ordinary council meeting - city of kingston · agenda 23 july 2012 1. notice is given that an...

Ordinary Council Meeting

Notice is given that an Ordinary Meeting of the Kingston City Council will be held at 7.00pm at 1230 Nepean Hwy, Cheltenham, on Monday 23 July 2012. 1 Apologies

2 Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meetings

3 Declaration by Councillors or Officers of any Conflict of Interest

4 Petitions

5 Presentations

6 Reports from Village Committees

7 Reports from Delegates Appointed by Council to Various Organisations

8 Question Time

9 Environmental Sustainability Reports

10 Community Sustainability Reports

11 Organisational Development and Governance Reports

12 Corporate Services Reports

13 Notices of Motion

14 Urgent Business

15 Items in Camera

City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting

Agenda 23 July 2012

1.

Notice is given that an Ordinary Meeting of Kingston City Council will be held at 7.00pm at the Cheltenham Office, 1230 Nepean Highway, Cheltenham, on Monday 23 July 2012. 1. Apologies 2. Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meetings Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting 25 June 2012 Minutes of Special Council Meeting 25 June 2012 Minutes of Special Council Meeting 2 July 2012 3. Foreshadowed Declaration by Councillors, Officers or Contractors 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 Alan Harris – Service on Dingley/Heatherton Village Committee Council Awards

Recognition of Support from Melbourne Water’s 10,000 Raingarden Program Municipal Association of Victoria President’s Award for Planning Process

Improvements – MAV’s Step Planning Process Improvement Plan Sir Rupert Hamer Records Management Award for Excellence in Innovation in

Records Management

6. Reports from Village Committees

7. Reports from Delegates Appointed by Council to Various Organisations

8. Question Time 9. Environmental Sustainability Reports O 112 Town Planning Application Decisions – June 2012 ............................................8 O 113 KP806/11 - 6 Harding Avenue, Bonbeach .......................................................18 O 114 KP855/11 - 1/197B Nepean Highway, Aspendale ............................................52 O 115 KP910/11 - 172-174 Warrigal Road, Mentone..................................................82 O 116 Kingston Sport and Recreation Reference Group – Appointment of

Community Member ......................................................................................122

City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting

Agenda 23 July 2012

2.

10. Community Sustainability Reports O 117 Community Grants Program 2012-13 – Perceived Conflict of Interest for

Individual Development Grant.........................................................................125 O 118 Contract 12/24 – Chelsea Activity Hub Building Project..................................128 O 119 Contract 12/11 - Supply of Library Books, AV Media, Periodicals,

Subscriptions and Related Services ...............................................................119 O 120 2012-13 Community Grants Program - Funding Recommendations for

Triennial, Village Committee and City Wide Grant Allocations........................137 11. Organisational Development & Governance Reports O 121 Issue Resolution Process for Village Committees ..........................................145 O 122 Public Art Advisory Panel – Cheltenham Public Art Project............................152 O 123 Sponsorship Policy Report .............................................................................157 O 124 Assembly of Council Record ..........................................................................161 O 125 Expenditure of Ward Funds Schedule............................................................163 12. Corporate Services Reports O 126 Contract 12/58 Parking Enforcement and Infringement Administration

Services ..........................................................................................................166 O 127 Draft Domestic Animal Management Plan 2012 – 2016.................................173 O 128 Investment Policy Report – June 2012 Quarter..............................................178 O 129 Cleaning Tender for Kingston Leisure Centres...............................................182 O 130 Annual Report of the Chairman of the Audit Committee.................................186 O 131 Approval Charity Collections/Appeals ............................................................191 13. Notices of Motion O 132 Notice of Motion (Rescission) No. 22/2012 – Cr Peulich ................................193 14. Urgent Business 15. Closed Meeting - Items in Camera O 133 Consideration of Officer Advice in Relation to the Green Wedge ...................194 Confidential Attachments O 116 Kingston Sport and Recreation Reference Group – Appointment of Community

Member O 117 Community Grants Program 2012-13 – Perceived Conflict of Interest for Individual

Development Grant O 118 Contract 12/24 – Chelsea Activity Hub Building Project O 119 Contract 12/11 - Supply of Library Books, AV Media, Periodicals, Subscriptions

and Related Services O 126 Confidential Attachment - Contract 12/58 Parking Enforcement and Infringement

Administration Services O 129 Leisure Centre – Cleaning Evaluations Spreadsheet -2012


Agenda Item No. 6

PRESENTATION OF VILLAGE COMMITTEE REPORTS Contact Officer: Phil DeLosa Trim: 12/70093

Purpose of Report

This report presents recommendations and highlights from the Village Committees to Council for consideration in accordance with Council’s Village Committee Policy.

Disclosure of Officer / Contractor Direct or Indirect Interest

No Council officer/s and/or Contractor/s who have provided advice in relation to this report have declared a Conflict of Interest regarding the matter under consideration.

Recommendation

That Council consider each Village Committee recommendation as a separate motion.

1. Executive Summary Recommendations and highlights have been received from some of the Village Committees for Council to consider at the Ordinary Meeting of Council.

2. Background Council’s Village Committees may comprise residents, property owners and representatives of other organisations. The Committees meet on a monthly or bi-monthly basis. At the Village Committee meetings highlights are noted and recommendations may be proposed for Council to consider.

3. Village Committee Reports

(1) Aspendale/Edithvale/Aspendale Gardens/Waterways Village Committee

Report of Meeting held on 5 July 2012

Village Committee Motion:

We ask Council to maintain and enhance the existing Green Wedge zone and not permit any further development in the Green Wedge area - with the understanding that this motion does not oppose the Mornington Peninsula Freeway development.”

3.

Officer comments: Development controls in land in the Kingston Green Wedge is regulated by the Kingston Planning Scheme. Much of the land contained in the Green Wedge is in private ownership and that this land can be developed subject to compliance with the relevant Planning Scheme provisions.

Officer recommendation: That the Village Committee be thanked for its feedback.

Highlight: The review of the Green Wedge.

______________________________________________________

(2) Chelsea/Chelsea Heights/Bonbeach Village Committee Chairperson – John Bainbridge


Highlight: The Committee would like to highlight the joint partnership between Chelsea Community Renewal and the libraries in developing the iPad initiative.

____________________________________________________________________ (3) Cheltenham Village Committee

Chairperson – Simon Libbis


Highlight: Chair Simon Libbis endorsed comments from the Committee that noted the presence and information provided by Paul Franklin particularly regarding the Council budget development considerations a highlight.

_____________________________________________________________________

(4) Clarinda/Clayton South/Oakleigh South Village Committee Chairperson – Gael Mizzi

No meeting was held this month.

_____________________________________________________________________ (5) Dingley/Heatherton Village Committee

Chairperson – Anne Caprackas

Report of meeting held on 4 July 2012.

Highlight: Attendance of Jason Stubbs and Council’s decision to challenge the VCAT ruling on the Clayton Road landfill.

________________________________________________________________

4.

(6) Mentone/Parkdale Village Committee

Chairperson – Barbara Taylor

Report of meeting held on 3 July 2012

Village Committee Motion: The Mentone/Parkdale Village Committee wishes to convey to Council that it has great misgivings about the development at 101-103 Mentone Parade because it conflicts with the Mentone Structure Plan.

Officer Comments:

Following a VCAT Practice Day hearing on 16 March this year, the Tribunal granted leave to the applicant to amend their plans, which had to be circulated by 31 July 2012. The applicant was also directed to re-advertise the amended plans once they were ready. Council received notice of amended plans on 8 May, and the applicant has advised that they have notified all affected parties.

Council is currently waiting for a merits hearing date to be set by VCAT. The issue of the Mentone Structure Plan will be discussed and considered by the Tribunal. It is currently considered a ‘seriously entertained’ document, but does not yet have the same weight as the height controls which apply through the Design Development Overlay (DDO) contained in the Planning Scheme. The weight to be given to the Structure Plan is therefore something that will hopefully be outlined in any determination by the Tribunal. For example, the latest VCAT decision with reference to the Mentone Structure Plan at 114-116 Balcombe Road, placed greater weight on the DDO controls that currently sit within the Planning Scheme.

Officer Recommendation:

That the Village Committee be thanked for its comments and be advised that the Mentone Structure Plan issue will be discussed and considered by VCAT at a merits hearing regarding the development at 101-103 Mentone Parade. The date for this hearing is yet to be set by VCAT.

Highlight: The Village Committees concern about the development at 101-103 Mentone Parade.

____________________________________________________________________

(7) Moorabbin / Highett Village Committee

Chairperson – Les Heimann

Report of meeting held on 4 July 2012.

Highlight: The discussions between St Kilda FC and Kingston for proposals of Linton

Street Reserve ____________________________________________________________________

5.

(8) Mordialloc Village Committee Chairperson – David Van Pelt


Village Committee Motion: The Mordialloc Village Committee recommends that Council promptly adopt the Kingston Green Wedge Plan.

Officer Comments: Council at this time is still to consider the Kingston Green Wedge Plan prepared by Planisphere. It is expected that this Plan will be considered by Council at its August Council Meeting. Officer Recommendation: That the Village Committee be thanked for its advice and be advised of the outcome of Council’s consideration of the Planisphere Kingston Green Wedge Plan. Highlight: The recommendation to support the Kingston Green Wedge Plan.

____________________________________________________________________ (9) Patterson Lakes/Carrum Village Committee

Chairperson – Don Reed

Report of Meeting held on 4 July 2012.

Village Committee Motion: The Patterson Lakes/Carrum Village Committee wishes to request in reference to KP-323/2012 that Council reconsiders its decision that refused a small sign being erected on the fence line of the Patterson Lakes Recreational Reserve, as it would effectively promote the Nursery and its positive community benefits.

Officer comments:

Council officers are looking at other means in which to provide signage. Officers are proposing to establish appropriate directional road signage to indicate where the Nursery is located. Officer Recommendation: That the Village Committee be advised that Council officers are proposing to establish directional road signage for the Nursery. Highlight: The exceptional service provided by Customer Service officer Zoe in dealing with a service request which resulted in prompt action being taken within 24 hours.

______________________________________________________________________ 6.

Author/s: Stephanie O’Gorman, Governance Officer

Reviewed and Approved By: Elaine Sowerby, General Manager, Organisational Development and Governance

7.

Town Planning Application Decisions – June, 2012 Approved By: Rachel Hornsby -General Manager, Environmental Sustainability Author: Ian Nice – Manager, Planning Attached for information is the report of Town Planning Decisions for the month of June, 2012. A summary of the decisions is as follows:

Type of Decision Number of Decisions Made

Percentage (%)

Planning Permits 69 70 Notice of Decision 11 11 Refusal to Grant a Permit 6 6 Other - Withdrawn (5) - Prohibited (1) - Permit not required(4) - Lapsed (2)

12 13

Total 98 100 (NB: Percentage figures have been rounded) Recommendation That the report be noted.

8.

Planning Decisions June, 2012

APPL. No. PROPERTY ADDRESS

SUBURB APPL. DATE

DATE DECIDED

PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION DECISION VCAT DECISION

KP-312/2012 3 Wilson Grove ASPENDALE 22/05/2012 1/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Construction Of (1) Dwelling With Internal Floor To Ceiling Heights That Exceed 3.5 Metres Permit Issued No

KP-931/2010 167 Beach Road PARKDALE 29/12/2010 1/06/2012

To Develop The Land For The Construction Of Seventeen (17) Dwellings Permit Issued No

KP-790/2011

1 18 Woodbine Grove CHELSEA 12/10/2011 1/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Construction Of Two (2) Dwellings Permit Issued No

KP-540/2011

35 74-76 Gladesville Boulevard

PATTERSON LAKES 11/08/2011 4/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Construction Of Front And Rear Extensions To An Existing Dwelling Permit Issued No

KP-114/2012 325 Nepean Highway EDITHVALE 28/02/2012 4/06/2012 Subdivide The Land Into Four (4) Lots Withdrawn No

KP-53/2012 316 Highett Road HIGHETT 7/02/2012 5/06/2012

Use The Land For Sale And Consumption Of Liquor Permit Issued No

KP-329/2012

100 Centre Dandenong Road CHELTENHAM 25/05/2012 5/06/2012 Subdivide The Land Into Two (2) Lots Permit Issued No

KP-416/2011/A 122A Parkers Road PARKDALE 10/05/2012 5/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Construction Of Three (3) Dwellings Permit Issued No

KP-372/2006/A

426-431 Nepean Highway CHELSEA 11/01/2012 5/06/2012 Buildings & Works Permit Issued No

KP-148/2012

2 11 Lakewood Boulevard BRAESIDE 9/03/2012 5/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Display Of Advertising Signage Permit Issued No

KP-10/2012

426-431 Nepean Highway CHELSEA 9/01/2012 5/06/2012

Use The Land As A Restricted Recreation Facility (Gymnasium) With Waiver Of Car Parking Requirement Notice of Decision No

KP-345/2010

278-282 Charman Road CHELTENHAM 4/06/2010 6/06/2012 Mixed Use Development - Shop/Office Permit Issued No

9.



SUBURB APPL. DATE

DATE DECIDED


KP-407/2010 4 Swanpool Avenue CHELSEA 28/06/2010 6/06/2012 Four (4) Lot Subdivision Permit Issued No

KP-953/2011 27 Collocott Street MORDIALLOC 14/12/2011 6/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Construction Of Two (2) Dwellings Notice of Decision No

KP-118/2012 25 Stanley Street CARRUM 29/02/2012 7/06/2012 Subdivide The Land Into Two (2) Lots Lapsed No

KP-81/2012 23 Dawn Street HIGHETT 22/02/2012 7/06/2012


KP-1098/2008

1 114 Balcombe Road MENTONE 9/12/2008 7/06/2012 Four Storey Mixed Use Development Permit Issued No

KP-528/2011 1 Oaklands Court HIGHETT 25/07/2011 7/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Construction Of A Twenty Six (26) Dwellings

Failure to Determine Yes

KP-866/2009 2 Kingston Street MORDIALLOC 17/02/2010 7/06/2012

To Develop The Land For The Construction Of Four (4) Dwellings Permit Issued No

KP-303/2012

332-348 Lower Dandenong Road MORDIALLOC 18/05/2012 8/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Construction Of A Front Fence And Sliding Fence On Land Subject To Inundation Permit Issued No

KP-776/2011 39 Royal Road BONBEACH 7/10/2011 8/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Construction Of A 2 Dwellings To The Rear Of An Existing Dwelling Notice of Decision No

KP-212/2012 618-620 South Road MOORABBIN 3/04/2012 8/06/2012 Removal Of Easement E-1 Permit Issued No

KP-238/2012

1238-1240 Nepean Highway CHELTENHAM 17/04/2012 8/06/2012

Use The Land For The Sale And Consumption Of Liquor (Restaurant And Cafe Licence) Permit Issued No

KP-947/2011 3 Forest Park Road

DINGLEY VILLAGE 13/12/2011 8/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Construction Of One (1) Dwelling To The Rear Of An Existing Dwelling Permit Issued No

10.



SUBURB APPL. DATE

DATE DECIDED


KP-617/2011 19 Reid Street PARKDALE 22/08/2011 8/06/2012


KP-630/2011 24 Cobham Street CHELTENHAM 18/08/2011 12/06/2012 Two (2) Lot Subdivision Permit Issued No

KP-134/2012

56 De Havilland Road MORDIALLOC 7/03/2012 12/06/2012

Use The Land For A Materials Recycling Plant Permit Issued No

KP-924/2011

35 282-284 Chesterville Road MOORABBIN 1/12/2011 12/06/2012

Use The Land For A Food And Drinks Premises (Cafe) Permit Issued No

KP-801/2010/A

8-26 Canterbury Road BRAESIDE 21/03/2012 13/06/2012

Use And Development Of The Site For A Brothel Permit Issued No

KP-105/2012 2 42 Tarella Road CHELSEA 27/02/2012 13/06/2012

Develop The Land For A Second Floor Extension Permit Issued No

KP-937/2011 2 Ocean Reef Drive

PATTERSON LAKES 2/12/2011 13/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Construction Of A Jetty Permit Issued No

KP-1003/2007/B

6 Dahmen Street CARRUM 9/03/2012 14/06/2012 Change To Setbacks Lapsed No

KP-687/2011 242 Station Street EDITHVALE 12/09/2011 14/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Construction Of Two (2) Dwellings Notice of Decision

No

KP-595/2011

344-348 Charman Road CHELTENHAM 12/08/2011 14/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Display Of Business Identification Signage Permit Issued No

KP-38/2012 19 Joffre Avenue EDITHVALE 1/02/2012 14/06/2012 Subdivide The Land Into Two (2) Lots Permit Issued No

KP-819/2010

277-279 Charman Road CHELTENHAM 12/11/2010 14/06/2012

To Subdivide The Land Into Five Lots And Common Property Permit Issued No

KP-348/2012 Unit 1 3 Third Street

CLAYTON SOUTH 5/06/2012 14/06/2012 Subdivide The Land Into Two (2) Lots Permit Issued No

11.



SUBURB APPL. DATE

DATE DECIDED


KP-689/2011 81 Balcombe Road MENTONE 12/09/2011 14/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Construction Of A Ground, First, Second Floor And Roof Deck Extension And A Reduction Of The Car Parking Requirement Permit Issued No

KP-298/2012 9 Second Street

CLAYTON SOUTH 11/05/2012 14/06/2012 Subdivide The Land Into Two (2) Lots Permit Issued No

KP-750/2011 14 Palm Beach Drive

PATTERSON LAKES 3/10/2011 15/06/2012


KP-211/2012 25 Mills Road BRAESIDE 3/04/2012 15/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Construction Of A Warehouse And A Reduction In Car Parking. Permit Issued No

KP-602/2011 20 Curlew Point Drive

PATTERSON LAKES 12/08/2011 15/06/2012


KP-151/2012 6 10 High Street MORDIALLOC 13/03/2012 15/06/2012

Develop The Land For Ground And First Floor Extensions On A Lot Less Than 300m2 And On Common Property Permit Issued No

KP-309/2012

979-999 Nepean Highway MOORABBIN 21/05/2012 15/06/2012

Develop The Land For Construction Of Footpath Upgrade

Permit Not Required No

KP-978/2011 18-20 Wren Road MOORABBIN 22/12/2011 15/06/2012

Use Part Of The Land For Employment Training Centre For Automotive Trades Refused No

KP-644/2011 14 Long Island Point

PATTERSON LAKES 26/08/2011 18/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Construction Of A Jetty Notice of Decision Yes

KP-713/2011 276 Como Parade West PARKDALE 19/09/2011 18/06/2012

To Use The Land For The Sale And Consumption Of Liquor, To Construct And Carry Out Buildings And Works, To Construct And Display Business Identification Signage, To Reduce The Car Parking Requirement And To Waive The Loading Bay Requirement Notice of Decision No

KP-394/2007/A 128-130 White Street MORDIALLOC 2/09/2011 18/06/2012 14 Dwellings / 4 Offices Permit Issued No

KP-131/2011/A 2 Brigantine Court

PATTERSON LAKES 16/02/2012 18/06/2012


12.



SUBURB APPL. DATE

DATE DECIDED


KP-933/2011

195 Gladesville Boulevard

PATTERSON LAKES 29/11/2011 18/06/2012


KP-679/2011/A 21 Palm Beach Drive

PATTERSON LAKES 20/03/2012 18/06/2012


KP-704/2011 14/09/2011 18/06/2012Develop The Land For The Construction Of A Boatshed Permit Issued No

KP-975/2011 486 South Road MOORABBIN 23/12/2011 18/06/2012

Use The Land For The Sale Of Liquor (Packaged Liquor), To Display Internally-Illuminated Business Identification Signage, And A Waiver Of The Car Parking And Loading Requirements Of The Kingston Planning Scheme Notice of Decision No

KP-686/2011 9 Chesterville Road CHELTENHAM 9/09/2011 19/06/2012

Development Of A Five (5) Storey Building (Comprising Office And Not More Than 38 Dwellings), A Reduction In The Car Parking Requirement Pursuant To Cluse 52.06-1, To Alter Access To A Road In A Road Zone Category 1. The Creation Of An Easement And To Use The Land For Dwellings Permit Issued No

KP-833/2011

18-52 Rosebank Avenue

CLAYTON SOUTH 24/10/2011 19/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Construction Of An Industrial Building And A Reduction Of The Carparking Requirement Withdrawn No

KP-827/2011 16 Eveline Avenue PARKDALE 25/10/2011 19/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Construction Of Two (2) Dwellings. Notice of Decision No

KP-660/2011 116-118 White Street MORDIALLOC 31/08/2011 19/06/2012

Subdivide The Land Into Nineteen (19) Lots Permit Issued No

KP-323/2012 1 Learmonth Road

PATTERSON LAKES 28/05/2012 19/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Display Of One Business Identification Sign. Prohibited No

13.



SUBURB APPL. DATE

DATE DECIDED


KP-325/2012 1 19 Swan Walk CHELSEA 28/05/2012 20/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Construction Of A Verandah And Deck To An Existing Dwelling On A Lot Less Than 300 Square Metres


KP-56/2011 40 Mount View Road HIGHETT 28/01/2011 20/06/2012

Construct Two (2) Double Storey Dwellings Permit Issued No

KP-572/2010 49 Como Parade East PARKDALE 23/08/2010 20/06/2012 Two (2) Dwellings Permit Issued No

KP-392/2011 3 191 Beach Road MORDIALLOC 8/06/2011 20/06/2012

To Develop The Land To Extend A Dwelling On A Lot Less Than 300 Square Metres Permit Issued No

KP-1160/2008/A

461 Clayton Road

CLAYTON SOUTH 21/01/2011 21/06/2012 Two (2) Dwellings Permit Issued No

KP-652/2011 5 Narooma Street MOORABBIN 26/08/2011 21/06/2012


KP-137/2011

199 Gladesville Boulevard

PATTERSON LAKES 7/03/2011 21/06/2012


KP-534/2011 7 Joan Street MOORABBIN 21/07/2011 22/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Construction Of One (1) Single Storey Dwelling To The Rear Of The Existing Dwelling. Permit Issued No

KP-476/2011 46 Crawford Road CLARINDA 11/07/2011 22/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Construction Of One (1) Dwelling To The Rear Of An Existing Dwelling. Permit Issued No

KP-706/2011 4 Janice Avenue CHELTENHAM 14/09/2011 22/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Construction Of Three (3) Dwellings Comprising One (1) Double Storey Dwelling And Two (2) Single Storey Dwellings Permit Issued No

KP-909/2011 102A Beach Road MENTONE 25/11/2011 22/06/2012

Develop The Land For A Dwelling Extension (Roof Deck) On A Lot Less Than 300sqm Permit Issued No

14.



SUBURB APPL. DATE

DATE DECIDED


KP-282/2012 3 167 Warren Road PARKDALE 10/05/2012 22/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Construction Of A Front Fence On A Lot Less Than 300 Square Metres Withdrawn No

KP-543/2011 18 Wright Street CARRUM 27/07/2011 25/06/2012


KP-676/2011 256 Charman Road CHELTENHAM 8/09/2011 25/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Construction Of A Mixed Use Development Notice of Decision No

KP-358/2012 3 Koala Court CHELSEA 8/06/2012 25/06/2012 Subdivide The Land Into Two (2) Lots Permit Issued Yes

KP-889/2011 2 Wright Street CARRUM 14/11/2011 25/06/2012 Subdivide The Land Into Two (2) Lots Permit Issued No

KP-77/2012 9A The Corso PARKDALE 16/02/2012 25/06/2012 Subdivide The Land Into Two (2) Lots Refused No

KP-141/2012 16 Houston Street MENTONE 9/03/2012 25/06/2012


KP-173/2005 12 Ocean Reef Drive

PATTERSON LAKES 29/03/2005 25/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Construction Of Buildings And Works (Rendered Blockwork Retaining Wall, Brick Piers, Garden Beds, Paving, Steps, Boundary And Pool Fencing And Associated Works). Refused No

KP-268/2012


Develop The Land For The Construction Of Building And Works Permit Issued No

KP-558/2011 12 Graham Road

CLAYTON SOUTH 3/08/2011 26/06/2012

Use The Land For The Purpose Of Materials Recycling Permit Issued No

KP-627/2003/A

282-290 Lower Dandenong Road MORDIALLOC 11/08/2011 26/06/2012 Eight (8) Lot Subdivision Permit Issued Yes

15.



SUBURB APPL. DATE

DATE DECIDED


KP-243/2011 90 Nepean Highway MENTONE 15/04/2011 26/06/2012

Use And Develop The Land For The Construction Of Sixty Four (64) Dwellings And A Shop, With A Reduction Of The Car Parking Requirements Of Clause 52.06 And A Waiver Of The Loading Requirements Of Clause 52.07 Of The Kingston Planning Scheme Permit Issued No

KP-278/2012

Unit 2 Level 1 80 Balcombe Road MENTONE 4/05/2012 27/06/2012 Section 32 Plan Permit Issued Yes

KP-205/2012/A 53 Naples Road MENTONE 19/06/2012 27/06/2012 Subdivide The Land Into Three (3) Lots Permit Issued No

KP-598/2011 10 Argyle Avenue CHELSEA 15/08/2011 27/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Construction Of Four (4) Dwellings Permit Issued No

KP-356/2012 9 15 Sunray Avenue CHELTENHAM 12/06/2012 27/06/2012

Develop The Land For A Dwelling Extension On A Lot Less Than 300 Square Metres.


KP-372/2012 64 Rae Avenue EDITHVALE 18/06/2012 27/06/2012 Subdivide The Land Into Two (2) Lots Permit Issued Yes

KP-376/2012 25 Waterside Drive WATERWAYS 18/06/2012 27/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Construction Of One (1) Dwelling Permit Issued Yes

KP-355/2012 18 Woods Avenue MORDIALLOC 8/06/2012 28/06/2012

Develop The Land To Construct A Dwelling Extension On Land Subject To Inundation Overlay


KP-684/2011/A 4 Swallow Court

PATTERSON LAKES 5/06/2012 28/06/2012


KP-383/2007/B 32 Bay Street MORDIALLOC 27/03/2012 28/06/2012 Two (2) Dwellings Permit Issued No

16.



SUBURB APPL. DATE

DATE DECIDED


KP-979/2011 3 Church Road CARRUM 23/12/2011 28/06/2012


KP-669/2011 14 Station Street MENTONE 5/09/2011 28/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Construction Of Four (4) Double Storey Dwellings And Subdivide The Land Into Four (4) Lots And Common Property Permit Issued No

KP-618/2011 6 Cherrington Court PARKDALE 22/08/2011 28/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Construction Of Two (2) Dwellings And Subdivide The Land Into Two (2) Lots Refused No

KP-712/2011 6 Springfield Avenue

CLAYTON SOUTH 16/09/2011 28/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Construction Of Three (3) Dwellings Refused No

KP-823/2011

20 Embankment Grove CHELSEA 20/10/2011 28/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Construction Of Four (4) Dwellings Refused No

KP-27/2012


Use The Land For Sale Of Liquor (Variation Of Existing Liquor Licence) Permit Issued No

KP-925/2010 2 Blanche Avenue PARKDALE 24/12/2010 29/06/2012

Develop The Land For The Construction Of Twelve (12) Dwellings Permit Issued Yes

KP-945/2011 10 Burns Avenue

CLAYTON SOUTH 8/12/2011 29/06/2012


17.

No. 6 Harding Avenue, Bonbeach (Lot 42 on PS 004733) – Planning Permit Application No. KP-806/2011

Executive Summary for Planning Committee Application No: KP-806/2011 Land: No. 6 Harding Avenue, Bonbeach

(Lot 42 on PS 004733) Proposal: Develop the Land for the Construction of Seven (7) Dwellings Permit Trigger: Construct two or more dwellings on a lot Existing Site Conditions: Two (2) single storey dwellings and associated outbuildings Planning Officer: Jaclyn Murdoch Applicant: Blue Wolf Development Group Pty Ltd Zone / Overlays: Residential 1 Zone, Design and Development Overlays (DDO1)

and (DDO7). Residential Policy Area Increased Housing Diversity Objections Three (3)

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL 1.1 The application seeks to develop the land for the construction of seven (7) dwellings in a

double storey building with a basement car park. The proposal utilises the existing crossover to Harding Avenue for access to the common basement car park. Each of the dwellings on the lower level have ground level secluded private open space, while the dwellings on the upper level utilise roof terraces. The front dwelling to Harding Avenue has a split level arrangement with a roof deck as well as first floor level balcony to Harding Avenue.

2.0 SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDS 2.1 The following map illustrates the subject site in its surrounding context.

18.

2.2 The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 14.48 metres to Harding Avenue, a depth

of 45.19 metres to Harding Lane and a total area of 651 square metres (approximately). The site currently contains two (2) single storey brick dwellings with tiled pitched roofs.

2.3 The surrounding area comprises of a variety of housing types and styles. There are

examples of multi-dwelling development, including the property to the west of the site (at No.8 Harding Avenue) along the northern side of Harding Avenue and to the south of the site, where there are duplex style developments and some larger apartment style developments.

2.4 The eastern (side) boundary of the site has a direct abuttal to Harding Lane. 2.5 The site is located approximately 110 metres from Nepean Highway and the Bonbeach

Railway Station and strip shopping centre. 3.0 KEY PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The key planning considerations relate to:

(a) Strategic policy context The subject site is located in a Residential 1 Zone in an area identified for increased housing diversity. This application proposes a medium density development in an area where policy support is given to encouraging a range of built form outcomes with convenient proximity to infrastructure, services and public transport. The proposal is considered to respond appropriately to this policy context.

(b) Built form The proposal is two storeys in height with a basement car parking level. The overall height of the building is 7.07 metres (excluding access and screening to the roof terraces) which is consistent with the scale of adjoining two storey dwelling. The setbacks to the front and sides of the property, are considered to be appropriate and will ensure that the building responds to its context.

(c) On and off-site amenity impacts The amended plans prepared following the Preliminary Conference address many of the issues raised relating to the secluded private open space of nearby and adjoining properties. Additional screening is now proposed as part of the amended plans.

(d) Neighbourhood character The subject site is identified within Area 65 of the Kingston Neighbourhood Character Study (May 2003). However, the average lot size within this area has not been calculated as the subject site is not located within a Residential 3 Zone and the area is identified for increased housing diversity. While there are a number of characteristics that are identified to be prominent in this Precinct; the character of the area is one that exhibits an evolving multi-unit character.

4.0 OBJECTOR CONCERNS 4.1 Three (3) objections were received to the application. A summary of concerns and

response to each of these matters is provided below:

19.

(a) Overdevelopment of the site and visual bulk

The application proposes the construction of a residential building which accommodates seven (7) dwellings and eight (8) car parking spaces. The overall site coverage of the development is relatively low, with only 42.2% of the site covered by buildings. There is also a high level of compliance with the relevant objectives and standards of Clause 55, which demonstrate that the proposal is appropriate.

(b) Resident and visitor parking While there may be concern regarding existing on-street car parking shortages in the area, the proposal provides eight (8) on-site car parking spaces in accordance with ResCode requirements. Resident and visitor car parking provision is therefore considered appropriate.

(c) Waste disposal There is a bin storage area provided within the basement of the development. It will be a condition of any planning permit issued, that a Waste Management Plan be submitted and approved.

(d) Impact upon neighbourhood character For the most part, the development responds appropriately to the identified characteristics of Area 65 as identified within the Neighbourhood Character Guidelines. As the Guidelines are not specific as to the type of development or number of dwellings, a built form outcome that is sympathetic to the Guidelines and also responds to the strategic context of the site, is appropriate.

(e) Loss of views This is not a valid planning consideration under the Kingston Planning Scheme.

5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 Based on a thorough assessment of the application against the relevant provisions of the

Kingston Planning Scheme and taking into consideration the concerns raised by objectors, the proposal, subject to conditions, is deemed appropriate and should therefore be supported.

