the assessment of risks posed by former landfills. These are addressed further below. Clause 13.03-1 also refers to Ministerial Direction No. 1 – Potentially Contaminated Land. In addition, the Planning Practice Note – Potentially Contaminated Land (June 2005) is commonly applied by VCAT in approaching the management of potentially contaminated land. It adopts a ‘risk based’ approach to the assessment of potentially contaminated land. Table 1 of that document suggests landfill sites are likely to have a ‘high’ potential for contamination. The assessment matrix at Table 2 suggests that for sensitive uses, ‘high’ risk sites should require an environmental audit. The Ministerial Direction No. 1 applies to rezoning applications. It is the basis of the requirements in the Environmental Audit Overlay. It requires that before a sensitive use commences or before the construction or carrying out of buildings and works in association with a sensitive use commences one of the following must occur:

• A certificate of environmental audit must be issued for the land in accordance with

Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970; or • An environmental auditor appointed under the Environment Protection Act 1970

must make a statement in accordance with Part IXD of that Act that the environmental conditions of the land are suitable for the sensitive use.

Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria: Given the known history of the subject site, the application was referred to EPA Victoria for consideration and comment on 25th August, 2010. A formal response was received on 10th September, 2010 which raised a number of aspects that Council should consider before making a decision on the application. The EPA have since advised that this referral response this correspondence is based around a general ‘standard response’ letter which is sent to Responsible Authorities when dealing with residential development on ex-landfill sites. While not specifically consenting or objecting to the proposed development of the subject site, EPA Victoria advised (on page 2 of this letter) that Council should not approve the proposed development until it determines the suitability of the subject site based on an environmental audit undertaken under Section 53X of the Environment Protection Act 1970. A copy of the referral response by the EPA was forwarded to the applicant who duly responded to Council and the EPA on 11th October, 2010. Subsequently, further discussions between the applicant, Council Officer’s and Colin McIntosh of EPA Victoria have resulted in a second letter being provided by EPA Victoria which supersedes the correspondence of 10th September, 2010. The following comments were provided by EPA Victoria in their revised correspondence dated 29th November, 2010: • The EPA response (dated 10th September, 2010) was based on a standard response

provided in regard to developments near of on old or current landfill sites;



36

• The intention of that advice (dated 10th September, 2010) is consistent with the message contained in the Department of Sustainability and Environment’s General Practice Note, Potentially Contaminated Land, dated June 2005: o Generally an environmental audit should be provided as early as possible in the

planning process. This may not always be possible or reasonable and requiring an environmental audit as a Condition of the planning permit may be acceptable if the Responsible Authority is satisfied that the level of contamination will not prevent the use of the site.

• Although this information was not evident in the planning application forwarded to EPA, there have been two prior audits conducted at the site providing a good level of information regarding the environmental condition of the site and the potential, subject to conditions, of forms of residential development on the site;

• I understand that a third audit is currently being undertaken and indicative conditions that the auditor considers may be necessary for the new development to proceed have been communicated to the City of Kingston in a letter dated 25th November, 2010;

• Ultimately it is for the Responsible Authority to determine wether a Planning Permit should be granted and what conditions it may contain.

Following further consideration and discussions with Council Officer’s, a third referral response from EPA Victoria was received on 21st February, 2011. The following comments were provided by EPA Victoria in their revised correspondence dated 21st February, 2011: • EPA understands that the environmental audit currently being conducted under

Section 53X of the Environmental Protection Act 1970 cannot be completed until the auditor requests and receives a CUTEP (Clean Up to the Extent Practicable) determination from the EPA. The auditor has not yet requested this determination;

• EPA believes it would be unwise for Council to issue a planning permit for the proposed development prior to the completion of the Section 53X audit;

• If the audit reveals that there are ongoing environmental risks that need to be managed, the Authority may consider issuing a Post-Closure Pollution Abatement Notice on this former landfill site;

• We understand that if Council does not make a decision on the application, the proposal may be subject to review by VCAT for failure to determine the application within the statutory time period. In this event, we anticipate that the Authority may be called up to provide advice to VCAT.

Following the Council’s resolution to defer the determination of this application until an Environmental Audit Report be prepared and submitted to Council by the Permit Applicant and a subsequent response be sought from EPA Victoria, a fourth (and most current) referral response was received on 10th March, 2011 from EPA Victoria. This most current advice has been prepared as a result for further discussions between EPA Victoria and the various Environmental Representatives appointed by the applicant. A full copy of this correspondence is provided in the appendix section of this report. However, it is important to note that the following comments were made: • “…EPA considers, based on the word to date, that the site can be managed in

such a way not to pose an unacceptable risk to on-site or off-site receptors. We are satisfied, based on our conversations with various parties, that the audit



37

process will appropriately identify and provide conditions which will protect the site’s associated beneficial uses.”

Furthermore, the response goes on to state that: • “…EPA no longer considers it to be inappropriate for Council to consider this

application. In the event that Council decides to issue a Planning Permit, it must include permit conditions requiring the completion of an environmental audit prior to the commencement of the use and before the commencement of construction, building or works.”

As a result of the additional correspondence from EPA Victoria as well as discussions and documentation provided by the applicant, it is considered that Council is now in a position where it can make an informed decision on the application, taking into consideration all the relevant environmental requirements of EPA Victoria and the Kingston Planning Scheme. Therefore, subject to the inclusion of certain not negotiable conditions (discussed in more detail below), it is considered that the Council can make a decision on the planning application before it. Current / Previous Environmental Audits: As noted previously in this report, two (2) previous Environmental Audits have been conducted for the subject site. The first of which occurred in 1994 and the second of which was conducted in 1998. In both instances, the appointed Environmental Auditor issued a Statement of Environmental Audit subject to certain requirements being carried out. However, in both instances, the Environmental Auditor refused to issue a Certificate of Environmental Audit as the site was contaminated or potentially contaminated and would be detrimental or potentially detrimental to beneficial use of the land at the site. It is noted that the requirements of the Kingston Planning Scheme require that either a Statement of Environmental Audit or a Certificate of Environmental Audit can be issued for any site. Nevertheless, the applicant is taking a cautious approach and in process of conducting a third Environmental Audit for the subject site. The current Environmental Audit will take into consideration all current legislation and policy directions as well as best practice techniques, methodology and implementation, particularly with regard to soil compaction, dwelling construction and gas mitigation. All recommendations of this Environmental Audit will be required to be adequately addressed and taken into consideration as part of the final construction plans for the proposed development. A not negotiable conditions requiring the applicant to comply with any / all conditions / requirements as set out in the Environmental Audit / Statement of Environmental Audit / Certificate of Environmental Audit has been included as part of Council Officer’s recommendation below in this report. Further, Mr. Phil Sinclair (Environmental Auditor appointed pursuant to the Environment Protection Act 1970) of Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd states the following in his correspondence dated 25th November, 2010 (copy attached at the appendix to this report): • A likely finding of the audit is that the site (and conditions at the site are) suitable for

medium density residential use in accordance with a specific development plan and range of physical and institutional measures being implemented. There is also likely



38

to be a finding that the site is suitable for public open space use, although that is not a proposed use and no management measures have been contemplated at this stage for such a scenario.

• The key conditions in any Statement of Environmental Audit that would be issued for a site such as this, are expected to include: o Ensuring that the Construction Management Plan is implements; by having the

auditor checking works are compliant with the plan during construction. Regular reporting to the EPA and the Kingston would occur during that time.

o Conducting landfill gas (LFG) monitoring post-audit; nominally until the end of construction; currently anticipated to be December, 2012.

o The cessation of LFG monitoring would be by completion of a Section 53V audit under the Environment Protection Act 1970 which concludes that the mitigation measures implemented were installed as required, are operating as designed and have not changed the risk to on-site or off-site land users.

o An on-going Environmental Management Plan would be referenced that included measures to maintain the surface levels on the site, mandate there be no breach of slabs or gas resistant membranes, set out LFG monitoring requirements (should these be required beyond December, 2012), assign responsibilities, address the response to the relatively limited soil contamination issues applying to the site; such as the occasional occurrence of asbestos-containing materials.

o Reference to the existence of the institutional controls, such as a Section 173 Agreement or any Restrictive Covenant on title, easement or equivalent and their purposes.

o That any more sensitive use than the proposed medium density use in accordance with the specified plans would require another environmental audit to confirm the site’s suitability for that use (and that such a use did not impact detrimentally on any existing adjacent use of land).

• As required by EPA guidance to auditors, I must consult with the planning authority on the conditions of any Statement of Environmental Audit for a site. I state that it is my intention to so consult with Kingston and this letter forms one step in that consultation process.

Further to the abovementioned correspondence, Mr. Phil Sinclair provided a further update on the progress of the Environmental Audit currently being conducted in his letter to Council dated 4th February, 2011. In this letter, Mr. Phil Sinclair outlines that additional work is to be conducted in relation to ground water contamination. Mr. Phil Sinclair advises that the additional processes to be conducted are in accordance with EPA requirements and must be conducted prior to a Statement of Environmental Audit being issued for the site. As a result, the issuing of a Statement of Environmental Audit is to be delayed. However, Mr. Phil Sinclair has advised that he does not foresee any additional requirements in relation to ground water and as such has also provided a draft copy of the anticipated Statement of Environmental Audit. A copy of Mr. Phil Sinclair’s letter dated 4th February, 2011 and a draft copy of the Statement of Environmental Audit is included in the appendix of this report. Based on the above advice (please refer to appendix for full details of Mr. Sinclair’s correspondence) it is considered that the subject to compliance with any / all of the recommendations and / or conditions set out in the anticipated Statement of



39

Environmental Audit, the subject site is suitable for the proposed residential development land use outcome.

Other Policy Related to Contamination and Land Fill Gas: In response to the migration of landfill gas at the Brookland Greens Estate, the EPA has recently revised its Best Practice Environmental Management Publication 788. Publication 788.1 (Siting, Design, Operation And Rehabilitation Of Landfills) now notes that landfill gas has potential to migrate for 30 years or more. It sets out guidance for proposals which encroach on recommended landfill buffers: • Where the proposed development or planning scheme amendment would have the

effect of allowing development that encroaches into the recommended landfill buffer area or increases the extent of development within the already encroached buffer area, EPA recommends that the planning or responsible authority require an environmental audit be conducted under Section 53V of the EP Act.

This approach is consistent with the recommendations set out in the EPA’s response to the proposal, except that EPA has recommended a section 53X audit in this instance. As noted previously in this report, two (2) previous Environment Audits have been conducted on the site (one in 1994 and one in 1998). The applicant is currently in the process of preparing a third Environmental Audit for the subject site which it likely to be completed in approximately March-April, 2011. However, given the known history of the subject site, it is considered appropriate that the abovementioned requirements be included as part of conditions on any permit issued. A condition to this effect has been included as part of Council Officers recommendation below. Not negotiable Conditions: It should be noted that the following conditions are considered fundamental to the granting of any permit. If such conditions are not included on any permit that issued, it is recommended that Council resolve to refuse to grant approval for the proposal. The conditions to be included are set out below under the heading Environmental Management, Contamination and Landfill Gas. As noted above, these conditions are fundamental to any support for the proposal Without the assurance of these conditions being placed on any permit issued, Council Officers do not support the proposed development on the subject site. Environmental Management, Contamination and Landfill Gas 1. Prior to the commencement of this use and before the construction or carrying out of

buildings or works in association with this use and / or development the applicant / owner must provide to the Responsible Authority one of the following:

a. A certificate of environmental audit must be issued for the land in accordance with Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970, or

b. An environmental auditor appointed under the Environment Protection Act 1970 must make a statement in accordance with Part IXD of that Act that the environmental conditions of the land are suitable for the sensitive use.



40

Two (2) copies of the certificate of environmental audit and / or statement, complete audit report and audit area plan must be submitted to the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of construction

2. The development, buildings and works allowed by this permit must strictly comply with the directions and conditions of the certificate or statement of environmental audit issued for the land.

3. The owner / developer of the land must provide a copy of the Certificate of Environmental Audit or Statement of Environmental Audit to any future purchaser of the site / dwellings / future lots.

4. Within 60 days of the issue of the certificate or statement of environmental audit required by condition 3 but prior to the occupation of any building the permit holder must, at its own cost, enter into an agreement under section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to provide for the following: a) establishment of an appropriately funded company or, in the event of

subdivision, the establishment of an owner's corporation to co-ordinate and be responsible for the management, maintenance and repair of dwellings, public areas and infrastructure to ensure that throughout the life of the development and use of the development:

§ landfill gas risk can be appropriately managed for each dwelling; § public areas, common infrastructure and roads can be properly maintained

and repaired; § remedial works (including but not limited to works required to maintain or

modify vents or gas drainage infrastructure, or to address any subsidence) can be properly co-ordinated and carried out;

to the satisfaction of a suitably qualified environmental auditor accredited under Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970;

b) the preparation and implementation of a plan to identify measures proposed to: a. implement of any conditions, requirements or recommendations of a

suitably qualified environmental auditor accredited under Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970, to ensuring the land remains suitable for residential use;

b. carry out ongoing monitoring of landfill gas, soil contamination or other environmental indicators, as required by the auditor who issues any certificate or statement of environmental audit, or as required by the Environment Protection Authority from time to time;

c. measures to respond to any periodic revision of the auditor's requirements, at the discretion of the auditor;

d. monitor and redress any settlement or subsidence of any part of the land.

c) The deposit of a financial security as determined by Council to ensure compliance with the conditions of the permit which are intended to survive any subdivision of the land as a contribution towards future costs in meeting the requirements of the section 173 agreement.

d) the owner will acknowledge and agree that:



41

i. in the event that the accredited auditor withdraws a certificate or statement of environmental audit the land may no longer be suitable for residential use;

ii. in the event that an accredited environmental auditor revises or amends any certificate or statement of environmental audit, it will implement and be bound by the auditor's requirements or recommendations;

iii. the company to be established under sub-paragraph (a) or any future owner's corporation may carry out its obligations under this Agreement or give effect to the requirements or advice of an auditor and to levy fees for that purpose as required;

iv. with the consent of the management company to be established under the agreement, or with the consent of a future owner's corporation, and upon provision of reasonable notice, an accredited environmental auditor or persons engaged to give effect to the auditor's requirements may enter the land (including any dwelling) at any reasonable time in order to implement the requirements of the auditor, or to carry out monitoring or other investigations;

e) the owner also agrees that:

i. it must not lodge for registration any plan of subdivision of the land so as to create any additional lot until such time as the agreement required by condition 6 has been registered on title to the subject land; and

ii. any future subdivision of the land must be staged to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority in consultation with the accredited environmental auditor which has issued any current certificate or statement of environmental audit.

The abovementioned conditions have been included as part of the Council Officer’s report below in this report. GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS As part of the assessment process, the applicant has provided a significant amount of documentation in relation to geotechnical data being compiled as part of the development of the subject site. The applicant has commissioned a report by Golder Associates to provide geotechnical advice for the proposed development at No. 98-116 Cavanagh Street, Cheltenham. The report addresses a number of issues, which amongst other things, includes: • Settlement history of the subject site; • The impact of settlement on civil works; • The need to rework material within one (1) metre of the finished surface level; • Testing and placement of fill material; • The need to surcharge sections of the subject site; • A methodology to determine a pavement design and the backfilling of service

trenches; • The need to ensure that no mature trees or large shrubs are planted within 1-1.5 times

their mature height from adjoining buildings; and



42

• The need to re-instate test pits with controlled fill. The documentation also provides information in relation to works which have been conducted, works that are currently being conducted and works that should be conducted as part of the development of the subject site for a medium density residential development. The key issues addressed in the attached Golder Associates documentation are discussed in more detail below: • Site Geology / Subsurface Conditions: The subject site is provided with a varied

site geology. This is a result of the excavation (use of the subject site for a sand quarry), as well as, of the varied types of material used to fill subject site particularly when the site was used for the purposes of a rubbish tip. In general terms, the geology of the site is described in three (3) sections within the documentation provided. These include:

o Unit 1 - Fill Material; o Unit 2 – Brighton Group Sands and Gravels; and o Unit 3 – Werribee Formation.

In general terms, Unit 1 – Fill Material consists of loose to medium dense clayey sands and sandy clays with inclusions of gravel, brick pieces and wood fragments. This soil material was generally found within the excavated / filled areas of the site. Unit 2 – Brighton Groups Sands and Gravels was generally found below the Unit 1 – Fill Material and are understood to be the main purpose for the quarrying activities on the subject site. These soils generally consist of dense to very dense sand and clayey sand. Unit 3 – Werribee Formation soils underline the Unit 2 – Brighton Groups Sands and Gravels. These soils generally consist of loose to medium dense silty sands and comprise interbedded layers of cemented sand and gravel. The abovementioned soil categories were found at varying depths throughout the subject site depending on the location of excavation and fill. Please refer to the attached Golder Associates documentation for further details on site geology and the types of soil / material found as part of the investigations conducted.

• Soil Settlement / Surcharging / Cut and Fill / Re-working of Fill Material: The

documentation provides information and advice on soil settlement, surcharging, cut and fill, re-working of fill material, as well as, recommendations on methodology, monitoring and requirements to be met. As part of the assessments conducted, two (2) trial embankments were constructed in order to assess the impact that the imposed loads that are likely to occur as part of the civil and structural works on the settlement patterns of the subject site.

In general terms, based on the two (2) trial embankments conducted on the subject site between August, 2010 and September, 2010, it is suggested that: o …most of the settlement due to surcharging (or fill grading of the site) typically

occurs within a few days with on-going but significantly less settlement then continuing.

o Should the fill below the trial embankments be representative of the fill across the majority of the site, in the area of deepest quarry backfill we anticipate the settlements shown in table 1 as a result of the fill works proposed. The settlements



43

quoted in these tables do not account for variability in the fill material of the landfill or settlement associated with the decay of deleterious landfill content.

The abovementioned figures should only be used as a guide of the settlement anticipated as part of the civil and structural works to be conducted on the site as part of the proposed development. As noted by Golder Associates, it is anticipated that the settlement of the land will impact on the scheduling of civil works. Golder Associates recommends that: o …after grading works are completed, spot levels be taken across the fill area

immediately after the fill is placed and then at regular intervals for a period of one to two months (depending on settlements observed) to assess for zones of excessive settlement.

o We recommend a period of approximately one month be left between the placement of fill and the continuation of final civil work (kerbing, pavement wearing course, service connections etc), to allow these settlements to occur.

Furthermore, given the varied slope of the subject site, it is proposed to cut and fill sections of the site as appropriate to provide an even graduation in the finished site level. Such a cut and fill allows for the sorting and removal of any impurities from the site, with particular regard to where a cut is required. Impurities such as builders’ rubble should be removed from the site with any required imported fill to satisfy the relevant EPA criteria on residential sites. Furthermore, Golder Associates recommend that material to a depth of not less than one (1) metre below the proposed surface level of the development be reworked to remove these deleterious materials. As a result, it is considered that suitable conditions be placed on any permit issued which requires the applicant to provide a schedule of civil and structural works to be conducted which includes, but is not limited to, details of timing for works, cut and fill operations, type of imported fill to be brought to the site, removal of impurities where a cut is required and a monitoring programme for settlement.

• Piling of Proposed Structures: In the applicants words, they have proposed to take a

“cautious approach” with regard to the structural integrity of the dwellings within the proposed development. As such, it is proposed to secure the structural integrity of the dwellings by driving precast concrete piles into the natural ground level below. In some instances, this will result in some piles being driven twenty (20) metres or more into the ground so as to support the dwellings above. It has been advised that the pile will be installed by a specialist contractor under a performance based design with and appropriate level of testing. It is considered that the structural integrity of the proposed development will fall within the jurisdiction of the appointed Licensed



44

Building Surveyor who will need to ensure the development adequately satisfies the requirements of the Building Code of Australia (BAC).

• Pavement Design and Construction: Given the geology and the subsurface

conditions of the subject site (as discussed above), the design and construction of all roads and pavements must be able to accommodate variations in soil characteristics. It is not only the strength or durability of the pavement but also the movement of soils as a result of moisture and settlement that determines the longevity / service life of road pavements. Therefore, it is considered that the design of roads and pavements should not be finalised until adequate sample testing of the sub-grade material has been conducted. This will influence both the design and structural integrity of the roads and pavements throughout the subject site.