20.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council determine to support the proposal and grant a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit to Develop the Land for the Construction of Seven (7) Dwellings at No. 6 Harding Avenue, Bonbeach (Lot 42 on PS 004733), subject to the following conditions:

1. 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 13 February 2012 but modified to show:

a. the provision of a landscape plan in accordance with the submitted development plan and the City of Kingston Landscape Plan Checklist, with such plans to be prepared by a suitably qualified landscape professional and incorporating:

i) 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;

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

iii) all existing trees on the site and close 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;

iv) a range of plant types from ground covers to large shrubs and trees, species must comprise a minimum of 80% indigenous coastal species;

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

vi) the provision of two (2) suitable medium sized (at maturity) indigenous coastal canopy trees within the front setback of the property and one (1) small (at maturity) indigenous coastal tree within the private open space area of each ground floor dwelling, with species chosen to be approved by the Responsible Authority;

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

viii) all trees provided at a minimum of 2 metres in height at time of planting;

ix) medium to large shrubs to be provided at a minimum pot size of 200mm;

x) the provision of notes regarding site preparation, including the removal of all weeds, proposed mulch, soil types and thickness, subsoil preparation and any specific maintenance requirements;

b. a minimum apex of 270mm above the existing kerb & channel invert level along the Harding Ave frontage (as per Condition 3);

c. the ramp transition at the bottom changed from 1:8 at 2 metres to 1:8 at 3 metres (in accordance with AS/NZS 2890.1:2004) to negate car scraping;

27.

d. all columns adjacent to car parking spaces within the basement to be located between 0.4 metres and 1.4 metres from the western end (entrance) of the car parking spaces to ensure convenient access in and out of the car parking space;

e. an annotation to state that "egress from the proposed development will be a forward direction and conform with AS 2890.1:2004 3.2.2”;

f. car parking spaces 1 and 6 to be increased in size with dimensions of 4.9 metres by 2.9 metres (without reducing the overall number of car parking spaces);

g. the basement ramp longitudinal section with grades and apex above the existing kerb & channel invert level along the Harding Ave. frontage of the development demonstrating that the above height clearance requirements are met. The clearance at changes of grade should be demonstrated to the wheelbase of the B99 vehicle as per Figure 5.3 of AS/NZS 2890.1:2004;

h. the side fence along property boundary adjacent to the access to the basement no higher than 1.2m;

i. the fences at the corner of Harding Avenue and Harding Lane to no higher than 1.2m or designed to achieve 1.5m x 1.5m splays;

j. the provision of suitable shading elements, including horizontal elements to the north facing windows and vertical elements to the east and west facing windows to improve energy efficiency;

k. details of privacy measures to be applied to the east facing habitable room windows of Dwellings 2, 4 and 5;

l. an annotation to state that “mailboxes are located within the common property” to avoid future ownership issues;

m. removal of the eighth storage area from the end of the visitor car parking space;

n. an elevation plan of the front fencing, which provides details of its height, materials and colours;

o. the surface material of all driveways / accessways and car parking spaces nominated in all-weather coloured concrete sealcoat, or similar;

p. 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;

q. the provision of a 10,000 litre water tank for the use of the development;

r. line marking and allocation of each of the car parking spaces to ensure that each of the dwellings is provided with one (1) car parking space and any remaining car parking spaces allocated for visitors use;

s. the location and design of any entry gate/door to the basement clearly shown;

t. the location of all externally-located heating and cooling units, exhaust fans and the like, clearly shown;

u. a notation on the floor / site plan(s) stating: “Any redundant vehicle crossing must be removed, kerb & channel must be reinstated and the extension to the existing footpath up to the wing of the vehicle crossing must be constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority”;

28.

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

3. An apex (i.e. hump) a minimum of 270mm above the existing kerb & channel invert level along the Harding Ave frontage must be provided or an alternative engineering solution for major flooding must be approved by the Council. This apex is to continue through any driveways or pathways that may cross it. The apex is to be a permanent structure (e.g. hump in concrete driveway/pathway, sleeper retaining wall, solid brick fence/wall). Low mounded soil on its own is unlikely to be acceptable due to the likelihood of future disturbance.

4. Before the commencement of any buildings and works on the Land, a comprehensive drainage strategy for the development of the site incorporating Water Sensitive Urban Design Treatments to the satisfaction of the Council.

5. 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 and when approved shall thereafter be complied with. The CMP must specify and deal with the parking of vehicles during construction, delivery of materials, containment of waste on site and suppression of dust, business operations on the site during construction.

6. Before the commencement of any buildings and works on the Land, a Waste 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) The manner in which waste will be stored and collected including: type, size and number of containers.

b) Spatial provision for on-site storage.

c) Details whether waste collection is to be performed by Council’s services or privately contracted.

d) The size of the collection vehicle and the frequency, time and point of collection.

The waste management plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The waste management plan must not be modified unless without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

7. 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 bio retention system, rainwater tanks connected for reuse and a detention system.

8. 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.).

29.

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

10. 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.

11. 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.

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.

12. All piping and ducting above the ground floor storey of the development (other than rainwater guttering and downpipes) must be concealed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

14. Construction on the site shall be restricted to the following times:

Monday to Friday 7.00am to 7.00pm; and Saturday 9.00am to 6.00pm.

Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority.

15. 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: Residents and visitors to the site would be ineligible for parking permits.

30.

OR In the event that the Council wishes to oppose the Officer’s recommendation to refuse the application, it can do so on the following grounds:

1. The proposal fails to satisfy the objective of Clause 55.02-1 (Neighbourhood Character objectives);

2. The proposal fails to satisfy the objective of Clause 55.03-1 – Street Setback, with an insufficient street setbacks provided to the building;

3. The plans associated with the proposal do not adequately address Energy Efficiency and Safety objectives outlined at Clause 55.03-7 and Clause 55.03-9;

4. The design has not addressed overlooking opportunities from some first floor windows of the development, not meeting the objective of Clause 55.04-6 – Overlooking;

5. The proposal will result in internal views, not meeting the objective of Clause 55.04-7 – Internal Views;

6. The objective of Clause 55.05-4 – Private Open Space is not met, with the minimum dimension for Dwelling 4.

31.

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT

APPLICANT Blue Wolf Development Group Pty Ltd

ADDRESS OF LAND No. 6 Harding Avenue, Bonbeach

Plan of Subdivision Reference Lot 42 on PS 004733

PROPOSAL Develop the Land for the Construction of Seven (7) Dwellings

PLANNING OFFICER Jaclyn Murdoch

REFERENCE NO. KP-806/2011

ZONE R1Z

OVERLAYS DD01, DD07

OBJECTIONS Three (3) received

CONSIDERED PLAN REFERENCES/DATE RECEIVED

Advertised plans received on 21 November 2011 and amended plans received on 13 February 2012.

ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE SENSITIVTY

Yes

1.0 RELEVANT LAND HISTORY 1.1 Planning Permit KP436/06 was issued at the direction of the Victorian Civil and

Administrative Tribunal on 9 July 2007 for the development of the site for two dwellings. 1.2 Planning Permit Application KP991/07 was lodged for two (2) lot subdivision. This was

withdrawn on 18 August 2011 and while Council’s mapping systems show the property in separate lots, this is not the case and both dwellings remain on the same title.

1.3 Planning Permit Application KP789/2011 was lodged with Council on 5 November 2010 for

the development of the site for six (6) dwellings. This application lapsed on 15 April 2011. 2.0 SITE PARTICULARS 2.1 The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 14.48 metres to Harding Avenue, a depth

of 45.19 metres to Harding Lane and a total area of 651 square metres (approximately). The site currently contains two (2) single storey brick dwellings with tiled pitched roofs.

2.2 The eastern (side) boundary of the site has a direct abuttal to Harding Lane. 2.3 There are no easements or restrictions identified on the title of the land. 3.0 SURROUNDING ENVIRONS 3.1 The surrounding area comprises of a variety of housing types and styles. There are


32.

3.2 The site is located approximately 110 metres from Nepean Highway and the Bonbeach Railway Station and strip shopping centre.

3.3 Land directly abutting the subject site and opposite is described as follows:

North: To the immediate north of the site is Harding Avenue. Opposite the subject site is No.11 and No.9 Harding Avenue, which are single storey detached weatherboard dwellings. The setbacks are varied, with No. 9 Harding Avenue being setback 8 metres from the street, and No. 11 Harding Avenue being setback 4.5 metres from the street. East: To the east of the site is a right-of-way known as Harding Lane. The site to the east of Harding Lane contains a single storey brick dwelling with a tiled roof and a setback to the street of 15.9 metres. South: The site to the south (at No.1 Harding Lane) essentially runs between Harding Lane and the foreshore. There is an existing double storey rendered brick dwelling, which is part of a multi-unit development approved on the site. West: The site to the west of the subject site accommodates a two dwelling development, with the front dwelling being a two storey rendered brick building with a tiled roof and a 6 metre setback to Harding Avenue. The dwelling at the rear is single storey brick and has a tiled roof. Vehicular access to both of these dwellings is from the front at Harding Avenue.

4.0 PROPOSAL 4.1 It is proposed to demolish the existing dwellings and outbuildings on the land and construct

seven (7) dwellings over two levels, with basement car parking. Vehicular access to the basement level is via a ramp from the north-western corner and side boundary of the site off Harding Avenue. Basement Level The basement level accommodates a bin store, two (2) internal stairs to the upper levels and 8 car parking spaces. There is one (1) car parking space provided for each of the seven (7) dwellings as well as a visitor space. A storage area for each of the dwellings is also provided. Ground Floor Level The built form is setback 6 metres from the front (northern) boundary. The ground floor level accommodates four (4) dwellings, all of which have two (2) bedrooms each. Dwelling 1 at the front of the site is split level. Dwellings 2, 4 and 5 behind this are single level units. First Floor Level The first floor of the development accommodates the upper level of Dwelling 1 (which is split over two levels) Dwellings 3, 6 and 7. Each of the dwellings at this level has two (2) bedrooms. The first floor walls of the development are setback a small amount from the ground floor level, to provide for some articulation. Pedestrian Access

33.

The entrance to Dwelling 1 is from the front of the building, where there is a porch element to provide a sense of dwelling identity. The entrance to Dwelling 2 (at the ground floor level) and Dwelling 3 (at the first floor level) is via the common pedestrian accessway along the western side boundary and a shared stairwell entry that is located to the rear of Dwelling 1. Pedestrian access to Dwellings 4 and 5 (at ground floor level) and Dwellings 6 and 7 (at the first floor level) is also via the common pedestrian accessway along the western side boundary and a second shared stairwell entry located further to the rear of the site. Open Space The break down of secluded private open space for each of the dwellings is provided below:

Dwelling no. Floor area (sqm) Open space (sqm) Car parking spaces

1 106.8 4.94 (balcony) and 12 (roof terrace) 1

2 63.2 42 (courtyard) 1

3 62.2 12 (roof terrace) 1

4 63.2 38 (courtyard) 1

5 63.2 111 (courtyard) 1



4.2 The proposal has an overall site coverage of 42.2% and permeability of 23.7% 5.0 PLANNING PERMIT PROVISIONS

Zone 5.1 Residential 1 Zone: Pursuant to Clause 32.01-3 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a

planning permit is required to construct two (2) or more dwellings on a lot. A development must meet the requirements of Clause 55 of the Scheme.

Overlay

5.2 Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 1 and Schedule 7 (DDO1 and DDO7). Pursuant to Schedule 1 of Clause 43.02 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a planning permit is not required for certain buildings and works, including a building which has an internal storey height of less than 3.5 metres or a building which does not exceed 2 storeys in height, which can include a basement car park with a maximum height of 1.2 metres above natural ground level. The basement level does not exceed 1 metre above natural ground level and therefore a permit is not required pursuant to Schedule 1 of this overlay.

5.3 Schedule 7 of the DDO requires planning permission for works within 4.5 metres of the

foreshore. The subject site is outside of this threshold and therefore does not trigger a planning permit pursuant to this schedule of the DDO.

Particular Provisions

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

General Provisions

34.

5.5 The Decision Guidelines of Clause 65 of the Kingston Planning Scheme are relevant to this application and require consideration to be given to a variety of matters including planning scheme policies, the purpose of the zone, orderly planning and the impact on amenity.

6.0 RELEVANT POLICIES 6.1 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)

Clause 11 Settlement Clause 15 Built Environment and Heritage Clause 16 Housing

6.2 Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) Clause 21.05 Residential Land Use Clause 22.11 Residential Development Policy

6.3 Other

6.4 Neighbourhood Character Area Guidelines (Incorporated Document under Clause 81.01 and Clause 21.05 – Residential Land Use of the LPPF). The land is located within Area 65 of the Neighbourhood Character Guidelines.

6.5 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. \

6.4 Other

Clause 52.06 – Car Parking Clause 55 – Two or More Dwellings on a Lot and Residential Buildings

7.0 ADVERTISING 7.1 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. Three (3) objections to the proposal were received. The valid grounds of objection raised are summarised as follows: Overdevelopment of the site; Resident and visitor parking; Waste disposal; Impact upon neighbourhood character; Visual bulk; and Loss of views (not valid planning consideration).

8.0 PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE 8.1 A preliminary conference was held on 2 February 2012 with the relevant Planning Officer,

Ward Councillor, the Permit Applicant and three (3) objectors in attendance. The above-mentioned issues were discussed at length.

35.

8.2 The above concerns were unable to be resolved at the preliminary conference, and the objections still stand, however it was resolved that the overlooking concern could be better addressed by the reduction in size and relocation of the roof terraces.

8.3 Following this meeting, the Applicant elected to amend plans. These were provided to the

original objectors to the application for further comment. One (1) of the original objectors submitted further comments, opposing the development for similar reasons to their original objection.

9.0 SECTION 57A – AMENDMENT TO PLANS 9.1 Following advertising and the preliminary conference meeting the Permit Applicant lodged

amended plans on 13 February 2012, pursuant to Section 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The amended plans incorporated the following changes:

Reduction in size of roof terraces; Relocation of roof terraces; Screening of roof terraces improved; and Minor internal changes to the internal configuration of the basement.

9.2 It is these plans that form the basis of this recommendation and are described at section 4

of this report. 10.0 REFERRALS 10.1 The application was referred to the following internal departments:

Council’s Development Engineer and Engineering Design – raised no objection to the application, subject to conditions being placed on any permit issued relating to drainage and ramp access;

Council’s Roads and Drains – raised no objection to the application, subject to conditions being placed on any permit issued relating to drainage and ramp access;

Council’s Traffic Engineering Department – raised no objection to the application, subject to conditions being placed on any permit issued relating to the size of the car parking spaces and the grade of the ramp to the basement. These will be discussed further in the body of the report and reflected in conditions of any planning permit issued.

Council’s Vegetation Management Officer - raised no objection to the application, subject to conditions being placed on any permit issued relating to a landscape plan.

11.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:

State Planning Policy Framework 11.1 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.

36.

11.2 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.

11.3 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.

11.4 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.

11.5 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.

11.6 Clause 15.03-2 (Aboriginal Cultural Heritage) seeks to ensure the protection and

conservation of places of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance. 11.7 The Subject Land is identified in an area of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sensitivity, being

located within 200 metres of a waterway. In this instance, as the proposed activity is not exempt under the Regulations of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, the Permit Applicant is required to prepare and submit a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) to Council or provide evidence to suggest that the site has already been subject to significant ground disturbance.

11.8 Significant Ground Disturbance is defined in the Regulations as meaning the disturbance of

– a. “The topsoil or surface rock layer of the ground; or b. A waterway –

By machinery in the course of grading, excavating, digging, dredging or deep ripping, but does not include ploughing other than deep ripping.”

11.9 Council Officers advised the Applicant of the need to consider the above following

advertising of the application. The Applicant subsequently engaged a Heritage Consultant to prepare a Due Diligence Report as to whether there was a requirement for a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) to be prepared. The information submitted to Council

37.

considered the context of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 and recent Tribunal decisions regarding the need for a CHMP. As Council Officers were of the opinion that the information submitted did not adequately demonstrate that the ground had been disturbed by mechanical means, an amended report which provided a greater level of detail and justification including historical aerial photographs was submitted.

11.10 While Council Officers are willing to accept the professional advice provided by the

specialist heritage consultant, it is acknowledged that Council Officers have also advised the permit applicant that they may wish to seek a declaration from VCAT (under Section 149A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987) as to whether or not a CHMP is required. This application was lodged with the Tribunal, however it was later withdrawn.

11.11 As there is no live Section 149A Application for a Declaration with the Tribunal, at present,

it is possible for a decision to be made on this application having regard to the application material submitted.

11.11 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.

11.12 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.

11.13 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.

11.14 It is submitted that the proposed development satisfies the aforementioned State strategies and policy direction. Specifically, the subject site is located on land earmarked for residential purposes, and where residential dwellings are an ‘as of right’ use under the zoning provisions. Subject to appropriate conditions on any permit issued, the proposed development will achieve an acceptable design outcome for the site and immediate abuttals, and future residents will enjoy convenient and direct access to a range of community facilities, including public transport. Local Planning Policy Framework

11.15 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.

38.

11.16 Relevant objectives and strategies in Clause 21.05-3: Residential Land Use include:

o To provide a range of housing types across the municipality to increase housing diversity and cater for the changing housing needs of current and future populations, taking account of the capacity of local areas in Kingston to accommodate different types and rates of housing change. This is to be achieved through encouraging residential development within activity centres via mixed-use development, and on transitional sites at the periphery of activity centres.

o To ensure new residential development respects neighbourhood character and is site responsive, and that medium density dwellings are of the highest design quality. This is to be achieved through promoting 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.

o To promote more environmentally sustainable forms of residential development. To be achieved through promoting medium density housing development in close proximity to public transport facilities, particularly train stations.

o To manage the interface between residential development and adjoining or nearby sensitive/strategic land uses.

o To ensure residential development does not exceed known physical infrastructure capacities.

o To recognise and response to special housing needs within the community.

11.17 Council’s Local Planning Policy at Clause 21.05 essentially reinforces State Planning Policy relevant to housing, stressing the need to encourage urban consolidation in appropriate locations and to accommodate projected population increases.

11.18 Clause 22.11 Residential Development Policy extends upon the provision contained at Clause 21.05 (Residential Land Use), relating to increased housing diversity areas, incremental housing change areas, minimal housing change areas, residential renewal areas and neighbourhood character. It provides design guidance on how new residential development should achieve architectural and urban design outcomes that positively respond to neighbourhood character.

11.19 The subject site has been identified as an area of ‘Increased Housing Diversity’ which seeks to:

“Encourage increased residential densities and a wider diversity in housing types and sizes in areas which are within convenient walking distance of public transport and activity centres. These areas are identified for ‘increased housing diversity’ on the Residential Framework Plan within the MSS. “

11.20 Relevant objectives in Clause 22.11-2 Residential Development Policy include:

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

39.

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.

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

11.21 It is considered that the proposed development satisfies the State and Local Planning

Policy Framework guidelines which aim to encourage well-designed medium density housing in appropriate locations. In this regard, it is noted that the subject site is located approximately 100 metres from the Bonbeach Railway Station and neighbourhood strip shopping centre. Further discussion regarding amenity impacts is provided within the Clause 55 assessment, later within this report.

12 CLAUSE 52.06 (CAR PARKING) 12.1 Clause 55.03-11 (parking provision) was removed following Amendment VC90 which

introduced a new car parking provision at Clause 52.06. This requires car parking to be provided in accordance with the use listed under the table.

12.2 A dwelling is listed and sets out requirements generally in accordance with the

requirements of the obsolete Clause 55 requirements, including 1 space for every one and two bedroom dwelling and two spaces for every three or more bedroom dwelling.

12.3 The proposal is for seven (7) two bedroom dwellings. These require one space each under

the provisions of Clause 52.06. The visitor space requirement remains one (1) space for every five (5) dwellings for developments of 5 or more dwellings.

12.4 Each dwelling is provided with one (1) space and there is one (1) visitor space located on

site and the requirements are considered to be met. 13 CLAUSE 55 (RESCODE ASSESSMENT) 13.1 The proposal has been assessed against the standards of Clause 55 (ResCode) of the

Kingston Planning Scheme (refer to Appendix A). Overall, it is noted that the application achieves a high level of compliance with the ResCode provisions, with only minor variations sought.

13.2 The following assessment considers the relevant standards and objectives of ResCode

where they require further discussion to that provided in the attached Appendix, particularly those standards where concessions are sought.

Clause 55.02-1 – Neighbourhood Character & Infrastructure Standard B1 – Neighbourhood Character

13.3 The objective of this Clause 55.02-1 is ‘to ensure that the design respects the existing neighbourhood character and responds to the features of the site and surrounding area’.

40.

Standard B1 of ResCode suggests that the proposed design should respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and respond to the features of the site.

13.4 The subject site is located within a predominately residential area where Council’s

Neighbourhood Character Guidelines identify it as being within Precinct 65 (Beach Front). There are two major characteristics identified, namely building materials, (including tiled roofs, white weatherboard and various render colours) and balconies and porches. Other characteristics identified in this precinct include modulated building footprints.

13.5 The surrounding area comprises of a variety of housing types and styles. There are


13.6 It is considered that the proposed development responds appropriately to the applicable

policy directions that seek to provide increased housing diversity and ensure medium density developments are located in areas that are well serviced by infrastructure and public transport. .While the Neighbourhood Character Guidelines encourage the use of roof tiles, for instance, this treatment is simply not feasible for developments which incorporate a flat roof.

13.7 Further to this, the area is undergoing a substantial amount of change in the type of

housing stock being provided. There are examples of this occurring in the immediately surrounding area and this is considered to be appropriate as it addresses the strategic directions. It is therefore considered appropriate that some of the identified characteristics within the Precinct are not implemented within the proposed development given the context of the site and surrounding area.

Standard B2 – Residential Policy

13.8 The Residential policy objective seeks to ensure that any proposed development accords

with the relevant State and Local Planning Policy Framework. An assessment against Kingston’s MSS and Residential Development Policy has been provided above in this report.

Clause 55.03 – Site Layout & Building Massing Standard B6 – Street Setback

13.9 The objective of this Standard is “to ensure the setbacks of buildings from a street respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and make efficient use of the site”.

13.10 In accordance with the requirements under the Standard, the proposed development

should have a minimum setback of 9 metres to Harding Avenue, based on the average front setback of existing dwellings on the adjoining properties being 10.75 metres. Therefore the lesser of the average and 9 metres is the requirement under the Standard. The proposed front setback is 6 metres. This is considered appropriate in the context of the street as there are a number of smaller setbacks in Harding Avenue and the surrounding area. Further to this, the proposed street setback, ensures that the site is used efficiently, while maintaining a setback that has the capacity to provide for landscaping in line with the surrounding area.

41.

13.11 Accordingly, a variation to this Standard is considered reasonable in this instance.

Standard B10 – Energy Efficiency Objectives 13.12 The objectives of the above Standard are as follows:

To achieve and protect energy efficient dwellings and residential buildings; and To ensure the orientation and layout of the development reduce fossil fuel energy use

and make appropriate use of daylight and solar energy.

13.13 The orientation of the site is north to south, with the proposed building to be in the same alignment. Dwelling 1 has access to north facing windows, but due to the orientation, the other dwellings do not.

13.14 Comments from Council’s Urban and Sustainable Design Advisor require further

consideration of screening to the north, and east and west facing windows. These screens could be used for both shading purposes and could also limit direct views and overlooking. It is recommended that conditions be imposed on any planning permit issued to address areas of concern from an energy efficiency perspective. The use of rain water tanks will also be required. Standard B12 – Safety Objective

13.15 The objective of the above Standard seeks “to ensure the layout of development provides

for the safety and security of residents and property.” 13.16 The layout of the proposed dwellings is such that their entrances are via a shared

communal walkway along the west side of the proposed building. The two communal stairwells leading off the walkway are easily identifiable via the use of canopy treatments. Some planting is proposed along the western side boundary; however this is unlikely to create unsafe spaces. Lighting would be required as a condition of any planning permit issued.

Standard B14 – Access Objectives

13.17 The objectives of the above Standard are as follows:

To ensure vehicle access to and from a development is safe, manageable and convenient; and

To ensure the number and design of vehicle crossovers respects the neighbourhood character.

13.18 The proposed development includes a basement level to accommodate the car parking

requirements of the development. This is to be accessed via a 3 metre wide crossover to Harding Avenue.

13.19 The basement has an internal radius of at least 4 metres in the turning areas and 6.4

metres between the end of the car space and the basement wall. The Officer assessment of the functionality of the basement area has found that the configuration of the basement is functional and all vehicles can enter/exit the site in a forward direction.

42.

13.20 Comments from Council’s Traffic Department were provided to Council, many of which will be reflected in conditions of any planning permit issued. The removal of the storage area adjacent to the visitor space will also be required as a condition.

Clause 55.04 – Amenity Impacts Standard B17 – Side and rear setbacks objective

13.21 The objective of the above Standard seeks “to ensure that the height and setback of a building from a boundary respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the impact on the amenity of existing dwellings.”

13.22 With the exception of bedroom 2 of Dwelling 1 (which is constructed to the eastern side

boundary), the proposed apartment building is setback from side and rear boundaries a minimum of 2.5 metres at the ground floor level. For a wall height of 4.2 metres (at this point) the required setback is 1.18 metres. This is met. At the upper level the setback increases to 3.14 metres. At this point the wall is approximately 7.2 metres in height which requires a setback of 2.29 metres. This requirement is therefore considered met.

13.23 However the first floor level kitchen of Dwelling 1 is setback 0.6 metres from the eastern

side boundary. The required setback at this point is 1.78 metres, which has not been met. 13.24 When considering the objective above, the purpose of the setback requirements is to

ensure that the amenity of existing dwellings is not compromised as a result of the proposed building. At this point, the proposed building abuts Harding Lane, providing a buffer to the existing dwellings, resulting in the protection of their amenity. Based on this, the variation is considered acceptable.

Standard B22 – Overlooking objective

13.25 The objective of this Standard is “to limit views into existing secluded private open space and habitable room windows.”

13.26 The amended plans received on 13 February 2012 re-considered the roof terraces, both in

size, location and from an overlooking perspective. 13.27 Given the central location of the roof terraces and the reduction in the size of these areas,

the opportunity for direct views into the secluded private open space of adjoining properties (particularly No. 8 Harding Avenue), is limited given the angle of views and roof terrace setbacks employed.

Standard B23 –Internal views objective

13.28 The objective of this Standard is “to limit views into the secluded private open space and habitable room windows of dwellings and residential buildings within a development.”

13.29 The amended plans received on 13 February 2012 re-considered the roof terraces, both in

size, location and internal views treatment. 13.30 The internal views from the roof terraces to the lower level open space have been

demonstrated in sections. Given their central position on the roof, there is no opportunity for direct views to occur. The internal views between the roof terraces have been resolved by utilising 1.7 metre high obscure glass partitions separating the areas. Further detail is

43.

however required in relation to the measures to be employed to preclude direct views into the ground floor level habitable room windows facing the shared accessway. This can be addressed by way of a permit condition.

Clause 55.05 On-Site Amenity and Facilities Standard B28 – Private open space objectives

13.31 The objective of this Standard is “to provide adequate private open space for the

reasonable recreation and service needs of residents.” 13.32 The requirements for secluded private open space and private open space for each

dwelling is 40 square metres, with one part of the private open space to consist of secluded POS at the side or rear of the dwelling or residential building with a minimum area of 25m2, a minimum dimension of 3m and convenient access from a living room, or a balcony of 8 square metres with a minimum width of 1.6 metres and convenient access from a living room or a roof-top area of 10m2 with a minimum width of 2m and convenient access from a living room.

13.33 The minimum requirements for all units except Dwelling 4 which only has 38 square metres

are met. The amounts are detailed within the body of this report. 13.34 The minor variation is considered appropriate given the proposal is for a residential building

composed of apartment style dwellings. The private open space areas are considered to be generous given this style of development and are sufficient for the recreational needs of future residents. A minor variation to this standard is therefore considered appropriate. .

Clause 55.06 – Design Detail Standard B32 – Front Fences

13.35 The maximum as specified within the Schedule to the Residential 1 Zone is 1.2 metres. The

amended plans propose a front fence has a maximum height of 1.8 metres to the top of one of the piers (due to the slope of the land), and no more than 1.2 metres for the remaining length of the fence.

13.36 The design of the proposed fence is considered appropriate because the piers are the

highest point and the amended plans received by Council on 13 February 2012 proposes nautical wire between the piers to ensure that the visibility of the front setback and from Harding Lane is maintained from vehicles to pedestrians.

13.37 It is considered that the proposed development generally complies and satisfies the State

and Local Planning Policy Framework guidelines which aim to encourage well-designed medium density housing in appropriate locations.

14 RESPONSE TO GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS 14.1 The objector concerns have largely been addressed in the attached Appendix A and, where

necessary, further elaborated on in the assessment above. 14.2 Those that require further discussion are as follows:

Overdevelopment of the site and visual bulk

44.

The application proposes the construction of a residential building which accommodates seven (7) dwellings and eight (8) car parking spaces. The overall site coverage of the development is relatively low, with only 42.2% of the site covered by buildings. There is also a high level of compliance with the relevant objectives and standards of Clause 55, which demonstrate that the proposal is appropriate.

Resident and visitor parking While there may be concern regarding existing on-street car parking shortages in the area, the proposal provides eight (8) on-site car parking spaces in accordance with ResCode requirements. Resident and visitor car parking provision is therefore considered appropriate.

Waste disposal There is a bin storage area provided within the basement of the development. It will be a condition of any planning permit issued, that a Waste Management Plan be submitted and approved.

Impact upon neighbourhood character For the most part, the development responds appropriately to the identified characteristics of Area 65 as identified within the Neighbourhood Character Guidelines. As the Guidelines are not specific as to the type of development or number of dwellings, a built form outcome that is sympathetic to the Guidelines and also responds to the strategic context of the site, is appropriate.

Loss of views This is not a valid planning consideration under the Kingston Planning Scheme.

15 CONCLUSION: 15.1 The proposed development is considered appropriate for the Site, subject to conditions, as

evidenced by:

The compatibility of the design and siting with the surrounding area; The mitigation of off-site amenity impacts; and A suitable level of compliance with all relevant policies, including Clause 55 of the

Kingston Planning Scheme

45.

APPENDIX A – RESCODE Standard of the Kingston Planning Scheme Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings (Clause 55 and Schedule to the Residential 1 Zone)

Title and Objective Complies with

Standard?

Requirement and Proposed

B1 Neighbourhood Character Design respects existing neighbourhood character or contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character.

Development responds to features of the site and surrounding area.

Yes See sections 12.3 of report.

B2 Residential Policy Residential development is consistent with

housing policies in the SPPF, LPPF including the MSS and local planning policies. Support medium densities in areas to take

advantage of public transport and community infrastructure and services.

Yes The site is zoned Residential 1 Zone. Council’s local planning policies relating

to residential development identify the site as being located within an area earmarked for ‘increased housing

diversity’ where there is convenient access to public transport and activity centres. The subject site is located

approximately 100 metres from the Bonbeach Railway Station and neighbourhood strip shopping centre.

See section 11 and Section 12.8 of the report for further discussion.

B3 Dwelling Diversity Encourages a range of dwelling sizes and types

in developments of ten or more dwellings.

N/A The proposed development is for seven (7) dwellings, each comprising two (2)

bedrooms.

B4 Infrastructure Provides appropriate utility services and infrastructure without overloading the capacity.

Yes – with conditions

It is recommended that suitable condition(s) will be included on any permit issued to address infrastructure

considerations.

B5 Integration with the Street Integrate the layout of development with the street

Yes The fence originally proposed was

rendered brick piers and horizontal timber slats, with an overall height of between 1.8 and 1.2 metres (depending

on slope of the land). This was amended in the plans received on 13 February 2012 to provide nautical wire

in place of the timber slats to improve visibility, safety and integration with the street.

B6 Street Setback The setbacks of buildings from a street respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and make efficient use of the site.

No –

variation required

Required: 9 metres

Proposed: 6 metres See Section 12.9 of the report for

further discussion.

B7 Building Height Building height should respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character.

Yes Maximum: 9 metres

Proposed: 7.2 metres. The overall height of the development

46.


Standard?


varies between 6.3 metres and 7.2

metres due to the slope of the land, however this meets the above requirement.

B8 Site Coverage Site coverage should respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and respond to the features of the site.

Yes Maximum: 60%

Proposed: 42.2%

B9 Permeability Reduce the impact of stormwater run-off on the drainage system and facilitate on-site stormwater infiltration.

Yes At least: 20%

Proposed: 23.7%

B10 Energy Efficiency Achieve and protect energy efficient dwellings and residential buildings. Ensure orientation and layout reduces fossil fuel

energy use and makes appropriate use of daylight and solar energy.

Yes – with

conditions

See section 12.12 of the report for

discussion.

B11 Open Space Integrate layout of development with any public and communal open space provided in or

adjacent to the development.

N/A The proposed development is for seven (7) dwellings that have separate open space provision. No communal open

space is provided.

B12 Safety Layout to provide safety and security for residents and property.


See section 12.15 of the report for discussion.

B13 Landscaping To provide appropriate landscaping.

To encourage:

Development that respects the landscape character of the neighbourhood.

Development that maintains and enhances habitat for plants and animals in locations of habitat importance.

The retention of mature vegetation on the site.

Yes – conditions

required.

There are no substantial trees on the site. There are opportunities for

landscaping within the front setback and areas of secluded private open space to the rear of dwellings and along the

western side boundary fence. It is recommended that a landscape plan be required by way of a condition

of any permit issued.

B14 Access Ensure the safe, manageable and convenient

vehicle access to and from the development. Ensure the number and design of vehicle crossovers respects neighbourhood character.



B15 Parking Location Provide resident and visitor vehicles with

convenient parking. Avoid parking and traffic difficulties in the development and the neighbourhood.

Protect residents from vehicular noise within

Yes The location of the car parking for the development is in the basement. This is

accessed via two sets of internal stair cases that connect the dwellings with the car park.

47.


Standard?


developments.

B17 Side and Rear Setbacks Ensure the height and setback respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the amenity impacts on existing

dwellings.

No –

variation required

See section 12.21 of the report for

discussion.

B18 Walls on Boundaries Ensure the location, length and height of a wall on a boundary respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the amenity

impacts on existing dwellings.

Yes The only wall constructed to the

boundary is Bedroom 2 of Dwelling 1 which is for a length of 4.8 metres. Given the overall length of the side

boundary, this requirement is met.

B19 Daylight to Existing Windows Allow adequate daylight into existing habitable room windows.

Yes There are a number of existing habitable room windows within close proximity to the boundaries of the

subject site, however all have adequate light courts taking benefit from the large side and rear setbacks of the proposed

development.

B20 North Facing Windows Allow adequate solar access to existing north-facing habitable room windows.

Yes There are north facing windows located

in the dwelling at No. 1 Harding Lane, however these are setback 3 metres from the rear boundary of the subject

site and the development therefore complies with Standard B20 and provides for adequate amenity to the

property at the rear.

B21 Overshadowing Open Space Ensure buildings do not significantly overshadow existing secluded private open space.

Yes Given the orientation of the site and the buffer of Harding Lane, the only impact is to the west of the site at No. 8

Harding Avenue at 9am. The plans demonstrate that a minimum of 40 square metres of private open space is

able to receive sunlight, thereby satisfying the requirement of the Standard.

B22 Overlooking Limit views into existing secluded private open

space and habitable room windows.

Yes – conditions

required (ESD)

See section 12.25 of report for discussion.

B23 Internal Views Limit views into existing secluded private open

space and habitable room windows of dwellings and residential buildings within the same development.

No – variation

required


B24 Noise Impacts Protect residents from external noise and contain

noise sources in developments that may affect existing dwellings.

Yes – conditions

required

Air conditioning units have not been shown on the plans. These should be

identified to the satisfaction of Council.

48.


Standard?


B25 Accessibility Consider people with limited mobility in the design of developments.

Yes Dwellings 2, 4, 5 are single level

dwellings, with entrances at the ground level and pedestrian access from Harding Avenue.

B26 Dwelling Entry Provide a sense of identity to each dwelling/residential building.

Yes The entrances to the dwellings are via a

pedestrian accessway from Harding Avenue. The entrance of Dwelling 1 is at the front of the development and is

delineated by a canopy over the entrance. There is a porch over the entrance that is shared by Dwelling 2

and 3 via an internal staircase. There is an entry canopy that is visible from the internal pedestrian accessway

and Harding Avenue for Dwellings 4, 5, 6 and 7. While this does not individually identify

each of the dwellings within the apartment building, the entrances are clearly visible and way finding has been

appropriately addressed.

B27 Daylight to New Windows Allow adequate daylight into new habitable room windows.

Yes All windows have the required light

courts.

B28 Private Open Space Provide reasonable recreation and service needs

of residents by adequate private open space.

No – minor variation

required for dwelling 4 only.

Required: 40m2 for each dwelling with one part of the private open space to

consist of secluded POS at the side or rear of the dwelling or residential building with a minimum area of 25m2, a

minimum dimension of 3m and convenient access from a living room, or a balcony of 8 square metres with a

minimum width of 1.6 metres and convenient access from a living room or a roof-top area of 10m2 with a minimum

width of 2m and convenient access from a living room.

See section 12.31 of report for further discussion.

B29 Solar Access to Open Space Allow solar access into the secluded private open space of new dwellings/buildings.

Yes All areas of secluded private open space have adequate solar access.

B30 Storage Provide adequate storage facilities for each dwelling.

Yes There is a storage area of 6m3 for each

dwelling in the basement of the site.

49.


Standard?


B31 Design Detail Encourage design detail that respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character.

Yes The proposed development is a two

storey building with a basement car parking area. The upper level of the building provides a small setback from

the lower level along the western elevation, while the along the eastern elevation, the upper level cantilevers in

sections. The design of the building is contemporary in nature and has parapet

roof forms at both the upper and lower levels. External materials and finishes include a variety of rendered brick

facades, cement sheet cladding with expressed joints, vertical timber cladding and aluminium framed

windows. Feature stack stone is also proposed along part of the front façade of the building and frosted glass

balustrading and screening is to be used. The variety of materials and façade treatments assists to articulate

the building, as will the extent and type of fenestration proposed in the elevations.

The overall height of the development is 7.07 metres, which is entirely consistent with the two storey dwelling to the west

of the site. Overall, the proposed building is consistent with the design details

employed on newer developments in the surrounding area and responds appropriately to the policy direction for

increased change.

B32 Front Fences Encourage front fence design that respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character.

No – variation required

due to slope of the land.

See section 12.35 of report for discussion.

B33 Common Property Ensure car parking, access areas and other

communal open space is practical, attractive and easily maintained. Avoid future management difficulties in common

ownership areas.

Yes The pedestrian accessways that runs along the west of the proposed building

is to be common property. Parts of the basement car park and the stairwells will also be common property.

50.


Standard?


B34 Site Services Ensure site services and facilities can be installed and easily maintained and are accessible, adequate and attractive. Avoid future

management difficulties in common ownership areas.

Yes The mail boxes and bin storage have

been sited and designed having regard to future subdivision and common area requirements.

51.

No. 1/197B (Unit 1 on SP 030798C) Nepean Highway Aspendale – Planning Permit Application No. KP-855/2011

Executive Summary for Planning Committee APPLICATION No: KP-855/2011 LAND: No. 1/197B (Unit 1 on SP 030798C) Nepean Highway

Aspendale PLANNING OFFICER: Charles Moffatt PROPOSAL: Develop the Land for the Construction of Two (2)

Dwellings PERMIT TRIGGER: Construct two or more dwellings on a lot EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS: Double storey dwelling APPLICANT: Neil Fletcher Design Pty Ltd ZONE / OVERLAYS: Residential 1 Zone, Design and Development Overlay

(DDO1 & DDO7), RESIDENTIAL POLICY AREA Increased Housing Diversity OBJECTIONS Eleven (11) Objections received

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL 1.1 The application seeks to develop the land for the construction of two (2) dwellings.

Each dwelling utilises a driveway and crossover accessed from Nepean Hwy. 2.0 SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDS 2.1 The following map illustrates the subject site in its surrounding context.

STA

TION

STR

EE

T

STA

TION

STR

EE

T

STA

TION

STR

EE

T

STA

TION

STR

EE

T

STA

TION

STR

EE

T

STA

TION

STR

EE

T

STA

TION

STR

EE

T

STA

TION

STR

EE

T

STA

TION

STR

EE

T

200A

8/200

199A

199

1/199

198

174

175

176A

176B

1/198

2/199

1/197B

2/198

3/197

3/198

3/199

2/197

4/198

1/197

198A

199

196

5/197

197

195

4/197

1/196

1/195

195B

3/196

2/195

2/196

0 25 50

meters

MapXtreme 2008 ® SDK Developer License, © 2009 Pitney Bowes Software Inc.

52.

2.2 The site is generally rectangular in shape with access to Nepean Highway via a common property driveway extending to the subject site which abuts the foreshore reserve. It currently contains a double storey dwelling and associated outbuildings. The existing dwelling on the land has a 5m setback to the foreshore reserve.

2.3 The surrounding area generally comprises of single and double storey residential

development capturing the benefits of the proximity of the foreshore reserve wherever possible. The neighbourhood consists of both contemporary and older-style dwellings with modern developments constructed.

3.0 KEY PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The key planning considerations relate to: (a) Height and Scale to Foreshore

The proposal seeks to develop two dwellings which include rooftop decks, oriented to the foreshore reserve. The height and scale of the dwellings, and how they present to the foreshore reserve, are a key consideration when determining whether the proposed dwellings are consistent with the existing neighbourhood character.

(b) Car parking and access

The site is accessed via a common property driveway extending from Nepean Highway. Concerns have been raised by objectors and by Council’s Traffic Department regarding the proposed access and car parking arrangements as proposed.

(c) Neighbourhood Character

The proposal seeks to demolish an existing double storey dwelling with associated outbuildings and construct two (2) double storey dwellings, each with double garage. The proposed dwellings are to both include a roof-top deck area, capturing views of the foreshore and Port Phillip Bay. The consistency of the proposed dwellings with the established neighbourhood character of the vicinity is a key planning consideration as the dwellings are contemporary and represent a substantial increase in intensity as compared to the existing residential dwellings.

4.0 OBJECTOR CONCERNS 3.1 Eleven (11) objections were received to the application. The following responses are

offered to the main grounds of objection received to the proposal:

Car Parking & Traffic – The on-site car parking proposed satisfies the minimum amount required under Standard B16 (Parking Provision) under Clause 55 of the Scheme. The Objectors have also expressed concern regarding potential impact of an additional dwelling in terms of vehicle access and parking within the existing public road access extending from Nepean Highway. Council’s Traffic Engineering Department have raised similar concerns. Given that the proposed

53.

access to the site is unchanged from the existing conditions, Council supports the proposed access arrangements to the site. In relation to the number of car parking spaces proposed and the vehicular access for cars exiting the proposed garages of the new dwellings, double garages have been provided for both dwellings, meeting the Standard. Council cannot impose requirements for further car parking spaces to be provided on site which are above and beyond that of ResCode. With regard to the ability of vehicles to safely manoeuvre to ensure exiting onto Nepean Highway in a forward direction, there is sufficient common property directly behind both garages and ext3ending to the north to ensure that not only will vehicles have sufficient room to turn, but as the area is common property, no vehicles will be able to park on this area, obstructing vehicles attempting to exit the site. Accordingly, the proposed vehicular access is considered to satisfy the relevant Standard.

Visual Bulk/Neighbourhood Character – The built form and character of the proposed dwellings are generally consistent with the evolving nature of the surrounding area, with the exception of the large roof-top deck areas. It is argued that these large open areas are excessive would result in additional bulk and mass to the proposed development, given the amount of screening proposed. Council officers believe that the visual impact of the proposed dwelling should be minimised and modified to be more in-keeping with existing residential development within the surrounding area.

Loss of Privacy – The proposed development (namely Dwelling 2) may allow direct overlooking from the first floor level master bedroom window and the north-west facing balcony into the adjoining property at 2/197B Nepean Highway. It is recommended that suitable conditions be imposed upon any permit issued for the proposed development.

Overshadowing – Shadow diagrams submitted with the application show that any additional shadow generated by the proposed development would largely fall within the development site itself. Any shadow affecting the existing property to the south at 5/199 Nepean Highway would only be for a limited duration during the afternoon, based on plans generated for the 22nd September.

Impact on Drainage Infrastructure – Council’s Development Engineer has not

raised any concerns with any potential impact on the existing drainage infrastructure as a result of the proposed development (subject to suitable permit conditions).

Foreshore Access – Concerns have been raised in relation to maintaining the

existing access arrangement to the foreshore area during the construction period and also with regard to the proposed new access directly from Dwelling 2. A condition should be required as a part of any permit issued regarding the Applicant/Owner to submit a Construction Management Plan. No provisions of the Kingston Planning Scheme appear to preclude the creation of a new access to the foreshore reserve

5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 Based on a thorough assessment of the application against the relevant provisions of

the Kingston Planning Scheme and taking into consideration the concerns raised by objectors, the proposal, subject to the inclusion of conditions, is deemed appropriate and should therefore be supported.

54.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council determine to support the proposal and issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit to Develop the Land for the Construction of Two (2) No. 1/197B (Unit 1 on SP 030798C) Nepean Highway Aspendale, subject to the following conditions: 1. 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 2 November, 2011, but modified to show:

a. the provision of an improved landscape plan and associated planting schedule for the site showing the proposed location, species type, mature height and width, pot sizes and number of species be planted on the site, with such plans to be prepared by a suitably qualified landscape professional and incorporating:

i. 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;

ii. 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;

iii. 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;

iv. a range of plant types from ground types to large shrubs and trees, species must comprise a minimum 80% indigenous coastal species;

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

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

vii. all trees provided at a minimum of two (2) metres high at time of planting;

viii. medium to large shrubs and trees provided in pot sizes of 200mm or greater;

ix. the provision of a notation 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 property boundaries shown on plans to reflect those shown on the current survey plan by land surveyor Brian Moxham (dated 21st October, 2011);

c. the proposed foreshore access from Dwelling 2 deleted;

d. the proposed part of Dwelling 1 which currently overhangs the southern easement at first floor level to be removed from that part of the easement;

59.

e. the maximum average height of the proposed garage wall of Dwelling 1 to be reduced from 3.1 metres to 3.0 metres where proposed along the site’s north-east property boundary;

f. the minimum side building setback of the first floor level of Dwelling 2 from the site’s north-west property boundary increased from 1.0 metres to 1.84 metres;

g. visual screening to be incorporated along the north-west (side) elevation of the first floor level balcony of Dwelling 2, in accordance with the requirements under Standard B22 (Overlooking) of Clause 55;

h. visual screening to be provided for the north-west (side) facing first floor level window of Bedroom 1 of Dwelling 2, in accordance with the requirements under Standard B22 (Overlooking) of Clause 55;

i. the provision of at least 2000 litre rainwater tank clearly nominated each dwelling with water re-use for toilet flushing;

j. the provision of bin storage areas to be conveniently located and outside of private open space areas of dwellings;

k. external clothes drying facilities must be provided for each dwelling;

l. the provision of a full colour, finishes and building materials schedule (including samples) for all external elevations and driveways of the development;

m. the location of all externally-located heating and cooling units, exhaust fans and the like, clearly shown; and

n. the guttering pertaining to the garages/walls on boundary on any of the site’s property boundaries nominated as being contained wholly within the title property boundaries of the subject land.

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

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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 bio retention system, rainwater tanks connected for reuse and a detention system.

6. 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.).

60.

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

8. Stormwater outflow from the development to the Council drainage system should not exceed the predevelopment outflow from the site.

9. 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 and when approved shall thereafter be complied with. The CMP must specify and deal with the parking of vehicles during construction, delivery of materials, containment of waste on site and suppression of dust, business operations on the site during construction.

10. 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.

11. 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/s must be fully constructed to the Responsible Authority’s standard specification.

12. 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.

13. 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.


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.


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

14. 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.


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

17. 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.

61.

The development is not completed within four (4) years from the date of permit issue.




Note: No parking permits shall be granted to residents of this development.

OR In the event that the Council wishes to oppose the Officer’s recommendation to approve the application, it can do so on the following grounds:

1. The design has not addressed overlooking opportunities from a first floor window and

balcony of dwelling 2, not meeting the objective of Clause 55.04-6 – Overlooking.

2. The proposal does not satisfy the objective of 55.04-1 – Side and Rear Setbacks, with an insufficient side setback provided to dwelling 2.

62.


APPLICANT Neil Fletcher Design Pty Ltd

ADDRESS OF LAND No. 1/197B (Unit 1 on SP 030798C) Nepean Highway Aspendale

PLAN OF SUBDIVISION REFERENCE

Unit 1 Strata Plan 030798C

PROPOSAL Develop the Land for the Construction of Two (2) Dwellings

PLANNING OFFICER Charles Moffatt


ZONE R1Z

OVERLAYS DDO7, DDO1

OBJECTIONS Eleven (11)


2 November 2011


Exempt

1.0 RELEVANT LAND HISTORY

Council records indicate that the previous planning permits have been granted for the development currently existing at 197 Nepean Highway Aspendale, including the creation of the strata plan which currently controls the site.

2.0 SITE PARTICULARS 2.1 The site is irregular in shape and located on the south-west side of Nepean Highway,

directly adjacent to the Aspendale foreshore reserve. The subject land features a frontage to the foreshore reserve of 34.48 metres, a maximum side depth of 30.48 metres, resulting in a site area of 554.8m2. The land is generally flat with no significant vegetation.

2.2 It currently contains a detached, double-storey, brick veneer, dwelling with a large double car garage and associated outbuilding. The existing dwelling on the land features a front setback of approximately 4.7 metres to the foreshore reserve. A 1650mm high brick fence extends along the length of the site’s foreshore reserve. Vehicle access to the subject site is currently available via a public access road extending from Nepean Highway to the north-east. This access is utilised by a occupants of a number of dwellings in both 197 and 198 Nepean Highway, Aspendale.

2.3 A 2.0 metre wide easement is located within the subject site adjacent to the side

(south-east) property boundary and allows for public pedestrian access to the foreshore reserve from the adjoining properties. There appears to be no restrictions listed on the Certificate of Title.

63.

3.0 SURROUNDING ENVIRONS 3.1 The subject site is part of a fragmented lot pattern, with many properties developed

as multi-dwelling residences with communal access from Nepean Highway. This type of development exists extending another 100m to the north-west towards Mordialloc, and in excess of 200m to the south-east towards Aspendale Station.

3.2 The style of multi-unit development throughout this area is substantially varied, with

single storey villa units existing close to contemporary double storey dwellings. 199 Nepean Highway was recently redeveloped for the construction of four (4) dwellings, 195 Nepean Highway was recently developed for the construction of a multi-unit development and 196, 197, and 198 themselves being the subject of recent multi-dwelling development.

3.2 The surrounding area typically comprises of a combination of large, single dwellings

on single allotments and more recent examples of medium density housing of attached construction. The architectural style and built form of existing residential development in the surrounding area is varied, however, the majority of dwellings feature building setbacks of at least 4.5 metres from the foreshore boundary. Most existing dwellings are of single-storey or double-storey construction. There is no predominant fencing style in the neighbourhood.

3.2 The subject site is located within close proximity to the Aspendale Railway Station and is located directly adjacent to the Aspendale foreshore reserve. The surrounding residential area is well serviced by public transport (including bus routes along Nepean Highway), primary and secondary schools, community facilities and public reserves.


North-West (Side): No. 2/197B Nepean Highway – A large, double-storey, brick veneer dwelling, occupies this property and includes an attached double car garage. The existing dwelling features a minimum front setback of approximately 4.7 metres from the foreshore boundary.

South-West (Rear): Aspendale foreshore reserve. South-East (Side): No. 4 & 5/199 Nepean Highway – Five (5) double-storey dwellings occupy this property with vehicle access available directly from Nepean Highway. North-East (Front): Road and No. 198A Nepean Highway – A large double-storey and part single-storey, rendered brick dwelling and fronts the public access road that extends from Nepean Highway.

4. PROPOSAL 4.1 It is proposed to demolish the existing dwelling and associated outbuildings and

construct two (2), double-storey attached dwellings. The dwellings are sited and

64.

oriented to the Aspendale Foreshore reserve, with double garages located to the rear or north east of the dwellings.

4.2 Dwelling 1 comprises: five (5) bedrooms including a study, a kitchen, open-style dining and area, rumpus room, sitting room, a bathroom, two (2) powder rooms and a laundry. The master bedroom would also feature an en-suite bathroom and a walk-in-robe. A total private open space area of 74.6m2 would be provided for this dwelling, including 40.5m2 of secluded private open space at the ground level, a total first floor level balcony area of 29m2 and a 5.1m2 roof-top balcony area. An attached, double car garage is proposed for this dwelling and would be constructed to match the alignment of the existing public access road in front.

4.3 Dwelling 2 comprises: three (3) bedrooms, a kitchen, open-style dining and area,

rumpus room, a bathroom, a powder room and a laundry. The master bedroom would also feature an en-suite bathroom and a walk-in-robe. A total private open space area of 80.3m2 would be provided for this dwelling, including 47.6m2 of secluded private open space at the ground level, a total first floor level balcony area of 28.5m2 and a 4.2m2 roof-top balcony area. It is also proposed to create pedestrian access to the adjoining foreshore reserve from the ground level private open space area. An attached, double car garage is proposed for this dwelling and would be constructed to match the alignment of the existing public access road in front.

4.4 External building materials for the proposed dwellings would comprise of a

combination of rendered brickwork (Colorbond “Monument”), rendered foam cladding (Colorbond “Surfmist” and Colorbond “Monument”) Stack Stone cladding (“Honed Bluestone”) and zinclume roof cladding. The existing 1650mm high brick fence would be retained along the site’s foreshore boundary.

4.5 The proposal has an overall site coverage of 60.0% and a permeability of 22.6%. 5. PLANNING PERMIT PROVISIONS


planning permit is required to construct two (2) or more dwellings on a lot. A development must meet the requirements of Clause 55 of the Scheme. The Schedule to the Residential 3 Zone includes a variation to a number of standards within Clause 55.

Overlays

5.2 Design & Development Overlay: Pursuant to Clause 43.02 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a planning permit is required to construct a building or construct and carry out works.

No additional permit triggers are affected by the proposal based on the requirements under Schedule 1 (Urban Coastal Height Control Area) and Schedule 7 (Urban Coastal Foreshore Setback Area).

65.

Particular Provisions 5.3 Clause 52.06 Car Parking: Planning Scheme Amendment VC90, introduced into the

Kingston Planning Scheme on 5 June 2012 contains the following residential car parking rates at Clause 52.06:

- 1 space to each 1 or 2 bedroom dwelling; - 2 spaces to each 3 or more bedroom dwelling; and

- 1 visitor space for every 5 dwellings. This equates to two (2) car parking spaces to be provided for each dwelling. Each

dwelling has been provided with two (2) car parking spaces.

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

General Provisions

5.4 The Decision Guidelines of Clause 65 of the Kingston Planning Scheme are relevant

to this application and require consideration to be given to a variety of matters including planning scheme policies, the purpose of the zone, orderly planning and the impact on amenity.

6 RELEVANT POLICIES 6.1 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)



6.4 Neighbourhood Character Area Guidelines (Incorporated Document under Clause

21.05 – Residential Land Use of the LPPF). The land is located within Area No. 65 of the Neighbourhood Character Guidelines. .

6.5 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.

7 ADVERTISING 7.1 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. The

66.

advertising process was satisfactorily completed and eleven (11) objections were received to the proposal.

7.2 The main grounds of objection can be summarised under the following headings: Car parking, access and traffic issues;

Visual bulk/neighbourhood character;

Overlooking;

Overshadowing;

Impact on drainage infrastructure;

Foreshore access from Dwelling 2.

8 PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE 8.1 A preliminary conference meeting was held at Council’s Cheltenham Office on the

21st March, 2012, with the Owner, Applicant, Council Planning Officer and seven (7) Objectors in attendance. It is noted that no Ward Councillors were present at the meeting. The above concerns were discussed at length, however, no resolution was reached between the parties.

9 SECTION 50/50A/57A – AMENDMENT TO PLANS 9.1 N/A

10 REFERRALS 10.1 The application was referred to the following external authorities:

Melbourne Water

Melbourne Water advised that the property was not subject to tidal inundation from the Bay or flooding as a result of any future sea-level rise. Accordingly, Melbourne Water has no requirements for this development.

10.2 The application was referred to the following internal Council departments:

Council’s Development Engineer Council’s Development Engineer had no objection to the proposal subject to the removal of part of Dwelling 1 proposed to be constructed over an easement and the inclusion of appropriate notations on plans relating to rain water tanks. Standard conditions relating to the treatment of stormwater are also to be included. Council’s Traffic Engineering & Transport Department

Council’s Traffic department have expressed a number of concerns which deal with the proposed access to the site along with the car parking arrangements proposed. Council’s Traffic Engineers are concerned about the safety of vehicles entering and exiting the site and have asked for appropriate splays to be incorporated into the

67.

design. Traffic Engineers have also expressed concerns regarding vehicles exiting their garages having enough room to manoeuvre their vehicles to enable exiting the site and onto Nepean Highway in a forward direction. Further discussion of these issues will take place in Section 13.2 of this report with Council’s overall position that the development as proposed satisfactorily meets all requirements.

11 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:


residential development at Clause 11 (Settlement), Clause 13 (Environmental Risks), 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.

11.2 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.

11.3 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.

11.4 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.


68.

11.6 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.


conservation of places of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance. 11.8 The Subject Land is identified in an area of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sensitivity.

The development of two (2) dwellings on a lot is considered an exempt activity and accordingly, further provisions of this Clause do not apply.

11.9 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.

11.10 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.

11.11 It is submitted that the proposed development satisfies the aforementioned State

strategies and policy direction. Specifically, the subject site is located on land earmarked for residential purposes, whereby residential development is an ‘as of right’ use under the zoning provisions. Subject to appropriate conditions on any permit issued, 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.

Local Planning Policy Framework



11.13 Relevant objectives and strategies in Clause 21.05-3: Residential Land Use

include: o To provide a range of housing types across the municipality to increase

housing diversity and cater for the changing housing needs of current and future populations, taking account of the capacity of local areas in Kingston to accommodate different types and rates of housing change. This is to be achieved through encouraging residential development within activity centres via mixed-use development, and on transitional sites at the periphery of activity centres.

69.

o To ensure new residential development respects neighbourhood character and is site responsive, and that medium density dwellings are of the highest design quality. This is to be achieved through promoting 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.

o To promote more environmentally sustainable forms of residential development. To be achieved through promoting medium density housing development in close proximity to public transport facilities, particularly train stations.

o To manage the interface between residential development and adjoining or nearby sensitive/strategic land uses.

o To ensure residential development does not exceed known physical infrastructure capacities.

o To recognise and response to special housing needs within the community.

11.14 Council’s Local Planning Policy at Clause 21.05 essentially reinforces State Planning

Policy relevant to housing, stressing the need to encourage urban consolidation in appropriate locations and to accommodate projected population increases.




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 limit the amount and impact of increased stormwater runoff on local

drainage systems.

70.


Two (2) “major characteristics” are identified within this profile area, being materials (concrete tiles and weatherboard cladding or rendered brickwork) and other building materials (balconies, porches). The proposal is generally in accordance with the applicable character profile, with the exception of the roofing materials. However, given that the proposed dwellings would feature a flat roof form, the use of zincalume “klip-lok” cladding is considered appropriate in this instance. It is considered that the proposed development does not raise any issues of non-compliance with these guidelines. This is demonstrated through the varied building setbacks and the use of different external building materials and colours

11.17 It is considered that the proposed development generally complies and satisfies the State and Local Planning Policy Framework guidelines which aim to encourage well-designed medium density housing in appropriate locations. This is discussed in the Clause 55 assessment, later within this report.

11.18 Overlay Provisions

The subject site is affected by Schedule 1 (Urban Coastal Height Control Area) and Schedule 7 (Urban Coastal Foreshore Setback Area) of the Design & Development Overlay.

The proposed dwellings are considered to satisfy the relevant requirements of the DDO1, namely in relation to building height. Each dwelling would be of double-storey construction in addition to an open roof-top deck area. The only parts of the roof area to be covered are above the stairwells which provide access to the area. This area is sufficiently recessed to avoid any significant visual obtrusion.

The DDO7 is not considered relevant to the consideration of this application as the subject site does not have any direct foreshore frontage.

12 CLAUSE 55 (RESCODE ASSESSMENT) (See Appendix A)

12.1 The proposal has been assessed against the standards of Clause 55 (ResCode) of

the Kingston Planning Scheme (refer to Appendix A). Overall, it is noted that the application achieves a reasonable level of compliance with the ResCode provisions, with only minor variations sought. Six (6) of the thirty-four (34) ResCode standards are sought to be varied, with the remaining twenty-eight (28) standards satisfied by the proposal.

12.2 The following assessment considers the relevant standards and objectives of

ResCode where they require further discussion to that provided in the attached Appendix, particularly those standards where concessions are sought. Standard B1 – Neighbourhood Character

71.

The objective of this Clause 55.02-1 is ‘to ensure that the design respects the existing neighbourhood character and responds to the features of the site and surrounding area’. Standard B1 of ResCode suggests that the proposed design should respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and respond to the features of the site.

The subject site is located within a residential area where medium density housing is prevalent, due to the area’s proximity to the foreshore reserve, Aspendale Railway Station, local shops, schools, public facilities, etc. The proposed development is generally consistent with the existing built form character of residential properties that front the foreshore reserve, which are typically large, double-storey dwellings that include balcony areas with the intent of obtaining bay views.

The proposal is generally sympathetic to existing residential development on the surrounding properties and is considered to respond well to the features of the subject site in this instance. The proposed roof-top deck areas area considered to be satisfactory in terms of their area and the subsequent need for visual screening. Whilst expansive roof-top deck areas are not characteristic of existing residential development along this section of the Aspendale foreshore, capitalising upon the opportunity which roof-top decks present does not conflict with established Council policy nor ResCode. Accordingly, the roof-top decks proposed in this instance, given they are recessed from the upper floor and sit comfortably with the roof area, are considered satisfactory.

Standard B7 – Building Height The objective of this Standard is “to ensure that the height of buildings respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character”. Under this Standard, the maximum building height specified above natural ground level is 9.0 metres. The maximum building height of the proposed development is 9.8 metres above natural ground level. This comprises of a main building mass of 7.2 metres above natural ground level and a centrally located lift overrun and screening associated with the proposed roof-top deck generating an overall building height of 9.8 metres above natural ground level.

The proposed lift overrun and covered land area associated with the roof-top deck area of each dwelling should not be highly visible when viewed from the adjoining residential properties. As such, a variation to this Standard is considered appropriate with respect to the proposed development.

Standard B17 – Side & Rear Setbacks The objective of this Standard is “to ensure that the height and setback of a building from a boundary respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the impact on the amenity of existing dwellings”.

The submitted plans show that the first floor of Dwelling 2 would be setback a minimum of 1.0 metres from the site’s north-west (side) property boundary. Based on the technical requirements of this Standard, this part of the dwelling should be

72.

setback at least 1.84 metres from the respective property boundary given that the wall would be 6.4 metres in height. However, Council officers note that the minimum side building setback of the upper floor level of Dwelling 2 would be located on the south side of the existing dwelling at No. 2/197B Nepean Highway and would partially front the existing garage of this property. Council officers consider that a condition of any permit should require that the first floor side setback of Dwelling 2 be increase to comply with the setbacks required under Standard B17 of Clause 55 of the Kingston Planning Scheme;

Standard B18 – Walls on Boundaries The objective of this Standard is “to ensure that the location, length and height of a wall on a boundary respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the impact on the amenity of the existing dwellings”. The proposal includes the construction of a 3.1 metre high wall along a section of the site’s north-east (front) property boundary. Under this Standard, the height of any wall constructed on or within 150mm of a property boundary should not exceed a height of 3.6 metres and a maximum average height of 3.0 metres above natural ground level. As such, the respective wall to be constructed along the site’s north-east (front) property boundary does not comply with this requirement.

Council officers, however, consider that a condition of any permit should require that the maximum average wall height should be reduced to 3.0 metres above the natural ground level.