• Ground Water / Underground Services: Underground services have a potential to

impact on settlement patterns, particularly in the future. This is due to potential changes in the water table, as well as, service trenches providing a conduit for water to infiltrate beneath floor slabs and pavements. As a result, Golder Associates recommend that:

o Any soft or weak areas (including zones of deleterious material in deeper

trenches) exposed during trench excavation should be over excavated and replaced with select fill of low permeability.

Such a requirement would reduce the potential for future settlement as a result of a change in the water table or a leaking underground service. A condition to this effect has been included in the Council Officer’s recommendation below.

• Landscaping: It has been recommended that only suitably sized landscaping be

provided throughout the development as there exists a possibility that large canopy trees and / or other landscaping could adversely affect structures (i.e. buildings / roads / pavements etc) constructed on the site. This is due to the potential drying effect of moisture extraction by the plant roots which may result in shrinkage of the fill, in turn affecting built structures on the site.

Therefore, Council Officer’s recommend that a suitable condition that requires landscaping of the proposed development be designed to avoid the planting of trees and large shrubs adjacent to the buildings within a distance of 1-1.5 times their mature height. This has been recommended by Golder Associates as a way in which to deal with such a concern.

Geotechnical Conditions: It is considered that general conditions requiring the applicant to comply, amongst other things, with the recommendations and advice provided by Golder Associates in their report dated 25th November, 2010 allows all the requirements to be contained 1. That a suitably qualified person / organisation be appointed to prepare an audit

programme to ensure that all recommendations contained with the Golder Associates Report: Geotechnical Advice for Proposed Residential Development dated 25th



45

November, 2010 (Reference No. 107612066-015-R-Rev1) as adequately implement and satisfied. The report must provide details of amongst other issues, the following:

i. a schedule of civil and structural works to be conducted; ii. details of timing for works;

iii. cut and fill operations; iv. type of imported fill to be used;

v. methodology for removal of impurities; vi. a monitoring programme for settlement; and

2. A copy of the audit programme as required in Condition 1 of this permit is to be provided to Council prior to any works being constructed on the subject site.

3. The applicant / development must ensure that the appointed suitably qualified person / organisation provides monthly reports to Council indicating the extent of works completed on the subject site and that such works have been completed in accordance with the audit programme.

4. Any works that have not been completed to the satisfaction of the suitably qualified person / organisation shall be rectified to achieve compliance with the audit programme as required in Condition 1 of this permit.

5. Prior to the commencement of civil works on the subject site, a testing methodology is to be prepared by a suitably qualified person / organisation to determine the likely level of settlements and differential settlement beneath road pavements and services. A copy of this report is to be submitted to Council.

6. Prior to the construction of road pavements and services, diagrams for road pavements and services are to be submitted to Council for approval. The design for road pavements and services are to be prepared in such a manner that the design life of the road pavements and services will not be compromised by long term or differential settlement.

For full details and further discussion on the abovementioned elements of the proposal, please see the attached reports and documentation prepared by Gold Associates. A list of the attached documentation is provided below. The following documents have been included as an appendix attached to the end of this report. These documents are provided for additional information with regard to the Environmental and Geotechnical Considerations of this application. i. Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria letter dated 10th September,

2010 (reference: 26063); ii. Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria letter dated 29th November,

2010 (reference: 26063); iii. Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria letter dated 18th February,

2011 (reference: 26063); iv. Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria letter dated 10th March,

2011 (reference: 26063); v. Environmental Resource Management (ERM) Australia Pty Ltd letter dated

16th November, 2010 (reference: 0119546L01.DOC);



46

vi. Environmental Resource Management (ERM) Australia Pty Ltd letter dated 26th November, 2010 (reference: 0119546L02.DOC);

vii. Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd letter dated 25th November, 2010 (reference: ENVIABTF09613AA-L03.docx);

viii. Golder Associates Pty Ltd report (Geotechnical Advice for Proposed Residential Development) dated 25th November, 2010 (reference: 107612066-015-R-Rev1);

ix. Golder Associates Pty Ltd letter (Pavement Design for Internal Pavements) dated 25th November, 2010 (reference: 107612066-017-R-Rev1);

x. Golder Associates Pty Ltd report (Geotechnical Investigation) dated 25th November, 2010 (reference: 107612066-019-R-Rev1);

xi. Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd letter prepared by Phil Sinclair dated 4th February, 2011; and

xii. Draft Statement of Environmental Audit Content and Conditions dated 4th February.

13.0 RESPONSE AGAINST GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS 13.1 Amenity based concerns (including overshadowing, overlooking and visual impact

concerns etc); The proposal is considered to be an appropriate development for the site for the following reasons:

• The proposal adequately satisfies the policy directions and objectives of the Kingston

Planning Scheme including the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework;

• The site is located within in close proximity to a Principal Activity Centre; • The proposed development complies with all height, side and rear setback

requirements of Clause 55 (ResCode) of the Kingston Planning Scheme; • Overshadowing by the proposed development is generally contained within the

subject site and the development itself. Further, proposed development is considered to comply with the overshadowing provisions of Clause 55 (ResCode);

Overall the development is consistent with the development provisions of the Kingston Planning Scheme and is not considered to be an overdevelopment of the site. The proposal, subject to the inclusion of suitable planning conditions should be supported.

13.2 Car parking and Traffic Concerns (including lack of car parking, increase in traffic

movements and safety considerations etc);

The proposal is considered to be an appropriate development for the site for the following reasons:

• The development is considered to provide adequate car parking on site for the future

residents with regard to the relevant provisions of the Kingston Planning Scheme; • Visitor car parking is anticipated to be accommodated both on site and within the

existing on-street car parking spaces in the immediate vicinity of the subject site;



47

• It is considered that the existing road network will adequately handle any potential increase in traffic movements to and from the site and in the immediate vicinity of the subject site as a result of the proposed development; and

• There are various modes of transportation available for future in the immediate vicinity of the site including public (bus routes along Cavanagh Street and Bernard Street) and private forms of transportation (personal vehicle / walking / bicycle).

Overall the development is consistent with the car parking and traffic provisions of the Kingston Planning Scheme. The proposal, subject to the inclusion of suitable planning conditions should be supported.

13.3 Overdevelopment of the site (including height, scale, visual bulk and mass,

neighbourhood character, drainage concerns etc);


• The subject site is considered to be consistent with other Large Residential

Opportunity Sites with the City of Kingston, regardless of the site not being included as a Large Residential Opportunity Site as part of the Residential Land Use Framework Plan at Clause 21.05 of the Kingston Planning Scheme;

• Subject to conditions, the proposal has been provided with setbacks which are site responsive and which are consistent with adjoining land uses;

• Suitable design features (materials / colours etc / light weight construction / glazing) have been provided in the built form so as to provide a response to the Cavanagh Street streetscape and existing and emerging neighbourhood character of the area;

• The overall height of the proposal is in accordance with the requirements of Clause 55 (ResCode) and the Residential 3 Zone in that it does not exceed a maximum height of 10 metres;

• The dwelling density of the proposal is in excess of other dwelling densities found in the immediate vicinity of the subject site; and

• Overlooking and overshadowing by the proposal is considered minimal and should not impact on adjoining sensitive uses.

Overall the development is consistent with the amenity based provisions of the Kingston Planning Scheme. The proposal, subject to the inclusion of suitable planning conditions should be supported.

13.4 Environmental Considerations (including vegetation removal and previous

Environmental Audits conducted on the site).


• The previous Environmental Audits have allowed the subject site to be used for

residential purposes subject to certain conditions and requirements being carried out; • A third Environmental Audit in accordance with current EPA guidelines is in the

process of being conducted for the subject site; and



48

• The applicant will be required to provide extensive planting throughout the site as part of the recommended landscape conditions requested by Council’s Vegetation Management Officers.

Overall the development is consistent with the amenity based provisions of the Kingston Planning Scheme. The proposal, subject to the inclusion of suitable planning conditions should be supported.

14.0 CONCLUSION: 14.1 For reasons discussed within this report, it is submitted that the proposal be supported

subject to the adoption of the recommended permit conditions to ensure that the proposed development achieves a high quality design, achieves good internal amenity as well as responding appropriately to the site and its immediate interfaces.

14.2 The proposed development is considered appropriate for the site as evidenced by:

• The design and siting of the proposed development to be compatible with the surrounding area;

• The proposal should not have a detrimental impact on surrounding properties (subject to appropriate conditions); and,

• The proposal generally satisfies the requirements of the Kingston Planning Scheme, including the MSS, Residential Development Policy (inclusive of the Neighbourhood Character Area Guidelines and the Designing Contextual Housing Guidelines), Residential 3 zoning and the Schedule to the zone, Clause 55 – Two or more dwellings on a lot and Residential Buildings, and Clause 65 – Decision Guidelines (subject to appropriate conditions).

On balance and subject to the inclusion of suitable conditions, the proposal is considered reasonable and warrants support.

15.0 RECOMMENDATION: That Council resolve to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for the development of this site for two-hundred and eight (208) dwellings, subject following conditions:

o Before the development starts amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the plans submitted to Council on 26th July, 2010 and 20th August, 2010, but modified to show:

a) The provision of an improved landscape plan in accordance with the master plan submitted by Tract Consultants. The improved landscape plan must incorporate the City of Kingston Landscape Plan Checklist, with the following to be addressed: § an associated planting schedule showing the proposed location, species type,

mature height and width, pot sizes and number of species to be planted on the site. The schedule must be shown on the plan;



49

§ the delineation of all garden beds, paving, grassed areas, retaining walls, fences and other landscape works including areas of cut and fill throughout the development;

§ all existing trees on the site and within three (3) metres to the boundary of the site on adjoining properties, accurately illustrated to represent actual canopy width and labelled with botanical name, height and whether the tree is proposed to be retained or removed;

§ a range of plant types from ground covers to large shrubs and trees;

§ adequate planting densities (e.g.: plants with a mature width of 1 metre, planted at 1 metre intervals);

§ the provision of one (1) suitable medium sized (at maturity) canopy trees within the front setback of the property, with species chosen to be approved by the Responsible Authority;

§ sustainable lawn areas and plant species taking current water restrictions into consideration;

§ all trees provided at a minimum of two (2) metres in height at time of planting;

§ medium to large shrubs to be provided at a minimum pot size of 200mm; and § the provision of notes on the landscape plan regarding site preparation, including

the removal of all weeds, proposed mulch, soil types and thickness, subsoil preparation and any specific maintenance requirements.

b) the landscape plan required as part of Condition 1 a) above must correlate with the approved development plans including any changes to road widths / alignments etc;

c) the provision of a notation on the plans stating that the construction of the proposed Maple Street and Jasmine Street connections (vehicle crossings) to Cavanagh Street are to be constructed at the full cost of the developer / applicant to the Satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and in accordance with engineering drawings to be submitted to Council Engineers for approval pursuant to Condition 7 of this permit;

d) the provision of a footpath along the site’s Cavanagh Street property frontage with a notation stating that this footpath is to be constructed at the full cost of the developer / applicant to the Satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and in accordance with engineering drawings to be submitted to Council Engineers for approval pursuant to Condition 8 of this permit;

e) the provision of a comprehensive detailed drainage strategy for the proposed development incorporating Water Sensitive Urban Design Treatments to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

f) the provision of at least a 2000 litre rainwater tank clearly nominated for each dwelling where appropriate with water re-use for toilet flushing and irrigating landscaped area;

g) the provision of a 3 metre wide common property / drainage easement between dwellings H-14 and H-15 for the purposes of a drainage line connection to the existing Council drainage outlet;

h) the provision of a notation stating that the applicant / developer is to construct a junction pit at the existing drainage outlet located towards the rear of the subject site



50

to Council’s Standard and the plans to show a 2 metre by 2 metre drainage easement, abutting the rear boundary located centrally to the junction pit above and nominated as being in favour of City of Kingston;

i) all dwellings fronting the site’s Cavanagh Street property frontage are to be set back one (1) metre further east so as to provide a general front setback of between 7 metres and 8 metres for these dwellings;

j) the visitor car parking spaces located along the south side of the proposed Maple Street removed, with these visitor car parking spaces reduced in number (approximately 10 visitor car parking spaces to be provided) and relocated to the north side of Maple Street with one visitor car parking space provided in between the propose vehicle driveways of dwellings located along the site’s north (side) property boundary;

k) the visitor car parking spaces located along the north side of the proposed Jasmine Street removed, with these visitor car parking spaces reduced in number (approximately 10 visitor car parking spaces to be provided) and relocated to the south side of Jasmine Street with one visitor car parking space provided in between the propose vehicle driveways of dwellings located along the site’s south (side) property boundary;

l) Park Lane and Ivy Lane nominated as been a one-way laneway in a east to west direction (i.e. from the rear of the subject site to the front of the subject site);

m) any and all proposed front fences located within the proposed development nominated as not exceeding 1.2 metres in height;

n) the provision of an elevation of any and all front fences proposed within the development including details of height, type, colours and materials of construction;

o) the door of each garage nominated as a panel lift door, or similar; p) the provision of a notation on the plans stating that the proposed internal road

network is to be constructed to Council standards; q) all dwellings must not exceed a maximum height of 9 metres at any point;

r) the first floor windows of all dwellings facing the site’s north (side), south (side) and east (rear) property boundaries nominated as being provided with screening to a minimum 1.7 metre above their respective first floor finished floor level to prevent overlooking to adjoining and surrounding properties;

s) any modifications required by the approved Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) report required as part of Condition 19 of this Permit; and

t) the provision of a full colour, finishes and building materials schedule, including samples (illustrated on an A4 or A3 sheet), for all external elevations and driveways of the development,

u) the wall system of the dwellings nominated as being concrete, not timber framing.

o The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Environmental Management, Contamination and Landfill Gas Conditions



51

o Prior to the commencement of this use and before the construction or carrying out of buildings or works in association with this use and / or development the applicant / owner must provide to the Responsible Authority one of the following: a) A certificate of environmental audit must be issued for the land in accordance with

Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970, or

b) An environmental auditor appointed under the Environment Protection Act 1970 must make a statement in accordance with Part IXD of that Act that the environmental conditions of the land are suitable for the use authorised by this permit.

Two (2) copies of the certificate of environmental audit and / or statement, complete audit report and audit area plan must be submitted to the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of construction

o The development, buildings and works allowed by this permit must be constructed, used and maintained strictly in accordance with the directions and conditions of the certificate or statement of environmental audit issued for the land.

o The owner / developer of the land must provide a copy of the Certificate of Environmental Audit or Statement of Environmental Audit to any future purchaser of the site / dwellings / future lots.

o Within 60 days of the issue of the certificate or statement of environmental audit required by condition 3 but prior to the occupation of any building the permit holder must, at its own cost, enter into an agreement under section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to provide for the following: a) establishment of an appropriately funded company or, in the event of subdivision, the

establishment of an owner's corporation to co-ordinate and be responsible for the management, maintenance and repair of dwellings, public areas and infrastructure to ensure that throughout the life of the development and use of the development: § landfill gas risk can be appropriately managed for each dwelling;

§ public areas, common infrastructure and roads can be properly maintained and repaired;

§ remedial works (including but not limited to works required to maintain or modify vents or gas drainage infrastructure, or to address any subsidence) can be properly co-ordinated and carried out;

to the satisfaction of a suitably qualified environmental auditor accredited under Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970;

b) the preparation and implementation of a plan to identify measures proposed to:

implement of any conditions, requirements or recommendations of a suitably qualified environmental auditor accredited under Part IXD of the Environment Protection Act 1970, to ensuring the land remains suitable for residential use;

b. carry out ongoing monitoring of landfill gas, soil contamination or other environmental indicators, as required by the auditor who issues any certificate or statement of environmental audit, or as required by the Environment Protection Authority from time to time;



52

c. measures to respond to any periodic revision of the auditor's requirements, at the discretion of the auditor;

d. monitor and redress any settlement or subsidence of any part of the land. c) the deposit of a financial security as determined by Council to ensure compliance

with the conditions of the permit which are intended to survive any subdivision of the land as a contribution towards future costs in meeting the requirements of the section 173 agreement;

d) the owner will acknowledge and agree that: i. in the event that the accredited auditor withdraws a certificate or statement of

environmental audit the land may no longer be suitable for residential use; ii. in the event that an accredited environmental auditor revises or amends any

certificate or statement of environmental audit, it will implement and be bound by the auditor's requirements or recommendations;

iii. the company to be established under sub-paragraph (a) or any future owner's corporation may carry out its obligations under this Agreement or give effect to the requirements or advice of an auditor and to levy fees for that purpose as required;

iv. with the consent of the management company to be established under the agreement, or with the consent of a future owner's corporation, and upon provision of reasonable notice, an accredited environmental auditor or persons engaged to give effect to the auditor's requirements may enter the land (including any dwelling) at any reasonable time in order to implement the requirements of the auditor, or to carry out monitoring or other investigations;

e) the owner also agrees that: i. it must not lodge for registration any plan of subdivision of the land so as to

create any additional lot until such time as the agreement required by condition 6 has been registered on title to the subject land; and

iii. any future subdivision of the land must be staged to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority in consultation with the accredited environmental auditor which has issued any current certificate or statement of environmental audit.

o Prior to the commencement of development authorised by this permit detailed engineering drawings are to be submitted to Council for approval by Council Engineers for the following works:

a) Drainage; b) Road intersections; and

c) Footpath and vehicle crossings. o Prior to the occupation of the dwellings, the footpath along the site’s Cavanagh Street

property frontage is to be constructed at the full cost of the developer/ applicant to the Satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and in accordance with engineering drawings to be submitted to Council Engineers for approval.

o Prior to the commencement of the construction of any pavements within the subject site, pavement designs shall be prepared and submitted to the responsible Authority for approval.



53

o Pavement designs are to be based on the results of laboratory testing to be conducted once earthworks have been undertaken and are to be based on a forty (40) year design traffic life.

o A suitably qualified person / organisation is to be appointed to prepare an audit programme to ensure that all recommendations contained with the Golder Associates Report: Geotechnical Advice for Proposed Residential Development dated 25th November, 2010 (Reference No. 107612066-015-R-Rev1) is adequately implement and satisfied. The report must provide details of amongst other issues, the following:

i. a schedule of civil and structural works to be conducted; ii. details of timing for works;

iii. cut and fill operations; iv. type of imported fill to be used;

v. methodology for removal of impurities; vi. a monitoring programme for settlement; and

o A copy of the audit programme as required in Condition 11 of this permit is to be provided to Council prior to any works being constructed on the subject site.

o The applicant / development must ensure that the appointed suitably qualified person / organisation provides monthly reports to Council indicating the extent of works completed on the subject site and that such works have been completed in accordance with the audit programme.

o Any works that have not been completed to the satisfaction of the suitably qualified person / organisation shall be rectified to achieve compliance with the audit programme as required in Condition 11 of this permit.

o Prior to the commencement of civil works on the subject site, a testing methodology is to be prepared by a suitably qualified person / organisation to determine the likely level of settlements and differential settlement beneath road pavements and services. A copy of this report is to be submitted to Council.

o Prior to the construction of road pavements and services, diagrams for road pavements and services are to be submitted to Council for approval. The design for road pavements and services are to be prepared in such a manner that the design life of the road pavements and services will not be compromised by long term or differential settlement.

o Conditions Required by Metropolitan Fire Brigade: 1. The minimum width of the access roads serving the estate shall be: § 3.5 metres in width where no parking is permitted within that roadway;

§ 5.8 metres in width where parking is to be permitted along one (1) side of the roadway; and

§ 8.1 metres in width where parking is to be permitted along both sides of the roadway.

2. That water main configuration and fire hydrant locations within the estate comply with the following requirements:

i. 120 metre intervals on residential streets and at each intersection.