Standard B22 – Overlooking The objective of this Standard is “to limit views into existing secluded private open space and habitable room windows”. It is considered that the following window and balcony should be appropriately screened in accordance with Standard B22, as it would be located within a horizontal distance of nine (9) metres of the secluded private open space (balcony) area of the adjoining property to the north-west (side) at No. 2/197B Nepean Highway: The north-west (side) first floor window for Bedroom 1 of Dwelling 2. The north-west elevation of the first floor balcony of Dwelling 2.

Accordingly, to ensure that no unreasonable overlooking is to occur from the subject development, a condition should be placed on any permit issued in-line with the above. Standard B34 – Site Services One of the key objectives of this Standard is “to ensure that site services can be installed and easily maintained”. The considered plans have not made sufficient provisions for essential on-site services including water tanks, clothe drying facilities and importantly a convenient

73.

location for the storage of garage and recycle bins. A condition of any permit issued for the proposed development should require these facilities to be provided for the proposed dwellings.

12.3 The Residential policy objective seeks to ensure that any proposed development accords with the relevant State and Local Planning Policy Framework. An assessment against Kingston’s MSS and Residential Development Policy has been provided at section 11.12-11.16 of this Report, with the proposal found to be generally consistent with the relevant policies.

12.4 It is considered that the proposed development generally complies and satisfies the State and Local Planning Policy Framework guidelines which aim to encourage well-designed medium density housing in appropriate locations.

13 CLAUSE 52.06 – CAR PARKING 13.1 Planning Scheme Amendment VC90 amended the Kingston Planning Scheme on 5

June 2012, deleting Standard B16 – Car Parking Provision of Clause 55 and requiring all residential development to be assessed under a revised Clause 52.06 – Car Parking. Amendments to Clause 52.06 have included enhanced design standards for car parking, including requirements for the design of car spaces and basement ramps.

13.2 The parking rate for dwellings specified under this revised Clause requires 1 car

space to each one or two bedroom dwelling and 2 car spaces to each three or more bedroom dwelling. One (1) visitor parking space is required for every 5 dwellings.

13.3 The two dwellings proposed each have three or more bedrooms, and therefore

generates a requirement for a total of four (4) resident car spaces, which is met. 13.4 The proposed garages have a minimum dimension of 6.0 metres in length and 5.5

metres wide. 13.5 The proposal therefore complies with the parking provision required by Clause 52.06. 14 RESPONSE TO GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS 14.1 The objectors concerns have largely been addressed in the attached Appendix A and,

where necessary, further elaborated on in the assessment above. 15 CONCLUSION: 14.1 The proposed development is considered appropriate for the Site, subject to

conditions, as evidenced by:

The compatibility of the design and siting with the surrounding area; The mitigation of off-site amenity impacts; and A suitable level of compliance with all relevant policies, including Clause 55 of the

Kingston Planning Scheme.

74.

APPENDIX A – RESCODE ASSESSMENT Standard of the Kingston Planning Scheme Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings (Clause 55 and Schedule to the Residential 1 Zone).

Title and Objective Complies with Standard?


B1 Neighbourhood Character Design respects existing neighbourhood character or contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character. Development responds to features of the site and surrounding area.

Yes Complies. The proposed development is considered to be site responsive and consistent with the evolving character of the area. The proposal is also generally consistent with the major characteristics identified under Profile Area No. 65 of Council’s Neighbourhood Character Guidelines (2003).

B2 Residential Policy Residential development is consistent with housing policies in the SPPF, LPPF including the MSS and local planning policies. Support medium densities in areas to take advantage of public transport and community infrastructure and services.

Yes The proposal is considered to be consistent with all relevant sections of the SPPF, LPPF (including Council’s MSS) and local planning policies, namely Council’s Residential Development Policy under Clause 22.11 of the Kingston Planning Scheme.

B3 Dwelling Diversity Encourages a range of dwelling sizes and types in developments of ten or more dwellings.

N/A


Yes Complies. It is recommended that suitable condition(s) be included in any permit issued to address infrastructure considerations.


Yes The proposed development would front both the existing public access road and also the adjoining foreshore reserve. No high fence is proposed and

75.



windows and balconies are oriented to the foreshore reserve, providing an active façade.


Yes Complies. The site is a rear lot with no direct frontage to Nepean Highway.

B7 Building Height Building height should respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character.

No Maximum: 9.0 metres Proposed: 9.8 metres Does not comply – variation required. See Section 12 of this report for further discussion.


Yes Maximum: 60% Proposed: 60% Complies.


Yes At least: 20% Proposed: 22.6% Complies. A condition is recommend to ensure that each dwelling is provided with a rainwater tank and stormwater systems are designed to incorporate water sensitive urban design principles. .

B10 Energy Efficiency Achieve and protect energy efficient dwellings and residential buildings. Ensure orientation and layout reduces fossil fuel energy use and makes appropriate use of daylight and solar energy.

Yes Complies. The subject land features a general east/west orientation with adequate solar access opportunities to the north (side).

B11 Open Space Integrate layout of development with any public and communal open space provided in or adjacent to the development.

No Does not comply. See Section 12 of this report for further discussion.


Yes Complies.

B13 Landscaping To provide appropriate landscaping.

Yes Complies. No significant vegetation removal is

76.



To encourage: Development that respects the landscape

character of the neighbourhood.



proposed. It is recommended that a landscape plan be required by way of a condition of any permit issued.

B14 Access Ensure the safe, manageable and convenient vehicle access to and from the development. Ensure the number and design of vehicle crossovers respects neighbourhood character.

Yes Complies. The existing public access road extending from Nepean Highway would continue to be utilised in the same manner.

B15 Parking Location Provide resident and visitor vehicles with convenient parking. Avoid parking and traffic difficulties in the development and the neighbourhood. Protect residents from vehicular noise within developments.

Yes Complies. Car parking is provided by the way of two (2) double garages, abutting associated dwellings to provide convenient access to residents.

B16 DELETED See Clause 52.06 discussion under Section 13 of this Report.

B17 Side and Rear Setbacks Ensure the height and setback respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the amenity impacts on existing dwellings.

No Ground Floor Complies for the proposed dwellings.

First Floor Does not comply for Dwelling 2. See Section 12 of this report for further discussion.

77.



B18 Walls on Boundaries Ensure the location, length and height of a wall on a boundary respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the amenity impacts on existing dwellings.

No Maximum: 10 metres plus 25% of the remaining length on any property boundary. Maximum height of 3 metres with no part higher than 3.6 metres unless abutting a higher existing wall. Proposed: Maximum average wall height of 3.1 metres is proposed for garage of Dwelling 1. See Section 12 of this report for further discussion.


Yes Existing windows are provided with light courts in excess of the requirements of this Standard.


Yes The adjoining windows at No. 199 Nepean Highway appear to be oriented greater than 30 degrees to the east – therefore not being categorised as ‘north facing’ windows.


Yes Complies. At least 75% of the adjoining neighbour’s secluded private open space receives a minimum of five (5) hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 22 September.

B22 Overlooking Limit views into existing secluded private open space and habitable room windows.

No Does not comply. See Section 12 of this report for further discussion.

78.



B23 Internal Views Limit views into existing secluded private open space and habitable room windows of dwellings and residential buildings within the same development.

Yes Complies. Given the sitting of the side-by-side dwellings it is unlikely that any internal overlooking would be generated by the proposal. Furthermore, screening to balconies has been provided to prevent overlooking also prevents downward views to the private open spaces of apartments within the development.

B24 Noise Impacts Protect residents from external noise and contain noise sources in developments that may affect existing dwellings.

Yes Complies. Any noise associated with the proposal would be normal to a residential development and is not unreasonable.


Yes Complies. An internal lift and stairwell are proposed within the dwellings.


Yes Complies. The entry area for each dwelling would ensure that it would be easily identifiable from the public access road.


Yes Complies. Windows are either oriented clear to the sky or provided with appropriate light courts.

79.



B28 Private Open Space Provide reasonable recreation and service needs of residents by adequate private open space.

Yes Required: An area of 40m2, with one part of the POS to consist of secluded POS at the side or rear of the dwelling or residential building with a minimum area of 40m2, a minimum dimension of 3m and convenient access from a living room. Proposed: Each dwelling would be provided with in excess of 80m2 of private open space.


Yes Complies.


Yes Complies. A minimum 6m3

area is nominated for storage associated with each dwelling. A condition is recommended requiring the storage to be fully dimensioned and to be provided in a convenient located.


Yes Complies. The materials and overall contemporary architecture with flat roof design are consistent with the styles which exist in within similar developments in the area. It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the evolving nature of the surrounding residential area. The design and siting of the proposal ensures that the development should not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding properties.

80.



B32 Front Fences Encourage front fence design that respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character. Note: The Schedule to the Residential 1 Zone includes a variation to this standard.

N/A Maximum: 1.2 metres. Proposed: None.

B33 Common Property Ensure car parking, access areas and other communal open space is practical, attractive and easily maintained. Avoid future management difficulties in common ownership areas.

N/A

B34 Site Services Ensure site services and facilities can be installed and easily maintained and are accessible, adequate and attractive. Avoid future management difficulties in common ownership areas.

No Considered plans have not made provision for site services including water tanks, clothe drying facilities and or space for the storage of garage and recycle bins. A condition is recommended to require these facilities to be provided for the proposed dwellings. See Section 12 of this report for further discussion.

81.

No. 172-174 (Lot CP154699) Warrigal Road Mentone – Planning Permit Application No. KP-910/2011

Planning Committee Report APPLICATION No KP-910/2011 LAND No. 172-174 (Lot CP154699) Warrigal Road Mentone PLANNING OFFICER Emma Hilderink PROPOSAL Develop the Land for the Construction of Seven (7)

Dwellings PERMIT TRIGGER Construct two or more dwellings on a lot EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS Single storey dwelling APPLICANT Abode Design & Construct ZONE / OVERLAYS Residential 3 Zone, No overlay controls RESIDENTIAL POLICY AREA Incremental Housing Change OBJECTIONS Three (3)

1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL 1.1 The application seeks to demolish the existing dwelling and associated outbuildings

and to construct five (5) double-storey dwellings and two (2) single-storey dwellings. Dwellings 1, 2 and 3 would front Warrigal Road, Dwellings 4 and 5 would front Sarzana Street whilst Dwellings 6 and 7 would be orientated towards the proposed common driveway. A total of thirteen (13) on-site car parking spaces are proposed, including the provision of a visitor car parking space.

2.0 SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDS 2.1 The following map illustrates the subject site in its surrounding context.

2.2 The subject site is regular in shape and is located on the south-east corner of

Warrigal Road and Sarzana Street, Mentone. The land features a frontage width of

82.

41.22 metres to Warrigal Road, a frontage width of 40.23 metres to Sarzana Street 1665.3m2. The topography of the subject site is relatively flat and is devoid of any significant vegetation.

2.3 It currently contains a detached, single-storey, dwelling with a pitched tiled roof which

features a minimum building setback of 7.6 metres from the site’s Warrigal Road frontage. Five (5) outbuildings are located throughout the property, including a large double car garage located adjacent to the site’s Sarzana Street frontage.

2.4 The architectural style and built form of existing residential development in the surrounding area is varied, however, the majority of dwellings feature front setbacks of at least 5.0 metres with reasonable side building setbacks. Most existing dwellings are of single-storey or double-storey construction. There is no predominant fencing within the surrounding neighbourhood; however, many residential properties that front Warrigal Road feature high front fencing.

3.0 KEY PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The key planning considerations relate to:

(a) Integration with the Street Dwelling 1 (in part), 2 and 3 fronting Warrigal Road would each feature a 1.8 metre high front fencing given that the secluded private open space areas would be located within the front setback area of each proposed dwelling. This may limit any visual connection between the proposed dwellings and the site’s main road frontage. A variation to this Standard is considered reasonable in this instance given that each of the respective dwellings to front Warrigal Road would also feature pedestrian access from this frontage, allowing a physical connection between the proposed development and street frontage.

(b) Street Setback In accordance with requirements under Standard B6, the proposed development should have a minimum setback of 6.1 metres from the site’s Warrigal Road frontage, based on the average front setback of existing development on the adjoining property to the south at No. 170 Warrigal Road (as the subject site is a corner allotment). The proposed minimum front setback of 5.52 metres from the street is less than the calculated average, however, the minimum building setback of the proposed development from Warrigal Road is considered to be appropriate for the following reasons: Although the proposed setback does not meet the technical requirements of this

Standard, it is considered that the development provides a reasonable transition between the adjoining properties.

The proposed front setback of each dwelling would allow for the most efficient use of the subject site.

There is no prevailing setback rhythm within this section of Warrigal Road. The setbacks have been designed to be staggered to minimise any perception of

building bulk when viewed from the street and adjoining properties. The front setback is large enough to accommodate substantial landscaping

including the provision of canopy trees. .

83.

(c) Private Open Space It is noted that the secluded private open space areas for Dwellings 1, 2 and 3 would be wholly located within the front setback of each dwelling and located directly adjacent to the site’s Warrigal Road frontage. Under this Standard, the secluded private open space area of each dwelling should be located to the side or rear and accessed from the main living area. Whilst the location of the respective secluded private open space areas is not ideal, the submitted plans show that the front fencing nominated along the site’s Warrigal Road frontage would be 1.8 metres to ensure visual privacy from passing pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Council officers consider that a variation to this Standard is warranted in this instance given that the dimension and area of the proposed secluded private open space area for Dwellings 1, 2 and 3 would allow sufficient space for the recreation and service needs of the likely residents. Furthermore, each of the respective secluded private open space areas would feature good northern solar access in this instance.

3.2 The subject site is identified within Area 4 of the Kingston Neighbourhood Character

Study (May 2003). As part of this study, the average lot size within this area was calculated to be 347.45m2. The proposal achieves an average lot size of 231.7m2 per dwelling.

3.3 Although the proposal does not meet this strategy, it is considered that the

development proposes an appropriate number of dwellings on this site as demonstrated by its overall general compliance with ResCode and the Schedule to the Residential 3 Zone requirements. Further, the proposal is deemed appropriate as there is a number of existing medium density housing developments located within close proximity to the subject site which is indicative of smaller residential allotments in the surrounding area. Given that the subject site is larger than most “typical” allotments in the locality, Council officers consider that the increase in density along this section of Warrigal Road is considered reasonable in this instance.

4.0 OBJECTOR CONCERNS 4.1 Three (3) objections were received to the application. A summary of the concerns

and response to each ground is provided below:

(a) Overshadowing One neighbour to the south raised concerns regarding potential shading by

replacement trees proposed to be planted at the south eastern corner of the subject site. It is noted that there are existing trees on the subject site and the trees native trees proposed to be planted are unlikely to cause greater shading to the property to the south than already being experienced.

(b) Overlooking One neighbour objected to the use of clear glass to highlight windows along the

eastern elevation of Dwelling 5. The applicant no longer proposes windows along the eastern elevation of this dwelling. Another neighbour raised concerns regarding overlooking (and noise impacts) from Dwelling 7. As this dwelling is single-storey and will be obscured by the existing 1.9 metre high fence it is considered that overlooking from this dwelling is unlikely. Other concerns regarding overlooking from first floor windows can be managed by way of conditions on any permit issued to provide

84.

highlight windows of screening or obscuring of windows to prevent overlooking into abutting properties.

(c) Car parking, Traffic and Air Pollution

The additional demand for on-street car parking and an increase in the volume of traffic within Sarzana Street is of concern to one of the objectors. Whilst Council officers acknowledge that some residents may be experiencing existing issues associated with traffic and car parking within the street, the proposal complies with the parking rates provided within Clause 52.06 of the Kingston Planning Scheme.

5.0 CONCLUSION 5.1 Based on a thorough assessment of the application against the relevant provisions of

the Kingston Planning Scheme and taking into consideration the concerns raised by objectors, the proposal, subject to the inclusion of conditions, is deemed appropriate and should therefore be supported.

85.

RECOMMENDATION That Council determine to support the proposal and grant a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit to develop the land for the construction of seven (7) dwellings at No. 172 - 174 (CP154699) Warrigal Road, Mentone, subject to the following conditions: 1. 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 the 4th May, 2012, but modified to show:

a. visual screening provided to the front (west) facing upper floor level balconies of Dwelling 2 and Dwelling 3 to prevent direct views into the respective secluded private open space areas, in accordance with the requirements of Standard B22 (Overlooking) of Clause 55 of the Kingston Planning Scheme;

b. a notation on the plans showing the high-light kitchen window of Dwelling 3 no lower than 1.7 metres from the finished floor level below;

c. improved internal elevation plans showing full details of all proposed fencing;

d. the deletion of the overhanging eaves along the southern elevation of Dwelling 7;

e. the location of all externally-located heating and cooling units, exhaust fans and the like, clearly shown;

f. the door of each garage nominated as a panel lift door, or similar;

g. the surface material of all driveways / accessways and car parking spaces nominated as being all weather sealed concrete, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

h. the provision of a full colour palette, finishes and building materials schedule for all external elevations and driveways of the development;

i. the guttering pertaining to the wall on boundary on the east (side) property boundary nominated as being contained wholly within the title property boundaries of the subject land;

j. a notation on the plans stating that “property boundary and footpath levels are not to be altered”;

k. a notation on the plans stating that “all reinstatements and vehicle crossings are to be constructed to the satisfaction of the relevant authority”;

l. a notation on the plans stating that there is to be a “200mm offset installed between the footpath and property boundary when carrying out reinstatements”;

m. the provision of minimum 2000 litre rainwater tank clearly nominated for each new dwelling with water re-use for toilet flushing;

n. a 3m x 3m splay at the corner of Sarzana Street and Warrigal Road;

o. a 3m x 3m box easement for the existing Council pit and pipe on the south east corner of the property; and

p. a notation on the plans stating “no trees planted with intrusive roots that may affect the drainage in the proximity of the existing pit on the southeast corner of the property”.

98.

Endorsed Plans 2. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the

prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. Drainage and Water Sensitive Urban Design 3. 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. The detention system must have a restricted outflow limited to 13 l/s.

4. Before the development commences, a Stormwater Management Plan showing the

stormwater works to the nominated point of discharge (no discharge to the rear pit) 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.).

5. Stormwater works must be provided on the site so as to prevent overflows onto

adjacent properties. 6. Connection to the existing rear pit at the southeast corner of the property boundary is

not permitted. 7. Access to the existing rear pit at the southeast corner of the property must be

available at all time for maintenance. 8. Council drainage assets must be protected at all time during construction. Parking and Traffic Management 9. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, areas set aside for

parking vehicles, access lanes and paths as shown on the endorsed plans must, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, be:

a. Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


c. Surfaced in accordance with the endorsed plans under this permit, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


e. Clearly signposted/marked as resident, employee, disabled or visitor parking.

99.

f. Line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes and, if necessary, the direction in which vehicles are to travel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

Infrastructure and Road Works

10. Any redundant vehicular crossing must be removed and the nature strip, kerb and channel, and footpath must be reinstated to the Responsible Authority’s standard specifications and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

11. Any relocation of pits/power poles or other services affected by this development

must be relocated to the satisfaction of the relevant servicing authority and the Responsible Authority, at the cost of the owner/developer.

General amenity conditions



14. All externally-located heating and cooling units, exhaust fans and the like must not be located adjacent to bedroom windows on adjoining properties and must be concealed from the street, unless with the further written consent of the Responsible Authority.

15. Service units, including air conditioning/heating units, where incorporated, must not

be located where they will be highly visible from any public area to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and if located on the roof of a building, suitable screening and baffling must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Construction Management

16. 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 and when approved shall thereafter be complied with. The CMP must specify and deal with the parking of vehicles during construction, delivery of materials, containment of waste on site and suppression of dust, business operations on the site during construction.

Completion of Works

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

18. 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. Thereafter, the landscaping shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

100.


20. 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.

21. Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the

satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Time Limits

22. In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this permit will expire to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority 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.




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: Environment Protection Authority (EPA) Victoria set out the requirements pertaining to site construction hours and permissible noise levels.

Note: Council’s Rates Department is responsible for determining and assigning property address details, which include dwelling/unit/apartment and street numbers and/or street names. The onus is on the Permit Applicant/Land Owner to contact Council’s Rates Department to determine dwelling/unit/apartment and street numbers, and street name details for the approved development. Any reference to dwelling numbers on endorsed plans is indicative and should not be relied upon for dwelling/unit/apartment and street numbers and/or street name purposes.

OR

In the event that the Council wishes to oppose the Officer’s recommendation to support the application, it can do so on the following grounds:

1. The proposal would have an adverse affect on the amenity of an established residential neighbourhood.

101.

2. The proposal constitutes an over-development of the site.

3. The proposal fails to satisfy some of the requirements of Clause 55 of the Kingston Planning Scheme (ResCode), in particular Clause 55.02-1 Neighbourhood Character, Clause 55.02-2 Residential Policy, Clause 55.02-5 Integration with the Street, Clause 55.03-10 Parking Location, Clause 55.04-1 Side and Rear Setbacks, Clause 55.04-7 Internal Views, Clause 55.05-3 Daylight to New Windows, and Clause 55.05-4 Private Open Space.

4. The proposal fails to meet the objectives and strategic directions of the Municipal Strategic Statement – Residential Land Use contained at Clause 21.05 of the Kingston Planning Scheme.

102.


APPLICANT Abode Design & Construct

ADDRESS OF LAND No. 172-174 Warrigal Road Mentone

PLAN OF SUBDIVISION REFERENCE

Lot CP154699

PROPOSAL Develop the Land for the Construction of Seven (7) Dwellings

PLANNING OFFICER Emma Hilderink


ZONE Residential 3 Zone

OVERLAYS None

OBJECTIONS Three (3)


4th May, 2012


No

1.0 RELEVANT LAND HISTORY 1.1 Council records indicate that there is no relevant planning history relating to this site. 2.0 SITE PARTICULARS 2.1 The subject site is regular in shape and is located on the south-east corner of

Warrigal Road and Sarzana Street, Mentone. The land features a frontage width of 41.22 metres to Warrigal Road, a frontage width of 40.23 metres to Sarzana Street 1665.3m2. The topography of the subject site is relatively flat and is devoid of any significant vegetation.

2.2 It currently contains a detached, single-storey, dwelling with a pitched tiled roof which

features a minimum building setback of 7.6 metres from the site’s Warrigal Road frontage. Five (5) outbuildings are located throughout the property, including a large double car garage located adjacent to the site’s Sarzana Street frontage.

2.3 Two (2) single vehicle crossovers are located along the site’s Sarzana Street frontage

in addition to a single crossover located adjacent to the site’s Warrigal Road frontage. A 1.6 metre high timber paling fence extends along the length of the site’s Warrigal Road frontage whilst a 1.9 metre high timber paling fence exists along the site’s Sarzana Street frontage.

2.4 No easements are contained within the subject site. There appears to be no restrictions listed on the Certificate of Title.

3.0 SURROUNDING ENVIRONS 3.1 The surrounding area typically comprises of a combination of single dwellings on

single allotments and more recent examples of medium density housing. The adjoining properties to both the north (side) opposite Sarzana Street and south (side)

103.

fronting Warrigal Road are both developed for medium housing development. Warrigal Road is identified as a Road Zone Category 1.

3.2 The architectural style and built form of existing residential development in the

surrounding area is varied, however, the majority of dwellings feature front setbacks of at least 5.0 metres with reasonable side building setbacks. Most existing dwellings are of single-storey or double-storey construction. There is no predominant fencing within the surrounding neighbourhood, however, many residential properties that front Warrigal Road feature high front fencing.

3.3 The subject site is located within reasonable proximity to the Mentone Railway

Station and the Mentone foreshore reserve which is located approximately 400 and 600 metres to the south-west, respectively. The surrounding residential area is well serviced by public transport (including bus routes), primary and secondary schools, community facilities and public reserves.


North (Front) – No. 176 Warrigal Road (Opposite): Four (4), single-storey dwellings occupy this property and all feature street frontage to Sarzana Street with a minimum street setback of 6.214 metres.

South (Side) – No. 170 Warrigal Road: An older-style medium density housing development exists on this site which is of both single-storey and double-storey construction. These properties have a minimum street setback of 6.11 metres. West (Side) – No. 127, 129, 129A and 131 Warrigal Road (Opposite): A single dwelling occupies each respective property with street setbacks varying between 4.0 to 11.0 metres from Warrigal Road. East (Side) – No. 47 and No. 49 Riveria Street: A single-storey, brick veneer dwelling occupies each respective property with a setback of 2.471 metres from Sarzana Street.

4.0 PROPOSAL 4.1 The application seeks to demolish the existing dwelling and associated outbuildings

and construct seven (7) dwellings, comprising five (5) double-storey dwellings and two (2) single-storey dwellings. Dwelling 1, 2 and 3 would be orientated towards the site’s Warrigal Road frontage whilst Dwellings 4 and 5 would front Sarzana Street. Dwellings 6 and 7 would be orientated towards the proposed common driveway which would be centrally located within the subject site.

4.2 Dwelling 1 would comprise: three (3) bedrooms, a kitchen, meals area, living room,

an upper floor level “retreat” room, a bathroom, a powder room and a laundry. It is noted that the master bedroom would also feature an en-suite bathroom and a walk-in-robe. This dwelling would be provided with a total secluded private open space area of 60.10m2 to the side. A double car garage would be provided for this dwelling and would accessible via the proposed shared driveway extending from the site’s Sarzana Street frontage.

104.

4.3 Dwelling 2 would comprise: three (3) bedrooms, an upstairs kitchen, meals area, living room, a bathroom, a powder room and a laundry. It is noted that the master bedroom would also feature an en-suite bathroom. This dwelling would be provided with a total secluded private open space area of 72.10m2within its front setback area. A double car garage would be provided for this dwelling and would accessible via the proposed shared driveway extending from the site’s Sarzana Street frontage.

4.4 Dwelling 3 would comprise: three (3) bedrooms, an upstairs kitchen, meals area,

living room, a bathroom, a powder room and a laundry. It is noted that the master bedroom would also feature an en-suite bathroom. This dwelling would be provided with a total secluded private open space area of 95.0m2 within its front setback area. A double car garage would be provided for this dwelling and would accessible via the proposed shared driveway extending from the site’s Sarzana Street frontage.

4.5 Dwelling 4 would comprise: three (3) bedrooms, a kitchen, meals area, living room, a

bathroom, a powder room and a laundry. It is noted that the master bedroom would also feature an en-suite bathroom and a walk-in-robe. This dwelling would be provided with a total secluded private open space area of 61.0m2to the rear. A single car garage with provision for a tandem car parking space within the front setback area would be accessed via the site’s Sarzana Street frontage.

4.6 Dwelling 5 would comprise: three (3) bedrooms, a kitchen, meals area, living room, a

bathroom, a powder room and a laundry. It is noted that the master bedroom would also feature an en-suite bathroom and a walk-in-robe. This dwelling would be provided with a total secluded private open space area of 64.35m2 to the rear. A single car garage with provision for a tandem car parking space within the front setback area would be accessed via the site’s Sarzana Street frontage.

4.7 Dwelling 6 would comprise: two (2) bedrooms, a kitchen, meals area, living room, a

bathroom and a laundry. This dwelling would be provided with a total secluded private open space area of 64.0m2 to the rear. A single car garage would also be provided for this dwelling. Vehicle access would be made available via the proposed shared driveway extending from the site’s Sarzana Street frontage.

4.8 Dwelling 7 would comprise: two (2) bedrooms, a kitchen, meals area, living room, a

bathroom and a laundry. This dwelling would be provided with a total secluded private open space area of 62.7m2 to the rear. A single car garage would also be provided for this dwelling. Vehicle access would be made available via the proposed shared driveway extending from the site’s Sarzana Street frontage.

4.9 External building materials for the proposed dwellings would comprise of face

brickwork at the ground floor level and rendered brickwork at the upper floor level. Concrete roof tiles are nominated for each of the proposed dwellings. No details regarding the proposed colours have been nominated for the external building materials in this instance.

4.10 No significant vegetation would be removed from the subject site. A 1.2 metre high

timber picket fence would be constructed along the site’s Sarzana Street frontage and a part of the site’s Warrigal Road frontage. The balance of the site’s Warrigal Road frontage would feature a 1.8 metre high timber paling fence along its length (except where pedestrian access points are proposed for Dwelling 2 and Dwelling 3).

105.

4.11 It is proposed to retain the existing vehicle crossover located adjacent to the site’s

Warrigal Road frontage although it will be made redundant as a part of this application.

4.12 The proposal has an overall site coverage of 46.6% and a permeability of 39%. 5.0 PLANNING PERMIT PROVISIONS


planning permit is required to construct two (2) or more dwellings on a lot. A development must meet the requirements of Clause 55 of the Scheme. The Schedule to the Residential 3 Zone includes a variation to a number of standards within Clause 55.

Overlay

5.2 None

Particular Provisions

5.3 Clause 52.06 – Car Parking – refer to 5.4 Clause 55 - Two or More Dwellings on a Lot & Residential Buildings – (Refer to

Appendix A for the Planning Officer’s full assessment against this report).

General Provisions 5.5 The Decision Guidelines of Clause 65 of the Kingston Planning Scheme are relevant

to this application and require consideration to be given to a variety of matters including planning scheme policies, the purpose of the zone, orderly planning and the impact on amenity.

6.0 RELEVANT POLICIES 6.1 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)



106.

6.3 Other

6.4 Neighbourhood Character Area Guidelines (Incorporated Document under Clause 21.05 – Residential Land Use of the LPPF). The land is located within Area 14 of the Neighbourhood Character Guidelines.

6.5 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.

7.0 ADVERTISING 7.1 The proposal was advertised on 8th March, 2012 by sending notices to adjoining and

opposite property owners and occupiers and by maintaining two (2) public notices on site for fourteen (14) days. The application process was satisfactorily completed and three (3) letters of objection were received to the proposal.

Overshadowing Overlooking Visual bulk and mass Parking and traffic concerns Air pollution

8.0 PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE 8.1 A Preliminary Conference Meeting was held at Council’s Cheltenham Office on the

19th April, 2012, with the Applicant, Council’s Planning Officer, Three (3) Ward Councillors and three (3) Objectors in attendance. The above concerns were discussed at length, however, there was no resolution reached at this meeting.

9.0 SECTION 50 and 57A – AMENDMENT TO PLANS 9.1 Prior to advertising, the Permit Applicant submitted revised plans on the 19th

December, 2011, pursuant to Section 50 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, that essentially addressed some of Council’s initial design issues outlined within the Planning Officer’s further information letter dated the 19th December, 2011.

9.2 Following advertising and out of the discussions with Council and objectors at the

Preliminary Conference meeting, the applicant submitted on 4th May 2012 an Arborist report prepared by T4 Tree Services as well as a landscape plan which included the landscape replacement planting as recommended by T4 Tree Services. The applicant also provided revised site plans on 4th May 2012, which addressed the concerns raised by Council’s Traffic Department regarding the internal dimensions of the garages, driveway widths, turning templates and the provision of 1m x 1m corner splays to both sides of each crossover.

9.3 It is the Officer’s view that the revised plans do not require re-advertising as the

changes to the plans would not cause material detriment to any person.

107.

10.0 REFERRALS 10.1 The application was referred to the following internal departments:

Council’s Development Engineer – Raised no objection to the application, subject to conditions included on any permit issued relating to the provision of a rain water tank for each dwelling, standard requirements regarding on-site stormwater management and for the protection of an existing stormwater pit located with the south-east corner of the site.

Council’s Roads and Drains Department – Raised no issues with the proposal, subject to the inclusion of suitable conditions on any permit approved for the proposed development in relation to vehicle access to be constructed along the site’s Sarzana Street frontage.

Council’s Traffic Engineering & Transport Department – No major concerns were

raised in relation to the proposed development, subject to a number of design modifications which have since been satisfied by the submission of the amended plans received by Council on the 4th May, 2012.

Council’s Vegetation Management Officer – A concept landscape plan and

associated planting schedule in addition to an Arborist report has been submitted by the Applicant and considered by Council’s Vegetation Management Officer as being acceptable for endorsement should a permit be granted. No issue was raised and no further recommendations or permit conditions are required to be imposed upon any permit issued for the proposed development.

10.2 Pursuant to Clause 66.02 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, the application was not

required to be referred to any external authority. 11.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:


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.

11.2 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:

108.

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.