54

o Conditions Required by the Director of Public Transport: a) The permit holder must ensure that public transport infrastructure in Cavanagh Street

is not altered without the consent of the Director of Public Transport or damaged. Any damage or alteration to public transport infrastructure must be rectified to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Transport at the full cost of the permit holder.

o Prior to the endorsement of the Plans required pursuant to Condition 1 of this permit, the provision of an ESD report to be prepared by a suitably qualified professional and must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed as evidence of its approval and will then form part of the Permit and shall thereafter be complied with. The ESD report must include, but is not limited to, detailing initiatives for stormwater harvesting, insulation, day lighting, collective rainwater tanks and / or individual rainwater tanks, public and private landscape irrigation and car washing, energy efficient concepts, glazing and internal ventilation and the like.

o Before the commencement of any buildings and works on the Land, a Construction Management Plan (CMP), to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed as evidence of its approval and will then form part of the permit and shall thereafter be complied with. The CMP must specify and deal with, but not limited to, the following:

a) a detailed schedule of works which includes full project timing; b) traffic management details including when or whether any access points would be

required to be blocked; c) the location for the parking of all construction vehicles and construction worker

vehicles during construction; d) delivery of materials including details of where materials will be stored and how

concrete pours would be managed e) proposed traffic management signage for Cavanagh Street / Bernard Street /

Friendship Square (if required) indicating any inconvenience generated by construction;

f) fully detailed plan indicating where construction hoardings would be located and as relevant the associated approvals required;

g) times for loading/unloading of materials; h) containment of waste on site;

i) suppression of dust management; j) business operations on the site during construction;

k) site security; l) public safety measures; and

m) construction times, noise and vibration controls. o Before the commencement of any buildings and works on the Land, a Waste

Management Plan (WMP) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will



55

be endorsed as evidence of its approval and will then form part of the Permit and thereafter be complied with. The WMP must include but is not limited to:

a) The supply of bins for both ‘general waste’ and ‘recyclable waste’ and demonstrating how the garbage and recycling aspects of the development will operate;

b) The manner in which waste will be stored and collected including: type, size, number of containers and procedure(s) put in place as to how tenants are required to dispose of waste;

c) Spatial provision for on-site storage; d) Private contractor details; and

e) The size of the collection vehicle and the frequency, time and point of collection. The WMP must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The WMP must not be modified unless without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

o Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

o Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, all buildings and works and the conditions of this permit must be complied with, unless with the further prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

o Prior to the occupancy of the development the footpath as described in Condition 1c) must be constructed at the developer’s cost and maintained in accordance with the plans approved by the Council. Discussion with Roads and Drains Department is recommended prior to the submission of a design. A priced schedule of works within the footpath and the payment of Council’s engineering fees of 3.25% of the cost of works are required to be submitted prior to the approval of the engineering plans.

o Any subdivision plan must create the easements / common property as described in Conditions 1 g) and 1 h) of this permit.

o The development of the site must be provided with stormwater works which incorporates the use of water sensitive urban design principles to improve stormwater runoff quality and which also retains on site any increase in runoff as a result of the approved development. The system must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Council's Development Engineer can advise on satisfactory options to achieve these desired outcomes which may include the use of an infiltration or bioretention system, rainwater tanks connected for reuse and a detention system.

o Before the development commences, a Stormwater Management Plan showing the stormwater works to the nominated point of discharge must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Stormwater Management Plan must be prepared by a qualified person and show all details of the proposed stormwater works including all existing and proposed features that may have impact (e.g. trees to be retained, crossings, services, fences, abutting buildings, existing boundary surface levels, etc.).



56

o Stormwater works must be provided on the site so as to prevent overflows onto adjacent properties.

o Stormwater outflow of the site must be limited to ninety (90) litres per second. o Prior to the occupation of any dwellings within the development, a Traffic Management

Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. Three copies of the plan must be submitted. The plan must include but is not limited to:

a) details of any traffic management measures (speed humps / pedestrian crossings / traffic calming techniques etc) which can be implement along Cavanagh Street / Bernard Street / Friendship Square or the surrounding road network to reduce speed and improve vehicle and pedestrian safety in the vicinity of the subject site.

Representatives of Cheltenham Secondary College, Le Page Primary School and Council’s Traffic Engineering Department must be consulted as part of this plan. The Traffic Management Plan must be implemented to the satisfaction the Responsible Authority and must not be modified unless with the further written consent of the Responsible Authority. Any costs associated with the development of the Traffic Management Plan or the construction of any recommendations which are to implements as a result of the findings must be borne by the developer / applicant.

o Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, or by such later date as is approved by the Responsible Authority in writing, the nature strip, kerb and channel, vehicle crossover and footpath must reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

o Any existing vehicular crossing not in accordance with the endorsed plan must be removed and the kerb reinstated in a manner satisfactory to the Responsible Authority and any proposed vehicular crossing must be fully constructed to the Responsible Authority’s standard specification.

o Construction times must be in accordance with the relevant requirements noise of the Environment Protection Authority and in accordance with the Construction Management Plan required as per Condition 20 of this permit.

o Construction on the site must be restricted to the following times:

• Monday to Friday 7:00am to 7:00pm; and

• Saturday 9:00am to 6:00pm. Or otherwise as approved by the Responsible Authority in writing.

o Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, all boundary fences must be repaired and / or replaced as necessary to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, at the cost of the applicant / owner.

o Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, areas set aside for parking vehicles, access lanes and paths as shown on the endorsed plans must be:

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

c. Surfaced in accordance with the endorsed plans under this permit or in an all weather coloured concrete seal-coat, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.



57

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

o All works on or facing the boundaries of adjoining properties must be finished and surface cleaned to a standard that is well presented to neighbouring properties in a manner to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

o Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

o In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

• The development is not started within two (2) years from the date of permit issue.

• The development is not completed within four (4) years from the date of permit issue. In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within three months afterwards.

Note: Prior to the commencement of the development you are required to obtain the necessary Building Permit.

Note: The applicant / owner must provide a copy of this planning permit to any appointed Building Surveyor. It is the responsibility of the applicant/owner and Building Surveyor to ensure that all building development works approved by any building permit is consistent with the planning permit.

Note: Before removing / pruning any vegetation from the site, the applicant or any contractor engaged to remove any vegetation, should consult Council’s Vegetation Management Officer to verify if a Local Laws Permits is required for the removal of such vegetation.

Note: Footpath network needs to be continuous within the development by proving footpath at least one side of Maple Street, Jasmine Street, Willow Grove, Wattle Road & Central Park.

Note: Developer should obtain the footpath levels from Council’s Roads & Drains department prior to designing the footpath.

Note: Council strongly recommends increasing the overland flow toward the Cavanagh Street to minimise the detention required at the site and preventing flood water entering the neighbouring property, at the rear of the development.

Note: All street names within the proposed development are subject to approval by Council’s Property Services Department.

Or Should Council resolve not to support the application, that a Notice of Refusal to

Grant a Permit be used on the following grounds: 1. The proposal would have an adverse affect on the amenity of the area.



58

2. The proposal constitutes an overdevelopment of the site. 3. The proposal would detract from the visual amenity of the locality and the streetscape.

4. The proposal should not be decided upon until an Environmental Audit have been conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Environment Protection Act 1970.

5. The proposal is inconsistent with Clause 21.05 – Residential Land Use and Clause 22.11 – Residential Development Policy of the Kingston Planning Scheme.

6. The proposal fails to satisfy all of the requirements of Clause 55 of the Kingston Planning Scheme (ResCode), in particular: Clause 55.02-1 Neighbourhood Character Objectives, Clause 55.02-2 Residential Policy Objectives, Clause 55.03-1 Street Setback Objective, Clause 55.03-9 Access Objectives, Clause 55.05-4 Private Open Space Objective, Clause 55.05-5 Solar Access to Open Space Objective and Clause 55.06-1 Design Detail Objective



59

David Murray presented on behalf of the objectors Andrew Rettig presented on behalf of the applicant Substantive Motion Crs Athanasopoulos/Ronke That the recommendation be adopted. Amendment Cr Dundas That the recommendation be adopted subject to:

Condition u) being amended to read: The inter residential wall system (adjoining party wall) will be concrete (not timber frame) in accordance with R Corporation advice of 17 March 2011

The inclusion of the following documents in the appendix of the report:

14. Report from Douglas Partners-Project 42864.00 – Review of future road performance - Part A

15. Report from Douglas Partners-Project 42864.00 – Review of future road performance - Part B

16. Letter from R Corporation – Party Wall Design 17 March 2011

The Mover and Seconder agreed to include the amendment in the substantive motion Motion Crs Peulich/Staikos That consideration of this matter be deferred until receipt of the Statement of Environmental Audit. The Motion was put and lost. Amendment Crs Staikos/Shewan Further that when the Statement of Environmental Audit is received that the matter be considered by Council for acceptance at an Ordinary Meeting instead of through Council delegation. The Mover and Seconder agreed to include the amendment in the substantive motion



60

The Substantive Motion reads as follows Crs Athanasopoulos/Ronke That the recommendation be adopted subject to: Condition u) being amended to read: The inter residential wall system (adjoining party wall) will be concrete (not timber frame) in accordance with R Corporation advice of 17 March 2011 The inclusion of the following documents in the appendix of the report: 14. Report from Douglas Partners-Project 42864.00 – Review of future road performance - Part

A 15. Report from Douglas Partners-Project 42864.00 – Review of future road performance - Part

B 16. Letter from R Corporation – Party Wall Design 17 March 2011

Further that when the Statement of Environmental Audit is received that the matter be considered by Council for acceptance at an Ordinary Meeting instead of through Council delegation. Carried



61

THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS ARE FOUND WITHIN THE APPENDIX OF THIS REPORT. 1. Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria letter dated 10th September, 2010

(reference: 26063); 2. Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria letter dated 29th November, 2010

(reference: 26063); 3. Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria letter dated 18th February, 2011

(reference: 26063); 4. Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria letter dated 10th March, 2011 (reference:

26063); 5. Environmental Resource Management (ERM) Australia Pty Ltd letter dated 16th November,

2010 (reference: 0119546L01.DOC); 6. Environmental Resource Management (ERM) Australia Pty Ltd letter dated 26th November,

2010 (reference: 0119546L02.DOC); 7. Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd letter dated 25th November, 2010 (reference:

ENVIABTF09613AA-L03.docx); 8. Central Park Diagram prepared by Tract Consultants dated 25th November, 2010;

9. Golder Associates Pty Ltd report (Geotechnical Advice for Proposed Residential Development) dated 25th November, 2010 (reference: 107612066-015-R-Rev1);

10. Golder Associates Pty Ltd letter (Pavement Design for Internal Pavements) dated 25th November, 2010 (reference: 107612066-017-R-Rev1);

11. Golder Associates Pty Ltd report (Geotechnical Investigation) dated 25th November, 2010 (reference: 107612066-019-R-Rev1);

12. Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd letter prepared by Phil Sinclair dated 4th February, 2011; and

13. Draft Statement of Environmental Audit Content and Conditions dated 4th February.



62

1. Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria letter dated 10th September, 2010 (reference: 26063);



63



64

2. Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria letter dated 29th November, 2010 (reference: 26063);



65

3. Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria letter dated 18th February, 2011 (reference: 26063);



66

4. Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria letter dated 10th March, 2011 (reference: 26063);



67



68

5. Environmental Resource Management (ERM) Australia Pty Ltd letter dated 16th

November, 2010 (reference: 0119546L01.DOC);



69



70



71



72

6. Environmental Resource Management (ERM) Australia Pty Ltd letter dated 26th November, 2010 (reference: 0119546L02.DOC);



73



74

7. Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd letter dated 25th November, 2010 (reference: ENVIABTF09613AA-L03.docx)



75



76



77



78



79



80

8. Central Park Diagram prepared by Tract Consultants dated 25th November, 2010.



81

7. Golder Associates Pty Ltd report (Geotechnical Advice for Proposed Residential Development) dated 25th November, 2010 (reference: 107612066-015-R-Rev1).



82



83



84



85



86



87



88



89



90



91



92



93



94



95

8. Golder Associates Pty Ltd letter (Pavement Design for Internal Pavements) dated 25th November, 2010 (reference: 107612066-017-R-Rev1).



96



97



98



99



100

9. Golder Associates Pty Ltd report (Geotechnical Investigation) dated 25th November, 2010 (reference: 107612066-019-R-Rev1).



101



102



103



104



105



106



107



108



109

10. Coffey Environments Australia Pty Ltd letter prepared by Phil Sinclair dated 4th February, 2011.



110



111



112

11. Draft Statement of Environmental Audit Content and Conditions dated 4th February.



113

N 25 Winter Foreshore Restrictions Amended Times Approved by: Tony Rijs, General Manager Environmental Sustainability Author: Robyn Horner, Manager Local Laws and Health Services

1. Purpose The purpose of this report is to inform Council on the outcome of the amended winter foreshore restrictions trial undertaken in 2010.

2. Background In May 2007 Council received a petition signed by 714 people requesting that the time of the winter restriction be amended to allow dogs off leash on the foreshore until 11am. The current gazetted winter restrictions allow dogs to be off leash in Section B of the foreshore before 10 am and after 3pm. The winter restrictions are in place from 1 April to 31 October each year. Council trialled the requested 11am modification and now is in a position to determine its continuation.

3. Summary and Conclusion Local Laws have now evaluated the effectiveness of the modified winter dog access hours. During and after the trial foreshore users were interviewed seeking their opinion if the trial amended hours should become permanent. The majority were in favour of keeping the amended hours. Both dog walkers and other beach users were approached. Local Laws also reviewed statistical data and did not detect any significant issues during the trial period. There had not been an increase in the number of complaints and compliance levels have been maintained. Council will have to undertake statutory advertising in accordance with Section 26 (3) of the Domestic Animals Act 1994. Council will place an advertisement notifying its’ intentions in the Victorian Government Gazette and local Leader newspapers distributed throughout the municipality.

4. Consultation The consultation process undertaken after the commencement of the trial times involved the following: Council’s Foreshore Enforcement Officer approached beach users seeking their opinion of the amended times. A full consultation process was followed prior to Council deciding to undertake a trial of the foreshore dog restriction hours. The results of the full consultation is contained in a report presented to Council (09/72579).



114

5. Issues There were no issues arising from the trial amendment of the winter dog restriction hours. The majority of beach users approached were happy to see the trialled hours made permanent.

6. Options Proceed with the statutory process to amend winter foreshore access hours permanently.

7 Triple Bottom Line Checklist • Environmental – No impact • Social – The trialled hours have been accepted well by the community and the permanent

change would support the community’s request. • Financial – There is no immediate impact but it is proposed that a full upgrade of all the

foreshore compliance signs be undertaken in 2012/2013 as part of the

8. Recommendation That Council resolve to amend clauses (e) and (f) of the Order made by Council on 3 May 2001 pursuant to Section 26 of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 to the following: e) Outside the Mordialloc No Dog Zone the sand areas of the foreshore reserve be off leash

before 11.00 a.m. and after 3.00 p.m. between 1 April and 31 October. f) Outside of the Mordialloc No Dog Zone dogs must remain on leash in or on the foreshore

reserve between 11.00 a.m. and 3.00 p.m. between 1 April and 31 October unless in a designated off leash area.

Crs Staikos/Shewan That the recommendation be adopted.

Carried Cr Staikos left the Chamber at 8.25pm Cr Peulich left the Chamber at 8.26pm Cr Staikos returned to the Chamber at 8.28pm Cr Peulich returned to the Chamber at 8.31pm



115

8 Question Time (continued) The Mayor advised that no questions had been received.



116

N 26 Amendment to Dog Control Order Approved by: Tony Rijs, General Manager Environmental Sustainability Author: Neil Sheppard, Team Leader Local Laws

1. Purpose The purpose of this report is to amend Council’s current Order for the control of dogs in public places.

2. Background The Domestic Animals Act 1994 (“the Act”) is the legislation that provides for management of dogs in public places. An amended Municipal Order under Section 26 (2) was adopted in November 2010. The Order omitted the paragraph requiring all dogs walked in the City of Kingston to be on a leash whilst in any public place unless in a reserve or part of a reserve that has been designated as an off leash area. This report addresses the omission.

3. Summary and Conclusion Council amend the current Order pursuant to section 26(2) of the Domestic Animals Act 1994. The current Order requires dogs to be on leash at all times whilst in any public place except for designated dog off leash areas. The amended Order will also provide further provisions to effectively control dogs within our Municipality and assist in providing a safer environment for our community.

4. Consultation In accordance with Section 26 (3) of the Domestic Animals Act 1994, Council placed an advertisement notifying its’ intentions in the Victorian Government Gazette and local Leader newspapers distributed throughout the municipality inviting public comment. During the consultation no responses were received.

5. Issues The current Order introduced in October 1996 is limited in it’s effectiveness as it does not address all public places. Council is aware of a number of serious attacks and nuisances caused by unrestrained dogs along the Patterson River walking/cycling path. This area is not under the control of Council therefore not covered by the current Order. Council has a duty to provide a safe environment and address known risks. The amended current Order will allow Authorised Officers to educate and enforce along the Patterson River walking/cycling path and other public areas.

6. Options Option 1 Amend the current Order to include the following paragraph:



117

1. Dogs must be on a leash The owner of a dog must keep attached to the dog a chain, cord or leash and held by the owner when in any public place not designated as an off leash area, school grounds, railway land, or shopping centres where an agreement pursuant to Section 26 (2A) of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 is in place in the municipality. This option is recommended

7. Triple Bottom Line Checklist • Environmental – N/A. • Social – The amended current Order aims to improve community safety and reduce the

number of reported nuisances and dog attacks. Financial – There will be a cost for statutory advertising of the amendment.

8. Recommendation That Council amend the current Order in accordance with Section 26 (3) of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 as follows: 1. Dogs must be on a leash The owner of a dog must keep attached to the dog a chain, cord or leash and held by the owner when in any public place not designated as an off leash area, school grounds, railway land, or shopping centres where an agreement pursuant to Section 26 (2A) of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 is in place in the municipality. Crs Shewan/Athanasopoulos That the recommendation be adopted.

Carried



118

N 27 Draft Submission to Airport Regulation - Draft Significant Impact on the Local or Regional Community Guide

Approved by: Tony Rijs – General Manager Environmental Sustainability Author: Jonathan Guttmann – Manager City Strategy

1. Purpose The purpose of this report is to seek direction from Council on a suggested submission to the Draft Significant Impact on the Local or Regional Community Guide released for community comment. Submissions are due to the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport by 31 March 2011. A copy of the suggested Council submission and draft guide are provided as an attachment to this report.

2. Background The Airports Amendment Act 2010 includes a new Major Development Plan (MDP) ‘trigger; that is activated by any development on leased federal airport land that is likely to have a ‘significant impact on the local or regional community’, regardless of size or cost. The Aviation White Paper indicated that this trigger would be supported by guidance material. The attached discussion draft has been provided for community feedback.

3. Summary and Conclusion Officers consider it appropriate that a submission be prepared in response to the Draft Significant Impact on the Local or Regional Community Guide. A copy of the suggested submission is provided as an attachment to this report. Although the initiative to introduce a ‘community impact trigger’ and associated guidelines is a positive step forward, the suggested submission reinforces some of the matters which may require further thought to improve the manner in which the trigger exists. It also seeks to once again highlight the fundamental inconsistencies in process between decision making on airport land when compared with other planning jurisdictions.

4. Consultation All representatives of the Moorabbin Airport Aviation Consultative Committee (MAACC) were provided with notification from the Moorabbin Airport General Manager (Mr Phil McConnell) of the draft guidelines and consultation period.



119

5. Recommendation

That Council resolve to provide the attached submission in response to the ‘Draft Significant Impact on the Local or Regional Community Guide’ to the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport. Attachments: • Suggested Submission to the ‘Draft Significant Impact on the Local or Regional Community Guide’ • Draft Significant Impact on the Local or Regional Community Guide produced by the Commonwealth

Department of Infrastructure and Transport Crs Athanasopoulos/Staikos That the recommendation be adopted.

Carried



120

N 28 Double Storey Development in Backyards – Review of Decision Making

Approved by: Tony Rijs, General Manager Environmental Sustainability Author: Ian Nice

Introduction An earlier version of this report was presented to Council at its Planning Committee Agenda Review Meeting of 31 January, 2011. The content of the report was discussed and Councillors requested that further information in the form of statistical data regarding Council planning decisions and final VCAT outcomes.

1. Purpose The purpose of this report is to review existing levels of planning delegations and to thereby define which planning applications are brought to Council for a decision and which applications can be determined under officer delegation.