11.3 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.



conservation of places of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance. 11.6 The Subject Land is not identified in an area of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Sensitivity. 11.7 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.

11.8 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.

11.9 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.

11.10 It is submitted that the proposed development satisfies the aforementioned State

strategies and policy direction. Specifically, the subject site is located on land earmarked for residential purposes, whereby residential development is an ‘as of right’ use under the zoning provisions. Subject to appropriate conditions on any permit issued, the development itself achieves an acceptable design outcome for the

109.

site and its immediate abuttals, whilst enjoying convenient and direct access to community facilities and the like, including public transport nodes.

Local Planning Policy Framework



11.12 Relevant objectives and strategies in Clause 21.05-3: Residential Land Use

include: To provide a range of housing types across the municipality to increase housing

diversity and cater for the changing housing needs of current and future populations, taking account of the capacity of local areas in Kingston to accommodate different types and rates of housing change. This is to be achieved through encouraging residential development within activity centres via mixed-use development, and on transitional sites at the periphery of activity centres.

To ensure new residential development respects neighbourhood character and is site responsive, and that medium density dwellings are of the highest design quality. This is to be achieved through promoting 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.

To promote more environmentally sustainable forms of residential development. To be achieved through promoting medium density housing development in close proximity to public transport facilities, particularly train stations.

To ensure residential development does not exceed known physical infrastructure capacities.

11.13 Council’s Local Planning Policy at Clause 21.05 essentially reinforces State Planning Policy relevant to housing, stressing the need to encourage urban consolidation in appropriate locations and to accommodate projected population increases.




To encourage new residential development to achieve architectural and urban

design outcomes that positively respond to neighbourhood character having

110.

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 limit the amount and impact of increased stormwater runoff on local drainage

systems.


11.16 It is considered that the proposed development generally complies with and satisfies

the State and Local Planning Policy Framework guidelines which aim to encourage well-designed medium density housing in appropriate locations. This is discussed in the Clause 55 assessment, later within this report.

12.0 CLAUSE 52.06 (CAR PARKING) 12.1 New Clause 52.06 – Car Parking in the Kingston Planning Scheme requires a car

parking rate of one (1) space per two-bedroom dwelling and two (2) spaces per three-bedroom dwelling. An additional visitor parking space is required where a development contains 5 or more dwellings. Therefore a total of thirteen (13) spaces are required (including one visitor space). The applicant has demonstrated that the proposal meets the requirements of Clause 52.06 and that sufficient car parking is provided on site. Council’s Traffic Department have reviewed the application and concur that sufficient parking is provided, and that the parking, access and turning areas are safe and practical.

13.0 CLAUSE 55 (RESCODE ASSESSMENT) 13.1 The proposal has been assessed against the standards of Clause 55 (ResCode) of

the Kingston Planning Scheme (refer to Appendix A). Overall, it is noted that the application achieves a reasonable level of compliance with the ResCode provisions, with only minor variations sought. Eight of the thirty-four (34) ResCode standards are sought to be varied, with the remaining twenty-six (26) standards satisfied by the proposal.

13.2 The following assessment considers the relevant standards and objectives of

ResCode where they require further discussion to that provided in the attached Appendix, particularly those standards where concessions are sought.

Clause 55.02-1 – Neighbourhood Character & Infrastructure Standard B1 – Neighbourhood Character

13.3 The objective of this Clause 55.02-1 is ‘to ensure that the design respects the existing

neighbourhood character and responds to the features of the site and surrounding

111.

area’. Standard B1 of ResCode suggests that the proposed design should respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and respond to the features of the site.

13.4 The subject site is located within a predominately residential area where there is

existing medium density housing, due to the area being within reasonable proximity to an established “major activity centre” (i.e. Mentone) and an increasing demand for greater housing choice. Council officers consider that the proposed development has been designed and sited in a manner which is sympathetic to the evolving character of the surrounding area of Mentone and would make efficient use of the land.

Standard B2 – Residential Policy

13.5 As previously mentioned, the proposal requires consideration under Council’s

Residential Development Policy under Clause 22.11 of the Kingston Planning Scheme.

13.6 Whilst the proposal satisfactorily generally achieves the design requirements under

this Policy for medium density housing, Council officers note that the average lot size would exceed that calculated for the area which is 1 dwelling for every 306.55m2 of site area. The proposal would result in a development density of 1 dwelling for every 237.9m2 given that the area of the subject land is 1665.3m2.

13.7 Although the proposal does not meet this strategy, it is considered that the development proposes an appropriate number of dwellings on this site as demonstrated by its overall general compliance with ResCode and the Schedule to the Residential 3 Zone requirements. Further, the proposal is deemed appropriate as there is a number of existing medium density housing developments located within close proximity to the subject site which is indicative of smaller residential allotments in the surrounding area. Given that the subject site is larger than most “typical” allotments in the locality, Council officers consider that the marginal increase in density along this section of Warrigal Road is considered reasonable in this instance.

13.8 Accordingly, the design and siting of the proposed dwellings should not unduly affect

the only directly adjoining residential properties and, as such, offers a good planning outcome for the subject site.

Standard B5 – Integration with the Street

13.9 The objective of this Standard is “to integrate the layout of the development with the

street”. 13.10 Dwelling 1 (in part), 2 and 3 fronting Warrigal Road would each feature a 1.8 metre

high front fencing given that the secluded private open space areas would be located within the front setback area of each proposed dwelling. This may limit any visual connection between the proposed dwellings and the site’s main road frontage.

13.11 A variation to this Standard is considered reasonable in this instance given that each

of the respective dwellings to front Warrigal Road would also feature pedestrian access from this frontage, allowing a physical connection between the proposed development and street frontage.

112.

Clause 55.03 – Site Layout & Building Massing

Standard B15 – Parking Location 13.12 One (1) of the key objectives under this Standard is “to protect residents from noise

within developments”. 13.13 The considered plans show that the east-facing Bedroom 2 window of Dwelling 2 and

the west-facing living room window of Dwelling 4 would be located directly adjacent to the proposed shared driveway, with no building setback and a minimum sill height of 1450mm above the natural ground level. Under this Standard, any habitable room window should be setback a minimum distance of 1.5 metres from a shared vehicle accessway or may be reduced to 1.0 metre where the respective window has a minimum sill height of 1.4 metres above the natural ground level.

13.14 Council officers consider that a variation to this Standard is warranted in this instance

given the proposed minimum sill height of each respective window. As such, there should be minimal noise associated with vehicles passing the east-facing Bedroom 2 window of Dwelling 2 and the west-facing living room window of Dwelling 4 in this instance.

Clause 55.04 – Amenity Impacts Standard B17 – Side & Rear Setbacks

13.15 The objective of this Standard is “to ensure that the height and setback of a building from a boundary respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the impact on the amenity of existing dwellings”.

13.16 The submitted plans show that the first floor level building setback of Dwelling 5 from

the site’s east (side) property boundary would be 1.4 metres, whereas a minimum side building setback of 1.5 metres is required based on the formula specified under this Standard. Council officers note, however, that the existing dwelling on the adjoining property to the east at No. 49 Sarzana Street is well situated away from the shared property boundary of the subject site. As such, any visual impact as a result of the proposed first floor setback of the proposed development from this property boundary should be negligible.

13.17 Accordingly, a minor variation to this Standard is considered reasonable in this

instance.

Clause 55.05 – On-Site Amenity Impacts Standard B23 – Internal Views

13.18 The objective of this Standard is “to limit views into the secluded private open space

and habitable room windows of dwellings and residential buildings within a development”.

13.19 The submitted plans omit details of any internal visual screening between each of the

proposed front (west) facing upper floor balcony areas associated with Dwelling 2 and Dwelling 3. Accordingly, a condition of any permit issued for the proposed development should require details of the proposed screening to be installed between each respective secluded private open space area.

113.

Standard B27 – Daylight to New Windows

13.20 The objective of this Standard is “to allow adequate daylight into new habitable room windows”.

13.21 The submitted plans show that the south-facing Bedroom 1 and Bedroom 2 windows

of Dwelling 7would not be provided with a 1.0 metre clearance to the sky. Under this Standard, a new habitable room window is to be provided with at least 1.0 metre clear access to the sky to allow adequate access to daylight.

13.22 Council officers consider that the overhanging eave which projects over the

respective windows should be deleted on any approved plans for the proposal to ensure that adequate access to daylight is afforded to the respective of Dwelling 1. This could be satisfactorily addressed through the inclusion of a suitable condition of any permit issued for the proposed development.

Standard B28 – Private Open Space

13.23 The objective of this Standard is “to provide adequate private open space for the

reasonable recreation and service needs of residents”. 13.24 It is noted that the secluded private open space areas for Dwellings 1, 2 and 3 would

be wholly located within the front setback of each dwelling and located directly adjacent to the site’s Warrigal Road frontage. Under this Standard, the secluded private open space area of each dwelling should be located to the side or rear and accessed from the main living area. Whilst the location of the respective secluded private open space areas is not ideal, the submitted plans show that the front fencing nominated along the site’s Warrigal Road frontage would be 1.8 metres to ensure visual privacy from passing pedestrian and vehicular traffic.

13.25 Council officers consider that a variation to this Standard is warranted in this instance

given that the dimension and area of the proposed secluded private open space area for Dwellings 1, 2 and 3 would allow sufficient space for the recreation and service needs of the likely residents. Furthermore, each of the respective secluded private open space areas would feature good northern solar access in this instance.

13.26 It is considered that the proposed development generally complies and satisfies the

State and Local Planning Policy Framework guidelines which aim to encourage well-designed medium density housing in appropriate locations.

14.0 RESPONSE TO GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS 14.1 The objector concerns have largely been addressed in the attached Appendix A and,

where necessary, further elaborated on in the assessment above. 15.0 CONCLUSION: 15.1 The proposed development is considered appropriate for the Site, subject to

conditions, as evidenced by:

The compatibility of the design and siting with the surrounding area; The mitigation of off-site amenity impacts; and

114.

A suitable level of compliance with all relevant policies, including Clause 55 of the Kingston Planning Scheme

115.

APPENDIX A – RESCODE ASSESSMENT Standard of the Kingston Planning Scheme Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings (Clause 55 and Schedule to the Residential 3 Zone)



B1 Neighbourhood Character Design respects existing neighbourhood character or contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character. Development responds to features of the site and surrounding area.

Yes The proposed development is considered to be generally site responsive and consistent with the evolving character of the area. The subject site is generally consistent with the “major characteristics” identified within Profile Area No. 14 under Council’s Neighbourhood Character Guidelines (2003).

B2 Residential Policy Residential development is consistent with housing policies in the SPPF, LPPF including the MSS and local planning policies. Support medium densities in areas to take advantage of public transport and community infrastructure and services.

No The proposal is considered to be generally consistent with all relevant sections of the SPPF, LPPF (including Council’s MSS) and local planning policies, namely Council’s Residential Development Policy under Clause 22.11 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, with the exception of the average lot size calculated for Area 2. See Section 13 of this report for further discussion.

B3 Dwelling Diversity Encourages a range of dwelling sizes and types in developments of ten or more dwellings.

N/A


Yes It is recommended that suitable conditions be included in any permit issued to address infrastructure considerations.


No See Section 13 of this report for further discussion.


Yes Required: 2.471 metres Proposed: 3.105 metres

B7 Building Height Yes Maximum: 9.0 metres

116.



Building height should respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character.

Proposed: 7.14 metres


Yes Maximum: 50% Proposed: 46.6%


Yes At least: 20% Proposed:39%

B10 Energy Efficiency Achieve and protect energy efficient dwellings and residential buildings. Ensure orientation and layout reduces fossil fuel energy use and makes appropriate use of daylight and solar energy.

Yes The subject land features an east/west orientation with good solar access opportunities from the secluded private open space and main living areas.

B11 Open Space Integrate layout of development with any public and communal open space provided in or adjacent to the development.

N/A


Yes The entry area for each dwelling would ensure that it would be easily identifiable from the street frontages or along the proposed common driveway.

B13 Landscaping To provide appropriate landscaping. To encourage: Development that respects the landscape

character of the neighbourhood.



Yes No additional permit conditions regarding landscaping of the development site are required in this instance.

B14 Access Ensure the safe, manageable and convenient vehicle access to and from the development. Ensure the number and design of vehicle crossovers respects neighbourhood character.

Yes Two (2) new, single crossovers would be constructed adjacent to the site’s Sarzana Street frontage. The existing single crossover located at the site’s Warrigal Road frontage would be retained but not used.

B15 Parking Location Provide resident and visitor vehicles with convenient parking.


117.



Avoid parking and traffic difficulties in the development and the neighbourhood. Protect residents from vehicular noise within developments. B17 Side and Rear Setbacks Ensure the height and setback respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the amenity impacts on existing dwellings.

No Ground Floor North Required: 3.0m Proposed: 3.0m East Required: 1.0m Proposed 1.0m South Required: 1.0m Proposed 1.13m West Required: 3.0m Proposed: 5.52m See Section 13 of this report

First Floor North Required: 1.54m Proposed: 4.098m East Required: 1.54m Proposed 1.414m South Required: 1.54m Proposed 3.26m West Required: 1.54m Proposed: 5.582m

B18 Walls on Boundaries Ensure the location, length and height of a wall on a boundary respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the amenity impacts on existing dwellings.

Yes Maximum: 10 metres plus 25% of the remaining length on any property boundary. Proposed: The proposed wall to be constructed along the site’s east (side) property boundary would result in a total length of 6.7 metres, at a maximum average wall height of 3.0 metres above natural ground level.

118.




Yes Existing habitable room windows opposite the subject site have a light court with a minimum area of 3 square metres and minimum dimension of 1 metre clear to the sky.


Yes All existing north-facing habitable room windows would be located more than 3.0 metres from any wall height greater than 3.0 metres associated with the proposed development.


Yes The majority of shadow to be generated by the proposed dwelling would fall within the development site itself, mainly to the south.

B22 Overlooking Limit views into existing secluded private open space and habitable room windows.

Yes Based on the notations provided on the site layout plans for the upper floor level for the proposed dwellings, all HRW’s located within 9.0 metres of an existing HRW or SPOS area would be screened to a minimum height of 1700mm above the first floor finished floor level.

B23 Internal Views Limit views into existing secluded private open space and habitable room windows of dwellings and residential buildings within the same development.


B24 Noise Impacts Protect residents from external noise and contain noise sources in developments that may affect existing dwellings.

Yes No unreasonable noise is expected to be generated by the development.


Yes The development contains single storey dwellings that could be readily modified for persons with limited mobility.

119.




Yes The entry area for each dwelling would ensure that it would be easily identifiable from the street frontages or along the proposed common driveway.



B28 Private Open Space Provide reasonable recreation and service needs of residents by adequate private open space. Note: The Schedule to the Residential 3 Zone includes a variation to this standard

No An area of 40m2, with one part of the POS to consist of secluded POS at the side or rear of the dwelling or residential building with a minimum area of 40m2, a minimum dimension of 5.0m and convenient access from a living room. If a dwelling has more than 2 bedrooms an additional ground level POS area of 20m2 with a minimum width of 3m is required to be provided for each additional bedroom, with a maximum of 80m2 of POS required for the dwelling. Proposed: The SPOS area for Dwellings 1, 2 and 3 would be located within the front setback areas and not directly accessible from the main living areas. See Section 13 of the report for further discussion.


Yes The minimum setbacks have been achieved in each instance, particularly for the secluded private open space area of Dwelling 4 and Dwelling 5.


Yes Complies. A 6m3 storage area is proposed within private open space area designated for each dwelling.

120.




Yes The proposed development is consistent with the evolving nature of the surrounding residential area. The design and siting of the proposal ensures that the development should not adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding properties. It is noted that the proposed double-storey dwellings would incorporate good physical separation between each other and existing dwellings on the adjoining properties to the south at No. 170 Warrigal Road and No. 49 Sarzana Street to the east.

B32 Front Fences Encourage front fence design that respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character. Note: The Schedule to the Residential 3 Zone includes a variation to this standard

Yes A new 1.8 metre high front fence would be constructed along the site’s Warrigal Road frontage whilst a 1.2 metre high front fence would be constructed along the site’s Sarzana Street frontage.

B33 Common Property Ensure car parking, access areas and other communal open space is practical, attractive and easily maintained. Avoid future management difficulties in common ownership areas.

Yes No future body corporate management issues are likely as a result of the design and layout of the proposed development.

B34 Site Services Ensure site services and facilities can be installed and easily maintained and are accessible, adequate and attractive. Avoid future management difficulties in common ownership areas.

Yes A clothes line, mail box and a water tank is nominated for each of the proposed dwellings.

121.


23 July 2012

Agenda Item No: O 116

KINGSTON SPORT AND RECREATION REFERENCE GROUP – APPOINTMENT OF COMMUNITY MEMBER Contact Officer: Troy Lyons – Sport and Recreation Development Co-ordinator

Purpose of Report

This report seeks Council endorsement of a community member to fill a casual vacancy on the Kingston Sport and Recreation Reference Group following a member resignation.



Recommendation

Officers recommend that Council: 1. Endorse the appointment of Lorraine Morgan AM as a community member on the Kingston Sport and Recreation Reference Group.

1. Executive Summary

Following a resignation from the Kingston Sport and Recreation Reference Group an expression of interest process was undertaken to fill the vacancy. A total of eight eligible nominations were received and following an assessment process, Council officers are seeking Council endorsement of the recommended applicant.

2. Background

The Kingston Sport and Recreation Reference Group was established by Council in November 2011 with an initial intake of eight community members. In May 2012 following the resignation of a community member due to family / time commitments, it was determined that an expression of interest process would be undertaken to fill the vacancy. This process was selected in order of being as transparent as possible and attracting a quality caliber of applicants. All community members of the group are required to be endorsed by Council as outlined in its Terms of Reference.

3. Discussion

3.1. Council Plan Alignment Planned Outcome 3 – Healthy, Strong and Connected Communities Strategy 3.2 – Strong, cohesive and engaged communities. The appointment of community representatives to the Kingston Sport and Recreation Reference Group is consistent with Council’s aims for connected and engaged communities.

122.

3.2. Consultation/Internal Review Expressions of interest were called for in June 2012 with promotion of the opportunity through a media release, adverts in local papers, the Kingston website and direct mailouts to sport and recreation organisations in Kingston. At the end of the EOI period, Council had received eight eligible nominations. An assessment by officers against the selection criteria contained within the Terms of Reference was conducted. Officers were looking for a demonstration of individual commitment, an indication of fit with the existing group dynamics, and a diverse range of experience to contribute to the group.

3.3. Operation and Strategic Issues

3.3.1. Diversity of Reference group members During the initial formation of the group the issue of maintaining a diverse and representative membership of community members was raised. As with all Council committees, this appointment process sought to engage with the broadest possible range of potential applicants during the nomination process. This appointment will assist with addressing a current gender imbalance in the group, better reflecting the diversity of sport and recreation participants within Kingston.

3.4. Options 3.4.1. Option 1

Endorse the appointment of Lorraine Morgan AM as a community member of the Kingston Sport and Recreation Reference Group

3.4.2. Option 2

Endorse another applicant from the Expression of Interest Process

4. Conclusion

Following assessment of the expressions of interest, Council officers believe that Option1 will provide the best outcome for the reference group and the sport and recreation community in Kingston. Lorraine Morgan brings a wealth of experience in community and elite sport as an administrator and volunteer combined with a long term association with Kingston. 4.1. Environmental Implications

There are no environmental implications arising out of this report.

4.2. Social Implications Endorsement of community representatives for the Kingston Sport and Recreation Reference Group demonstrates an effective and concentrated action by Council to engage with community on strategic sport and recreation issues.

4.3. Resource Implications There are no resource implications arising out of this report.

4.4. Legal / Risk Implications

There are no legal / risk implications arising out of this report.

123.

5. Confidential Appendices

5.1. Appendix 1 – Expression of Interest – Assessment Matrix (TRIM 12/68526) 5.2 Appendix 2 – Curriculum Vitae – Lorraine Morgan AM (TRIM 12/68526)

Author/s: Troy Lyons – Sport and Recreation Development Co-ordinator Reviewed and Approved By: Rachel Hornsby – General Manager Environmental Sustainability

124.


23 July 2012

Agenda Item No: 117

COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM 2012-2013 - PERCEIVED CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT GRANT

Contact Officer: Mauro Bolin, General Manager Community Sustainability

Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is endorse a recommendation for funding for an application received from the son of an employee of Kingston Council under the Individual Development Grants Program 2012-2013.


Assessing officers Dominic McCann and Catherine McGarry have no direct conflict of interest other than knowing that the mother of the applicant works at Kingston Council.

Recommendation

Officers recommend that Council:

Endorse the Individual Development Grant application from Hayden Ross for $300 to compete in the Australian National Schools Swimming Championships.

1. Executive Summary There are a high proportion of Kingston Council staff members who are also residents of the City of Kingston, resulting in a high likelihood that Individual Development grant applicants may have a close association with Council. This application has been received from the son of one of Council’s employees. To ensure a transparent process and to address any real or perceived conflict of interest and to follow Council guidelines, this application to the Individual Development Grants program is therefore presented to Council for approval. 2. Background The City of Kingston’s Individual Development grants are offered to individuals in the areas of arts & culture, sports & recreation, academic achievement and environmental or humanitarian initiatives. In the 2012-2013 funding period 8 applications have already been received with 1 being successful and the remaining 7 still being processed.

Hayden Ross’s application is for $300 to compete at the Australian National School Swimming Championships in Sydney. (Hayden is a health care card holder and therefore entitled to a 20% addition to the grant amount of $250).

125.

The application may have a real or perceived conflict of interest as Hayden’s mother Donna Ross is currently employed as a Library Customer Service Officer with Library and Educational Services at Council. In this case the application has been assessed by the Community Grants and Networks Officer, the Co-ordinator Community Wellbeing and Team Leader of Community Engagement. and meets the Individual Development Grants’ criteria in the Sport and Recreation category as follows:

Criteria Compliant Comments

Permanent resident of Kingston Resident of Dingley

Emerging sportsperson Performing in swimming competitions at a high standard.

Participating as an individual or as part of a team or group in the development activity

Member of Bayside Swimming Club.

Able to demonstrate a record of achievement and practice in their field of pursuit

Victorian State School Swimming - State Finals - 50m Backstroke – Swimming with a Disability

(SWD) - 1st Place 13-15 year old boys - 50m Freestyle - Swimming with a Disability

(SWD) - 1st Place 13-15 year old boys Selected to represent Victoria 50m freestyle/backstroke, 200m freestyle/

backstroke & medley relays. Swimming with a Disability (SWD) 13-15 year old boys.

Performing at the National Championships in Sydney

State School National Championships

3. Discussion

3.1. Council Plan Alignment

This report relates to the Council Plan 2009-2012 Planned Outcome 3 – Healthy, Strong and Connected Communities and in particular Strategy 3.2 – Promoting strong, cohesive and engaged communities.

3.2. Consultation/Internal Review

The application has been assessed for eligibility at officer level against the guidelines and discussed with Co-ordinator of Community Wellbeing and Team Leader of Community Engagement. The application meets the Individual Development Grants criteria. Assessing officers have declared no conflict of interest and the applicant is a son of a member of staff.

126.


3.3.1. Transparency

Funding disbursed to the families of Council staff may be perceived by rate payers as a conflict of interest. It is important that assessment processes are clear and transparent and that there is no opportunity for any real or perceived conflicts of interests. Likelihood of any conflict should be minimal because of the rigorous and transparent process that has been adopted.

3.4. Options

3.4.1 Recommended That Council endorses the recommendation for funding for the application as presented.

3.4.2 Alternative That Council does not endorse the recommendation for funding for the application as presented.

4. Conclusion

4.1. Environmental Implications None relevant to this matter.

4.2. Social Implications

The Individual Development Grant demonstrates Council’s support and commitment to its stated values and to individual growth and development in the areas of the arts & culture, sport & recreation, humanitarian, environmental endeavours.

4.3. Resource Implications

The 2012-2013 Council budget has an allocation of $24,696 for the Individual Development Grants component of the Community Grants Program. This grant application of $300 can be accommodated within the existing budget.


By applying this transparent approval process, any potential risk implications associated with this being a real or perceived conflict of interest are adequately addressed.

5. Appendices

5.1. Appendix 1 – Individual Development Grant 2011-2012 Application – Hayden Ross TRIM No: 12/67639

5.2. Appendix 2 - Individual Grants Guidelines – TRIM NO: 11/99927

Author/s: Dominic McCann Co-ordinator Community Wellbeing

Catherine McGarry Community Grants and Network Officer

Reviewed and Approved By: Mauro Bolin General Manager Community Sustainability

127.

Ordinary Council

23 July 2012


CONTRACT 12/24 CHELSEA ACTIVITY HUB BUILDING PROJECT - TENDER ACCEPTANCE Contact Officer: Rob Savoia, Team Leader Capital Projects - Community Buildings _____

Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval to award Contract 12/24 – Chelsea Activity Hub Building Project to the recommended tenderer from the tender submissions received from builders on Council’s Approved Builders Panel.



Recommendation

Officers recommend that Council

1. Award Contract 12/24 Chelsea Activity Hub Building Project for the fixed lump sum of $1,110,057.53 (exclusive of GST) to Cellstruct Industries Pty Ltd.

2. Agrees to reallocation of $375,000 within the 2012/13 capital works program including a contingency allowance of $35,000 to address unforeseen construction issues, which may arise during the implementation of the works.


Council at its meeting of 28 November, 2011 endorsed the project and funding to undertake alterations to the Chelsea Senior Citizens Building to improve and increase its utilisation from solely senior citizens activities to a more multi functional community centre. Through the ‘re-vitalisation’ of this building it will be rebadged as the “Chelsea Activity Hub”. Plans of the new building are underpinned by consultation with the Chelsea Senior Citizens Club, Chelsea Renewal Program, the 3rd Chelsea Air Scouts and local neighbourhood. Tenders have recently been sought from Council’s Builders Panel and Officers have now completed the tender evaluation process. This report seeks Council approval of the tender evaluation panel’s recommended Contractor.

2. Background

The existing Chelsea Activity Hub Building’s amenities and fit out condition have reached a point in its life cycle where it requires a major refurbishment of its amenities and fit out to enable its continued use as a community facility that aligns with modern facility standards and community expectation.

128.

As part of the planning and development of the project, it was also recognised that an opportunity existed to further enhance the building’s capacity and flexibility of use by small extensions to the existing front entrance and rear undeveloped corner of the existing building to accommodate both the relocation of the 3rd Chelsea Air Scouts from their condemned clubrooms on the Chelsea Recreation Reserve and for other potential User Group relocations to an ideal environment that would enable each new occupant facilities that fully meet expectations.

Plans & specifications based on the endorsed scope have been prepared to meet statutory requirements and enable permits to be applied for & for tenders to be sought from Council’s Approved Builders Panel.

3. Operation and Strategic Issues

The initial vision for the building’s upgrade was endorsed by Council at its meeting on 28 November 2011 and a total project budget of $872,500 has been established from a range of Council capital, operational and external grant sources. This funding is sufficient to deliver the original scope of works envisaged at the time, which will provide a basic structure to consolidate a range of users. In progressing more detailed designs through consultation with current and potential building users, it has become apparent, that whilst the original scope of works facilitated a positive level of asset improvement, there was significant further potential to enhance the facility and to better meet the needs of all potential users. The identified improvements via extensions to the existing building footprint, the provision of a new climate control system, the creation of a more prominent entrance to the building, the expansion of the kitchen to enable the “Good Living Program” to be conducted from the Hub enhances the facility to an ideal level that responds to user need and meets modern standards. To achieve the enhanced project scope requires additional funding of $375,000 and this can be managed within existing resources given the need to delay another Capital Project due to Grant submission timelines. These circumstances provide the opportunity to reallocate capital funds to offset the $375,000 funding shortfall to deliver the enhanced scope for the Chelsea Activity Hub project without impacting delivery of the overall program. This would bring the total available budget to $1,242,500 from which $97,500 has been expended or committed to produce tender documentation and for permits thus leaving $1,145,000 available for construction inclusive of a contingency allowance of $35,000. The scope as proposed will include a range of storage options to ensure users of the facility are able to operate effectively.

4. Discussion


Planned Outcome 1 – Infrastructure for a Safe and Active Community Strategy 1.3 – Quality community facilities that are accessible, safe and well utilised.

Having acknowledged that the existing Chelsea Senior Citizens building no longer provides the

amenity required for a community building, the alterations & additions to the Chelsea Activity Hub will provide a redeveloped community facility with accessibility and functionality improvements for a range of intergenerational activities.

129.

Planned Outcome 3 – Healthy, Strong and Connected Communities

Strategy 3.1.2 – Promote the health, wellbeing and independence of older adults, people with disabilities and their Carers by implementing the ‘Positive Ageing Strategy and Community Care Services. Strategy 3.2.4 – Through a partnership approach, reduce inequity and social disadvantage by developing and implementing specific place based programs from disadvantaged groups within the community (i.e. Chelsea Community Renewal and Clayton Community Strengthening Project). 4.2 Benefits The whole of community will benefit through having access to a facility which in the past has provided limited access and which has reached a stage in its lifecycle where it no longer provides the optimum infrastructure & amenity required by the community. The redeveloped facility will:

Provide community groups and organisations with access to a multi-purpose inviting & functional facility

Provide opportunities for intergenerational engagement to take place Provide opportunities for service providers to carry out targeted programs – parenting

support, dementia, community kitchen, cooking, etc Promote and develop the range of activities which in turn will increase attendances Provide a space which will facilitate social and active health activities – dance, exercise

classes, etc Provide opportunities for increasing the kitchen’s use such as community cooking

classes Enhance community residents with a disability to have access to accessible toilet

facilities Provide increased opportunities for senior grandparents to host activities for their

grandchildren in an environment with their peers, where they feel safe and comfortable Provide increased opportunities for community groups to host key community events at

this facility Provide increased opportunities for co-location of groups

4.3 Consultation/Internal Review

The project scope and plans have been developed in consultation with the Chelsea Community Renewal Team, Chelsea Senior Citizens Committee, the 3rd Chelsea Air Scouts and the neighboring community. The developed concepts showing the enhanced project scope were presented to the community via an Information Session held on 11th April, 2012. Feedback from the community was supportive of the proposed upgrade and the projected multi community usage.

4.4 Tender Evaluation

Tenders for Contract 12/24 Chelsea Activity Hub Alterations & Additions Project were invited from Council’s approved category 2 & 3 Builders Panel and at the close of tenders at 2.00pm on Thursday the 3rd May, 2012, the tenders as indicated in the table below were received based on providing the scope enhancement Activity Hub to best deliver the objectives of the Council Plan as reported above.

130.

The Tender Evaluation Panel (TEP) comprised the following Officers: Rob Savoia Community Buildings Team Leader Capital Projects Belinda McDaid Chelsea Community Renewal Project Manager Callum Pattie Community Development Officer Facilities & Partnerships

The criteria used to evaluate the submissions received ranked in order to importance were:

(i) Tender Price (ii) Performance on their past & most recent projects (iii) Ability to deliver the project within required timescales

(iv) Proposed site organisation and capacity to deliver the project and in accordance with

Council’s operational standards & requirements

(v) Compliance with Council’s OH&S requirements (assessed via IproLive)

(vi) Compliance with Council’s Environmental requirements (assessed via IproLive)

Tenders received from Builders Panel (in alphabetical order)

C.A Property Group Pty Ltd

Cellstruct Industries Pty Ltd

CCAPL Pty Ltd (Cornerstone)

Ducon Pty Ltd

SJ Higgins Pty Ltd

Tender Amount submitted at close

lowest to highest

(excl GST)

$1,110,057.53

$1,154,154.00

$1,229,533.00

$1,273,000.00

$1,399,852.00

The lowest two Tenderers were invited for an interview with the TEP where a range of points were discussed to establish their understanding of the scope documented and that their submitted price accounted for the scope.

131.

The tender submission from Cellstruct Industries Pty Ltd was shortlisted by the TEP as the most favorable as they have demonstrated that they have the necessary resourcing to deliver the project at the best value to Council.