2. Background Over the past 9 months there has been a significant increase in the number of planning applications being considered by Council it is considered that there is scope to review what is currently put before Council with a view to reduce the number of planning applications required to be considered by Council.

3. Issues To date, as many as 19 planning items have been presented to Council during the CIS/Council Meeting/Planning Committee Agenda Review / Planning Committee cycle, when the norm over many years has been in the order of 4–5 per meeting cycle. For example, it should be noted that of the 19 planning items discussed at the 31 January 2011, Planning Committee Agenda Review Meeting, 17 of them were planning applications for residential development and 9 of those applications were ultimately decided under officer delegation. Under the current level of officer delegation, there is little sign that the type and number of applications presented will decrease significantly in the foreseeable future. The time taken to process planning applications is increasing due to a number of factors including the complexity of applications, the number of more complex types of applications received and the process of how an application can be determined, ie levels of delegated authority. It is considered that some of the items being presented to Councillors via the CIS/Council Meeting/Planning Committee Agenda Review/Planning Committee Meeting cycle could be dealt with at officer level, subject to a suitable criteria being established, designed to provide Councillors with a surety that appropriate and understood decisions are being made at officer level. This should lead to shorter timeframes for which applications are determined, which in



121

turn should reduce the number of failure appeals being lodged with VCAT. It should also lead to better planning outcomes as officers will be able to spend more time on applications including concerns and issues raised by all parties if such applications do not have to go before Council. Given the Council meeting cycles, applications loose up to 30+ statutory days, often bringing them past their 60 day statutory days for determination thus exposing Council to the risk of failure to determine appeals being lodged with VCAT. It is considered that this change to the planning application process will deliver an improved Council service to all parties involved. Statistical data of Council Meeting decisions has been collated for all Council meetings between 2008 and 2010, with emphasis placed on like for like applications and their final outcome. There were obviously a number of other appeals attended/heard over this period, however, the applications, although determined by Council at a Council Meeting, did not fit into the residential multi-dwelling category identified. The like for like applications are all applications for residential development presented to Council over the period described above, and which have had an officer recommendation to approve the proposal, but have been overturned by Council, been appealed to the VCAT by the respective applicant and then been decided by the VCAT. A total of 37 like for like residential applications were identified in the statistics gathered that have been through the complete process described above. Of these 37 applications, a total of 30 (77%) were refused by Council, but were appealed to the VCAT, which then directed that a Planning Permit be issued. Seven (23%) affirmed Council’s decision. Of the seven (7) affirmed Council decisions, four (4) were decided by VCAT in 2008, one (1) in 2009, one (1) in 2010 and one (1) in 2011, and two (2) of these decisions were for the same property (13 Stayner Grove, Highett). It can been seen from the statistical data collected that the number of appeal decisions affirming Council decisions for the last 3 years is only 1 per year, whilst the number of appeals to VCAT is increasing.

4. Options In recent times the majority of applications brought before Councillors are for double storey development in backyards. These types of applications are mostly for 2 or 3 dwellings on a lot, although there have been some examples of more. It is considered that the applications can be broken down so that certain types of double storey backyard type developments could be dealt with at officer level. Such applications that could be dealt with at officer level include: 1. Any applications in the Residential Zones that have no objections; or 2. Applications in the Residential 3 Zone that fall short of the ‘average lot size’ requirements

by 10% of the land area, or less; or. 3. Applications for double storey dwellings at the rear of a site which abuts and overlooks a

public reserve, including the foreshore, a golf course, other non-residentially zoned land, a watercourse, a freeway/freeway reservation, a railway reservation, industrially zoned land or the like, where such dwellings are sensitively designed and are compliant with Clause



122

55 of the Kingston Planning Scheme (ResCode) in that do not generate overlooking, overshadowing, or loss of privacy to abutting and/or nearby dwellings beyond that permitted by ResCode; or

4. Applications that are consistent with Council’s Residential Development Policy, such as

attic type developments or sensitively designed conventional double storey developments that are compliant with Clause 55 of the Kingston Planning Scheme (ResCode) that do not generate overlooking, overshadowing, or loss of privacy to abutting and/or nearby dwellings beyond that permitted by ResCode; or

5. Applications for up to five (5) double storey dwellings in a Residential 1 Zone that are

compliant with Clause 55 of the Kingston Planning Scheme (ResCode) that do not generate overlooking, overshadowing, or loss of privacy to abutting and/or nearby dwellings beyond that permitted by ResCode.

5. Summary and Conclusion It is considered timely and appropriate to look closely at the level of delegation provided to officers in respect to the types of planning applications identified in Section 4 of this report with a view to reducing the amount of time spent by Councillors discussing applications which can clearly be dealt with at officer level. By freeing up valuable Councillor time, Councillors can spend the time they need to discuss and decide on all matters brought to it, rather than what often appears to be just planning matters taking up the majority of meetings.

6. Recommendation Recommendation 1 That Council resolve to increase the level of delegated authority afforded to its Planning Delegate to allow officer delegation of planning applications in a residential zone that have no objectors. Recommendation 2 That Council resolve to increase the level of delegated authority afforded to its Planning Delegate to allow officer delegation of planning applications in the Residential 3 Zone that fall short of the ‘average lot size’ requirements by 10% of the land area, or less.



123

Recommendation 3 That Council resolve to increase the level of delegated authority afforded to its Planning Delegate to allow officer delegation of planning applications for double storey dwellings at the rear of a site which abuts and overlooks a public reserve, including the foreshore, a golf course, other non-residentially zoned land, a watercourse, a freeway/freeway reservation, a railway reservation, industrially zoned land or the like, where such dwellings are sensitively designed and are compliant with Clause 55 of the Kingston Planning Scheme (ResCode) in that do not generate overlooking, overshadowing, or loss of privacy to abutting and/or nearby dwellings beyond that permitted by ResCode. Recommendation 4 That Council resolve to increase the level of delegated authority afforded to its Planning Delegate to allow officer delegation of planning applications that are consistent with Council’s Residential Development Policy, such as attic type developments or sensitively designed conventional double storey developments that are compliant with Clause 55 of the Kingston Planning Scheme (ResCode) that do not generate overlooking, overshadowing, or loss of privacy to abutting and/or nearby dwellings beyond that permitted by ResCode. Recommendation 5 That Council resolve to increase the level of delegated authority afforded to its Planning Delegate to allow officer delegation of planning applications for up to five (5) double storey dwellings in a Residential 1 Zone that are compliant with Clause 55 of the Kingston Planning Scheme (ResCode) that do not generate overlooking, overshadowing, or loss of privacy to abutting and/or nearby dwellings beyond that permitted by ResCode.



124

Cr Dundas requested that Recommendations 1-4 be put to the vote separately to Recommendation 5. Crs Ronke/Athanasopoulos Recommendation 1 That Council resolve to increase the level of delegated authority afforded to its Planning Delegate to allow officer delegation of planning applications in a residential zone that have no objectors and has agreement from the majority of Ward Councillors. Recommendation 2 That Council resolve to increase the level of delegated authority afforded to its Planning Delegate to allow officer delegation of planning applications in the Residential 3 Zone that fall short of the ‘average lot size’ requirements by 10% of the land area, or less and there are no objections. Recommendation 3 That Council resolve to increase the level of delegated authority afforded to its Planning Delegate to allow officer delegation of planning applications for double storey dwellings at the rear of a site which abuts and overlooks a public reserve, including the foreshore, a golf course, other non-residentially zoned land, a watercourse, a freeway/freeway reservation, a railway reservation, industrially zoned land or the like, where such dwellings are sensitively designed and are compliant with Clause 55 of the Kingston Planning Scheme (ResCode) in that do not generate overlooking, overshadowing, or loss of privacy to abutting and/or nearby dwellings beyond that permitted by ResCode and there are no objections Recommendation 4 That Council resolve to increase the level of delegated authority afforded to its Planning Delegate to allow officer delegation of planning applications that are consistent with Council’s Residential Development Policy, such as attic type developments or sensitively designed conventional double storey developments that are compliant with Clause 55 of the Kingston Planning Scheme (ResCode) that do not generate overlooking, overshadowing, or loss of privacy to abutting and/or nearby dwellings beyond that permitted by ResCode and there are no objections. Carrried Crs Ronke/Athanasopoulos Recommendation 5 That Council resolve to increase the level of delegated authority afforded to its Planning Delegate to allow officer delegation of planning applications for up to five (5) double storey dwellings in a Residential 1 Zone that are compliant with Clause 55 of the Kingston Planning Scheme (ResCode) that do not generate overlooking, overshadowing, or loss of privacy to abutting and/or nearby dwellings beyond that permitted by ResCode and there are no objections. Carried



125

Crs Peulich/Athanasopoulos That the matter be reviewed in the upcoming Planning Workshop.

Carried Cr Athanasopoulos left the Chamber at 8.42pm Cr Athanasopoulos returned to the Chamber at 8.44pm



126

N 29 VCAT Mediation – Major Planning Applications Author: Tony Rijs, General Manager Environmental Sustainability

Background In May 2010, the VCAT introduced the Major Cases List, which is a new process for the consideration of planning developments worth more than $5 million. As part of this new process, those applications that qualify for the Major Cases List are set down for a Practice Day Hearing and Mediation Hearing, prior to proceeding to a Full Merits Hearing. The purpose of introducing a Mediation Hearing in the initial phase is to see if a point of negotiation can be reached between all respective parties. The Mediation Hearing involves the presiding member/mediator, the permit applicant/representative, Council representative and any third parties.

Issues Due to this new process, it is becoming increasingly evident that the majority of applications included on the Major Cases List involve large scale developments that were refused by Council. In these instances it has been the direction of Council that Planning Officers are not to be involved in representing the views of Council and that an independent legal representative or planning consultant be engaged to present Council’s position. This process is effective at a VCAT hearing as the Council representative is provided with the basis of Council’s refusal and utilises these grounds to defend Council’s decision. The challenge, however, arises in circumstances where an application is required to go to a Mediation Hearing, prior to a Full Merits Hearing. Under existing protocols, the Council advocate has no latitude to stray from Council’s adopted position. This is clearly unsatisfactory in the eyes of the Tribunal if there is scope to achieve an appropriate outcome by the mediation process. If Council wishes to be an active participant in the VCAT mediation process it will be necessary to endorse a process that will enable Council to respond relatively quickly and achieve a compromise position to put forward at the mediation process by the presiding member/mediator. This is particularly important in circumstances where all parties (including the permit applicant and third parties) have reached a consensus position.

Proposal The objective is to establish a mechanism to enable Council to respond in a very short time frame –perhaps one or two days. It is not practical to expect an advocate engaged by Council to agree to a mediated outcome. The approach would be to delegate this task to a senior Council officer. It is possible to delegate responsibilities to an individual Councillor or group of Councillors such as a Section 86, however the timelines associated with giving notice for a Section 86 Committee will not allow Council to respond in a timely manner.



127

Option 1 If Council wishes to actively participate in mediations the feasible solution would be to amend the Council officer delegation so that a nominated staff member would have the ability to make a decision on behalf of Council. Such delegation would be subject to a condition that would require the officer to seek the views of the Ward Councillors prior to exercising the delegated power. Ward Councillors would have to respond in writing and the position put to mediation would be the majority Ward Councillor view based on consistency with the original Council decision. Advantages Council has the ability to actively participate in the VCAT mediation process and potentially achieve a better development outcome. Disadvantage Not all Councillors may be satisfied with a negotiated outcome. This may cause tensions between officers and elected representatives.

Option 2 Council to elect not to participate in VCAT mediations. Advantages • Council position is clearly stated to all those that participate in mediation processes. • Developer less likely to lodge ambit claims Disadvantages • In circumstances where applicants/objectors reach agreement Council may be seen to

stifle a negotiated outcome. • By failing to negotiate the development outcome may be less favourable. • Representation at full hearings are more costly to Council.

Recommendation That Council delegate to the General Manager Environmental Sustainability the power to determine Council’s position at VCAT mediations on the basis of the majority Ward Councillors’ view and consistency with the majority Council decision. Crs Peulich/Staikos That the recommendation be adopted.

Carried



128

10. Community Sustainability Reports N 30 Emergency Beach Markers Approved by: Mauro Bolin, General Manager Community Sustainability Author: Dominic McCann Community Projects Co-ordinator

1. Purpose The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s endorsement for the installation of 13 Emergency Beach Markers along Kingston’s foreshore enabling Council to take a lead role in providing increased safety for residents and visitors to Kingston beaches. 2. Council Plan The installation of the Emergency Beach Markers is consistent with Planned Outcome 1 in the Council Plan 2009 – 2013 and in particular relates to:

• Strategic Action 1.5.1 – ‘Through a partnership approach and implementation of the Community Safety Strategy, provide a safe and secure environment for those that live, work and participate in community life’.

It also relates to Key Safety Priorities in Council’s Community Safety Strategy and in particular:

• Priority 1. Co-ordination and Leadership of Community Safety; and • Priority 3. Safety in Public Open Spaces.

3. Background The Kingston municipality has 13 kilometres of foreshore. During the summer months many thousands of people visit Kingston and make use of the excellent beach facilities and in the summer of 2008 – 2009 three drowning deaths occurred along Kingston beaches. All of the deaths involved visitors to Kingston who were unfamiliar with the area, the beaches and beach safety. Concerns have been raised in the media, among residents and within Council about emergency services not being able to respond to emergencies in a prompt and effective manner. The Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority (ESTA) also report that callers to Triple Zero (000) are often unable to accurately advise of their exact location when on beaches or in parks and recreation reserves. The issue of reporting accurate locations in an emergency was explored within Kingston’s Community Safety Reference Group and the Foreshore Behaviour Planning Forum. Consequently, Council officers entered into discussions with ESTA to explore the installation of Emergency Beach Markers which would assist Victoria Police, the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board, the Country Fire Authority, Victoria State Emergency Services (VicSES) and Ambulance Victoria to respond more effectively to emergencies.



129

ESTA holds the statutory responsibility for handling Triple Zero (000) calls. ESTA also provides and manages the operational communications for the dispatch of police, fire, ambulance and VicSES. Emergency Beach Markers, an initiative of ESTA, are unique alphanumeric signs which are easy to identify. They are placed in selected public open spaces such as public reserves and gardens, racecourses, river trails, cycling tracks and national parks. The green and white signage colours are prescribed in accordance with Australian Standards for Emergency Information. Parks Victoria has already installed emergency markers in a number of its parks including Braeside Park in Braeside. Emergency Markers enable the exact location of a Triple Zero (000) caller to be accurately identified. Markers are not merely signs. Rather, they are supported by the Global Positioning System (GPS) co-ordinates and directional instructions. Emergency Markers enable ESTA operators to provide directional information to police, fire, ambulance and VicSES advising of obstructions such as locked gates, road closures and quickest access points. Emergency markers provide for the highest standard of verifying locations for emergency response. The Emergency Marker directional aid saves time and may help save lives by enabling emergency service organisations to arrive on the scene faster.

4. Summary and Conclusion Council has demonstrated a long standing commitment to the safety and wellbeing of the residents of Kingston and City visitors through the development and implementation of its Community Safety Strategy and associated activities. Creating a safe environment is fundamental to enabling residents and visitors to Kingston to enjoy the leisure and recreational facilities that Kingston has to offer. Emergency Beach Markers are an innovative initiative that would help to maintain a safe environment for residents and visitors to Kingston’s beaches and would enable the emergency services to effectively respond to emergencies along the foreshore. Emergency Markers enable the exact location of a Triple Zero (000) caller to be accurately identified enabling emergency services to arrive on scene faster. This saves time and may help save lives. The installation of Emergency Beach Markers is an innovative partnership between Kingston Council and ESTA. Given the obvious benefits to community safety it is ESTA’s intention to partner with Kingston to be a role model and roll out this initiative along all of the bayside beaches. ESTA approved Emergency Beach Markers are currently being installed along the foreshore in the City of Port Phillip and Frankston City Council has recently commenced discussions with ESTA to explore the possibility of following suit. The Emergency Beach Marker proposal is innovative and highlights the positive relationships Council has with emergency service organisations and the positive outcomes achieved through the Community Safety Reference Group and the Foreshore Behaviour Reference Group. This project would be a tangible demonstration of Kingston Council’s proactive approach to safety in Kingston.



130

5. Consultation Council officers have consulted with ESTA, Kingston’s Community Safety Reference Group, the Foreshore Behaviour Planning Forum, Department of Sustainability and Environment, all relevant emergency services organisations and key departments within Council (Infrastructure, Local laws, Parks and Gardens, and Depot staff). All parties are supportive of the Emergency Marker initiative on Kingston’s foreshore and Emergency Markers are supported by all emergency services in Victoria and endorsed by Parks Victoria and the Department of Sustainability and Environment.

6. Issues Council Authority The installation of the Emergency Beach Markers complies with the objectives of the Coastal Management Act 1995. The required approvals from the Department of Sustainability and Environment have been obtained. Aesthetic Considerations The Emergency Beach Markers initiative would have some minor implications for the aesthetics of the foreshore. It is recommended that 13 new markers would be installed along Council’s 13 kilometres of foreshore. However, to minimise the visual impact on the foreshore, 11 of these markers would be attached to structures already established on the foreshore. Two new posts would have to be installed but these will not affect foreshore vegetation and would have minimal aesthetic impact. The signs would be manufactured to ESTA specifications and guidelines (Attachment A) and are not obtrusive. (Please see sample Attachment B, Attachment C and Attachment D). Cost Implications Manufacture and installation costs would total approximately $5,000 for the proposal to install 13 markers and can be accommodated within Council’s 2010 - 2011 approved budget. Bayside Consistency The initiative to install beach markers has attracted the interest of several other Local Governments around Port Phillip Bay. ESTA has held discussions with a number of municipalities along Port Phillip Bay and has identified those municipalities that are considering installing emergency beach markers (Attachment I). The signage design, colours and dimensions and instructions are standard across all signs but the numbering will be different. The numbers are unique to each municipality. The City of Port Phillip is in the process of installing beach markers in partnership with ESTA. These makers will conform to ESTA’s signage specifications and will be erected at all entry points to the beaches along the City of Port Phillip foreshore. Frankston City Council has recently commenced discussions with ESTA to explore the possibility of installing markers and plan to comply with the ESTA signage specifications. Seeking agreement on a standardised numbering system would require further detailed consultation and negotiation with neighbouring municipalities and the State Government.



131

Methodology for Selecting Marker Locations. Early in 2010, Council officers from Community Engagement; Infrastructure; Parks and Gardens; Natural Resources; and representatives of ESTA carried out a detailed analysis of the beach and examined appropriate locations for the installation of the markers. It was agreed that the markers should be about 500 metres apart so that beach users are never at any time too far from a marker. It was apparent from the analysis that markers did not have to go along the entire 13 kilometres of foreshore as there were already identifiable structures such as Life Saving Clubs, yacht clubs, kiosks, carparks and streets that ran down to the beach that could be used to direct emergency services. These locations had already been catalogued and recorded in the global positioning data by ESTA and did not need to have their own unique marker. Thus, 13 markers are considered to be an optimal number. It was also recognised during the assessment that the markers would not be lit at night but this limitation is mitigated by the fact that safe swimming should be undertaken during day light hours and that generally there are less people on the beach during the evening. Notwithstanding, markers can be positioned where possible to coincide with any street lighting that currently exists.

7. Options Option 1 - Thirteen emergency markers Council’s Infrastructure Department has conducted an audit on all streets that run to the foreshore to identify those that have nameplates and those that do not. New signs can be manufactured and installed on all streets where signage is absent. This would ensure that beach users close to streets would be able to easily identify and report their locations to the emergency services. It was agreed that the markers should be positioned at those parts of the beaches where easily recognised established buildings did not exist or where the beach was some distance away from easily identified streets. It was also important that the markers would be located where people traditionally entered and exited the beaches. Beach users seeking emergency assistance would naturally move to the exits and would be able to see the markers as they departed the beach. It was determined that two markers, identified as KCC104 and KCC107, could be attached to two new square posts. These posts would replace existing round posts at the beach end of the pathway near Warrigal Road and at the pathway near Rennison Street. Two other markers, KCC111 and KCC112, would need to be attached to new posts where no posts or appropriate structures existed previously. One of these new posts would be located on the south side of Patterson River with the second new post located at the end of Osprey pathway at Carrum. ESTA recorded the locations of the proposed 13 markers and logged their co-ordinates into the GPS. The data that ESTA recorded would enable emergency services to identify exactly the location of the marker, the best route to travel to the location, the nature of the terrain, any potential barriers or hazards, and vehicular or pedestrian access to the beach.



132

In October 2010 a second visit was made to the locations to verify the data and to confirm that these were the best locations for the markers. Some amendments to the locations were made and the GPS data was adjusted and confirmed. Photographs recording the exact locations and the structures to which the markers would be attached were taken. This would enable ease of installation and future maintenance of the markers. (See Attachment E for detail). The data is now stored with ESTA on its GPS. If Council approves the installation of the markers a trial will be undertaken to ensure all details on the system are accurate. When ESTA is confident that all the data and co-ordinates are correct, the system would be activated and a publicity campaign to raise awareness within the community would be implemented. Annual audits would be conducted to validate the data and marker locations and Council would continue to collaborate with the Community Safety Reference Group, ESTA, the emergency services, neighbouring municipalities and other key stakeholders to monitor the effectiveness of the markers. An annual review of the initiative would be conducted to assess the need for an extension of the program or any other amendments. The 13 Emergency Beach Markers would complement existing structures on the foreshore that have already been has been logged on to the GPS by ESTA. Markers could be installed at 500 metre intervals along the foreshore though, on advice from ESTA, this is not required. The 13 markers coupled with already identified and documented existing structures and streets would ensure that the foreshore is adequately covered. The cost of the purchase and installation of these 13 markers would be $5,000 and this expenditure can be accommodated within existing budgets. Option 2 – Twelve additional emergency markers The initial proposal recommends that a total of 13 markers are installed along the foreshore with three of these markers installed on the foreshore south of Mordialloc Creek. However, a further option as an extension to the optimum number of markers is to install an additional 12 markers. These markers could be installed in locations between established structures such as Aspendale Life Saving Club, Edithvale Life Saving Club, and Chelsea Life Saving Club and will further enhance the initiative by providing greater GPS coverage. (See Attachments F and G for detail). The proposed locations for these 12 extra markers are as follows: 1. Hearle Avenue, Aspendale 2. Kiandra Close, Aspendale 3. Ideal Avenue, Aspendale 4. Gnotuk Avenue, Aspendale 5. Alexandra Street, Aspendale 6. Bapaume Avenue, Edithvale 7. Roseberry Avenue, Bonbeach 8. Maury Road, Chelsea 9. Wimborne Avenue, Chelsea 10. Newberry Avenue, Bonbeach 11. 50 metres south of the Glade, Bonbeach 12. Progress Avenue, Carrum



133

The installation of 12 extra markers would add an extra estimated $3,600 to manufacturing and installation costs. Additionally, new annual charges of approximately $660 would be levied by ESTA for consultancy and data recording. This option requires an increase in costs and could not be accommodated within current budgets and the extra funding would need to be considered within Council’s budgetary planning processes. Option 3 - Markers at every 300 metres. A further alternative to the original proposal is the installation of beach markers on 70 new posts at intervals of 300 metres along the full 13 kilometres of the foreshore. (Attachment H) Markers at every 300 metres, coupled with already established structures and easily identified streets, would provide extensive GPS coverage. These markers would be installed on new posts along the beach. This option would provide consistency and continuity and may reduce confusion among visitors to the beaches. An extensive media campaign would enable the public to become familiar with markers at 300 metre regular intervals. However posts and markers at every 300 metres has implications for beach aesthetics and may add to the clutter of signage already on the beach. They will also add to the costs of manufacture, installation and maintenance which are estimated at approximately $21,000. Additional to this will be new charges levied by ESTA for consultancy and data recording of approximately $1,980 p.a. The significant increase in costs associated with this option could not be accommodated within current budgets. Extra funding would need to be considered within Council’s budgetary planning processes. Street names. To complement the beach markers with their unique alphanumeric signage the names of streets that coincide with the markers can be attached to the same posts. This would provide a further piece of information for beach users that would enhance the system. A number of these locations, such as are KCC100 at Charman Road, KCC101 at Plummer Road, KCC103 at Marine Parade, KCC104 Warrigal Road, KCC105 Surf Street and so on have been identified because of their proximity to particular streets. Costs of attaching street names to the posts will depend on the option endorsed by Council and the number of signs being installed. However, the manufacture and installation of these street names would cost approximately $100 per sign. Launch and Public Awareness-Raising Campaign It will be critical that an effective and extensive publicity and awareness raising strategy be developed and implemented. This strategy would be developed by Council’s Communications Department and would include a formal launch involving Council, ESTA, Department of Sustainability and Environment, and emergency service organisations. An on-going publicity campaign would include extensive print and electronic media coverage and the production of information materials for distribution to the community in various languages. Information on the markers and how they operate would be distributed to all residents through Kingston Your City and the Leader newspapers, and to the many visitors to Kingston beaches through the various metropolitan media outlets. Houses in close proximity to the foreshore would receive specific written material.



134

A number of incidents that have occurred on the Kingston foreshore in recent years have involved beach-users from other municipalities. Therefore, partnerships and collaboration with neighbouring municipalities and media will also be sought to communicate the information further abroad. A targeted approach would also be undertaken to inform beach-goers on site. Subject to Council’s approval, arrangements have been made with Victoria Police and Local Laws to utilise their officers to distribute written material to people whilst undertaking usual patrols on the foreshore throughout the summer period.

Recommended Options Recommended: 7.1 That Council endorses the proposal to install Emergency Beach Markers at 13 locations along Kingston’s foreshore. 7.2 That Council endorses the proposal to attach street names to all those markers where nearby streets coincide. Alternative: 7.3 That Council endorses the proposal to install Emergency Beach Markers at 25 locations along Kingston’s foreshore. 7.4 That Council endorses the installation of 70 Emergency Beach Markers at 300 metre intervals along the foreshore. 7.5 That Council engages with neighbouring municipalities and the State government to seek agreement on a standard system of beach markers around Port Phillip Bay. 7.6 That Council does not endorse the proposal to install Emergency Beach Markers along the foreshore.

8. Triple Bottom Line Checklist Environmental – Installation of 13 beach markers would have a negligible effect on the foreshore and the environment. No major construction work would be required to install the markers. Two new posts would have to be installed involving minor work but these will not affect foreshore vegetation and will have minimal aesthetic impact. The signs would be manufactured to ESTA specifications and guidelines (Attachment A) and would not be obtrusive. (Please see sample Attachment B, Attachment C and Attachment D). Social – The social impact of the initiative is highly significant. The installation of beach markers would enable emergency services to respond more effectively and efficiently to emergency situations on the beach. The initiative would also build a greater sense of safety and confidence in the community when visiting Kingston beaches. Installation of beach markers would further demonstrate Kingston Council’s commitment to innovation and the health and safety of its residents and visitors to the city. Financial – It is estimated that the costs of manufacturing and installing new posts and markers at 13 locations would total $5,000. These costs can be managed within Council’s 2010/11 approved budget. The cost of each option presented in this report follows:



135

Option: Number of markers: Costs: 1 13 $5,000 2 25 $9,620 3 70 $22,980

9. Recommendation 1. That Council resolve to endorse the proposal to install Emergency Beach Markers at 13

locations along Kingston’s foreshore as proposed in the report. 2. Council review the suitability for the 13 markers 12 months after implementation. 3. Council continue to engage with other neighbouring municipalities to strengthen

consistency in implementation of Emergency Beach markers should they consider implementation.

Attachments: Attachment A: Emergency Markers Signage Guidelines. Attachment B: Sample of Kingston Emergency Beach marker. Attachment C: Emergency Beach Marker example. Attachment D: Emergency Beach Marker example- Parks Victoria - Braeside Park Keysborough. Attachment E: Beach Markers – Location Guide – maps and photographs. Attachment F Beach markers – Location Guide – maps – extra markers. Attachment G: Beach markers – Photographs. Attachment H: Beach markers – Location Guide – Maps – 300 metres. Attachment I: List of Municipalities and their status re: Installations of beach markers.

Crs Ronke/Shewan That the recommendation be adopted.

Carried



136

N 31 Liquor License for Kingston Arts Centre and Shirley Burke Theatre Approved by: Mauro Bolin, General Manager Community Sustainability Author: Adrian Nunes, Team Leader Arts and Cultural Services

1. Purpose The report seeks Council’s endorsement to apply for a Liquor License for small events at Kingston Arts Centre and Shirley Burke Theatre with an appointed Nominee to represent Kingston’s Licence.

2. Background The City of Kingston’s liquor license for Kingston Arts Centre (KAC) was transferred to Khans Management Group during the course of the Contract for Catering Services 2007 to 2010. Following the completion of these contractual obligations Council need to apply for the licence to be returned to Kingston City Council and appoint a Nominee to represent Council’s interests.

3. Summary and Conclusion Kingston’s liquor licence for KAC was transferred to Khan’s Management Group during the catering contract with that company from April 2007 to April 2010. Not having a liquor licence would require ongoing coordination of an external licensee’s staff for bar service (catering contractor) dependent on their availability. Arts and Cultural Services recommends that the provision of bar services is an integral part of the live theatre and gallery opening experience and seeks to directly manage this service under a licence held by Kingston. Advice provided to Council suggests that there are some manageable risks for Councillors in holding a liquor licence for small events and that the appointment of an appropriate Nominee is an appropriate risk mitigation strategy.

4. Consultation Benchmarking with other Victorian cultural venues indicates that Local Government operated arts centres often hold a liquor license with a Nominee in place. Legal advice was also sought regarding management of risks under the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 for Kingston Councillors and any appointed Nominee

5. Issues It became apparent during the course of the recent catering contract that providing a bar service for small shows at Kingston Arts Centre was not a profitable enough activity to sustain a contracted catering company. Kingston Arts Centre staff and volunteers are RSA trained and have previously provided the service prior to 2007 under a license held by Kingston City Council.



137

5.1. The need to hold a liquor licence for Kingston Arts Centre and Shirley Burke Theatre activity. Currently, as the liquor licence is in the name of Khans Management Group, Arts and Cultural Services hires Khans staff to serve alcohol on site for programmed shows in the theatre of the arts centre and at all gallery openings. As part of the experience of attending a performing arts event, it is a standard practice to provide a bar service. Industry research and consensus is that the pre and post show socialisation time is a significant part of the patron’s experience in attending live performance. A standard expectation for gallery openings is also to serve drinks to celebrate the opening of an exhibition. 5.2 Shirley Burke Theatre Kingston has not previously held a liquor licence for bar activity at Shirley Burke Theatre. When the venue reopens in early 2012 after refurbishments, professional theatre seasons will be programmed into the venue. As part of the theatre experience, patrons expect to be able to purchase drinks before the show, during intervals and after a show. It is recommended that a licence include the venue. Community groups using the facility would need to apply for their own temporary licence to service alcohol at their events or engage Kingston staff for the provision of this service under Kingston’s license. 5.3 Red Line The Red Line refers to the area nominated under the licence to serve and consume alcohol. The current Red Line for the Kingston Arts Centre is for the top floor where theatre shows occur. The application for a licence would request an extension of the Red Line to include the bottom floor of the facility to capture gallery openings. The Red Line application for Shirley Burke Theatre would be for the entire facility as theatre performances require that the function rooms of the centre be used as foyer space to accommodate the maximum capacity of the venue (165 patrons in the theatre). Neither Red Line application would be for areas outside of the buildings. 5.4 Risk exposure through holding a liquor licence. As holders of a liquor licence, Councillors could be liable under section 53(2) of the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998, however risk exposure to Councillors can be overcome by applying to the Director for the approval of an appropriate person as Nominee for the licence. The Nominee can be any appropriate council officer, who would then become liable as if he or she were the Licensee. No form of indemnity can protect a Nominee from conviction for any offence which may be committed under the Act. However, Council could enter into a deed of indemnity with the



138

Nominee, outlining Council’s agreement to reimburse the Nominee for any fine imposed or court costs incurred by the individual. The deed of indemnity could also be extended to cover any potential civil liability which may attach to the Nominee. 5.5 Appointment of a Nominee Any appointed Nominee would be required to complete the following training to ensure operations at the facilities are in line with legislative requirements:

• Licensee’s First Step; and, • Responsible Serving of Alcohol (RSA)

Arts and Cultural Services staff are already RSA trained and work within the guidelines of a liquor license as though Kingston Council were the Licensee. Appropriate Council officers have expressed an interest in volunteering to act as Nominee for a liquor license for Kingston Arts Centre and Shirley Burke Theatre. By accepting a volunteer for the position of Nominee, Council would need to ensure that the volunteer:

• Understands the role of the Nominee; • Understands the level of protection that Council is able to offer; • Signs a Deed of Indemnity that states the level of protection Council is able to offer.

6. Options Option 1. No liquor licence (Not recommended) It is unlikely that any future catering tender for small room or large room service would extend a liquor licence to either the Kingston Arts Centre due to the size of the operation or to Shirley Burke Theatre as it is located away from the main site in Moorabbin. Pros Cons

• Elimination of risk associated with holding a liquor licence.

• Diminished patron experience in attending live theatre at Kingston Arts Centre and Shirley Burke Theatre.

• Possibility that patrons attending professional theatre would seek alternative venues to enjoy the total experience.

• A key part of the Arts Victoria funding to develop SBT is to develop the professional touring circuit and to fund professionally managed venues. No liquor license would negatively impact on the ability to present an expected level of professionalism.



139

Option 2. Apply for a Liquor Licence with an appointed nominee. (Recommended) This option refers to a licence for KAC and SBT for bar service at programmed shows or hire events by negotiation. Pros Cons

• The venues will be presented as professionally managed.

• The patron’s complete theatre experience is maintained and developed at Shirley Burke Theatre.

• A directly managed and licensed approach eliminates the need to hire external staff under a licence held by a second party.

• Associated risk for the Nominee of the licence.

7 Triple Bottom Line Checklist

• Environmental No impact.

• Social

The patron’s experience at live performances at Kingston Arts Centre and Shirley Burke Theatre is sustained and developed with the provision of bar services. Without a liquor license it is likely that the Kingston Arts Centre and Shirley Burke Theatre would experience difficulty in sustaining alcohol services via a second party license (contracted caterer), due to staffing availability and the small size of the operation. This would create a negative impact on the patron’s theatre experience and for Kingston in ‘professionally’ managing their venues.

• Financial If a licence is held by an external party Kingston will have to continue to pay the licensee’s staff to be on site for alcohol service at approximately $30 per hour per staff member. If Kingston holds its own licence for the venues, bar prices can be managed internally to suit the clientele of the venues. The limited size of the operation would not generate a profit.

8. Recommendation

That Council resolve to endorse option 2 - apply for a Liquor Licence with Red Line authority for Kingston Arts Centre and Shirley Burke Theatre with an appointed Nominee.

Attachment: Liquor Licence Advice and Deed of Indemnity (Confidential) Attachment: Breaches under the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998



140

Crs Staikos/Peulich That the recommendation be adopted.

Carried



141

N 32 Active Leisure Plan - Final Approved by: Mauro Bolin – General Manager Community Sustainability Author: Nigel Brown – Acting Manager Leisure and Culture

1. Purpose The purpose of this report is to present the Final Active Leisure Plan to Council for formal adoption.

2. Council Plan Planned Outcome 1 – Infrastructure for a Safe and Active Community Strategy 1.2 – Accessible and shared open spaces that promote social connectedness and active, healthy lifestyles.

The Active Leisure Plan identifies the communities desired active leisure opportunities and Council’s role in strengthening and expanding these opportunities through strategic infrastructure investment and program development. 3. Background The draft Active Leisure Plan was presented to Council in May 2009 and was subsequently displayed for public comment. The comments and submissions received during this period have been incorporated into the final plan. Development of an implementation plan to action the communities priorities in Active Leisure has now been completed and accompanies the final report.

4. Summary and Conclusion Development of the Active Leisure Plan has involved an extensive research and consultation process including surveying, focus groups, literature review and trend/demographic analysis. The Plan articulates six Key themes which Council should concentrate its attention and efforts on over the coming five years in order to efficiently respond to local participation interests and aspirations. The final Active Leisure Plan and accompanying implementation plan will guide the Council’s strategic direction in providing active leisure options for the Kingston community.

5. Consultation Preparation of the Active Leisure Plan has been undertaken over a number of years and involved a range of research and consultation methods in order to build an accurate representation of active leisure interests, aspirations and trends in Kingston. A range of community engagement and consultation methodologies were utilised to gather quantitative and qualitative information about the Kingston community’s active leisure participation habits, needs and values with respect to active leisure opportunities and facilities.



142

The methods used included:

• Household Survey • Stakeholder Survey • Kingston Village Committee Survey • Child Centred Consultation • Key Stakeholder Interviews • Focus Groups • Intercept Surveying • Public Submissions • Public Comment Period • Meetings with Key Council Staff • Literature Review • Review of local/state/national participation rates and trends

6. Issues The actions are largely related to resource allocation and strategic direction. Each action that has an impact on the community will be subject to a separate consultation process where appropriate.

7. Triple Bottom Line Checklist • Environmental – Not applicable. • Social – The Kingston community have identified their priorities for accessing and

participating in active leisure opportunities. Participation in active leisure has both individual and broad based community benefits that align with Council’s core role in providing quality and accessible facilities and open spaces.

• Financial – All actions within the Active Leisure Plan implementation are to be

undertaken within existing financial and human resources. Additional funding required for projects arising as a result of specific actions will be subject to the usual budget process; potential additional funds from grant programs, developer contributions and other external sources could enable other recommendations to be completed over the term of the Plan.

8. Recommendation

That Council adopt the Kingston Active Leisure Plan . Attachments: Active Leisure Plan –Final TRIM Ref: 11/20273 Active Leisure Plan – Implementation Plan TRIM Ref:11/20245 Crs Shewan/Ronke That the recommendation be adopted.

Carried Cr Shewan left the Chamber at 8.56 pm



143

N 33 Draft Kingston Tennis Strategy Approved by: Mauro Bolin, General Manager, Community Sustainability Author: Michael Haley, Leisure Planner

1. Purpose This report presents the Draft Kingston Tennis Strategy (Appendix 1) and seeks Council resolution for this Draft strategy to be released for public comment. 2. Council Plan Planned Outcome 1 – Infrastructure for a Safe and Active Community Strategy 1.2. – Accessible and shared open spaces that promote social connectedness and active, healthy lifestyles The Draft Kingston Tennis Strategy aims to enhance the provision of tennis opportunities in Kingston assisting the promotion of social connectedness and healthy active lifestyles for the community.

3. Background In June 2010 Council gave support for the completion of a tennis strategy for Kingston. The development of a tennis strategy provides Council, tennis clubs and the community clear direction and advice in relation to the current and future provision of tennis within Kingston and provides an action plan for Council to ensure sustainable facilities for future community use.

4. Summary and Conclusion The draft strategy outlines a number of key issues in relation to the future of tennis in Kingston including asset renewal, future planning and growth management, increasing participation and occupancy agreements. A full list of recommendations regarding these issues are outlined in the implementation plan (Appendix 2). Officers now seek a Council resolution to release the draft Kingston Tennis Strategy for public comment.

5. Consultation As part of the development of this strategy, the following consultation was undertaken

• Telephone interviews with the 18 tennis clubs situated in the City of Kingston • Telephone interviews with the 10 Village Committee chairpersons • A public workshop attended by 30 people including representatives of 12 tennis clubs • An internal work shop with staff from Sport and Recreation, Community Buildings,

Property Services and Environmental Planning • Discussions with staff of Tennis Victoria and Tennis Australia



144

This strategy will be open for public comment from 4 April to 2 May 2011. On completion of the comment period further assessment will be made of all submissions and a final strategy with full recommendations will be forwarded to Council for consideration and adoption in June.