5 Conclusion

The tenders received for the Chelsea Activity Hub have been evaluated and a recommendation is being made to Council to appoint a Builder to undertake the alterations & additions to the facility, commencing in August 2012 with the project duration estimated to take seven months with completion in March 2013.

5.1 Environmental Implications

The design and commissioning of any improvement works will take account of the need for reduction of the Council’s impact on the environment.

The project scope has also incorporated enhanced environmental initiatives to install solar panels and a rainwater collection system to reduce potable water consumption for toilet flushing together with a statutory requirement of upgrading the water supply for firefighting purposes.

5.2 Social Implications

The Chelsea Activity Hub provides much needed social and recreational community facilities for the Chelsea/Bonbeach Seniors Community. The upgraded facility will enable increased utilisation across a multi-generational mix.

5.3 Resource Implications

This alterations & additions component is to be funded by Council through the Capital Works Program and State Governments DHS grant towards the Chelsea Community Renewal Program. The operation of the centre will initially be managed through Chelsea Community Renewal program which is funded until June 2013, thus providing an opportunity to establish a sustainable model of operation for future use. The identified funding shortfall to achieve the objectives of the project can be derived from the 2012/13 Capital works program from the deferred projects linked for funding submissions in late 2012/2013 financial year.

5.4 Legal / Risk Implications

The existing Chelsea Senior Citizen’s Club Inc has been wound up and can no longer operate as a Club from the facility. In order for the facility to optimise is functionality for the Community a Council sponsored & operated facility needs to be established.

6 Appendices

Appendix A – Confidential Attachment - Contract 12/24 Chelsea Activity Hub Alterations & Additions Building Project – Detailed Contractor Assessment Matrix

Author/s: Rob Savoia Community Buildings Team Leader Capital Projects

Belinda McDaid Chelsea Community Renewal Project Manager Callum Pattie Community Development Officer Facilities & Partnerships

Reviewed and Approved By: Mauro Bolin, General Manager Community Sustainability

132.


23rd July 2012


CONTRACT 12/11 – SUPPLY OF LIBRARY BOOKS, AV MEDIA, PERIODICALS, SUBSCRIPTIONS AND RELATED SERVICES Contact Officer: Trish Smyth, Manager Libraries and Education

Purpose of Report

This report details the process and outcomes of the Tender for the supply of Library Books, AV Media, Periodicals, Subscriptions and Related Services and seeks approval to enter into agreements with the best value tenderers.



Recommendation


1. accept the tenders from the suppliers listed for selection in the attached Tender Assessment Report for the supply of Library Books, AV Media, Periodicals, Subscriptions and Related Services for a period of three (3) years, with an option to extend for a further two (2) x one (1) year periods. The estimated value of the services over the 3 year period is $2,475,000.

2. authorize the Chief Executive Officer or delegate to execute sub-agreements with the recommended tenderers under the terms of the Procurement Australia Master Agreement.

3. authorize the Chief Executive Officer or delegate, subject to satisfactory performance of the suppliers, to exercise the option(s) to extend the contract for a further two (2) x one (1) years.


This report recommends that the tenders from a number of suppliers be accepted to form a panel of contractors within each category. The establishment of 9 panels of suppliers, over potentially 5 years, will ensure Council has access to the full range of material required, together with the flexibility to select the supplier representing the best value for money for a particular item.

133.

2. Background

Council has an ongoing requirement for Library Books, AV Media, Periodicals, Subscriptions and Related Services for its libraries to ensure currency of the library collection. Council’s expenditure on these items is approximately $824,000 for this financial year. A previous tender for Library resources supply had been let for the period 31st July 2010 to 31st July 2012. This tender was structured similarly with a panel of suppliers. This tender has assisted Council to maintain the supply of library resources at the same level despite rising costs, obtain better value for expenditure, as well as providing guaranteed turnaround times for supply to the community. Procurement Australia Tender no. 1504/0826 Library Books, AV Media, Periodicals, Subscriptions and Related Services was advertised in the Herald Sun newspaper on Wednesday 22nd February 2012, original tender closing date was Wednesday 14th March 2012; this was extended to Monday 19th March 2012. Procurement Australia has noted that this tender is the largest of its kind, by virtue of the number of organisations participating (30 in Victoria and 3 State Members NSW, SA and Victoria), and the value of the total contract over 5 years which is approximately $70 million. The attached Tender Assessment Report provides details of the action taken and outcomes achieved through the invitation of public tenders by Procurement Australia, as Council’s agent for this requirement. The expertise of all 29 other municipalities and Procurement Australia has been leveraged in the pre-tender development of specifications. Kingston staff participated fully in all aspects of the Tender development and assessment. The use of Procurement Australia as tendering agent has provided Kingston with access to the discounts available to a consortium of 30 members. Examples of improved discounts obtained include a major English Language supplier improving the discount from 25% to 30% off Retail Recommended Price, and another supplier of e-books entirely eliminating a set up fee of up to $24,000.The emphasis on Corporate Responsibility has resulted in Suppliers making improvements such as recycling cardboard boxes and other local suppliers not using cardboard boxes at all, but re-usable plastic containers. There has been a diversity and breadth in tenders received from 87 suppliers, the Tendering process has provided even greater variety, some new suppliers and existing suppliers have had to even further sharpen their focus. Procurement Australia has provided expertise and experience from 3 previous Tender rounds in this specialized field.

3. Discussion


Planned Outcome 3 – Healthy, Strong and Connected Communities Strategy 3.3.1 Through local libraries create safe, accessible and enticing spaces

that: Facilitate access to sound knowledge and information. This tender will ensure efficient supply of Library books and other resources which

provide access to sound knowledge and information.

134.

Planned Outcome 5 – Community Inspired Leaders Strategy 5.3.1 Continue to participate in cross-municipal resource sharing forums and negotiations This tender across 30 Victorian municipal library services has maximized the economies of scale and service.


Council’s Library and Education Services staff have been fully involved in all aspects of the procurement process including the determination of Council’s requirements and membership of the tender assessment panel.


Total Council expenditure on Library Books, AV Media, Periodicals, Subscriptions and Related Service exceeds the Public Tender threshold nominated in s.186 of the Local Government Act 1989. By appointing Procurement Australia as its agent and the subsequent public tender action undertaken, Council is fully compliant with the Act in this regard.

3.4. Options

The preferred option is to proceed with the tenders for each category as nominated in the Tender Assessment Report. Council’s entire requirements could in theory be supplied by a single supplier in each category, however previous experience has shown that a single supplier would struggle to supply a large number of libraries at the same time and would not stock the full range of materials required, resulting in delays and undermining value for money, and not supplying the full range of materials required by the community. The ability to choose from a panel of contractors should ensure that a full range of materials is readily available at reasonable prices to meet the ongoing needs of Council’s Library and Education Service. One additional supplier has been selected to provide for specific needs, in each of Category 1 English Printed Material to provide children specific resources; Category 2 LOTE Printed Material to provide coverage for all languages we require in all formats; and Category 4 Periodicals, Subscriptions and Magazines to provide periodicals at cost, quickly and locally.

4. Conclusion

4.1. Environmental Implications

Environmental impacts have been fully considered in the tender process.


Acceptance of the panel of tenderers will guarantee the continual supply of new material into Council’s library stock to the benefit of all users of the libraries. Non-price related criteria (worth 60%) has been fully considered including corporate and social responsibility.

135.


By aggregating Council’s library requirements for stock with the 29 other Victorian municipal libraries under the Procurement Australia process, Council will receive at least the same and/or better discounts of retail prices than has been previously obtained.


The probity of the process has been reviewed and approved by Caroline Reidy, Acting Manager Procurement and Contracts.

5. Appendices

5.1. Appendix 1: 12/66728 - Tender Assessment Report - CONFIDENTIAL

5.2. Appendix 2: 12/66729 - Weighted Aggregate Scores Summary – CONFIDENTIAL

5.3. Appendix 3: 12/66731 - Scoring Methodology – CONFIDENTIAL

5.4. Appendix 4: 12/66732 - Tender Recommendation – CONFIDENTIAL

Author : Trish Smyth, Manager Libraries and Education

Reviewed and Approved By: Mauro Bolin, General Manager Community Sustainability

136.


23 July 2012


2012-2013 COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM - FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TRIENNIAL, VILLAGE COMMITTEE AND CITY WIDE GRANT ALLOCATIONS Contact Officer: Mauro Bolin, General Manager Community Sustainability

Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to present the recommended funding allocations for the 2012-2013 Community Grants Program to Council and to seek approval for the distribution of the funding from the 2012-2013 budget. The recommendations specifically relate to the funding streams of Triennial Grants, Village Committee Grants and City Wide Grants.


No Council officer/s and/or contractor/s who have provided advice in relation to this report have declared a conflict of interest regarding the matter under consideration.

Recommendation


1. Endorse the Triennial, Village Committee and City Wide funding allocations as recommended as per appendices 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

2. Endorse the funding allocation of $10,000 to Bayside Community Care.

3. Endorse officers to seek further information from Moorabbin Brass Band regarding their grant application prior to making a recommendation.

4. Endorse the allocation of $5,000 from available unexpended Community Grants’ funds to the Individual Grants' Program.


The 2012-2013 Triennial Grants, Village Committee and City Wide Community Grants Program attracted 74 Citywide and 114 Village Committee applications. 23 Triennial grants’ contracts expired in 2011-2012 and 22 applications for these grants were received before the closing date. One application, mentioned below, was received after the closing date. There are 12 remaining Triennial grants commitments which are rolling over into their third and final year in 2012-2013.

Appendices 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 provide full details of the assessment of the 2012-2013 Triennial, Village Committee, and City Wide grants applications.

137.

An application from Bayside Community Care for funding was received after the Community Grants’ closing date on 13 April 2012. The application had been commenced prior to the closing date but was not submitted until 18 April 2012. An application from Moorabbin Brass Band for triennial funding was also received after the Triennial Grants’ closing date and was not submitted until 15 June 2012. 1.1 Budget Summary As part of its recent budget deliberations, Council has allocated $1,236,803.66 in funding to the 2012-2013 Community Grants budget. The following table summarises the financial details specifically for the 2012-2013 Triennial, Village Committee, City-wide, Individual, Access and Equity and School Development grants:

Category 2012/2013

Requested $ 2012/2013 Budget $

2012/2013 Recommended Allocation $

Comments

Aspendale Village Committee

24,957.16 26,176.00 26,176.00 All applications fully funded – 2 applications received more funding ($609.42 each) than requested at the discretion of the Village Committee.

Chelsea Village Committee

48,586.72 23,649.00 18,649.00 $5,000 unexpended. 1 application withdrawn. 1 application referred to Citywide grants, 1 application not recommended – were not able to fully fund program. 1 application (Chelsea Senior Citizens Centre Inc) initially recommended for $5000 but not now recommended as club has disbanded.

Clarinda/ Oakleigh/Clayton South Village Committee

57,096.00 31,825.00 31,825.00 Fully expended. Not all applications were fully funded due to budget limitations.

Cheltenham Village Committee

21,517.31 23,455.00 21,517.31 $1,937.69 unexpended. Amounts requested were lower than budget.

Dingley Village Committee

21,416.71 17,725.00 17,716.71 $8.29 unexpended. Not all applications were fully funded due to- budget limitations.

Mentone/Parkdale Village Committee

27,838.00 24,105.00 20,658.00 $3,447 unexpended. 1 application withdrawn. 1 application ineligible. Not all applications fully funded.

Moorabbin Village Committee

15,381.00 11,531.00 10,523.00 $1,008 unexpended. All applications fully funded. 1 application received more funding than requested ($840) at the discretion of the Village Committee. 1 application not eligible. 2 applications not recommended for funding – outside Kingston.

Mordialloc/ Parkdale Village Committee

19,768.00 16,463.00 14,175.00 $2,288 unexpended. Not all applications were fully funded. 1 application not recommended for funding - did not have appropriate planning permits.

Patterson Lakes Village Committee

27,554.00 14,932.00 14,932.00 Not all applications were fully funded due to budget limitations. 2 applications not recommended for funding – 1 group was not incorporated, 1 group was outside Kingston.

Totals - Village Committees

239,157.74 189,861 176,172.02 * $13,688.98 unexpended.

* As per the Village Committees Policy, Village Committees have until 01 May of the relevant financial year to expend any unallocated funds.

138.

Category 2012/2013

Requested $ 2012/2013 Budget $

2012/2013 Recommended Allocation $

Comments

Community Centres/ Neighbourhood Houses - Triennial Agreements

624,740.51 481,700.10 481,700.10 Fully expended.

Organisation - Triennial Agreements

325,560.20 315,542.56 307,847.07 $ 7,695.49 unexpended. 1 application (Moorabbin Brass Band) deferred until further information provided.

Community Event Grants - Triennial Agreements

24,345.00 39,655.00 21,770.00 $17,885 unexpended due to cancellation of Chelsea Flower Show and 1 application not fully funded.

Totals - Triennial Grants

974,645.71 836,897.66 811,317.17 $25,580.49 unexpended.

Individual Development Grants

24,696.00 24,696.00 24,696.00 Applications are submitted on a needs basis throughout the year. Requests often exceed available funding pool.

Ongoing applications - fully expended.

School Development Grants

8,196.00 8,196.00 8,196.00 Will be distributed at the end of the calendar year. Fully expended.

City Wide Grants 261,532.28 134,926.00 141,793.00 Fully expended with significant demand driving additional allocations.

Supplementary Grants

0

20,691.00 To be determined

Supplementary Grants are set aside for unusual/unexpected applications.

Access and Equity 21,536.00 21,536.00 21,536.00 Fully expended.

Totals 1,529,763.60 1,236,803.66 1,183,710.10

2. Background

Council offers a range of opportunities for groups and individuals that service the municipality of Kingston to apply for financial assistance by way of a Community Grant. Grants are primarily offered to:

Enable not-for-profit organisations to deliver services, programs, special events and other activities to the community, which would not otherwise be provided; and

Enable the community to participate in a broader range of activities than those directly funded by Council, through full or partial funding of costs.

Six funding streams are supported through the Community Grants Program: Triennial Grants, Village Committee Grants, City Wide Grants, Individual Development Grants, Schools Development Grants and Access and Equity Grants. The recommendations in this report relate only to the allocation of funding for Triennial Agreements, Village Committee Grants and City Wide Grants; the other grant types will be considered at different times throughout the year.

2.1 Process

Applications for the 2012-2013 Community Grants program were open from 6 February 2012 until 13 April 2012. The Community Grants funding opportunity was promoted through:

Kingston Your City;

Council’s website;

Mail out to organisations that expressed a wish to be on a mailing list;

A public notice in local newspapers;

Council’s telephone on-hold message;

Distribution of flyers;

Placement of Community Grants Kits at Kingston Customer Service locations and Kingston libraries; and

139.

Handouts at major events and activities.

Four information sessions for potential applicants were held across the municipality, with a total of 70 people attending. A further two information sessions were held on request where representatives of 14 groups attended. The sessions provided information about the guidelines and the application process. Council introduced an ‘on-line’ process this year which has improved the application process for many applicants. For those applicants who had no access to the internet, hard copy applications were still accepted and were entered electronically by the Community Grants and Network Officer. Individual “help sessions” were also offered to all applicants, particularly those who had difficulties with the on-line application and six took up this opportunity for one-on-one support. Many groups received support either through telephone discussion or in person. A total of 210 applications were received. 180 of these were submitted through the new on-line process. The remaining 30 were submitted as hard copies. All applications were registered and reviewed by Council officers to ensure that they complied with the funding guidelines and where applicable, applicants were provided with an opportunity to supply further information.

3. Discussion

3.1. Council Plan Alignment Community Grants enable the provision of funds to enhance opportunities for groups and individuals to provide strong, cohesive and engaged communities under Planned Outcome 3 - Healthy, Strong and Connected Communities; Strategy 3.2 – Promoting Strong, cohesive and engaged communities.


3.1.1 Village Committee Applications

Council Officers met with each of the Villages Committees and provided an overview of the grants application and assessment process, conflicts of interest and transparency requirements, and the need to form assessment sub-committees. Each Village Committee nominated representatives to form a Grants Sub-Committee. It was the responsibility of these Sub-Committees to assess the grant applications and present recommendations to their respective Village Committees for consideration and approval. To assist the Sub-Committees, an information session was held to discuss in detail the assessment process, conflicts of interest requirements, any grants policy queries, and distribute relevant applications. Council officers supported each Village Committee to implement strict procedures to deal transparently with any potential or real conflict of interest issues that might arise. Council officers also supported the sub-committees throughout the assessment process, responding to queries and providing further information as required. At the May and June meetings of the Village Committees, conflicts of interest were declared and recorded as per the table below:

140.

Village Committee Declared Conflicts of Interest

Recorded Left meeting

Aspendale Yes Yes Yes Cheltenham Yes Yes Yes Chelsea Yes Yes Person not at the

meeting Clarinda/Oakleigh/Clayton South

Yes Yes No – did not take part in the decision

Dingley Village None N/A N/A Mentone None N/A N/A Mordialloc None N/A N/A Patterson Lakes None N/A N/A

Moorabbin/Highett Village Committee did not hold a meeting in May or June but discussed the applications informally and submitted their recommendations as required. No-one had a conflict of interest.

3.1.2 Citywide Applications

A cross departmental staff assessment panel was formed and met three times to assess the City Wide Grant applications in accordance with Council’s Grants Policy. The panel comprised:

Acting Team Leader Community Engagement – Susan Heywood Community Grants and Network Officer – Catherine McGarry Co-ordinator Community Wellbeing – Dominic McCann Team Leader Children’s Services Development – Donna Feore Community Development Officer - Yvonne Honey Vegetation Management Assistant – Luke Sturgess Team Leader Environmental Planning – Emily Boucher Community Events Co-ordinator - Joanne Cronin Compliance Coordinator – Kirsten Palfrey Team Leader Youth Services – Jihan Wassef

Contributions were also sought from other departments for particular expert advice as required.


3.3.1. Funds not allocated After assessment of all grant applications, the following funds were unallocated: Village Committee Applications: - $13,688.98 Triennial organisations: - $7,695.49 Triennial Events: - $17,885.00

Total: - $39,269.47

141.

3.3.2. Requests not submitted for assessment

Three applications were withdrawn and three applications did not submit

all of the relevant information. These were ineligible for consideration.

3.3.3. Unsuccessful applications

18 applications were not recommended for funding as they did not meet the community grants’ criteria for various reasons including that they were private enterprises, did not benefit the residents of Kingston or were duplicating work already being undertaken by Council.

3.3.4 Citywide Grants - late application

Bayside Community Care An application for funding from Bayside Community Care was received after the grants’ closing date on 13 April 2012. The application had been commenced prior to the closing date but was not submitted until 18 April 2012. It is against policy to accept late applications. Its application relates to the ‘Matts Place’ initiative. Matt’s Place is a community meals program, serving nutritious hot lunches to disadvantaged members of the Kingston community on Tuesdays (in St Chad’s Anglican Church Hall, Chelsea), and Thursdays (in St Matthew’s Anglican Church Hall, Cheltenham). The program is run by volunteers and is financially supported by individuals, companies and local churches in the City of Kingston, such as St Matthew’s Anglican Church, Open Door Christian Church, St Chad’s Anglican Church, Our Lady of the Assumption, Bayside Church, and Kingston City Church. Each week more than 240 people are served lunch at the Cheltenham and Chelsea sites. There is a volunteer base of close to 100 people and a committee of three that co-ordinates the meals program. This service is assisting members of the Kingston community who are homeless, financially disadvantaged and/or are socially isolated. Many case workers attend Matt's Place in order to connect with those in need and provide social and welfare assistance where required. Matt’s Place works closely with Access Care, Hanover and Centrelink. The total cost of the community meals program is $39,500 and Bayside City Church has requested a grant of $10,000 from Council under the Citywide Grants’ Program. The remaining funds would come from other philanthropic sources ($10,500), local businesses ($4,000) and Bayside Church itself ($15,000). There are insufficient funds in the existing community grants budget to award the Bayside Community Care application. There is however capacity to fund this initiative from unexpended grant funding.

3.3.5 Triennial Grants – late application

Moorabbin Brass Band has been in receipt of a Triennial Grant over the previous three years. It had reached the end of its triennial grant agreement and was invited to submit an application for the next round of triennial funding. Letters and emails were sent to the group. Telephone messages were left on voicemail with the secretary. There was no response. A final email was sent on 31 May 2012. The secretary contacted Council to advise that the band would be submitting an application. An application was eventually received on Monday 18 June 2012. The Moorabbin Brass Band provides an opportunity to come together with a view to sharing, enjoying and developing musical talents and encouraging a

142.

sense of community. Council’s Arts and Cultural Services and Arts and Cultural Development have raised some concerns about Moorabbin Brass Band not attending the Kingston Bands’ Network meetings nor performing in 2011. It is recommended that Council defer a decision on this application until further information can be sought from the group on their plans for 2012-2013 and that acquittal documentation can be obtained.

3.3.6 Individual Development Grants

The Individual Development Grants program provides funding to residents of Kingston in their pursuit of excellence in the areas of sports and recreation, arts and culture, and environmental and humanitarian initiatives. In the financial year 2011-2012 a budget of $24,696 was allocated to this program. However applications to the value of $33,150 were received and therefore some residents did not receive support for their particular endeavours. Applications are received and assessed on an on-going basis throughout the year. Some sporting events are scheduled towards the end of the financial year when the budget has been expended. Procedural changes to the Individual Grants Program are being considered to make access to these funds more equitable throughout the year. Once again there is $24,696 in the budget for the 2012-2013 Individual Grants Program and it is anticipated that more applications than what Council has allocated in funding will be received again this year. Thus, it is recommended that the 2012-2013 budget for the Individual Grants Program is supplemented by $5,000 from the unexpended funds in the Community Grants Program.

3.4 Options

3.4.1 Option 1

(i) That Council endorse the Triennial, Village Committee and City Wide funding allocations as recommended by the Grants Assessment Panel and the Village Committees as per appendices 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

(ii) That Council endorse the funding allocation of $10,000 to Bayside

Community Care as recommended. (iii) That council endorse officers to seek further information from the

Moorabbin Brass Band regarding their grant application prior to making a recommendation regarding this late application.

(iv) That Council endorse the allocation of $5,000 from available

unexpended Community Grants’ funds to the Individual Grants' Program.

143.

3.4.2 Option 2

(i) That Council does not endorse the Triennial, Village Committee and City

Wide funding allocations as recommended by the Grants Assessment Panel and the Village Committees as per appendices 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

(ii) That Council does not endorse the funding allocation of $10,000 to

Bayside Community Care as recommended. (iii) That Council does not endorse the application from Moorabbin

Brass Band. (iv) That Council does not endorse the allocation $5,000 from available

unexpended Community Grants’ funds to the Individual Grants' Program.

4 Conclusion


Environmental issues are dealt with within specific projects and are not directly relevant to this report.


The funding provided to successful applicants demonstrates Council’s commitment to working in partnership with local groups and allows Council to support events, projects, services and/or initiatives that are of benefit to the community that are not being delivered directly by Council.


The 2012/2013 Council Budget has a provision of $1,236,803.66 to fund the Triennial, Village Committee and City Wide Grants program for 2012-2013. The current budget can accommodate the grants distribution to organisations as recommended.

4.4 Legal / Risk Implications

There are no legal implications. All groups that apply for funding are incorporated or are auspiced by an incorporated body and have their own insurances.

5 Appendices

5.1 Appendix 1 - Triennial Grants recommendations - TRIM No: 12/50214 5.2 Appendix 2 - Village Committee recommendations- TRIM No: 12/53190 5.3 Appendix 3 - Citywide Grants recommendations - TRIM No: 12/53193 5.4 Appendix 4 - Applications not recommended for funding - TRIM No: 12/58287 5.5 Appendix 5 - Applications withdrawn or ineligible - TRIM No: 12/65622

Author/s: Dominic McCann Co-ordinator Community Wellbeing

Catherine McGarry Community Grants and Network Officer

Reviewed and Approved By: Mauro Bolin General Manager Community Sustainability

144.


23 July 2012


ISSUE RESOLUTION PROCESS FOR VILLAGE COMMITTEES Contact Officer: Angela Granter

Purpose of Report

To seek Council’s endorsement to an issue resolution process for Village Committees.



Recommendation

That Council:

Adopts the following Village Committee issue resolution process to be incorporated as a separate appendix to the Village Committee Policy: DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE 1. In the event of a dispute or grievance arising between members of the Village

Committee, the parties to the dispute or grievance agree to make every effort to resolve the dispute by consultation and negotiation.

2. If the negotiation process fails to resolve the dispute or grievance within 10 business days, the matter will be referred to an independent mediator (by either party to the grievance or dispute) for formal mediation. The parties agree to taking part in such mediation, in good faith and with a view to resolving any dispute or grievance between them. While such mediation takes place, the parties to the dispute will be required to step down from the Village Committee and any related activities.

3. If mediation fails, the matter will be referred (by either party to the dispute or grievance or by Council) to Council. Council will hear the matters in dispute and make a finding as to the matters. Any finding will be final, and the Council is not bound by rules of evidence or precedent.


A recent dispute between two members of a Village Committee highlighted the need for a formal issue resolution process to be incorporated into the Village Committees Policy. Council requested that an issue resolution process be drafted for consideration at the June Ordinary Council meeting. M&K Lawyers drafted a standard issue resolution process (Option one in Appendix One). Four options have been drafted for Council’s consideration. Each option comprises a three step process and all options contain the same first two steps. The only difference between the options is about who will be the final arbitrator at the final third step of the dispute process. If the first two steps of the process are successful, this final step will not occur.

145.

Council officers recommend that Council be the final arbitrator with its decision binding on all parties to the dispute although this is not the preferred officer option (see Conclusion).

2. Background

Council resolved at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 26 March 2012 that: “Appendix 2 of the Village Committees Policy be reviewed and a dispute resolution process be drafted for Council to consider at the June Ordinary Council Meeting”.

3. Discussion


Planned Outcome 5 – Community Inspired Leadership Strategy 5.1 - Be community centric

Strategy 5.3 - Sound governance and responsible financial leadership

Village Committees are governed by the Village Committee Policy providing guidance on how Village Committees operate. The addition into the Policy of an issue resolution process will establish for Committee members from the outset how conflict is to be dealt with. It also provides guidance to Council and Council officers thus expediting the process for dealing with conflict between Village Committee members and resolving it effectively.


M&K Lawyers were instructed to draft a dispute resolution process for the Village Committees. This is option one in Appendix One.


3.3.1. Impact of the lack of a formal process for resolving disputes

Managed in the wrong way, real and legitimate differences between people can quickly spiral out of control. A formal dispute resolution process is a positive approach to conflict resolution which focuses on issues rather than individuals as a way of resolving conflict effectively. In a recent example Council has expended significant resources (time and financial) to try and resolve a conflict between two Village Committee members. Over six months, Council executives and senior management have met with the parties on numerous occasions and a mediator was appointed which did not succeed in resolving the dispute. A formal dispute resolution process would have provided a clear structure to follow with the aim of expediting a mutually agreeable outcome for the parties.

3.3.2. Review of Appendix 2 of the current Village Committees Policy

The current wording is:

AGREED MEETING PRACTICE

1 During meetings, each person will show respect to others by:

a) listening while another person is speaking; b) not belittling or denigrating other individuals.

2 The Chairperson of any meeting will ensure that:

146.

a) each person has a chance to contribute during a discussion or debate; b) no one person “dominates” discussions by being repetitive or unreasonably

aggressive; c) all comments/questions are put through the Chair; and d) the agreed conclusion is summarised prior to consideration of the next

agenda item. With the adoption of a dispute resolution process no change is recommended to the “Agreed Meeting Practice” process.

3.4. Options

There are four options and all four comprise the identical first two steps:

1. In the event of a dispute or grievance arising between members of the Village Committee, the parties to the dispute or grievance agree to make every effort to resolve the dispute by consultation and negotiation.

2. If the negotiation process fails to resolve the dispute or grievance within 10 business days, the matter will be referred to an independent mediator (by either party to the grievance or dispute, or by the Council) for formal mediation. The parties agree to taking part in such mediation, in good faith and with a view to resolving any dispute or grievance between them. While such mediation takes place, the parties to the dispute will be required to step down from the Village Committee and any related activities.

Each option has a differing final third step in the resolution process in terms of who the final arbitrator is in reaching a binding decision.

3.4.1. Option One – Final arbitrator is the Chief Executive Officer

Advantages: Efficient – a final decision should be able to be made promptly. No briefing

of other parties is required with the decision relying solely on the examination of evidence by an objective person with authority.

Disputes involving Village Committees members are operational in nature and therefore clearly within the authority of the Chief Executive Officer.

Is consistent with Council’s existing delegations where the Chief Executive Officer implements Council policy.

Disadvantages: The Officer recommendation in the report to Council at the 26 March 2012

Ordinary Council Meeting was not adopted. Councillors were divided and the alternate recommendation was endorsed.

May expose the Chief Executive Officer to recriminations from disaffected Councillors and Village Committee members.

Single decision maker (also an advantage). Some may perceive this as the Chief Executive Officer being above the

Council (even though it is clearly a delegated authority)

3.4.2. Option Two – Final arbitrator is the Mayor

Advantages: Efficient – a final decision should be able to be made promptly. No briefing

of other parties is required. Disadvantages: Mayoral role is one of carrying out civic and ceremonial functions for the

City of Kingston. This authority places the Mayor in an operational role.

147.

The majority of the Mayoral term is one calendar year and it is possible that any dispute could extend beyond this time. This would then place a burden on the incoming Mayor to make a decision in relation to a matter that occurred prior to his/her tenure beginning.

The Mayor may have strong community connections to the parties involved in the dispute thus a conflict of interest may occur.

Single decision maker (also an advantage)

3.4.3. Option Three – Final arbitrator is Council

Advantages: Councillors’ knowledge of Village Committee members, their constituents,

enables them to make an informed decision. Not a single decision maker (collegiate decision making approach taken). Majority decision is binding. Consistency of process - Council appoints Village Committee members,

therefore Council should be the final adjudicator for disputes. Disadvantages: Councillors’ relationship maybe considered too close to Village Committee

members thus raising a perception of bias in making a decision. Council is putting itself into operational matters rather than staying at the

policy level.

3.4.4. Option Four – Final arbitrator is a three member Village Committee Conduct Panel (Panel)

Advantages: Independent decision body. No single decision maker. Majority decision is binding. Transparent. Disadvantages: Increase cost to Council with the engagement of an independent third

member of the Panel. A feeling of abrogation of duties by those capable of making a decision. Airing of personal issues to external people.

4. Conclusion

Option one with the Chief Executive Officer as the final arbitrator is the officer’s preferred option but it is not recommended on the basis of current sensitivities about Council’s role and the recent history in relation to one Village Committee. Option three is therefore recommended as the most cost efficient option which is likely to ensure a binding authoritive decision on a case by case basis .


Not applicable


Poor ongoing relationships between Village Committee members has the potential to impact on the effective functioning of the Village Committee which then requires close scrutiny from Council.


Under the proposed dispute resolution process, where mediation fails, Option 4 establishes a three member Village Committee Conduct Panel. One member of this

148.

149.

panel will be independent and thus their appointment would impact on Council’s financial resources.


As highlighted in the confidential report to the Ordinary Council Meeting of 26 March 2012, Council has a duty of care to all Village Committee members. Unresolved or drawn out disputes could escalate with parties seeking their own course of legal action.

5. Appendices

5.1. Appendix One – Four options for the suggested wording of an issue resolution process

Author/s: Angela Granter, Governance Officer

Reviewed and Approved By: Phil DeLosa, Program Leader Governance

Elaine Sowerby, General Manager Organisational Development & Governance

Appendix 1

Option One

DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE 1 In the event of a dispute or grievance arising between members of the Village


2 If the negotiation process fails to resolve the dispute or grievance within 10 business days, the matter will be referred to an independent mediator (by either party to the grievance or dispute, or by the Council) for formal mediation. The parties agree to taking part in such mediation, in good faith and with a view to resolving any dispute or grievance between them. While such mediation takes place, the parties to the dispute will be required to step down from the Village Committee and any related activities.

3 If mediation fails, the matter will be referred (by either party to the dispute or grievance or by Council) to the Chief Executive Officer who will hear the matters in dispute and make a finding as to the matters. Any finding will be final, and the Chief Executive Officer is not bound by rules of evidence or precedent.

Option Two



2 If the negotiation process fails to resolve the dispute or grievance within 10 business days, the matter will be referred to an independent mediator (by either party to the grievance or dispute, or by the Council) for formal mediation. The parties agree to take part in such mediation, in good faith and with a view to resolving any dispute or grievance between them. While such mediation takes place, the parties to the dispute will be required to step down from the Village Committee and any related activities.

3 If mediation fails, the matter will be referred (by either party to the dispute or grievance or by Council) to the Mayor who will hear the matters in dispute and make a finding as to the matters. Any finding will be final, and the Mayor is not bound by rules of evidence or precedent.

150.

151.

Option Three




3 If mediation fails, the matter will be referred (by either party to the dispute or grievance or by Council) to Council. Council will hear the matters in dispute and make a finding as to the matters. Any finding will be final, and the Council is not bound by rules of evidence or precedent.

Option Four




3 If mediation fails, the matter will be referred (by either party to the dispute or grievance or by Council) to a three member Village Committee Conduct Panel comprising:

The Mayor or his/her Councillor representative; The Chief Executive Officer or his/her organisational representative; and An independent member to be selected from the “List B” of the Municipal

Councillor Conduct Panel.

The Village Committee Conduct Panel will hear the matters in dispute and make a finding as to the matters. A majority decision is binding and final, and the Panel is not bound by rules of evidence or precedent.


23 July 2012


PUBLIC ART ADVISORY PANEL CHELTENHAM PUBLIC ART PROJECT RECOMMENDATION OF ARTIST Contact Officer: Sarah Bishop

Purpose of Report

This report presents the Public Art Advisory Panel’s recommendation for an artist for the Cheltenham Public Art Project for Council consideration and formal adoption.


No direct or indirect interest.

Recommendation

Officers recommend that:

Council endorse the Public Art Advisory Panel’s recommendation to approve Andrew Bourke and James Beattie’s proposal for the Cheltenham Public Art Project.


This report presents the Public Art Advisory Panel’s (PAAP) recommendation for the selection of an artist for the Cheltenham Public Art Project for Council consideration and adoption. In December 2011, Council adopted a policy position on Public Art which established a Public Art Advisory Panel to assess applications for public art projects The first meeting of the Public Art Advisory Panel was held on Thursday July 12, to assess presentations from four artists and recommend the selection of an artist for the Cheltenham Public Art Project. The Cheltenham Public Art Project is a painted wall mural and is located on the pedestrian and railway interface of the new building at 278 Charman Road, Cheltenham. It is a joint project between Council and the property owner and delivers

152.

on the implementation of the Cheltenham Structure Plan which identifies this location as a key pedestrian link, connecting the residential areas of Cheltenham with the Train Station. Following presentations from four shortlisted artists, the Public Art Advisory Panel recommends Andrew Bourke and James Beattie’s proposal (refer to appendix 1), and seeks endorsement of this proposal in line with Council’s Public Art Policy approved by Council in December 2011.

2. Background

In December 2011, Council adopted a policy position on Public Art which established a Public Art Advisory Panel to assess applications for public art projects The Cheltenham Public Art Project is a painted wall mural and is located on the pedestrian and railway interface of the new building at 278 Charman Road, Cheltenham. The project was initiated by the landowner, who approached Council about wanting to provide an opportunity for art on their building that would be enjoyed by the public in Cheltenham. The Cheltenham Structure Plan identifies this location as a key pedestrian link, connecting the residential areas of Cheltenham with the Train Station. Council officers have worked closely with the land owner to ensure the project helps contribute to community safety and reduces graffiti, in line with Council’s Graffiti Management Plan. The artwork, new lighting and improved footpath, will improve safety along this pedestrian link, following Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles. As this is a public artwork, the project was required to be submitted to the Public Art Advisory Panel, in line with Council’s adopted Public Art Policy. The first meeting of the Public Art Advisory Panel was held on Thursday July 12. Consistent with the Terms of Reference for the Panel, three additional co-opted specialist members representing the property owners were invited to attend.

3. Discussion

3.1 Council Plan Alignment

This project delivers in several key strategies of the Council Plan, namely:

2.1.4 – Implement and continue to development of Activity Centre Structure Plans

3.2.7 – Implement Arts & Cultural Strategy

1.5.3 – Implement Litter and Graffiti Strategy

3.2 Cheltenham Public Art Project

The painted wall mural is located on the pedestrian and railway interface at 278 Charman Road and is a key pedestrian link, identified by The Cheltenham Structure Plan, connecting the residential areas of Cheltenham with the Train Station.

153.

The project aimed to select and develop an artwork that is aesthetically and intellectually engaging within a functional public thoroughfare that will also contribute to community safety. The artwork will offer an exciting, intelligent and expressive response to the site’s surrounds and social context, creating an opportunity for public users to encounter and engage with art in an ordinary, daily context.

This will be achieved through:

The production of a permanent, professional artwork which is developed, delivered and maintained by the land owner

Creating a strong feeling of identity, public pride and ownership of the public space, which reflects the rich diversity of the communities in the City of Kingston

Increasing the understanding and enjoyment of contemporary art by the community, whilst beautifying the location thereby contributing to the quality of life for residents

In addition the project will deliver on several of Council’s Policies and Plans including:

Aligning with several actions of Council’s Public Art Strategy and Public Art Policy

Reducing graffiti (Graffiti Management Plan) Improved safety through lighting and footpath improvements (Crime

Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles) Cheltenham Activity Centre Structure Plan

Council is contributing $50,000 towards the project and part of the implementation of the Cheltenham Structure Plan.

3.2 Artist Selection and PAAP Recommendation

An Expression of Interest process was completed for qualified artists to design, fabricate and install a permanent, original, site specific artwork. Twelve applications were received, with four artists shortlisted to present to the Public Art Advisory Panel. All four shortlisted artists attended the Public Art Advisory Panel Meeting and presented their concept designs, with time for questions and further information sharing. Members of the Panel were joined by three additional co-opted specialist members for this meeting, as they were representing the property owner and developers. Each artist presentation was evaluated against the following selection criteria as outlined in Council’s Public Art Policy:

Appropriateness of the concept to the site Innovative and creative design Consideration of and response to the commission objectives Ability to meet required timeline Ability to work within allocated budget Artist’s experience in delivering similar public art projects Consideration of public health and safety issues in design and

construction

154.

Artist’s ability to create works that are structurally sound with minimal public risk

Artist’s ability to produce work that demonstrates technical skill and has strong aesthetic content.

Whilst all four shortlisted artists presented concepts that were creative and innovative, the members of the Panel unanimously agreed that Andrew Bourke and James Beattie’s proposed artwork was the preferred option as it best met the selection criteria. Key factors in this decision were that:

The are artists grew up in Cheltenham and are locally based, yet internationally renowned for urban art, especially amongst young people, which would act as a deterrent for future graffiti and appeal to a broad demographic;

Their concept design included the use of local Cheltenham historical characters, events and landmarks, flora and fauna, which could be equally engaging from up close or from a distance;

The proposal included the development and delivery of supporting educational resources for local schools and on site descriptive plaques to assist with community understanding of the concepts.

3.3 Installation and Ongoing Maintenance The artwork will be commissioned and project managed by the property owners – Ashton Developments. They will manage the installation and will contract the artists to maintain the artwork for two years after completion.

The ownership and ongoing maintenance of the artwork will be written into the body corporate contract for the building – with the lifespan for the artwork expected to be at minimum ten years. In addition, any damage requiring rectification will be referred to the original artist to ensure the integrity of the artwork is maintained.

The artwork will have significant graffiti protection installed to ensure that any damage can be easily removed without damaging the original work. This anti-graffiti coating can be reapplied as necessary to ensure this protection is maintained.

4 Conclusion

The Public Art Advisory Panel recommends that Council endorse the proposal by Andrew Bourke and James Beattie for the Cheltenham Public Art Project. Should Council endorse the proposal the artists expect to complete the work by early October 2012.


The Cheltenham Public Art Project will revitalise a public space and the built environment through the development of permanent public art. It will also contribute to the amenity and safety of this key pedestrian link.


The Cheltenham Public Art Project will create a strong feeling of identity, public pride and ownership of this public space by celebrating local history, culture and the environment. It will also assist in deterring ongoing graffiti in a highly vulnerable site.

155.

156.

The project will generate education tools to enable local schools to engage with the artwork. In addition the creative and installation process will be recorded to document and share with young artists and the greater community.


Council’s contribution to this project is funded within existing resources as part of the Cheltenham Structure Plan implementation. Ongoing maintenance, ownership, insurance and all other associated costs are the responsibility of the property owner, and therefore have no ongoing resource implications for Council.

4.4 Legal/Risk

The artwork will be owned by the property owner, who will be responsible for all issues, including installation, maintenance and insurance. The property owner has committed to ensure that thorough works and maintenance schedules are put in place to ensure all art works are delivered and maintained to a high standard and meet all Occupational Health and Safety requirements.

5 Appendices

5.1 Appendix 1 – Preferred Artist’s Concept Design

Author: Sarah Bishop, Manager – Communications & Public Affairs

Reviewed and Approved By: Elaine Sowerby, General Manager, Organisational Development and Governance


23 July 2012


SPONSORSHIP POLICY REPORT Contact Officer: Keryn Fisher ______

Purpose of Report

This report presents a draft Sponsorship Policy (Recipient) and draft Sponsorship Policy (Sponsor) to Council for endorsement.



Recommendation


1. Adopt the attached City of Kingston Sponsorship (Recipient) Policy attached as Appendix 1.

2. Adopt the attached City of Kingston Sponsorship (Sponsor) Policy attached as Appendix 2.

Alternative recommendation

Council adopts both 1 and 2 above with the following additional clause:

3. Council may sponsor/accept sponsorship from venues which have gaming machines where the venue is supportive of Council services and community development.


Officers have developed two policies that provide comprehensive guidance to Council officers in regards to both giving and/or receiving sponsorship to replace the existing policy endorsed by Council in July 1998. The policies are based on principles provided by the Independent Commission Against Corruption’s (ICAC) guide to sponsorship in the public sector and seek to ensure that Council is not exposed to any risks or issues in relation to the giving or receiving of sponsorship. During discussion of these policies at the CIS of 20 February, Councillors sought further clarification around the issues of sponsorship for/by individuals or organisations with political purposes and for/by individuals or organisations in the business of gambling. This report provides further clarification and both policies have been amended slightly to be clearer. This is now presented to Council for adoption. An alternative recommendation has been included to ‘soften’ any concerns about gambling (see 3 in the Recommendations and the discussion under 3.3.2 of this report).

157.

2. Background

Traditionally, it has been the responsibility of Council to deliver and fund all activities through Council rates and State and Federal Government funding. However creating partnerships with corporate and community organisations assists Council to deliver events and activities.

Throughout the year Council is approached to support community events and activities with both in kind and financial support. To date there have been no clear guidelines about the type of activities Council will support, the evaluation criteria upon which to assess such applications, nor any centralised register of sponsorship requests.

Council currently supports a number of sporting activities including Spring Valley Golf Club Men’s and Women’s Victorian Opens, Dingley Village Rotary Charity Golf Day and Parkdale Yacht Club Flying Ants National Championship.

In addition, Council currently relies on in-kind and financial sponsorship for arts events, festivals and community engagement activities and is constantly seeking such sponsorships to facilitate the delivery of these programs for the community.

Council currently accepts sponsorship from local businesses (Quest Apartments), venues (Returned Services Leagues, sporting clubs) and community banks (Bendigo Bank).

Currently each sponsorship is handled by the relevant business area, often by staff that may not have a strong background in negotiating sponsorships. Therefore, the two attached sponsorships policies have been developed to provide:

an outline of the process for both giving and receiving sponsorship

a clear assessment and evaluation criteria

a process for seeking sponsorship

a centralised approach to recording and monitoring all Council sponsorships.

This will enable officers to feel more confident when seeking or assessing sponsorship and ensure a consistent approach to the management of sponsorships across the organisation. It will also ensure all agreements have been centrally recorded and procured in a transparent way where current relationships are maintained and agreements maximized to leverage the best benefits and outcomes for Council and the sponsor.

3. Discussion


Planned Outcome 3 – Healthy, Strong and Connected Communities.

Strategy 3.2 – Strong, Cohesive and Engaged Communities.

Sponsorship promotes community involvement and supports local business and economic opportunity.

Sponsorship opportunities enable the building of strong relationships and the development of partnerships through supporting local events.

158.


The sponsorship policies have been developed in line with the Independent Commission Against Corruption’s guide to sponsorship in the public sector, which outlines best practice in relation to the development of sponsorship policy.

Internal consultation has taken place with areas of Council who are in a position to either give or receive sponsorship. These include events, festivals, arts, Governance and community engagement. All relevant feedback was included in the final policies. Councillors were consulted at the CIS of 20 February 2012.


3.3.1. Political involvement

The policies state that Council will not sponsor or receive sponsorship from individuals or organisations who are involved in political fields (i.e. representing a political party or for the purpose of promoting political agendas).

For example if a local Member of Parliament, John Smith MP, wished to sponsor a City of Kingston Business Breakfast though his self titled business ‘John Smith Printers’, Council would not accept sponsorship as there is an obvious link and representation of a political party.

A local business woman is a member of a political party and owns a printing business within the municipality called ‘Print solutions’ and offers in-kind print sponsorship of a City of Kingston business breakfast. Council could accept sponsorship as there is no representation or link to the political party of which the business owner is a member.

3.3.2. Business of Gambling

The recommended policies state that Council will not sponsor or receive sponsorship from individuals or organisations who are involved in the business of gambling; unless the sponsorship is related to an educational awareness program related to gambling. Examples of organisations in the business of gambling include TAB’s or bowls clubs with gaming machines.

Historically Council has accepted sponsorship for a range of community events from various local businesses or Returned Services Leagues. Some of these venues may have contained gaming machines.

Officers understand that given the historical arrangements Councillors may have concerns with the recommendations therefore an alternative recommendation has been offered should Councillors wish to include.

This would see the following clause being inserted into each policy:

Council may sponsor/accept sponsorship from venues which have gaming machines where the venue is supportive of Council services and community development.

3.3.3. Exclusion Clause

The policies read that sponsorship will not involve the City of Kingston in controversial issues such as political or cultural sensitivities, or expose the organisation to adverse criticism.

159.

4. Conclusion

The two draft sponsorship policies recommended for approval will provide comprehensive guidance to Council officers in order to ensure that all Council’s sponsorships are fair, consistent and appropriately managed. The policies have been further refined and set out clear processes for considering sponsorship agreements (as a sponsor or recipient) and a transparent, best practice approach to evaluation.

Adoption of the two policies will ensure that a framework is in place to best leverage Council sponsorships and build ongoing professional partnerships with appropriate organisations in the community. These polices will be reviewed on a biennial basis; however some sponsorship arrangements may trigger additional reviews.


N/A


The policies outline that Council will not accept or offer sponsorship to or from organisations or individuals who are involved in businesses which Council does not want its own reputation to be linked to (for example tobacco, alcohol and/or in the business of gambling).


Administration of these policies will be delivered through current existing resources.


These policies have been developed in line with ICAC best practice guidelines to create a robust framework for Council to enter into Sponsorship agreements and reduce risk and inappropriate implications.

5. Appendices

5.1. Appendix 1 – Sponsorship (Recipient) Policy (Trim: 12/49513)

5.2. Appendix 2 – Sponsorship (Sponsor) Policy (Trim: 12/49514)

Author/s: Keryn Fisher, Team Leader Festival and Events

Reviewed and Approved By: Elaine Sowerby, General Manager Organisational Development and Governance

160.

Ordinary Meeting

23 July 2012


ASSEMBLY OF COUNCIL RECORD Contact Officer: Phil DeLosa Trim 12/70436

Purpose of Report

To provide copies of the Assembly of Council records in line with Section 80A of the Local Government Act to support openness and transparency of Governance processes.



Recommendation

That Council note the contents of this report for the public record.


This report contains records for all meetings defined as an Assembly of Councillors under the Local Government Act 1989, Section 80A.

2. Background

The Local Government Act requires that Assembly of Council records are reported to the next possible Council Meeting. This seeks to promote openness and transparency of Council decision making and to place on public record any declarations of direct or indirect interests by Councillors and / or officers.

3. Discussion


Strategy 5.3 – Sound governance and responsible financial leadership

The reporting of Assembly of Council meets the requirements of the Local Government Act and is critical to Strategy 5.3.


Not applicable to this report.


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.

161.

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.

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 the disclosure of the type or nature of the interest at an Assembly of Councillors.

3.4. Options (Use this section as required)

Not applicable to this report

4. Conclusion

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.

4.1. Environmental Implications Nil

4.2. Social Implications Nil

4.3. Resource Implications Nil

4.4. Legal / Risk Implications Nil

5. Appendices

5.1. Appendix 1 – Assembly of Council records

Date of Assembly Reason of Assembly

19 June 2012 Arts & Cultural Strategies, Policies, Projects 2 July 2012 Councillor Information Session 3 July 2012 Mordialloc Village Committee Meeting 3 July 2012 Mentone/Parkdale Village Committee Meeting 9 July 2012 Councillor Information Session 16 July 2012 Councillor Information Session


Reviewed and Approved By: Elaine Sowerby General Manager Organisational Development and Governance

162.

163.


23 July 2012


EXPENDITURE OF WARD FUNDS SCHEDULE Contact Officer: Phil DeLosa Trim: 12/71218

Purpose of Report

To seek Council approval of the expenditure of Ward funds in accordance with Council’s approval ‘Expenditure of Ward Funds Policy’ and the Local Government Act 1989.



Recommendation

That Council approve the expenditure of ward funds in accordance with the table of Councillor requests.

1. Executive Summary This report presents individual Councillor requests for the expenditure of ward funds and seeks approval of the ward fund expenditure requests for individual Councillors as required under Council’s ‘Expenditure of Ward Fund Policy (the Policy) and Sections 76E and 98 of the Local Government Act 1989.

2. Background Ward funds are operating expenses; the expenditure of which is regulated by the Council resolution on 23 March 2009 where Council 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;

164.

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. To be lawful under the Local Government Act 1989 and in accordance with Council’s Policy, all expenditure of Ward Funds must be approved by Council decision.

3. Discussion

3.1. Council Plan Alignment Planned Outcome 5 – Community Inspired Leaders Strategy 5.3 – Sound governance and responsible financial leadership The reporting of Ward Fund Grants meets the requirements of the Local Government Act.

3.2. Consultation/Internal Review Not applicable to this report.

3.3. Options (Use this section as required) Not applicable to this report.

4. Conclusion

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

North Ward Central Ward South Ward Org/ Person & Purpose

Cr

Ste

ve S

taik

os

Cr

Art

hu

r A

than

aso

po

ulo

s

Cr

Pau

l Peu

lich

Cr

Ro

n B

row

nle

es

Cr

Ro

sem

ary

Wes

t

Cr

Lew

is D

un

das

Cr

Joh

n R

on

ke

Cr

Tre

vor

Sh

ewan

Cr

Dan

Mo

lon

ey

Chelsea Red Cross $500Carrum Indigenous Nursery

$500

KCEC $500MBCL $500 Total

from months allocations

$1,500 $500

5. Appendices: Nil


Reviewed and Approved By: Elaine Sowerby, General Manager Organisational Development and Governance

165.


23 July 2012


CONTRACT 12/58 PARKING ENFORCEMENT AND INFRINGEMENT ADMINISTRATION SERVICES Contact Officer: Robyn Horner

Purpose of Report

The purpose of the report is to obtain Council approval Contract No. 12/58 Part A - Parking Enforcement and Part B - Infringement Administration.


No Council officers who have provided advice in relation to this report have declared a Conflict of Interest regarding the matter under consideration.

Recommendation

That Council resolves: 1. To award Contract No 12/58 Part A – Parking Enforcement and Part B – Infringement

Administration Services as a lump sum contract for a period of three (3) years commencing on 1 September 2012 for an initial annual sum of $1,073,612 to Tenix Solutions Pty Ltd; and

2. That the Chief Executive Officer be delegated the authority to exercise the two additional year periods, subject to satisfactory performance of the contract.


This report outlines the final tender evaluation committee results for Contract No. 12/ Part A - Parking Enforcement and Part B - Infringement Administration. The preferred tenderer for this service is Tenix Solutions Pty Ltd (Tenix). The evaluation committee is satisfied that Tenix have a proven record, at Kingston and other municipalities, of providing a quality service and have addressed all the specification requirements in their tender submission. The total tender price is $1,073,612 for the first year for the provision of both Part A and Part B of the tender. This price is consistent with the estimated 2012/2013 budget for these services.

2. Background

Council currently has two parking service contracts in place, one based on enforcement services and one for the administration of parking infringements. Both contracts are due to expire at the end of August 2012. Council Officers have previously reviewed the service specifications, confirmed the Operational Guidelines, investigated available technology options and reviewed industry best practice. It was decided that the best method of presenting this request for tender was to provide tenderers with the option to tender for either Part A - Parking Enforcement or Part B - Infringement Administration separately or to provide a combined response to both parts that may result in a lower overall price to Council and provide gains in operational and management efficiencies.

166.

This tender does not require additional resource beyond that being supplied to Council currently. The specifications included more accountability of the Contractor and a move to improved technology. The following modifications to requirements have been included in this tender: Part A – Parking Enforcement Upgrading of hand held devices; Slight modification to the targeted mix of Parking Infringement Notices (PIN) types

to be issued (not overall number); Reduction in the expected court appearances for contracted Enforcement Officers; Area marking – all bays within a zone to be marked not just a section; Supervisor to have a “smart” phone to receive emails remotely; and Reduced winter late night patrols from one per week to one per fortnight (9pm

finish) and reallocated this time to Summer foreshore area patrols on days above 33°C.

Part B – Infringement Administration Web portal to be provided for customers; Option in future for contractor to manage other infringement types; Reduction in the number of reminder notices from two to one; Improved accountability – Statutory Barred Infringements not to exceed 50 pa; Improved accountability – Error rates not to exceed 5 per month or 1% of total pa;

and Access to three (3) additional electronic management system licenses to provide

council staff with access to infringement data online.

3. Discussion

3.1. Council Plan Alignment Planned Outcome 1 - Infrastructure for a Safe and Active Community Strategy 1.4 A community with an appropriate traffic, parking and transport network Strategy 1.4.3 Implement Community Road Safety and realign with State Government initiatives. Appropriate enforcement of the municipality’s car parking spaces ensures traffic turnover, providing access to shopping centres and the foreshore, safety for road users both pedestrians and vehicles, helping to promote road safety.


The Tender Evaluation Committee have liaised with neighbouring municipalities as part of the benchmarking process and in part determining industry best practice and issues to be addressed within the scope of the tender. The Parking and Prosecutions Coordinator also attended the recent National Parking Conference to obtain updated information and consult with industry professionals. The Tender Evaluation Committee have consulted several suppliers regarding available technology and options. Further to this, a meeting was held with the City of Melbourne to discuss their experiences with pay by phone technologies, which will be subject to a future report to Councillors. In addition to the tender submissions received, Council Officers contacted a number of credible suppliers who downloaded the tender documents but chose not to submit to this tender. This was to seek some clarification and understanding of their position. Further information from these potential contractors is contained in the confidential attachment.

167.

3.3. Operation and Strategic Issues 3.3.1. Quality of Service

Contract specifications and operational guidelines aim to ensure fair application of the law and consistency in the provision of both services. With respect to enforcement services, the guidelines include (but are not limited to) patrol frequency, grace periods, Officer Behaviour, what offences Officer’s are to proactively look for verses reactively and when discretion can be applied. Infringement Administration - The successful supplier will be provided with a copy of Council’s operational guidelines. The operational guidelines assist Officers to fairly and consistently evaluate Internal Reviews and determine the appropriate outcome and aim to provide a consistent approach to Internal Reviews. The guidelines are reviewed on a regular basis to ensure they reflect the legislation and Council’s approach to parking enforcement and parking management. Formal audits are conducted by the Manager Statutory Education and Compliance to ensure the contractor is applying Council’s operational guidelines as required and appropriately. Complaints raised post an Internal Review will continue to be considered by Council in terms of whether the operational guidelines were applied correctly, should the guideline be modified, is there additional information that has been provided that should have been taken into consideration. It is important to note that the Infringements Act clearly states that an infringement can only be the subject of one internal review. If a recipient is dissatisfied with an outcome of an appeal, they have the right to request the matter to be further considered by the Magistrates Court. Tenix have trialed a number of strategies for other Councils which have resulted in increasing infringement clearance rates (number paid prior to lodging with the Infringements Court). Tenix intend to implement these strategies in an effort to improve Kingston’s infringement clearance rate.

3.3.2. Expected Service Levels

The contract specifications aim to achieve a fair and balanced approach in service delivery. The contractor resource levels have not altered from the level specified in the current contract when compared to the new contract. It is reasonable to expect that the same level of infringements will be issued to address non compliance and subsequently reflected in the infringement income received. Likewise with appropriate operational guidelines and service expectations in place Council Officers will closely monitor the number of infringements issued and their clearance rates, Internal Review results and Officer patrol hours.

3.3.3 Evaluation Criteria The following evaluation criteria were used to assess each tender submission:

CRITERION DESCRIPTION

A. Tender Price Tender Price B. The Service Tenderer’s understanding of Council requirements C. Work Performance Previous relevant experience and proven ability to

perform D. Commitment to Quality OH&S Quality Plan Customer Service E. Resources Human Resources Sub-Contractors Plant & Equipment (including hardware / software) F. Financial Viability Financial Capacity Financial Stability

A copy of the evaluation summary is provided in the confidential attachment to this report and contains comments against each selection criteria. 168.

Tender Price – Tenix tendered for both Parts independently and provided a combined pricing option. The Tender Evaluation Committee has interviewed Tenix to confirm their understanding of the specification and negotiations were held resulting in a final reduction in the tendered price without a negative impact on expected service delivery with the preferred tenderer. Awarding both the Administration Contract and Enforcement Contracts to the one provider will maintain the consistency in management of parking services for Kingston and will result in a lower overall cost outcome for Council. Specific benefits that are derived by combining both elements of the services: 1. Ensuring end to end process ownership that delivers increased quality,

collectable revenue and cost reductions; 2. Ensuring Administration Services providers do not load their price to

cover potential PIN shortfalls due to the performance of another provider;

3. Savings generated from sharing staff across multiple contracts; and 4. Reduced cost to Council in only managing one contractor.

The Service – Understanding of Council requirements The evaluation committee is satisfied that the identified preferred supplier being Tenix has a proven record of providing a quality service. Tenix have had a working relationship with Kingston for the last 10 years and demonstrated in their submission a clear understanding of our service objectives and expectations. Work Performance - Previous relevant experience and proven ability to perform Tenix hold similar parking service and administration contracts with other major Council’s such as Brisbane, Stonnington, Glen Eira and Frankston Councils. Our experience with this provider has shown that at times that while Tenix have been challenged to meet the resource requirements from time to time (as do others in this industry), Tenix have actively addressed this by implementing recruitment improvements, monitoring hours owed and have employed casuals to move from one Council to another to ensure delivery of hours specified. Commitment to Quality - OHS/Quality Systems/Customer Service Tenix have a Quality management System/OHS Management System that is certified by a recognised independent Third Party - LRQA Business Assurance. The standards meet AS/NZS ISO 9001:2008 and AS/NZS 4801:2001. The scope of the approval is applicable to operation of vehicle infringement management, general infringement management and parking management systems for State and local government and other institutions.

169.

Tenix have a two stage induction process for all employees and on going training in this area. The tender also details induction and OHS management of sub contractors. Regular OHS monitoring and meetings are conducted. Examples have been provided of an Officer Coaching and Development form and Field Inspection Audit form which demonstrate the required service competencies and understanding of service expectations in customer service, operational procedures and OHS. Tenix have outlined their commitment to customer service and understanding of Council’s expected objectives. Tenix have a comprehensive on-going customer service and mentoring program for all staff. Council’s previous experience with this supplier has enabled us to view and assess their commitment to service quality, customer service and most importantly OHS management. This service provider has always delivered a professional service with minimal errors being detected. Resources – Human Resources, Sub-contractors, Plant and equipment including hardware and software Human Resources - The preferred tender outlines a detailed recruitment process including behavioural and skills assessments. Structured continual training including on road training is provided to all enforcement officers. Detailed training is also provided to the infringement management team members and auditing is proposed to ensure compliance with Council’s Business Rules. Appropriate security arrangements are in place already. A commitment is made to always have an operational supervisor available for the enforcement team proposed to work out of Council’s Cheltenham office and Council Officers will always be available to the Infringement Management/Customer Service employees working out of the preferred suppliers head office in Melbourne. Tenix submission states they have a large pool of over 50 experienced Parking Enforcement Officers across the Melbourne metropolitan area. This pool of officers provides tremendous economies of scale and effectively means there is the capability to backfill with experienced staff at short notice in order to cater for special events and unforeseen circumstances such as unplanned leave. Sub contractors – The preferred supplier has provided a detailed list of sub contractors that support the delivery of services. This includes suppliers of hand held devices, radios, uniforms, employment, vehicle leasing, mail house, printing and payment service provider. The tender evaluation committee is content with these sub-contracting arrangements. Plant and Equipment -The tender evaluation committee recognise that parking technology has been rapidly changing. There are clear benefits of having either a parking supplier who specializes in this area or a company that has a sub contract in place with an appropriate reputable IT/equipment supplier. Tenix indicate they have a contract with Duncan Solutions (a recognized industry leader) for the provision of hand held devices and Cross Comm for two way radios. It is agreed that Tenix will upgrade the hand held devices used by the Officers as part of this contract.

170.

The Tender Evaluation Committee are aware that the technology Tenix have been implementing at other Councils reflects the specification requirements. Tenix state in their submission, that the technologies implemented have delivered tangible benefits to Councils and communities. Tenix has extensive data on the actual outcomes realised with the proposed technologies and how to fine tune its application in Council specific parking environments. Contract Conditions Non-Conformance Advice has been sought from Council’s Procurement Department and Council Legal Advisors. The Tender Evaluation Committee have negotiated with Tenix representatives on the non conforming components and Council’s Legal Advisors are satisfied that the final negotiated amendments proposed adequately protect Council’s interests. Financial Viability The Finance Department completed a credit analysis of Tenix and stated that Tenix presented a low financial risk to Council and as such, were supportive for Council to enter into a contract for Parts A and B for Parking Enforcement and Infringement Administration Services. Further, the tender specifications required a Performance Security (bank guarantee) which Tenix have agreed to.

4. Conclusion

The tender evaluation committee recommend proceeding with the proposed combined service option by accepting the preferred tender submission from Tenix Solutions Pty Ltd. Tenix have substantial proven experience in the services required. Tenix have actively researched and trialled new and emerging parking technology and have a holistic approach to the service which matches Council’s expectations. Awarding the contract to Tenix will enable the current service to continue without significant disruption. There are no unexpected additional costs associated with the new contract. The Tender Evaluation Committee have successfully negotiated with the preferred supplier to ensure the expected service levels will be delivered as required and the cost of which will meet Councils 2012/13 budget.


Not applicable

4.2. Social Implications Obtaining the balance in the provision of parking services to meet customer expectations is always a challenge. This service has been provided by contractors for an extensive period now and service standards and enforcement guidelines refined. The service is delivered in line with the Infringements Act meeting statutory obligations and providing a fair and transparent service.


The Tender Evaluation Committee believe that adopting a combined service approach will ensure end to end process ownership that delivers increased quality, collectable revenue and cost reductions and recognise the benefits of accessing and sharing staff across multiple contracts at times of need will result in generating savings. The annual income budget from parking infringements is $1,661,369 (excluding the additional annual budget income from the Infringements Court of $283,250). It is therefore critical that the Contract is renewed within the required timeframe and managed effectively. There is anticipated reduced cost to Council in only managing one contractor for both parts of the contract.

171.

4.4. Legal / Risk Implications The probity of the tender process has been reviewed by the Procurement & Contracts Department and the contract conditions have been negotiated to the satisfaction of Council’s legal advisors.