6. Issues The development of the strategy has seen a range of key issues emerge. These key issues are discussed below. Specific recommendations regarding these issues are attached in the implementation plan for the strategy (appendix 2). Occupancy agreements The draft strategy identifies a number of issues in relation to the roles and responsibilities of clubs and Council and current tenure arrangements with clubs. There are a number of inconsistencies in lease arrangements and confusion in the tennis community with relation to roles and responsibilities. The draft strategy recommends that council work with all clubs to develop new service based occupancy agreements that have consistent clauses, fees, length of tenure and service delivery outcomes that will provide clarity for clubs and Council and ensure sustainability of clubs. Future Tennis Court Provision The draft strategy identifies, based on current population, participation data and benchmarks that there are enough tennis courts to meet current needs. However with additional population growth and the potential for loss of courts in future years there may be a need to review provision in the future. Council officers acknowledge that the draft strategy in parts identifies the need for additional courts to satisfy latent demand. Officers believe that a more considered recommendation is to fully explore the capacity of the existing court network to meet future demand before committing to provision of new courts. This approach is consistent with the proposed implementation plan. The draft strategy recommends that Council needs to obtain more information from all clubs in relation to participation, over a period of time, to help determine the need and demand for additional courts. Collection of this information will be one of the objectives of developing service based occupancy agreements with clubs. In addition the draft strategy identifies that there is potential for a deficiency in provision within specific areas, if one of the existing clubs cease to operate. The draft strategy recommends Council works with clubs to ensure their sustainability to provide a tennis presence across the municipality. Infrastructure development A complete audit was undertaken of all courts and infrastructure associated with the provision of tennis in Kingston. This audit revealed that generally speaking the courts in Kingston are in a reasonable condition and are generally well looked after by our clubs. The audit did outline a range of actions that need to be undertaken at clubs throughout Kingston in the immediate



145

future, as well as identifying future costs that may be incurred in the lifecycle of the courts. (Appendix 3) Many of the issues identified in the audit are routine maintenance issues that should be undertaken by clubs. Council and Tennis Victoria should provide technical advice and assistance in relation to these issues including replacement of line tapes on courts, replacement of net posts and minor court maintenance. The draft strategy recommends that Council should play a role, in partnership with clubs, for the replacement or upgrading of lighting, refurbishment of court surfaces and replacing court fencing. The draft strategy also recommends that Council allocate $70,000 per year for the first two years to undertake immediate works identified in the audit and that council investigate the need to establish an on going capital fund to be allocated to renewal/refurbishment of tennis facilities. The draft strategy identifies that Council should progressively undertake works as identified and prioritised in Council’s building condition audits, to ensure tennis pavilions are functional, safe and continue to be well utilised. Funding for these works will be available as part of Councils existing capital and operational budgets. Court surfaces The draft strategy identifies that the provision of mainly red porous (en-tout-cas) courts is an advantage for Kingston as it provides a suitable surface for a range of age groups and ability levels. However it is acknowledged that these courts require additional maintenance and that Council should work with clubs and Tennis Victoria to provide training for club members to increase their skills in court maintenance. Where provision of any new or refurbishment of existing courts is planned at regional or sub regional facilities, consideration will be given to providing ITF approved court surfaces to support player development pathways. Increasing participation The draft strategy identifies barriers to increasing participation levels. These include:

• Signage at tennis venues • Promotion of facilities as welcoming venues • Engaging schools; and • Awareness of participation opportunities

Clubs, Council and Tennis Victoria should work together to better promote clubs and participation opportunities and develop a calendar of events in relation to tennis in Kingston. Coaches Coaches play a vital role in sustainable tennis clubs. They provide promotional opportunities for clubs and may also undertake specific club duties. In some instances governance issues may arise where coaches hold positions on club committees. The draft strategy recommends that



146

Council and Tennis Victoria work with clubs and club coaches to ensure transparent processes are in place.

7 Triple Bottom Line Checklist • Environmental – The high number of porous courts in Kingston and the continued

maintenance of these courts is an environmental issue. Most clubs are currently working to agreed water management plans with the water suppliers and many have tanks in place. A number of clubs use bore water as the main water source which has significant issues in relation to corrosion of net posts and light poles and Council will need to work with these clubs to investigate alternative water sources in the future.

• Social – The draft strategy aims to facilitate an increase in tennis participation within Kingston, to provide healthy lifestyle benefits to the community.

• Financial – The implementation of this draft strategy will have financial impacts for Council It recommends that Council make an initial capital contribution of $70,000 per year for the next two years for the renewal/refurbishment of existing tennis infrastructure.

9. Recommendation

That Council resolve to release the Draft Kingston Tennis Strategy for public comment for a period of 4 weeks.

Attachments: Appendix 1 – Draft Kingston Tennis Strategy Appendix 2 – Kingston Tennis Strategy – Implementation Plan Appendix 3 – Summary of costs for tennis infrastructure renewal /refurbishment Crs Dundas/Peulich That the recommendation be adopted.

Carried



147

11. Organisational Development & Governance Reports N 34 Assembly of Council Record Approved by: Elaine Sowerby, General Manager Organisational Development

and Governance Author: Nicola Wright, Governance Officer

1. Purpose This report provides copies of the Assembly of Council records in line with the Local Government Act amendments which came into effect on 24 September 2010 to support openness and transparency of Governance processes.

2. Council Plan Planned Outcome 5 – Community Inspired Leaders Strategy 5.3 – Sound governance and responsible financial leadership

The reporting of Assembly of Council meets the requirements of the Local Government Act.

3. Background An amendment to the Local Government Act now requires that Assembly of Council records are reported to the next possible Council Meeting. This amendment seeks to promote openness and transparency of Council decision making.

4. Summary and Conclusion Attached are the Assembly of Council records completed for the month in the lead up to the Council Meeting. The report is provided in line with the Local Government Act section 80A which requires that the record of an assembly must be reported to the next practical ordinary Council meeting and recorded in the minutes of that meeting. What are the main things that need to be considered. Discuss any impact of implementing your proposal and what the costs would be.

5. Issues The Chief Executive Officer must ensure that a written record is kept of every assembly of Councillors. These records must be reported to the next Ordinary Council Meeting The written record only needs to be a simple document that records - The names of all Councillors and staff at the meeting, - A list of the matters considered, - Any conflict of interest disclosed by a Councillor, and - Whether a Councillor who disclosed a conflict left the room.



148

A standard Assembly of Council form will generally be used as the record for the purposes of the Act. These form the attachment to the report. At times however to avoid duplication minutes of some meetings may be attached as the record of the Assembly if they include the required information, including disclosures. The Act does not require details of a conflict of interest disclosure at an assembly to be recorded. 6. Proposed Action That Council notes the contents of this report Attachments: Assembly of Council forms Crs Staikos/Ronke That the recommendation be adopted.

Carried Cr Shewan returned to the Chamber at 8.59pm



149

N 35 Constitutional Recognition of Local Government Approved by: Elaine Sowerby Author: Phil De Losa

1. Purpose To consider a request from the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) seeking Council support for constitutional recognition of Local Government.

2. Council Plan Planned Outcome 5 – Community Inspired Leaders Strategy – Sound governance and responsible financial leadership. ALGA’s campaign for constitutional recognition of local government is based on the Federal Government’s capacity to directly fund Councils to achieve national objectives which would be in the best interests of local communities.

3. Background ALGA has been conducting a campaign for a referendum on the constitutional recognition of Local Government over the last three (3) years devoting considerable resources to the campaign. Following the 2010 Federal Election the Prime Minister committed to holding a dual referendum on the constitutional recognition of Local Government and the recognition of Indigenous Australians. The referendum will most likely be held in conjunction with the 2013 Federal Election. ALGA believes the challenge for Local Government is threefold:

• to ensure the referendum is held; • to ensure that the type of recognition sought meets our requirements; and • to make sure we have a positive result in the referendum itself.

The case for constitutional recognition is based on the Federal Government’s capacity to directly fund Councils to achieve national objectives which would be in the best interests of local communities. ALGA highlight a High Court decision in 2009 (Pape v Federal Commissioner of Taxation) which set out the limitations of the Australian Government’s powers and in doing so, clearly indicated that the Australian Government does not have the power to fund Local Government directly. The preference is for a pragmatic and simple change to the Constitution (most likely to Section 96) which would allow direct funding to continue. ALGA’s research shows that this simple and pragmatic change is most likely to garner the necessary public support. ALGA has not ruled out recognition of Local Government in a Preamble to the Constitution if one is proposed but such limited recognition alone would not meet Local Government’s requirements and address the uncertainty highlighted by the Pape case. The form of financial recognition of Local Government proposed by ALGA, which will not impact on the relationship between Councils and State Governments, has been endorsed by all State and Territory Local Government Associations. ALGA believes it is now important that



150

this position also be endorsed by all councils to demonstrate to Federal and State Governments, oppositions and political parties that the position has widespread support within Local Government.

4. Summary and Conclusion That Council consider endorsing ALGA’s position that a referendum be held by 2013 to change the Constitution to allow direct funding of Local Government bodies by the Commonwealth Government and to include Local Government in any new Preamble to the Constitution if one is proposed. That Council consider writing to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and local Federal Members of Parliament. Copies of possible draft letters, as prepared by ALGA, are attached for information.

5. Consultation Council has previously resolved at its meeting on 27 October 2008 to support the ALGA process for constitutional recognition, and sent an officer to the Australian Local Government Association’s National Summit on constitutional recognition for local government in December 2008. A further report was presented to Council 2 February 2009.

6. Issues Council has previously resolved to support constitutional recognition in October 2008 (see attachment 2). ALGA’s campaign for constitutional reform is about: § recognising Local Government’s role in Australia’s system of Government § securing funding sources to deliver the services communities want.

ALGA are seeking support from all LGA’s in making a resolution that formally supports constitutional recognition. Draft resolution and letters have been provided for this campaign. These are included as attachment 1. Two previous attempts to gain constitutional recognition have failed in 1973 and 1988. On both these occasions the attempt was opposed by the Federal Opposition of the day. As part of the campaign ALGA are proposing that Councils also write to local members seeking support.

7. Options Council has two options. It can support Constitutional Recognition for Local Government via the ALGA’s campaign, or it can take no further action to support the ALGA campaign.

8. Triple Bottom Line Checklist Not applicable



151

9. Recommendation That Council resolve to endorse ALGA’s position on Constitutional recognition of Local Government by writing to the Prime Minister, Leader of the Federal Opposition and local Federal Members of Parliament advising that: Kingston City Council declares its support for financial recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution so that the Federal Government has the power to fund local government directly and also for inclusion of local government in any new Preamble to the Constitution if one is proposed, and calls on all political parties to support a referendum by 2013 to change the Constitution to achieve this recognition. Attachments: Letter from ALGA – Trim No 11/12841 Minutes Ordinary Council 28 October 2008 K185 Constitutional Recognition for Local Government Crs Staikos/Ronke That the recommendation be adopted.

Carried



152

N 36 Expenditure of Ward Funds Schedule Approved by: Elaine Sowerby, General Manager Organisational Development &

Governance Author: Nicola Wright, Governance Officer 1. Purpose The purpose of this report is to seek formal Council approval of the expenditure of Ward funds in accordance with the ‘Expenditure of Ward Funds Policy’. 2. Background Council, on 23 March 2009, adopted a revised policy for the expenditure of ward funds. Each financial year during a Council term, Kingston Councillors are allocated $6,000 in ward funds for utilisation in accordance with the adopted policy. Part 2 of the policy, which outlines the limitations on the expenditure of ward funds, specifies that Councillors may propose that ward funds be allocated for initiatives that aim to:

“a) assist a recognised community group (including sporting/recreational body, arts/cultural group, charity, youth group, pre-school, playgroup, senior citizens club, historical society, friendship group, environmental group, trader organisation or toy library) which provides a service, program or activity used by or of benefit to Kingston residents;

b) assist an individual who is a resident of the City of Kingston to participate in a

sporting, recreational or cultural activity, or other pursuit of a personal development nature, or who is in necessitous circumstances;

c) Support an event or activity which will be of benefit or interest to residents of the

City of Kingston; d) Support the key external themes of enhancement of the physical environment or the

development of community well being, identified in the Council Plan.”

It should be noted that the policy also enables a Ward Councillor to propose that his / her ward funds be expended outside of the Councillor’s specific ward, provided that the ward funds are expended for the benefit of the Kingston community, and that one or more of the criteria set out above are met.



153

The table below lists the Councillor requests for the expenditure of ward funds received since the last Ordinary Council Meeting. Table of Councillor requests:

Councillor Ward Initiative Request Date

Amount $

Mayor, Cr Ron Brownlees

Central Moorabbin Hellenic Community Association Festival Costs

22/03/11 $500.00

Cr Arthur Athanasopoulos

North Bruthen St Kindergarten Outdoor Furniture

03/03/11 $200.00

Cr Paul Peulich North Bruthen St Kindergarten Outdoor Furniture

03/03/11 $200.00

Cr Steve Staikos

North Bruthen St Kindergarten Outdoor Furniture

03/03/11 $200.00

Cr Steve Staikos

North Dingley Village Community Asssociation Room Hire – Dingley Community Centre

03/03/11 $300.00


North Heatherton RAID Inc Community Projects

17/03/11 $250.00

Cr Steve Staikos

North Heatherton RAID Inc Community Projects

17/03/11 $250.00


North Mentone Community Gardens Incorporation

03/03/11 $75.00

Cr Steve Staikos

North Mentone Community Gardens Incorporation

03/03/11 $100.00

Mayor, Cr Ron Brownlees

Central Mentone Community Gardens Incorporation

03/03/11 $100.00

Cr Lewis Dundas


03/03/11 $100.00

Cr Rosemary West


03/03/11 $75.00



154

Cr Dan Moloney

South Mentone Community Gardens Incorporation

03/03/11 $75.00

Cr John Ronke South Mentone Community Gardens Incorporation

03/03/11 $75.00

Cr Trevor Shewan

South Mentone Community Gardens Incorporation

03/03/11 $100.00

Recommendation That Council approve the expenditure of ward funds in accordance with the table of Councillor requests. Crs Athanasopoulos/Peulich That the recommendation be adopted. Further that an allocation of $500.00 be made to the NYP Youth Seminar (as requested by Cr Peulich).

Carried



155

N 37 Community Vision Approved by: Elaine Sowerby, General Manager Organisational Development and

Governance Author: Jason Stubbs, Manager Governance and Performance Planning

1. Purpose To agree on the timing, project governance arrangements, funding and process to engage an external facilitator for the Community Vision project.

2. Council Plan The development of a community vision is a key strategic action outlined in the 2009-2013 Council Plan. Under Outcome 5 in the City of Kingston 2009-2013 Council Plan, “Community Inspired Leaders”, is the following strategy and action: “Create a shared vision for the future - Actively engage with the community to develop a new Community Plan and Vision.”

3. Background Although it is not a statutory requirement to produce a community vision, Kingston and other municipalities have developed Community Visions as an important component of community engagement and partnership.

A briefing paper was discussed by Councillors at the February 2011 Councillor Workshop and it was decided to commence a Community Visioning process and complete it by the start of the caretaker period in 2012 or earlier. This was conditional to the process being designed to link/ transition to the new Council.

From experience gained from other Councils a budget of between $60,000-100,000 would be required although this will depend on the agreed process and is subject to quotation.

4. Summary and Conclusion The preferred timing to undertake the community consultation workshops and associated follow up work is between March and September 2012 (i.e. Timeline B). Governance arrangements including a Councillor Steering Group (including the Mayor and two Councillors), and a Reference Panel comprising a mix of up to 20 community and Council employee members is proposed. An external facilitator will be evaluated following a public expression of interest process by the Steering Group with final approval by Council.



156

5. Consultation The reason for this project is to ensure there is community and employee consultation and engagement. The key stakeholders are the Community, Councillors, and employees of Council. It is proposed to develop a Steering Group and a supporting Reference Panel of up to 20 members to input into the project. Governance and Performance Planning and Communications and Public Affairs departments will provide the main support for the project. City Strategy and Community and Aged Services Departments have a strong direct interest given their role, however all departments have an indirect interest in that they will implement outcomes. It is proposed that at least 10 members of the Reference Panel will be community members and the remaining 5-10 members will be Council employees with the ability to make significant contributions to the project. See 6.2 for further information.

6. Issues There are many issues that need to be addressed now that Council has decided to proceed. This report seeks approval to the critical issues of timing, project governance arrangements and the process for engaging a facilitator. Other issues such as the style of publication, and number of workshops will be determined by the Steering Group with input from the Reference Panel. Where appropriate formal Council decisions will be sought.

6.1 Timing The most critical issue to resolve now is the timing of the consultation workshops and follow up processes as this will significantly influence the design of the overall approach. Two timelines are explored, one finalising the vision by June 30 2012, the other finalising the vision with the new Council by June 2013 in conjunction with the development of the new Council Plan. Both approaches use a Community Workshop process to explore the big ideas and initial themes, followed by testing and refinement to develop the draft themes, directions and measures. No consultation, workshops or associated processes are recommended during the period between November and January given the demands on peoples’ time during the festive and school holiday period. Both timeline options A and B address Councillors policy requirements from the February 2011 workshop.

Mar

ch 2

011

June

201

1

Sept

embe

r 201

1

Dec

embe

r 201

1

Mar

ch 2

012

June

201

2

Sept

embe

r 201

2

Oct

ober

201

2

Nov

embe

r 201

2

Dec

embe

r 201

2

Mar

ch 2

013

June

201

3

Timeline A

Timeline B

Selection of facilitator Finalise approach Community workshops, test ideas draft themes and directions Council sign off Vision Christmas / New Year period Council Plan 2013-2016

adopted June 30

Council election

Caretaker period



157

A: Conduct Community Workshops, Test Ideas and Draft Themes August to November 2011

• March 2011: Council agreement on timing, governance arrangements and draft expression of interest documentation.

• April 2011: Expression of interest process • May/June 2011: Engage preferred facilitator • June/July 2011: Develop the approach and detail design of the project with Reference Panel

and Steering Group • August-November 2011: Undertake pre-consultation briefings (context setting), conduct

community workshops, test ideas and draft themes and directions • December-April 2012: Prepare draft Community Vision document and additional

consultation as required • May 2012: Seek community feedback on draft • June 2012: Seek Council endorsement

Advantages Disadvantages

• Community Vision process and documentation will be completed prior to October 2012 caretaker period.

• Less risk of the process being politicised by potential Councillor nominees or others.

• Greater risk of lack of ownership from new Council.

• Community consultation undertaken in 2011, may be perceived to be out of date and not meaningful to guide the new Council’s Council Plan particularly if new Council doesn’t feel any ownership of the process.

• Consultation too close to a number of planned consultations including Green Wedge and Hostels.

• The timelines are very tight and could lead to rushing the process and not engaging the community thoroughly before the actual workshops are held.

• Launch of document may be too close to the election.

• Required additional budget amount to be added to 2012 of approximately $60,000 (note that $39,000 from 2010/11 budget for community consultation could be carried forward to 2012 but would mean other consultation would not be carried out in 2010/11).

B: Conduct Community Workshops, Test Ideas and Draft Themes March to September 2012

• March 2011: Council agreement on timing, governance arrangements and draft expression of interest documentation.

• May 2011: Expression of interest process • June 2011: Engage preferred facilitator



158

• July-November 2011: Develop the approach and detail design of the project with Reference Panel and Steering Group

• March-September 2012: Undertake pre-consultation briefings (context setting), conduct community workshops, test ideas and draft themes and directions

• September/November: Prepare draft Community Vision document • October: Caretaker period prior to 2012 Council Election commences (assumes status quo,

may become mid September if the State Government change the Local Government Election date)

• November: 2012 Council Election • December: Commencement of Councillor induction program – information and briefings on

vision prior to Councillor workshop in February • February 2013: Councillor workshop; sign-off Community Vision • February-June 2013: Community Vision helps to form direction for 2013-2017 Council Plan

Advantages Disadvantages

• New Council will have input into final Visioning document

• Community ‘visions’ can feed directly into 2013-2017 Council Plan to show Council’s commitment to delivering the Vision.

• Ability to engage the same facilitator for the Community Vision and for the 2013 Councillor workshop to ensure linkage between the Community Vision and the new Council Plan.

• Budget could be split over two years and potentially undertaken from recurrent community consultation budgets by redirecting existing funds of $39,000 for community consultation activities. Could also carry forward funds from 2010/11 to commence the project.

• Allows time to develop a community reference panel to support the vision.

• Allows time to implement a communication strategy.

• Documentation will not be completed by caretaker period in October 2012

• Incumbent State Government as part of election commitments proposed moving the elections for Local Government to the second week in October. This would provide more time for the new Council to develop the four-year Council Plan. The timelines will then need to be adjusted due to caretaker period commencing in September.

6.2 Governance arrangements

6.2.1 Steering Group To ensure strong ownership of the process is retained by Councillors, it is proposed to create a Steering Group containing the Mayor, two Councillors, a community representative, the chosen facilitator, the General Manager Organisational Development and Governance and Manager Governance and Performance Planning. Administration support will be provided by an officer from the Performance Planning team. The community representative would be selected from the Reference Panel members outlined in 6.2.2 below.



159

The Steering Group would operate as an advisory committee to Council. As such the Assembly of Council provisions will apply and attendance, declarations of interests and topics discussed would be recorded. The Steering Group will be involved in the following activities:

• The evaluation of submissions for the facilitator and making a recommendation to Council.

• Refinement of the consultation activities eg number of workshops, testing and validation processes

• Reporting back to CIS on the project • Working with the Reference Panel to build commitment to the vision process, testing

ideas and generating support for the final vision document It is anticipated that the Steering Group will have a number of intensive phases, particularly during evaluation of successful facilitators, refinement of workshop processes and at other key times during the community engagement and refinement of vision. If option A is chosen the Steering Group will need to meet at more frequent intervals due to the compressed timeline than if option B is selected. 6.2.2 Reference Panel A reference panel made up of 20 representatives from a variety of community and organisational groups and employees of council is proposed. The community members of the Reference Panel would be selected through a public advertising process with clear selection criteria and evaluated by the Steering Group with final approval by Council. It is proposed that community members of the panel are selected based on overall merit to add value to the project and engage certain sectors of the community to the process – eg emergency services, schools, sporting groups, green groups etc. This Reference Panel would be used right through the visioning process. While Village Committee members will not be excluded from applying, panel members would not be selected directly from Village Committees. Selection would be based on merit relative to other community members and ability to access broad sectors as noted above. The Village Committees are a clear stakeholder group and one of the existing consultation networks available to Council along with others such as Access and Equity Committee and Kingston Youth Advisory Committee. If timeline A was selected, it would be unlikely that a Reference Panel could be set up and be given enough time to become fully engaged in the process due to the short timelines. Representation from the following departments City Strategy, Infrastructure, Community and Aged Services, Family and Youth Services, Economic Development, Libraries and Education Services, Leisure and Culture and Community Buildings would be included on the Reference Panel as they will have a direct role in delivery of the vision. 6.2.3 Facilitators Under Council’s purchasing policy, a competitive process involving at least three written quotes is required for this project. A public advertising process through an Expression of Interest is proposed. The public process would also include a direct approach to facilitators known to be



160

able to undertake a project of this type to ensure a broad field is available to select from. The bids would be objectively assessed and the best value facilitator selected through this process. The facilitators will need to be able to operate with large groups of people with competing interests and effectively manage them to achieve outcomes. They will be required to synthesise material from multiple consultation sources and manage both the internal and external stakeholders.

7. Options 7.1 Visioning Process and Timeline 1. Abandon the Community Vision if deemed that it is not a viable project. Given the

discussion and outcomes of the Councillors Workshop this is not seen as a realistic option. 2. Undertake consultation in line with 6.1 Option A:

Community workshops and associated work would be undertaken in August to November 2011 with a final vision document endorsed in June 2012.

This project could be funded by redirecting community consultation funds in Governance and Performance Planning in 2011/12, and carrying forward funds from 2010/11, otherwise an additional new initiative bid of $60,000 for 2011/12 could be submitted.

3. Undertake consultation in line with 6.1 Option B: Community workshops, and associated work would be undertaken in March to September 2012. A draft report would then be ready for discussion with the new Council to compliment and align with the new Council Plan process. This project could be funded through reallocation of community consultation funds in 2011/12 and 2012/13 which would provide up to $78,000 towards the project. Funds from 2010/11 could also be carried forward towards the expenditure for the project.

This is the preferred option.

7.2 Governance Arrangements 1. No Steering Group Including Councillors

No Steering Group involving Councillors formed. Instead all Councillors will be involved through consultation processes, CIS briefings and other Council processes as they occur.

2. Form a Steering Group Including Councillors Form a Steering Group of the Mayor and two Councillors (plus a community representative, facilitator and officers) as proposed to oversee the implementation of the project and act as advocates in relation to the delivery of the project.

3. Form a Reference Panel to support the Steering Group A Reference Panel comprised of up to 20 representatives will be created to support the Steering Group. It is proposed that the Reference Panel would include officer representatives from City Strategy, Infrastructure, Community and Aged Services, Family and Youth Services, Economic Development, Libraries and Education Services, Leisure and



161

Culture and Community Buildings as these areas would be responsible for significant programs impacted by the vision. The remainder of the members would be selected by Council. The selection of community representatives would be through a public nomination process, but would also require some targeting to ensure members from key sectors of the community are involved (Emergency Services, Schools etc). One of these members would be appointed as the community representative to the Steering Group.

This is the preferred option.

7.3 Facilitators

There are two options for the selection of facilitators 1 Public Expression of Interest Process

Undertake a public Expression of Interest process for a suitably qualified facilitator. This will ensure a broad field is able to be selected from and is the most open and transparent approach.

This is the preferred option

2 Direct Approach to at Least Three Facilitators To meet the requirements of the purchasing policy at least three written quotes are required. If this approach was taken, suitably qualified and experienced facilitators would need to be sourced and approached.

8. Triple Bottom Line Checklist • Environmental – not applicable • Social – involvement in shaping the community’s vision for the next 20 years;

consideration will be given to ensure as many of Kingston’s diverse community as possible has the opportunity to be involved in the consultation processes.

• Financial – it is anticipated the Visioning process would cost between $60-80,000. This could be funded through an additional project bid, or redirection of existing consultation funds.

9. Recommendation That Council: 1. Select timeline option B described in section 6.1 as the model for the project timing. 2. Appoint the Mayor, Councillor Steve Staikos and Councillor John Ronke to the Steering

Group. 3. Proceed to publicly advertise in April for the 10 community members of the Reference Panel

with a report to the Ordinary Council meeting on 23 May 2011. 4. Proceed to publicly advertise an Expression of Interest to select a facilitator with a report to

finalise the selection to the Ordinary Council meeting of 27 June 2011.



162

5. Carry forward any remaining funds from the Community Engagement and Survey account from 2010/11 from the Governance and Performance Planning budget and redirect the same funding from 2011/12 and 2012/13 to the Community Vision project.

6. Note that up to 10 Officer representatives on the Reference Panel will be selected by the CEO from City Strategy, Infrastructure, Community and Aged Services, Family and Youth Services, Economic Development, Libraries and Education Services, Leisure and Culture and Community Buildings.

Crs Staikos/Ronke That the recommendation be adopted Carried



163

12. Corporate Services Reports N 38 2010/11 Budget Forecast Approved by: John Nevins, Chief Executive Officer Author: Paul Franklin, General Manager Corporate Services 1. Purpose The purpose of this report is to consolidate the Operating Budget (Part 1) and Capital Budget (Part 2) forecasts for the 2010/11 financial year and seek the endorsement of Council for these adjustments to the adopted revised budget. 2. Background An extensive review of the adopted 2010/11 Revised Budget has been undertaken by Managers and Team Leaders for both the Operating and Capital Budgets to ascertain whether any adjustments are necessary to reflect changed expenditure or income outcomes for the year. Whilst there are a number of items and changed expenditure and income, and minor variations to the Capital Program, none of the items represent a significant or material variance in the context of Council’s $147m Operating Budget and $57.1m Capital Budget and therefore no statutory process needs to be completed in order for Council to ratify the changed outcomes. The report also summarises the adjustments requested for the 2010/11 Capital Works Program. It highlights Carry Over Projects to 2011/12 and the programs that are recommended for Bringing Forward to 2010/11 from the 2011/12 Capital Program. Part 1 - Operating Budget The forecast for the 12 months to 30 June 2011 is now a surplus of $7.390m, that is $0.045m favourable compared to the revised budgeted operating surplus of $7.345m. See Attachment 1 for a revised 2010/11 Income Statement for Council. Key Budget Variances Summary

Category

Forecast Variance as at 30th June 2011

$ (a) Rates Nil (b) Grants & Subsidies 592,000 F (c) Contributions, Reimbursements & Donations 164,000 F (d) User Fees & Charges 212,000 U (e) Interest Income 179,000 F (f) Other Income 332,000 F (g) Employee Costs 449,000 F (h) Materials, Contracts & Other 1,559,000 U (i) Bad & Doubtful Debts Nil (j) Depreciation & Amortisation Nil (k) Interest / Borrowing Cost Nil (l) Net Proceeds from Disposal of Assets 100,000 F



164

Category

Forecast Variance as at 30th June 2011

$ (m) Operating Capital Expenditure Nil Operating Surplus /(Deficit) 45,000 F After adjusting for the following unbudgeted items approved by the Council, the underlying forecast Operating, Budgeted Variance for 2010/11 is a $517k favourable outcome as shown in the table below: Operating Surplus /(Deficit) 45,000 F

Add back unplanned items:

Bald Hill Park works * $60,000 U

Storm water Damage $200,000 U

2 Palm trees in Mordialloc $43,000 U

Reinstatement of Moorabbin Oval Mounds $85,000 U

Replacement of Goal posts at Kingston Ovals $25,000 U

Increased Beach Cleaning Subsidy $116,000 F

Increased cost of Green Wedge Study $175,000 U

Sub Total 472,000

Underlying Favourable forecast

2010/11 Operating Outcome

517,000 F

* Note this is expenditure brought forward from 2011/12. Part 2 – Capital Budget Variations to the 2011/12 Capital Budget have been progressively reported in Monthly Capital Program updates. A detailed review of Capital Project delivery timeframes by responsible officers, and the inclusion of recommendations coming from separate reports to Council for additional projects or increased funding, have contributed to this consolidated summary of adjustments to the 2010/11 Capital Program. Overall Capital Program Budget The adopted 2010/11 Capital Budget of $57,076,990 is proposed to become $53,876,750 – a decrease of $3,200,240 comprising:



165

Loan Funded Building Renewal Works at 1230 Nepean Highway Deferred to Future Years $3,500,000 decrease

Additional Capital Grant and Contribution Works $256,372 increase Project Reallocations previously approved by Council nil change Variations proposed to Adopted Budget $43,388 increase Net Decrease $3,200,240 decrease

These items are detailed further below. a. Grant and Contributions Income Since the adoption of the Capital Budget there have been a number of new grants and contributions received. This has resulted in an additional $256,372 being added to the capital works program. The works to be funded from external sources are: Proposed Project Adjustments to Incomes Project Description Budget Increase Carrum Foreshore Protection works – DSE Grant $100,000 HACC Climate Change Project s- DHS Grant $47,109 VicRoads Grant $15,800 Water for the Future Grant $70,000 Dingley Cricket Club – Contribution $1,100 Kilbreda College – Contribution $2,727 Thrift Park – Contribution $19,636

Total Additional Capital Income $256,372 b. Project Reallocations previously approved by Council Council has previously considered the following adjustments to the Capital Budget, which are now proposed to be formalised through this report. Increase Decrease Foreshore Buildings Urgent Works $420,000 Road Renewal $420,000 Mordialloc Creek Sculpture $48,300 Pompei’s Structure $48,300 Clarinda Library Expansion $100,000 Library Amenity Improvements $100,000 Total $568,300 $568,300

These transfers have no net effect on the overall budget. c. Carry Over / Bring Forward Excluding the loan funded $3.5million for 1230 Nepean Highway Building Renewal Works which are being deferred to future years it has been forecast that projects to the value is $1,966,175 are proposed to be carried to 2011/12. Carry Over amounts are identified project budgets that can not be delivered within the current financial year. This may be part or all of an



166

allocated project budget. The Carry Over amount is used to ensure the full budget allocation is made available to complete projects that cross financial year reporting periods. From a cash flow perspective however Carry Overs project funds provide an opportunity to Bring Forward works from the Capital Works Forward Plan which have short lead times and can be delivered before the end of June 2011. Set out below are the projected 2010/11 capital projects and associated budget allocations expected to be carried over to the 2011/12 financial year for completion. Proposed 2010/11 Carry Over Budget to 2011/12

Project Description

Budget Allocation

$

Carry over $ Comment

Chelsea Hall Compliance Works

$200,000 $100,000 Works to commence late June combined with further 2011/12 allocation for completion in 1st qtr

Mordialloc Water Tower

$146,175 $46,175 Works to commence late June combined with further 2011/12 allocation for completion in 1st qtr

Library Amenity Projects

$100,000 $70,000 Works programmed late June for completion in 1st qtr 2011/12

Chelsea Sportswomen’s Centre

$498,000 $100,000 Works programmed late June for completion in 1st qtr 2011/12

Don Tatnell various projects

$720,000 $700,000 Pool shutdown has been rescheduled to commence Sept 2011

Bays & Waterways Pollution Reduction

$106,000 $100,000 Funding to contribute to delivery of Mordialloc Industrial WSUD Project in 1st Qtr 2011/12

Beach Bike Path - implementation

$264,000 $200,000 Only consultation and design costs expected in 2010/11 – implementation will be in 2011/12

Mord Creek - Pride of the bay

$180,000 $150,000 Only consultation and design costs expected in 2010/11 – implementation will be in 2011/12

Mordialloc Shopping – Main St Renewal

$620,000 $500,000 To be tendered Feb/Mar unlikely to be significant expenditure prior to End June. To be completed 2nd qtr

Total Carry Over $1,966,175 Set out below are capital projects that can be brought forward to the 20101/11 financial year and completed by the end of June. The benefit of this strategy is that the community obtains the benefits of this capital investment in community assets.



167

Proposed Projects to be Brought Forward to 2010/11 from 2011/12 Project Description Bring

Forward Shirley Burke Hall $505,000 Parks Strategy Implementation $100,000 Roads and Drainage Renewal Program $1,000,000

Total Bring Forward to 2010/11 $1,605,000 As can be seen the Carry Over is a greater monetary value than the proposed Bring Forward which contributes by $361,175 which will be required to fully fund the 2011/12 Capital Works Program including the works that are proposed to be carried forward. d. Variations proposed to Adopted Budget During the progression of the year some “New Projects” have emerged during the course of 2010/11 with funding requirements. This provides an opportunity for urgent projects and others with identified change in project scope to be accommodated within the overall Council Budget. Set out below are details of 2010/11 capital projects that require additional funding: Proposed Project Budget Increases Project Description Budget

Increase Municipal Emergency Co-ordination Centre MECC $20,000 Sport and Recreation Grant Matching Council Contribution $23,388

Total Rates funded increases $43,388 e. Capital Summary In summary the following changes to the capital budget are recommended to Council: Adopted 2010/11 Capital Budget $57,076,990 Loan Funded Building Renewal Works 1230 Nepean Highway ($3,500,000) Projects funded by Additional Income $256,372 Additional Works $43,388 Carry Forward Projects deferred to 2011/12 ($1,966,175) Brought Forward Projects from 2011/12 $1,605,000

Revised Capital Works Program $53,515,575 3. Conclusion In summary the forecast Operating Budget is expected to result in a $44,843 favourable ($517,000 favourable underlying) to budget variance as at 30 June 2011. This favourable operating budget result can be utilised to fund the proposed Project Budget Increases (detailed above) of $43,388.



168

Councillors are also asked to note an increased year end cash position of $361,175 that arises from the value of carry forward projects being greater than the value of the projects proposed to be brought forward from the 2011/12 works program. These funds will be required to contribute to the funding of the carry forward projects in 2011/12. Management will, in the future, also monitor the budget outcomes to the forecast rather then solely against the adopted budget. 4. Recommendation That Council note the above report and endorse the forecast operating budget position as at 30 June 2011 and detailed amendments to Council’s adopted 2010/11 Capital Works Budget. Crs Ronke/Athanasopoulos That the recommendation be adopted Carried



169

Council Operating Financial Performance 8 Months to February 2011

Original Current Revised Forecast

vs. Revised Budget

Budget Forecast Budget Variance Income 1000 - Rates 93,216,700 93,216,700 93,216,700 0 1010 - Grants and Subsidies 26,544,417 27,136,415 26,544,417 591,998 1020 – Contributions, Reimbursements & Donations 1,234,110 1,397,871 1,234,110 163,761 1030 - User Fees & Charges 23,149,827 22,937,598 23,149,827 (212,229) 1040 - Interest Income 1,886,000 2,065,000 1,886,000 179,000 1050 - Other Income 725,100 1,134,742 802,100 332,642

Total Income 146,756,154 147,888,326 146,833,155 1,055,171 Expenditure 2000 - Employee Costs 58,667,760 58,219,115 58,667,761 448,647 2010 - Materials, Contracts & Other 59,565,621 59,950,344 58,391,367 (1,558,976) 2020 - Bad and Doubtful Debts 20,000 20,000 20,000 0 2030 – Depreciation & Amortisation 17,900,000 18,150,000 18,150,000 0 2040 - Interest/Borrowing Costs 90,000 1,106,113 1,106,114 1

Total Expenditure 136,243,381 137,445,571 136,335,242 (1,201,948) 1060 - Net proceeds from Disposal of Assets 100,000 0 100,000 Net Operating Surplus / (Deficit) 10,512,773 10,542,755 10,497,912 44,843 Published Maintenance Expenditure (5 Series) 3,153,000 3,153,000 3,153,000 0 Adjusted Net Operating Surplus / (Deficit) 7,359,773 7,389,755 7,344,912 44,843 Prepared on an Accrual Accounting Basis



170

N 39 Clayton Bowls Club New Lease Officer Assessment of Community Benefit Statement Approved by: Paul Franklin, General Manager Corporate Services Author: Julian Harvey, Manager Property Services Newton Gatoff, Team Leader Property Services

1. Purpose To provide officer assessment of the Clayton Bowls Clubs 2010-2011 Community Benefit Statement (CBS) as requested at the 28 February Ordinary Council meeting.

2. Council Plan Planned Outcome 1 – Providing Resources for a safe and active community Strategy 1.1 – Lease Policy Review

• Planned outcome 5 – Community inspired Leaders Strategy 5.3 sound Governance and

responsible Financial Leadership.

3. Background Council considered the attached report at Ordinary Council on 28 February 2011 and resolved “That consideration of this matter be deferred to the next Ordinary Council meeting in March pending officer assessment of the Clayton Bowls Club community benefit statement in order to maximise benefit to the community and justify the type of lease offered.”

4. Discussion The attached Clayton Bowls Club CBS for the year to June 2010 shows a total community benefit statement claim of $492,212 and this has been independently audited by McBain McCartin & Co as being in accordance with the Gambling Regulation Act. The most recent Community Benefit Statement prepared by the Clayton Bowls Club details the expenditure within the allowable classes of expenditure under the Gambling Regulations Act as follows: Class A Donations, gifts, sponsorship (including cash, goods &

services) to another person resident in Victoria, not including to the club itself

$109,443

Class B Expenditure equal to the proportion of the club’s non-gaming revenue to its total revenue.

$381,569

Class C Class C activities such as reimbursement of volunteers’ expenses, CBS Preparation and Audit Fees.

$1,200



171

Councillors could form the view that Class A expenditure is of relatively more direct benefit to the community and members of the club, whereas expenditure in Classes B & C is more of an indirect benefit to the community and members of the club. Under current Gambling Regulation Act provisions and a ministerial order of 8 February 2008, a club may, along with other expenditure, represent some of their operating expenses including wages and maintenance as being a community benefit. Officers conclude that as the Clayton Bowls Club CBS has been independently audited and certified as meeting the current requirements of State Government legislation that there is a community benefit from their use of the facility. Officers have also consulted with Clayton Bowls Club who have provided their own assessment of their CBS (see attached).

5. Summary and Conclusion • Clayton Bowls Club’s CBS is independently audited, with expenditure being assessed as

providing community benefit in accordance with the Gambling Regulation Act and Ministerial Order.

• The Minister determines the definition of approved community benefit purposes or activities.