5. Appendices

5.1. Appendix 1 – Confidential Information on Contract 12/58 - Parking Enforcement and Infringement Administration

Author/s: Robyn Horner Manager Statutory Education and Compliance

Reviewed and Approved By: Paul Franklin General Manager Corporate Services

172.


23 July 2012


DRAFT DOMESTIC ANIMAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2012-2016 Contact Officer: Robyn Horner

Purpose of Report

This report presents the final draft Domestic Animal Management Plan 2012-2016 for Council consideration and adoption.



Recommendation

That Council resolves: 1. Receive the information and formally adopt the draft Kingston Domestic Animal

Management Plan 2012-16; and 2. Provide the Secretary of the Department of Primary Indsutrieswith a copy of the adopted

Plan.


This report presents the final draft of the Kingston Domestic Animal Management Plan (DAMP) 2012-2016 to Council for formal adoption. The final round of public consultation has been completed and only one submission was received. The submission pertained to public access and exemptions associated with guide dogs (hearing/sight dogs). The legislation has clear exemptions for guide dogs therefore the draft DAMP did not require amendment. Council has a statutory obligation to develop and adopted the DAMP by 1 November 2012.

2. Background

The Domestic Animals Act 1994 is the primary Act Council applies in the management and enforcement of animals within Kingston. The Act requires Councils to develop and adopt a four year Domestic Animal Management Plan (DAMP) that outlines Council vision, key objectives, animal management services, strategic direction and performance monitoring. Kingston’s current plan was last reviewed in 2011 and extended at the request of the State government by one year and expires on 31st October 2012. In developing the new plan Council has undertaken research in current industry strategies and practices and reviewed available data relating to pet ownership, dog attacks and research relating to dog and cat behaviour. As the current DAMP has been reviewed only 12 months ago no major strategic changes are envisaged.

173.

The actions required under the Act to complete the preparation of the Domestic Animal Management Plan are: Under Section 68A of the Domestic Animals Act, every Council must prepare a domestic animal management plan, as follows:

68A Councils to prepare domestic animal management plans (1) Every Council must, in consultation with the Secretary (of the Department of

Primary Industries), prepare at 4 year intervals a domestic animal management plan.

(2) A domestic animal management plan prepared by a Council must— (a) set out a method for evaluating whether the animal control services provided

by the Council in its municipal district are adequate to give effect to the requirements of this Act and the regulations; and

(b) outline programs for the training of authorised officers to ensure that they can properly administer and enforce the requirements of this Act in the Council's municipal district; and

(c) outline programs, services and strategies which the Council intends to pursue in its municipal district— (i) to promote and encourage the responsible ownership of dogs and cats;

and (ii) to ensure that people comply with this Act, the regulations and any

related legislation; and (iii) to minimise the risk of attacks by dogs on people and animals; and (iv) to address any over-population and high euthanasia rates for dogs and

cats; and (v) to encourage the registration and identification of dogs and cats; and (vi) to minimise the potential for dogs and cats to create a nuisance; and (vii) to effectively identify all dangerous dogs, menacing dogs and restricted

breed dogs in that district and to ensure that those dogs are kept in compliance with this Act and the regulations; and

(d) provide for the review of existing orders made under this Act and local laws that relate to the Council's municipal district with a view to determining whether further orders or local laws dealing with the management of dogs and cats in the municipal district are desirable; and

(e) provide for the review of any other matters related to the management of dogs and cats in the Council's municipal district that it thinks necessary; and

(f) provide for the periodic evaluation of any program, service, strategy or review outlined under the plan.

(3) Every Council must— (a) review its domestic animal management plan annually and, if appropriate,

amend the plan; and (b) provide the Secretary with a copy of the plan and any amendments to the

plan; and (c) publish an evaluation of its implementation of the plan in its annual report.

The process undertaken to review the Domestic Animal Management Plan was as follows: Prepared consultation documents including public survey, press coverage, letters to

key stakeholders, CWU (this action completed – March 2012) Conducted stakeholder consultation to determine the issues relating to animal

management for our community (this action completed – April 2012) Created a draft Domestic Animal Management Plan (DAMP) in accordance with the

State template and including information arising from stakeholder feedback and suggestions (this action completed – May 2012)

Present draft Domestic Animal Management Plan to Council, inviting comment Undertake final round of public consultation - draft plan to be available for public

viewing and comment for a period of three weeks Final analyses of comments and amend plan if required

174.

Present final draft of Kingston Domestic Animal Management Plan 2012–2016 to Council for adoption.

3. Discussion

3.1. Council Plan Alignment 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. Planned Outcome 3 – Healthy, Strong, Connected Communities Strategy 3.1 Enhanced community wellbeing and participation in community life. The plan seeks to achieve a safe, healthy and enjoyable environment for all persons in our municipality. Activities identified in the plan aim to deliver animal management services in a fair and equitable manner.


Public consultation occurred during April 2012 inviting comment from the broader community. The following arrangements were made including media coverage in the local papers, information on Council’s web site, an on line survey and letters targeting industry key stakeholders encouraging their involvement. This first round of consultation closed on 23rd April 2012. The information gathered assisted Officers to identify objectives and activities for inclusion in the new four year draft plan. Results and comments received during the consultation were incorporated into the DAMP including proposed actions to address the points raised. There appears to be some polarized views regarding dog access to open spaces within our municipality. A summary of the main points raised are as follows:

Comments in support of off leash areas Comments opposed to off leash areas Off leash areas are often too small Residents still inconvenienced by dog defecation in public places There still continues to be strong support for education programs Comments for cat control regulations– some feel cats are still causing

nuisances and are not controlled adequately Comments against cat control regulations Strong support for Council to enforce legislation pertaining to Dangerous

Dogs, Restricted Breed Dogs and dogs involved in attacks Some concerns about early age de-sexing

The draft DAMP was presented to Council inviting formal comment from Council and approval sought to undertake the final round of public consultation. This has now occurred and only one final submission was received. The plan is now ready for consideration and formal adopted by Council.


3.3.1. Plan Content The new template requires Council’s DAMP to cover the following key themed objective areas: 1. Training of Authorised Officers; 2. Registration and Identification; 3. Nuisance; 4. Dog Attacks; 5. Dangerous, Menacing and Restricted Breeds;

175.

6. Over Population and High Euthanasia; 7. Domestic Animal Businesses; and 8. Other Matters – specific to our municipality

The Plan template represents the compulsory information and format that must be included, which will be audited by the Department of Primary Industry on behalf of the Minister. The template allows for the inclusion of any current Council Policies and guidelines relating to animal management and enforcement. The draft DAMP must show a direct link as follows:

Our Current Situation

Data, Orders, Local Laws, education programs, compliance activities, strategies What we have been doing

Summary What are our issues?

Our Plan Our objectives and activities – what, when, evaluation

3.3.2. Statutory Timeframe

Kingston’s current DAMP expires on 31st October 2012 and Council must adopt the new Domestic Animal Management Plan 2012 -2016 by 1 November 2012. The current timetable envisages that the DAMP would be adopted at the August Ordinary Council meeting.

4. Conclusion

The draft Domestic Animal Management Plan 2012-2016 has taken into consideration comments received during the public consultation process. The draft DAMP sets out Council’s animal management programs and method for evaluating our animal control services to ensure they are adequate to give effect to the requirements of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 and regulations.


Environmental protection was considered in the development of the DAMP. Specific elements of the DAMP aim to protect the environment and minimise the impact animals have within our community. For example the restriction which prevents residents of Waterways to own cats, in order to ensure the protection of wildlife within the area’ habitat.

176.


The broader community has been provided the opportunity to contribute comment which now has been considered in the development of the draft DAMP. The overarching objective of the draft plan is to promote responsible pet ownership and compliance. Through this Council seeks to achieve a safe, healthy and enjoyable environment for all persons in our municipality. Activities identified in the plan aim to deliver animal management services in a fair and equitable manner, including the fact that Council will review and identify opportunities for further access to open spaces for dog off-leash areas, which promote dog training and socialisation and opportunities for community connections.


The activities contained in the DAMP are a commitment statement by Council on how the City of Kingston will deliver animal management services. The activities listed will be undertaken within current operational budget and resources or be the subject of future budget allocation.


Council has a legal obligation to develop, adopt, implement and evaluate a four year Domestic Animal Management Plan. The plan must address Council’s and the community’s statutory responsibilities and how compliance will be achieved. Council has an obligation to reduce risks through the delivery of animal management services, aiming to provide a safe and enjoyable community for all users.

5. Appendices

5.1. Appendix 1 – Draft Domestic Animal Management Plan Trim 12/49536 5.2. Appendix 2 – On line survey evaluation summary Trim 12/47512 5.3. Appendix 3 - On line survey comments received Trim 12/49531 5.4. Appendix 4 – Summary of New Objectives and Actions Trim 12/50239

Author/s: Robyn Horner Manager Statutory Education and Compliance

Reviewed and Approved By: Paul Franklin General Manager Corporate Services

177.

1


23 July 2012


INVESTMENT POLICY REPORT – JUNE 2012 QUARTER Contact Officer: Bernard Byrden, Manager Finance

Purpose of Report

In accordance with Council’s adopted Investment Policy, the purpose of this report is to advise Council where Kingston’s working capital is currently invested. Kingston’s funds that are not immediately required for operating purposes are invested in accordance with the relevant legislative requirements and policy requirements, with consideration of risk and at the most favourable rate of interest available to it at the time, for that investment type, while ensuring that our liquidity requirements are being met.



Recommendation

Officers recommend that Council: 1. Note that funds at 30 June 2012 are being invested in line with the risk management

profile prescribed in Council’s Investment policy.


Council has invested its funds of $41.0million as at 30 June 2012 in line with the policy requirements of Council’s Investment Policy.

2. Background

Council’s Investment Policy that was adopted by Council in October 2008 requires Council to be updated on our investment portfolio each quarter and the General Manager Corporate Services to be updated monthly. This monthly report compares our investments as at 30 June 2012 compared to the overall portfolio limits specified in the Investment Policy.

3. Discussion

3.1. Council Investments Cash has been invested in the following ways:

June 2012 June 2011 Type of Investment Amount

($’000) Amount ($’000)

Cash at Bank 2,083 3,954 Cash At Call 8,000 5,000 Funds Invested (Fixed term investments) 31,001 31,000 Total 41,084 39,954

178.

Council had funds of $31.0 million invested as at 30 June 2012. The investments have been made for fixed terms periods from 1 month to 9 months. The interest rates achieved as at 30th June 2012 were in the range of 3.90% to 5.80% p.a. The attached Investment Schedule details our investments by credit rating, by bank and by maturity and demonstrates compliance with the Investment Policy. The schedule shows that 96% of funds are invested in AA or AAA rated investments (Prescribed minimum is 75%). The majority of funds are invested as follows: Bank West 32%; NAB 32% and Commonwealth Bank 22%. All are below the 60% maximum required by the Investment Policy. 100% of funds are invested for less than 1 year.

3.2. Portfolio Performance

AVERAGE INTEREST RATE 2011/2012

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

July

Augus

t

Septe

mbe

r

Octob

er

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

Janu

ary

Febru

ary

Mar

chApr

ilM

ayJu

ne

AVERAGE Y

TD

MONTH

INT

ER

ES

T R

AT

E

Avg Interest Rate City of Kingston

90 Day Bank Bill Rate + 20pts

The average interest rate at 30 June, 2012 is 5.65% (Jun11 – 5.69%) which is 126pts ahead of the average 90 Day Bank Bill Rate of 4.39% (Jun11 – 4.91%) and 106pts ahead of the investment policy target of the average 90 Day Bank Bill Rate plus 20pts of 4.59% (Jun11 – 5.11%). The favourable rate variance is due to council making more longer term investments (six to twelve months).

YTD AVERAGE INTEREST RATE COMPARISON

5.11% 4.91%4.59%

5.69% 5.65%

4.39%

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

Average Interest Rate City ofKingston

90 Day Bank Bill Rate + 20pts 90 Day Bank Bill Rate

2010/11

2011/12

2179.

The June 2012 YTD average interest rate of 5.65% is 3pts lower than June 2011 and the 90 Day Bank Bill Rate of 4.39% is 52pts less than last year.

INTEREST INCOME 2011/12

$-

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

$1,600,000

$1,800,000

$2,000,000

July

Augus

t

Septe

mbe

r

Octob

er

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

Janu

ary

Febru

ary

Mar

chApr

ilM

ayJu

ne

AMOUNT

MO

NT

H Actual InterestReceived onInvestments (YTD)Budgeted Interest Received onInvestments (YTD)

Interest Income received on investments at 30th June, 2012 totals $1.85 million, which is $424k favourable to the budget of $1.42 million.

Average Weighted Interest Rate by Institution (Fixed Term Deposits)

4.66%

5.80%5.48%

4.68%5.24%

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

Bendigo Bank Westpac CBA NAB Bank West

As at 30 June 2012 the average weighted interest rate per institution ranges from 4.66% to 5.80%.

3180.

4. Conclusion

At the 30 June 2012 Council has a total of $48.7 million held in Cash and Investments. These funds were held in the following categories.

June 2012 June 2011

Category Amount ($’000)

Amount ($’000)

Unrestricted Cash / Working Capital 13,637 13,891 Restricted Assets – Asset Development Reserve 8,828 7,469 Restricted Assets – Long Service Leave 6,900 6,900 Restricted Assets – Trust Funds and Deposits 11,719 11,694 Total 41,084 39,954

CASH LEVELS

$-

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

July

Augus

t

Septe

mbe

r

Octobe

r

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

Janu

ary

Febru

ary

Mar

chApr

ilM

ayJu

ne

Am

ou

nt

$ (

'00

0)

2011/12 Total

2010/11 Total

2011/12 Restricted

2010/11 Restricted

5. Appendices

5.1 Appendix 1 - Investment Schedule (Trim12/70938)

Author/s: Bernard Byrden, Manager Finance

Reviewed and Approved By: Paul Franklin, General Manager Corporate Services

4181.


23 July 2012


CLEANING TENDER FOR KINGSTON LEISURE CENTRES Contact Officer: Alexia Morgan, Team Leader Leisure Centres

Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to advise Council of the outcome of the tender evaluation for Contract 11/116 – Provision of Cleaning Services at Kingston Leisure Centres and to seek Council approval to appoint the preferred tenderer, TJS Services for an initial contract period of two (2) years at the annual cost of $205,086.11 (inc GST), with the option to extend the contract by two (2) further periods of two (2) years each subject to satisfactory performance.


No Council officers or Contractors who have provided advice in relation to this report have declared a Conflict of Interest regarding the matter under consideration.

Recommendation

Officers recommend that Council: a) Approve the award of Contract 11/116 for the Provision of Cleaning Services at Kingston

Leisure Centres to TJS Services for an initial contract period of two (2) years at the annual cost of $205,086.11 (inc GST), equating to a total cost of approximately $410,172.22 (inc GST) in the first two year term.

b) That the Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority to exercise the Council’s option to extend the contract for two (2) x two (2) year periods at the completion of the initial contract


This tender was publically advertised on 21 January 2012. Tenders closed on 23 February 2012 and attracted sixteen submissions. The Tender Evaluation Panel deemed that the most suitable company from all tender submissions was TJS Services. The total cost per annum tendered by TJS Services for the cleaning of both of Kingston’s Leisure Centre is $205,086.11 (inc GST). Provision has been made in this contract for annual Rise and Fall adjustments.

2. Background

Waves Leisure Centre and Don Tatnell Leisure Centre are currently cleaned by Quay Clean. Quay Clean were engaged on a month by month basis on 1 January 2011 when the previous cleaning company abandoned the contract after being issued with a Show Cause Notice in December 2011. Whilst Quay Clean have been doing a good job and are well regarded within the Leisure industry they are a relatively expensive option to continue with. It was decided that this service should be publically tendered to achieve the best value in quality and cost for these services.

182.

The tender was publically advertised on 21 January 2012. An inspection of both Waves Leisure Centre and Don Tatnell Leisure Centre was offered to all interested parties on 8 February 2012. Tenders closed on 23 February 2012 and attracted sixteen submissions. A number of tenderers were asked to provide further information to clarify their tender submission. This was done with the advice and support of the Manager, Procurement & Contracts, Mr Darryn Paspa. The sixteen tender responses were scored based on the following criteria.

Maximum Score

Organisational Profile 5%

Hours allocated for cleaning 20%

Environment 10%

Equipment used/owned 5%

Staff experience 5%

Aquatic Centre experience 5%

References 10%

Price/Value for money 40%

Total 100

The tender evaluation panel, which consisted of Alexia Morgan, Kim Forbes and Emily Boucher, independently reviewed all tenders prior to meeting. The full evaluation matrix is included in the confidential attachment as Appendix 2.

3. Discussion


Planned Outcome 1 – Infrastructure for a Safe and Active Community Strategy 1.3 Quality Community Facilities that area accessible, safe and well utilised.

4. Conclusion

As demonstrated in the confidential evaluation matrix, TJS Services provided the best total solution, with the highest level of conformance to the tender of the sixteen parties who responded. There were 5 tenders received with a lower price than TCS Services. The evaluation committee identified a number of factors in each of those submissions which contributed to the offers not being recommended for acceptance which are summarised in the confidential attachment – Appendix 1. Beyond price, three critical qualative factors in the evaluation of the tenders were the hours allocated to clean the centers, the experience of the company in managing a cleaning contract for a public facility and the experience of the company in cleaning an aquatic centre. Each of these factors is expanded upon below: Hours - The number of hours were based on those currently and previously

required to clean the centers to an appropriate standard. Companies that listed hours significantly lower than the current standard also tended to have no aquatic centre experience and it was identified that they underestimated the workload required. Under allocation of cleaning time for the centers has been an issue in the past that has lead to dispute and poor presentation of the facilities impacting on the Councils capacity to satisfy our customers.

Experience Cleaning Public Facilities -The length of service and experience of each company’s key staff in overseeing and monitoring cleaning in a public access facility was also taken into account. The ability for the company to respond in a timely manner to issues raised by the Centre is essential. There are several 183.

constraints in cleaning a public facility with a 7 day a week operation. The demands on the contractor to provide a reliable cleaning service that is able to work within the limited time periods demanded for a public facility means a higher level of management capacity is required than that normally required for an office of domestic environment.

Previous aquatic experience - was deemed valuable due to the environmental

factors associated with cleaning such a facility, in particular the pool halls. Company’s need an understanding of; which cleaning materials can and can’t be used around pool water to ensure the carefully monitored chemical balance of the pools is maintained; understand the workload involved in cleaning non slip floor surfaces to a sanitary standard; understand the issues with corrosion and calcium build up associated with the aquatic areas; appreciate the demands placed on their staff working in a humid environment; as well as the high level of sanitation required in wet public access areas, to prevent mould and bacteria build up. Cleaning in an Aquatic Environment is significantly more complex than a standard office or domestic environment.

TJS Services have 17 years business and cleaning experience. The Company has satisfied the requirements to be registered with iprolive. TJS Services currently demonstrate good OH&S practices, environmental initiatives and an excellent start up schedule. TJS also currently clean a number of Leisure Centres including Doncaster Aquarena, Dandenong Oasis and Casey ARC. The majority of TJS Services references are complimentary of their services. The Manager Procurement and Contracts has reviewed the process and provided advice throughout the evaluation and tender process to ensure that no tenderer has been unfairly treated and believes that Council has met its probity requirements.


An effort was made to make cleaning at the Leisure Centres more environmentally friendly. Tenderers were encouraged to consider greener cleaning methods and also choose environmentally friendly cleaning products. Ten percent of the overall evaluation score was designated for environmental criteria.


Nil

4.3. Resource Implications The cost of $205,086.11 per annum fits within the Leisure Centres budget for 2012/2013.


Nil.

5. Confidential Appendices

5.1. Appendix 1 – Summary of Evaluation 5.2. Appendix 2 – Leisure Centres Cleaning Evaluation Spreadsheet 2012 (TRIM 12/23093)

Author/s: Alexia Morgan, Team Leader Kingston Leisure Centres

Reviewed and Approved By: Paul Franklin, General Manager Corporate Services

184.


23 July 2012


ANNUAL REPORT OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE Author: Hugh Parkes, Audit Committee Chairman

Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to update Council on the activities of the Audit Committee over the previous 12 months.



Recommendation

That Council notes the 2011/12 Annual Report of the Chairman of the Audit Committee.

Introduction

As a part of Council’s governance obligations to its community the Audit Committee was established as an independent Advisory Committee to Council in 1997. The primary objective of the Audit Committee is to assist Council in the effective conduct of its responsibilities for financial reporting, management of risk, business continuity, maintaining a reliable system of internal controls and facilitating the organisation’s ethical development. As part of Council’s governance obligations to its community, Council has constituted the Audit Committee under a Charter to facilitate the following outcomes as a part of its work program:- 1. the enhancement of the credibility and objectivity of internal and external financial

reporting; 2. effective management of Council’s strategic risks and the protection of Council assets; 3. monitoring of Council’s Business Continuity Plans and processes; 4. the efficiency, effectiveness and compliance of significant Council Programmes; 5. compliance with laws and regulations as well as use of best practice guidelines; and 6. effectiveness of the audit functions.

186.

Membership

The membership of the Audit Committee during the reporting period was:-

Name Qualifications Role Period Attendance Mr Ray Liggett BSc, MBA Independent

Member & Chair July 2011-March 2012 3 of 4

meetings Mr Hugh Parkes BA, MBA, FCA,

CISA Independent Member & Chair

July 2011-March 2012 April 2012-June 2012

5 of 5 meetings

Mr Bruce Potgieter FCA - Australia ICA - South Africa

Independent Member

July 2011-June 2012 5 of 5 meetings

Ms Claire Filson LLB; MBA Independent Member

June 2012 1 of 1 meeting

Mr John Ronke Mayor, Councillor Internal Member December 2011-June 2012 3 of 3 meetings

Cr Ron Brownlees Mayor, Councillor Internal Member July 2011-November 2011 2 of 2 meetings

Cr Paul Peulich Councillor Internal Member July 2011-June 2012 4 of 5 meetings

Meetings

The Audit Committee have met on 5 occasions in 2010/11:- ● 18 August 2011 ● 21 March 2012 ● 28 September 2011 ● 20 June 2012 ● 14 December 2011

2011/12 Review

I am pleased to report that Kingston has in place a strong Audit Committee that has in 2011/12 undertaken a thorough and comprehensive review of many of Council’s higher risk profile systems and processes. It has also continued to oversee the activities of Council’s contracted Internal Auditor and the External Auditor who is appointed by the Auditor-General. 2011/12 also saw Council adopt an updated Charter for the Audit Committee to guide the work of the Committee. The activities of 2011/12 have been guided by the Strategic Internal Audit Plan which over a rolling three year period continues to examine higher risk areas of Council’s operations to give a level of assurance that Council’s stewardship of the Kingston community’s assets is maintained at the highest level. A highlight of the Audit Committee in 2011/12 has been the attendance in turn of each of Council’s General Managers who have briefed the Committee on the current activities of their respective division within Council. This has enabled the Committee to gain a better appreciation of current issues in local government and of Kingston specific matters. Below are some detailed comments on how the Audit Committee has responded to its Charter. This is primarily achieved through the consideration of reports that are provided by both Management and the Internal Auditor, and monitoring the effectiveness of the Internal Audit program. (Note that some reports will appear in more than one heading). 1. The enhancement of the credibility and objectivity of internal and external

financial reporting To achieve this outcome the Audit Committee considered and commented on the following reports:- Consideration of the 2010/11 Annual Statements CAATs Review – 2010/11 Annual Accounts Progress 20010-2011 Year-End Management Letter

187.

VAGO Audit Engagement Letter 2011/12 External Audit Strategy 2011/2012 Annual Accounts Timetable Draft 2012/2013 Annual Budget Final Terms of Reference – CAATs Review

2. Effective management of Council’s strategic risks and the protection of Council

assets To achieve this outcome the Audit Committee considered and commented on the following reports:- Final Terms of Reference: Cash Handling Review Terms of Reference – Tendering Process Final Internal Audit Report on Cash Handling Update on recent IT event Pool Compliance Orders – Status Update Final Internal Audit Report on Accounts Payable Terms of Reference – Road Management Act Review Terms of Reference – Fraud Review Terms of Reference – Aged Care Review Final Internal Audit Report on Anti-Fraud Procedures Final Terms of Reference – CAATs Review Final Internal Audit Report – Tendering Processes

3. Monitoring of Council’s Business Continuity Plans and Processes

Update on IT Event Revised Information Architecture Diagram which identifies all of the Council’s

databases and the condition of the information they contain Final Internal Audit Report on IT Governance

4. The Efficiency, Effectiveness and compliance of Significant Council Programmes

Municipal Inspectorate Audit Outcomes Final Internal Audit Report of Tendering Processes Final Internal Audit Report of Anti-Fraud Procedures Draft Internal Audit Plan FY 2013 – FY 2015 Terms of Reference – Aged Care Review Final Internal Audit on Accounts Payable

5. Compliance with laws and regulations as well as use of best practice guidelines

To achieve this outcome the Audit Committee considered and commented on the following reports:- Auditor General’s Report on Compliance with Building Permits Auditor General’s Report on Management of Road Bridges Auditor General’s Report on Business Planning for Major Capital Works and

Recurrent Services in Local Government Auditor General’s Report on Victorian Public Sector ICT enabled projects Auditor General’s Report on Managing Contaminated Sites Auditor General’s Report on the results of the 2010/11 Local Government

Financial Audits Victorian Independent Broad Based Anti-Corruption Commission Conflict of Interest – A Guide for Members of Council Committees

188.

6. The effectiveness of the audit function Internal Audit Council’s current Internal Auditors are Deloitte who have extensive experience in the Local Government sector as Internal Auditors at other municipalities. Deloitte commenced their contract in August 2008 for an initial three year period, with an option to extend the contract for two further 12 month periods. Upon commencement of this contract, in consultation with Senior Management at Council, an organisational risk assessment was undertaken. This, together with the City’s risk register and the information architecture diagram, formed the basis of the Internal Audit Strategic Plan, which is reviewed by Internal Audit and Management and then adopted by the Audit Committee annually. The Internal Audit program that the Committee has overseen is in place to assist both Council and Management to achieve sound control over all Council activities. Internal Audit is not involved in the day to day internal transaction checking but provides an independent and objective assurance that the appropriate processes are in place. The Audit Committee also formally reviews the performance of the Internal Auditor each year. Prior to accepting each report submitted by the Internal Auditor, the Committee examines the recommendations made in each report and management’s comments thereon. To enable the Committee to closely monitor the implementation of Management’s agreed actions to address the recommendations contained in the Internal Auditor’s reports a progress report from Management is provided to each meeting. It is particularly pleasing that during the year a large number of actions, including some very long standing ones of high or significant importance have been completed by management. Management’s focus on them is acknowledged and appreciated.

External Audit Council’s current External Auditor is the Victorian Auditor-General. The Auditor-General has elected to contract this activity for 2011/12 to Mr Mark Peters of HLB Mann Judd. Mr Peters is responsible for providing a recommendation to the Auditor-General that the Annual Financial Statements of Council present fairly and in accordance with applicable Accounting Standards. Representatives of HLB Mann Judd met with the Audit Committee during March to brief the Committee on how they would be conducting the annual audit. It is usual practice to meet again with Mr Peters in August to allow him to report on the findings of his examination of Council’s financial records. It is normal practice for the External Auditor to review the Internal Audit program to better understand the internal control framework that exists at Council. I feel that the above comments clearly demonstrate to Council that the Audit Committee has discharged its responsibilities to Council as set out in the Audit Committee Charter.

Accountability

In addition to this annual report, the Audit Committee’s minutes are available to Councillors and are presented to Council meetings as part of the communication from the Audit Committee to the Council. Whilst the Committee has two Councillors as members, I also welcome any opportunity for further interaction with the other elected representatives, several of whom have previously served on the Audit Committee.

189.

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the professionalism and participation of all the members of the Audit Committee. The level of discussion on matters brought before the Committee have been of a very high standard, which I believe have resulted in tangible benefits to the community, Council and Council officers. The Committee has also greatly benefited from the contributions of the Councillor Committee Members who bring significant local knowledge and local community experience to the meeting table. I also wish to record my appreciation of the work undertaken by Council staff in supporting the work of the Committee including the commitment and involvement of the Chief Executive Officer, Mr John Nevins with the Audit Committee. It is also appropriate to record appreciation of the work of Mr Ray Liggett, who chaired the Audit Committee from 2001 to March 2012. Mr Liggett’s long term contribution to the success of the Committee cannot be underestimated.

Conclusion

Council has an obligation to the community to properly utilise the resources put at its disposal. The Audit Committee and the activities that it oversees is one mechanism that allows the community to feel confident that Council is properly discharging stewardship and governance obligations.

190.

191.


23 July 2012


APPROVAL CHARITY COLLECTIONS/APPEALS Contact Officer: Neil Sheppard

Purpose of Report

This is a request for Council to approve the application for a charity collection/appeal by an organisation not currently listed in Council policy 1.01 Charity Collections/Appeals.



Recommendation

That Council approve the application for the Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA) Australia to undertake: 1. A doorknock in the municipality in the month of October; and 2. Intersection collection at the intersection of Warrigal and Centre Dandenong Roads -

Cheltenham on the following date: Saturday 6 October 2012 from sunrise to sunset.


The current Council Policy 1.01 Charity Collections/Appeals only allows 7 listed organisations to conduct door knock appeals and intersection collections in Kingston. All other organisation’s applications must be approved by Council. This report requests Council to consider an application by Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA) Australia to undertake the following activities. 1. A doorknock in the municipality in the month of October; and 2. Intersection collection at the intersection of Warrigal and Centre Dandenong Roads

- Cheltenham on the following date: Saturday 6 October 2012 from sunrise to sunset.

Council Officers support the application.

2. Background

The current Council Policy 1.01 Charity Collections/Appeals adopted in 1997 allows the following charity organizations to conduct one door knock appeal in Kingston per year: 1. Red Cross (March of each year) 2. AUSTCARE (May-June of each year) 3. Salvation Army (May of each year) 4. National Heart Foundation (Sunday in August of each year) 5. Freedom from Hunger (October of each year) 6. Spastic Society of Victoria (April of each year) 7. Royal Children’s Hospital Good Friday Appeal

192.

In addition to the 7 listed organizations, other organizations may be permitted to conduct door knocks, however all applications received from other organizations must be referred to Council for approval. This policy has not been reviewed since 1997 and will be the subject of a further report recommending amendments to the existing policy. The appointed group is the disaster relief area of the Seventh Day Adventist Church.

3. Discussion

3.1. Council Plan Alignment Planned Outcome 3 - Healthy, Strong and Connected Communities Planned Outcome 5 – Community Inspired Leadership


Statutory Education and Compliance have liaised with the Communications and Governance teams. Further consultation will occur as part of the review of the Council Policy 1.01 Charity Collections/Appeals.

. 3.3. Operation and Strategic Issues

Statutory Education and Compliance will now work with the Communications team to resolve operational issues associated with applications received from organisations that are not listed on the 1997 Policy. A report to Council will be prepared recommending an amendment to the current Council Policy 1.01 Charity Collections/Appeals that will remove the restrictions on which charities may be granted a permit to fund raise by door knocking or undertaking an intersection collection in Kingston, without the requirement of a report being prepared for Council consideration.

4. Conclusion

4.1. Environmental Implications There are no environmental implications.

4.2. Social Implications There are no social implications.


There are no resource implications.

4.4. Legal / Risk Implications Officers believe there is no legal or risk implications for the recommended amendment.

5. Appendices

5.1. Appendix 1 – A-Z Policy 1.01 Charity Collections/Appeals (TRIM 08/97835) Author/s: Neil Sheppard, Team Leader Statutory Compliance Reviewed and Approved By: Paul Franklin, General Manager Corporate Services


23 July 2012


NOTICE OF MOTION (RESCISSION) NO. 22/2012 – CR PEULICH I move to rescind Part 1 of the item of Urgent Business at the June 25, 2012 Ordinary Meeting of Council (refer to Appendix 1). Cr Paul Peulich 25 June 2012

ordinary council meeting - city of kingston · agenda 23 july 2012 1. notice is given that an...

Documents