• Council can ensure that some minor level gaming revenue reaches additional causes outside of the CBS through the rent from the Club which is subsequently passed to community based organisations as proposed via the Gaming Rent portion of the total rent.

6. Triple Bottom Line Checklist • Environmental n/a • Social Clayton Bowls Club has a healthy membership and maintain their tenancy to a high standard. The community access the club buildings to utilise the gaming facility; to bowl; for social club activities; and to partake in food and beverages. • Financial The rent remains at the pre-2007 level.

7. Recommendation That Council resolves, subject to ministerial determination, to enter into a lease with the Clayton Bowls Club as follows: Gaming rent of $500 per machine and a fixed increase of 4% per annum: • Gaming rent $500 x 29 Machines = $14,500 • Building Asset Value $1,070,000 x 0.2% $ 2,140 • Land Asset Value $910,000 x 0.5% $ 4,550 • Bar Sales $362,447 x 2% $ 7,249

Total Rent $28,439 (estimated Year 1)



172

Attachments: Minutes Ordinary Council Report 28 February 2011 Community Benefit Statement Clayton Bowls Club to June 2010 Explanation by Clayton Bowls Club Inc. of their Community Benefit Statement Confidential Minutes Ordinary Council 25 May 2009 Substantive Motion Crs Athanasopoulos/Staikos That the recommendation be adopted. Procedural Motion - Extension of Time Crs Ronke/Shewan That the meeting be extended until 10.30pm The motion was put and Carried Amendment Crs Dundas/Peulich That option D as previously proposed on 22 May 2009 be proposed for the length of the lease for the amount of $171,150 The Mayor made a ruling that the proposed Amendment should be a foreshadowed motion if the Substantive Motion is lost

Amendment Cr Ronke That the gaming rent component be distributed to organisations that assist problem gamblers and that these funds be distributed subject to discussions with councillors. The mover and seconder agreed to include the amendment in the motion Procedural Motion Crs Ronke/Staikos That Cr Athanasopoulos be granted an extension of 3 minutes to speak on the matter The motion was put and carried



173

The Substantive Motion was put and lost A Division was called: For Against Cr Dundas Cr Athanasopoulos Cr Moloney Cr Brownlees Cr Peulich Cr Ronke Cr Shewan Cr Staikos The Chairperson used his casting vote to vote against the motion. The Chairperson declared that the motion was lost. Substantive Motion Crs Dundas/Shewan That option D as previously proposed on 22 May 2009 be proposed for the length of the lease for the amount of $171,150 Formal Motion Crs Staikos/Ronke That the motion now be put The Formal Motion was put and lost Procedural Motion Crs Peulich/ Ronke That Cr Dundas be granted an extension of 3 minutes to speak on the matter The motion was put and carried The Substantive Motion was put and lost A Division was called: For Against Cr Dundas Cr Athanasopoulos Cr Brownlees Cr Moloney Cr Peulich Cr Ronke Cr Shewan Cr Staikos The Chairperson declared that the motion was lost.



174

N 40 Memorandum of Understanding – Relocation of Gas Infrastructure from

Former Highett Gas Works Approved by: Paul Franklin, General Manager Corporate Services Author: Newton Gatoff, Team Leader Property Services Julian Harvey, Manager Property Services

1. Purpose This report seeks Council’s authorisation for the CEO and a Councillor to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Council and the Treasury Minister, The Hon. Gordon Rich-Phillips MLC.

2. Background In June 2007 The Department of Treasury and Finance (DTF) contacted Council to advise that it [the DTF] proposed to relocate gas transmission infrastructure from the former Highett Gas Works site to Sir William Fry Reserve (SWFR) which is Crown Land and for which Council is appointed Committee of Management. The proposed relocation is to facilitate a significant residential development of the gas works site by a future developer. The infrastructure requires land totalling 1400 square meters located at SWFR on the Nepean Highway frontage. Subsequent to the letter from DTF, the then serving Mayor Cr Topsy Petchey, wrote to The Hon Steve Bracks pointing out that if the community were to lose 1400 sqm of land in SWFR, it would be only fair and appropriate that the DTF should compensate Council and the community with replacement open space. In June 2008 the DTF wrote to Council and proposed 2200sqm of open space located at the former Highett Gas Works, should be provided to the City of Kingston by way of replacement of the open-space being utilised at SWFR. In the last few years various residential schemes have been discussed with Council by Vic-Urban as the proposed developer for the former gas works site. The discussions have required Council Officers to hold the developer accountable for the 2200sqm of land within the proposed scheme, in addition to the developer’s open-space contribution. During 2010 Council Officers and DTF Officers, agreed to draft an MOU which would clearly articulate the intent of both parties and to ensure that when the former gas site land was finally sold, there would be certainty around the amount of replacement land which was to be provided. Furthermore that should Council approve, that the replacement land could be located at site/s throughout the proposed development. However, as Council require certainty as to the amount and location of the replacement land, the default location (as shown on the attached plan), is in the north-west corner of the site with a 62 meter frontage to View Street in Highett.



175

3. Summary and Conclusion The attached MOU ensures that any developer entering into a contract to purchase the former Highett Gas Works understands that 2200sqm of land is to be utilised as public open space by Council either in a designated location or elsewhere by agreement with Council. Furthermore by defining the replacement land, all parties concerned will know that the replacement land does not form any part of the public open space contribution to be provided by the developer under the planning scheme.

4. Issues • SWFR is Crown Land and City of Kingston is committee of management for SWFR. • Whilst Council is not the freehold owner of the land any physical loss of open-space to the

municipality should be compensated, ideally with replacement open-space. • Council wishes to ensure that before surrendering 1400sqm of SWFR to DTF, Council has

a commitment from DFT for the replacement land. • It is important that the purchaser of the former gas works, understands that the 2200sqm of

replacement land does not form part of the 5%+ of open space contribution.

5. Options • If Council signs the MOU there will be a degree of clarity around the amount of open space

within any proposed development at the former Highett Gas Works and that the deficiency of open space for residents in the Highett area is being addressed. This will also allow the DTF to progress the relocation of gas infrastructure to the 1400sqm site on SWFR.

• If Council does not sign the MOU, the DTF may find it difficult to progress the whole

project and to relocate the gas infrastructure as soon as possible.

6. Triple Bottom Line Checklist • Environmental – Prior to Council being appointed as Committee of Management for the

replacement open-space, the land will be subject to a statement of environmental audit pursuant to section 53Z of the Environment Protection Act 1970.

• Social – The net benefit of additional open-space for the existing residents of Highett is in

addition to the 5%+ of open-space contribution which should be provided as part of the proposed redevelopment of the former gas works.

• Financial – The replacement land is larger than the land being utilised for the relocation of

gas infrastructure and therefore



176

7. Recommendation That Council authorises the CEO and a Councillor to execute the Memorandum of Understanding between Council and the Treasury Minister, The Hon. Gordon Rich-Phillips MLC as annexured to this report. Attachments: Memorandum of Understanding Plan Crs Staikos/Peulich That the recommendation be adopted.

Carried



177

N 41 Granting an Easement over Council land at Patterson Lakes Recreation Reserve

Approved by: Paul Franklin, General Manager Corporate Services Author: Newton Gatoff, Team Leader, Property Services Julian Harvey, Manager Property Services

1. Purpose To recommend that Council undertakes a public process in accordance with section 189 of the Local Government Act and establish a committee pursuant to section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 to consider submissions. Further to recommend that in the event that no submissions are received, Council resolves to approve an easement in favour of United Energy in relation to the granting of an easement which is required to enable United Energy to run an underground power cable alongside Wadsley Drain at the Patterson Lakes Recreation Reserve.

2. Council Plan Planned Outcome 1 – Providing resources for a safe and active community Strategy 1.1 – Acting in accordance with best practice principles

• The proposed easement has been negotiated to ensure that Council receives compensation

in allowing a utility provider to utilise Council Land and for the works to be carried out under a construction licence.

3. Background During July 2010 Council received a request from Melbourne Water to establish an easement through Patterson Lakes Recreation Reserve in favour of United Energy. The easement is to enable a feeder cable to be installed alongside the Wadsley Drain. This power cable will supply Melbourne Water’s Eastern Treatment plant with sufficient power to operate a tertiary treatment facility, which will process effluent to a higher standard and promote the use of recycled water. Officers have prepared a Construction Licence to provide United Energy with approval to access the reserve and to ensure that the works are carried out appropriately and with respect to Councils existing tenants. A fee of $11,000 will be paid by Melbourne Water to Council for the granting of the easement. Following the completion of works and subject to a Council resolution, Council will grant the easement in favour of United Energy. As confirmed by legal advice received by Officers in relation to another matter, it is necessary for Council to observe a statutory process, because the granting of an easement involves the disposal of an interest in ‘land’.



178

UN

NA

MED

UN

NA

MED

UN

NA

MED

UN

NA

MED

UN

NA

MED

UN

NA

MED

UN

NA

MED

UN

NA

MED

UN

NA

MED

THOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROAD

THOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROAD

THO

MP

SON

RO

AD

THO

MP

SON

RO

AD

THO

MP

SON

RO

AD

THO

MP

SON

RO

AD

THO

MP

SON

RO

AD

THO

MP

SON

RO

AD

THO

MP

SON

RO

AD

THO

MP

SON

RO

AD

THO

MP

SON

RO

AD

THO

MP

SON

ROA

D

THO

MP

SON RO

AD

THO

MP

SON R

OA

D

THO

MP

SON

ROA

D

THO

MP

SON R

OA

D

THO

MP

SON

ROA

D

THO

MP

SON RO

AD

THO

MP

SON R

OA

D

THO

MP

SON RO

AD

THOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROADTHOMPSON ROAD

THOMPSON-MORNINGTON PENINSULA IN R

AMP ON


AMP ON


AMP ON


AMP ON


AMP ON


AMP ON


AMP ON


AMP ON


AMP ON

THOMPSO

N-MORNIN

GTON PE

NINSULA

OUT

RAMP

ON

THOMPSO

N-MORNIN

GTON PE

NINSULA

OUT

RAMP

ON

THOMPSO

N-MORNIN

GTON P

ENIN

SULA O

UT RAM

P ON

THOMPSO

N-MORNIN

GTON PE

NINSULA

OUT

RAMP

ON

THOMPSO

N-MORNIN

GTON P

ENIN

SULA O

UT RAM

P ON

THOMPSO

N-MORNIN

GTON PE

NINSULA

OUT

RAMP

ON

THOMPSO

N-MORNIN

GTON PE

NINSULA

OUT

RAMP

ON

THOMPSO

N-MORNIN

GTON P

ENIN

SULA O

UT RAM

P ON

THOMPSO

N-MORNIN

GTON PE

NINSULA

OUT

RAMP

ON

LEA

RM

ON

TH R

OA

DLE

AR

MO

NTH

RO

AD

LEA

RM

ON

TH R

OA

DLE

AR

MO

NTH

RO

AD

LEA

RM

ON

TH R

OA

DLE

AR

MO

NTH

RO

AD

LEA

RM

ON

TH R

OA

DLE

AR

MO

NTH

RO

AD

LEA

RM

ON

TH R

OA

D

OLD

WELLS

RO

AD

OLD

WELLS

RO

AD

OLD

WELLS

RO

AD

OLD

WELLS

RO

AD

OLD

WELLS

RO

AD

OLD

WELLS

RO

AD

OLD

WELLS

RO

AD

OLD

WELLS

RO

AD

OLD

WELLS

RO

AD

MCLEOD ROAD

MCLEOD ROAD

MCLEOD ROAD

MCLEOD ROAD

MCLEOD ROAD

MCLEO D ROAD

MCLEO D ROAD

MCLEO D ROAD

MCLEOD ROAD

ILLAWONG COURT

ILLAWONG COURT

ILLAWONG COURT

ILLAWONG COURT

ILLAWONG COURT

ILLAWONG COURT

ILLAWONG COURT

ILLAWONG COURT

ILLAWONG COURT

THOMPSON ROAD

THOMPSON ROAD

THOMPSON ROAD

THOMPSON ROAD

THOMPSON ROAD

THOMPSON ROAD

THOMPSON ROAD

THOMPSON ROAD

THOMPSON ROAD

MO

RN

ING

TON

PEN

INSU

LA FR

EEWA

YM

OR

NIN

GTO

N P

ENIN

SULA

FREEW

AY

MO

RN

ING

TON

PEN

INSU

LA FR

EEWA

YM

OR

NIN

GTO

N P

ENIN

SULA

FREEW

AY

MO

RN

ING

TON

PEN

INSU

LA FR

EEWA

YM

OR

NIN

GTO

N P

ENIN

SULA

FREEW

AY

MO

RN

ING

TON

PEN

INSU

LA FR

EEWA

YM

OR

NIN

GTO

N P

ENIN

SULA

FREEW

AY

MO

RN

ING

TON

PEN

INSU

LA FR

EEWA

Y

KULANDA COURT

KULANDA COURT

KULANDA COURT

KULANDA COURT

KULANDA COURT

KULANDA COURT

KULANDA COURT

KULANDA COURT

KULANDA COURT

MOI

NA C

OURT

MOI

NA C

OURT

MOI

NA C

OURT

MOI

NA C

OURT

MOI

NA C

OURT

MOI

NA C

OURT

MOI

NA C

OURT

MOI

NA C

OURT

MOI

NA C

OURT

0 100 200

meters

4. Summary and Conclusion In accordance with section 189 and 223 of the Local Government Act, Council must comply with obligations by giving notice of its intention to grant an easement in favour of United Energy and to consider submissions in relation to the proposal. Further that Council should provide the submitters with the opportunity to be heard in support of their submissions before Council or a committee of Council. Officers recommend that in the event no submissions are received, Council instructs the Chief Executive Officer to execute the instrument which creates the easement in accordance with the section 45 of the Transfer of Land Act.

5. Consultation On 9 November 2010 Officers informed the Southern Ward Councillors of the proposed easement and subsequently informed Council tenants of the proposed work which will be carried out in July 2011. When a construction date is known, contractors will contact tenants to make final arrangements for access.

6. Options • Council can resolve to proceed the approval of the easement as recommended by Officers. • Council can resolve not to proceed with issuing an easement and United Energy will have

the option of relying upon powers under the Electricity Act to gain access to Council land. This is not recommended by Officers.

7. Triple Bottom Line Checklist • Environmental – The proposed easement is to provide power for a treatment facility to

promote the use of recycled water for sporting grounds, irrigation etc. • Social – n/a



179

• Financial – Council will receive $11,000 in lieu of granting the easement. Crs Shewan/Ronke That the recommendation be adopted with the South Ward Councillor to be Cr Shewan.

Carried

8. Recommendation That Council resolves: • to commence the public process under section 189 of the Local Government Act

for the granting of an easement. • to appoint a committee in accordance with section 223 of the Act to hear/consider

the submissions received in relation to the proposed easement • the committee to comprise Paul Franklin, General Manager Property Services,

Julian Harvey, Manager Property Services and South Ward Councillor ______. • that the section 223 committee, upon hearing and considering submissions

prepares a report for Council

• that in the event no submissions are received the Chief Executive Officer or delegate should proceed to execute the creation of easement document under section 45 of the Transfer of Land Act 1958.



180

13. Notices Of Motion N 42 Notice of Motion - Cr Ronke – Green Wedge “That the green wedge management plan consultants, acting on behalf of council be advised that council wishes to instruct them to: 1: Include consideration and recommendations for a dedicated precinct or precincts for

future sporting and/or recreation activities within the study area. 2: No area for consideration and recommendation will include reclaimed land or previous

land fill. Ie: the area must be free of land fill. 3: The area for consideration and recommendation will have as key criteria access to water

and public transport. 4: The recommendations be included in the draft proposal to be considered by council. 5: As the size of the area for consideration will depend on possible shared use and/or

partnerships with neighbouring councils, advice be sought from council officers on the process to communicate and discuss with neighbouring councils options for shared facilities.

Cr John Ronke South Ward Crs Ronke/Athanasopoulos “That the green wedge management plan consultants, acting on behalf of council be advised that council wishes to instruct them to: 1: Include consideration and recommendations for a dedicated precinct or precincts for

future sporting and/or recreation activities within the study area. 2: No area for consideration and recommendation will include reclaimed land or previous

land fill. Ie: the area must be free of land fill. 3: The area for consideration and recommendation will have as key criteria access to water





181

Amendment Cr Staikos That points 1,3,4 and 5 be adopted and that point 2 be changed to read:

“Primary areas for consideration would be land not subject to landfill.” The mover and the seconder agreed to include this change in the motion The motion now reads as Crs Ronke/Athanasopoulos “That the green wedge management plan consultants, acting on behalf of council be advised that council wishes to instruct them to: 1: Include consideration and recommendations for a dedicated precinct or precincts for future

sporting and/or recreation activities within the study area. 2. Primary areas for consideration would be land not subject to landfill.” 3: The area for consideration and recommendation will have as key criteria access to water



Carried



182

Crs Staikos/Peulich That in accordance with the provisions of section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989, the meeting be closed to members of the public for the consideration of the following confidential items: • N 43 as it relates to a matter which the Council considers would prejudice the Council or

any person • N 44 as it relates to a matter which the Council considers would prejudice the Council or

any person • N 45 as it is a contractual matter • N 46 as it is a contractual matter • N 47 as it is a contractual matter • N 48 as it is a contractual matter

Carried

The meeting was closed to the public at 10.10 pm. Formal Motion Crs Staikos/Peulich That the meeting be adjourned for five minutes

Carried

Crs Staikos/Shewan That the meeting be opened to members of the public

Carried The meeting was opened to the public at 10.43 pm Crs Staikos/Athanasopoulos That the resolutions for the contractual matters considered in camera being Items N 45, N 46, N 47 and N 48 be recorded in that part of the meeting open to the public.

Carried



183

N 45 Contract 10/123: Mordialloc Creek Maintenance Dredging & Associated Dewatering & Disposal Works (Lambert Island) Crs Staikos/Athanasopoulos

That CONTACT No. 10/123 - Mordialloc Creek Maintenance Dredging and Associated Dewatering and Disposal Works to BIRDON PTY LTD for the fixed lump sum of $215,020 and schedule of rates based on pre and post dredge survey in the order of $1,491,460 (subject to the receipt of coastal management consent).

Carried N 46 Award of Contract 10/147 Tom Johnson Pavilion Alterations & Additions Project Crs Shewan/Moloney That Council resolve to:- (i) Accept the best value tender received for Contract 10/147 Tom Johnson Pavilion Alterations & Additions and agree that the contract be awarded to SJ Higgins Pty Ltd for the fixed lump sum of $1,763,996.00 (exclusive of GST).

(ii) Council authorise the Chief Executive to execute the contract and to expend available capital funds up to 5% of the approved contract value, to act as a contingency sum to address unforeseen construction issues, should they arise during the implementation of the works.

Carried N 47 Award of Contract 11/12 Chelsea Sportswomen’s Centre Alterations & Additions Project Crs Shewan/Moloney That Council resolve to:- (i) Accept the best value tender received for Contract 11/12 Chelsea Sportswomen’s Centre Alterations & Additions and agree that the contract be awarded to Cellstruct Industries Pty Ltd for the fixed lump sum of $695,300.80 (exclusive of GST).

(ii) Authorise the Chief Executive to execute the contract and to expend available capital funds up to 5% of the project cost, to act as a contingency sum to address unforeseen construction issues, should they arise during the implementation of the works.



184

N 48 Award of Contract 11/14 – Refurbishment of Shirley Burke Hall, Parkdale Crs Staikos/Dundas

That Council resolve to:-

(i) Accept the best value tender received for Contract 11/14 Shirley Burke Hall Refurbishment project and that the contract be awarded to Campeyn Building Services Pty. Ltd. for the fixed lump sum of $1,298,573.00 (exclusive of GST).

(ii) Authorise the Chief Executive to execute the contract and to expend up to a further $70,000 as a contingency sum to address unforeseen issues arising during the implementation of the project.

Carried There being no further business the meeting closed at 10.44pm Confirmed………………………………….His Worship, The Mayor 27 April 2011.

minutes ordinary council meeting 280311 - city of kingston€¦ · n 46 award of contract –...

Documents