Logo_Primary_BlackWhite%20(JPG)

Minutes

 

OF Ordinary
COUNCIL MEETING

HELD ON

Tuesday 18 April 2017

AT 6.31PM

In Council Chamber, 25 Ferres Boulevard, South Morang


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                                    Tuesday 18 April 2017

 

 

 

COUNCILLORS

 

RICKY KIRKHAM                            MAYOR, NORTH WARD

JOHN BUTLER                                NORTH WARD

EMILIA LISA STERJOVA               NORTH WARD

NORM KELLY                                  DEPUTY MAYOR, SOUTH EAST WARD

SAM ALESSI                                    SOUTH EAST WARD

ALAHNA DESIATO                         SOUTH EAST WARD

MARY LALIOS                                 SOUTH EAST WARD

LAWRIE COX                                   SOUTH WEST WARD

STEVAN KOZMEVSKI                   SOUTH WEST WARD

CAZ MONTELEONE                       SOUTH WEST WARD

KRIS PAVLIDIS                               SOUTH WEST WARD


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                                    Tuesday 18 April 2017

 

 

 

SENIOR OFFICERS

 

 

LIANA THOMPSON                          ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

RUSSELL HOPKINS                         DIRECTOR COMMUNITY SERVICES

KRISTEN JACKSON                         ACTING DIRECTOR PLANNING AND MAJOR PROJECTS

NICK MANN                                       DIRECTOR CITY TRANSPORT & PRESENTATION

HELEN SUI                                        DIRECTOR CORPORATE SERVICES

BELGIN BESIM                                  ACTING DIRECTOR PARTNERSHIPS & ENGAGEMENT

MICHAEL TONTA                              MANAGER GOVERNANCE

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                                    Tuesday 18 April 2017

 

 

ORDER OF BUSINESS

 

The Acting Chief Executive Officer submits the following business:

 

1.            Opening.. 9

1.1         MEETING OPENING AND PRAYER.. 9

1.2         ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF TRADITIONAL OWNERS STATEMENT.. 9

1.3         Present.. 9

1.4         welcome.. 9

2.            Apologies.. 10

3.            Declarations of Interest.. 10

4.            Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting.. 10

5.            Consideration and Action on Petitions and Joint Letters.. 11

5.1         Petitions.. 11

5.1.1       petition - support and advocate the construction of the E6 Freeway and an acoustic wall adjouning Plenty Road. 11

Council Resolution.. 11

5.2         Joint Letters.. 11

Nil Reports.. 11

6.            Officers’ Reports.. 13

6.1         Planning and Major Projects.. 15

6.1.1       15 & 15A Barak Parade, Doreen - request for extension of time to planning permit - construction of two single storey dwellings.. 15

6.1.2       5 Madison court, bundoora - construction of two dwellings & subdivision into two lots.. 19

6.1.3       111 Scanlon drive, epping - construction of a warehouse   29

6.1.4       1925 Plenty Road, Yan Yean - Buildings and Works   Associated with an Existing Recreation Facility (Tennis Club) Including the Removal of Native Vegetation and Alteration of Access to a Road Zone Category 1. 35

6.1.5       2 Luzon Court, Lalor - Construction of two double storey dwellings.. 49

6.1.6       Planning Efficiencies and Delegations.. 59

6.1.7       Request for Amendment to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme - Community Infrastructure Levy.. 69

6.2         Community Services.. 75

6.2.1       City of Whittlesea Soccer Strategy 2017. 75

6.2.2       Early Years Policy.. 81

6.3         City Transport and Presentation.. 85

6.3.1       E6 Transport Corridor.. 85

6.4         Corporate Services.. 91

6.4.1       Lease - Ambulance Victoria - Part of 73 McDonalds Road Epping   91

6.4.2       Unconfirmed Minutes of Audit & Risk Committee Meeting   95

6.4.3       Committee of Council Recommendation - Lease - Animal Welfare Facility - 490 Cooper Street Epping.. 97

6.4.4       Assemblies of councillors - 18 April 2017. 101

6.5         Partnerships & Engagement.. 105

6.5.1       Appointment of Additional Councillor Representative to the Municipal Association of Victoria.. 105

6.5.2       MAYORAL AND COUNCILLOR ALLOWANCES.. 107

6.6         Executive Services.. 109

6.6.1       CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER EMPLOYMENT MATTERS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CEMAC) MEMBERSHIP.. 109

7.            Notices of Motion.. 111

7.1           Notice of Motion - 823 - Urgent approval of Amendment C197 -  Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) Update.. 111

8.            Questions to Officers.. 112

9.            Urgent Business.. 112

10.         Reports from Delegates Appointed to Council by Other Bodies.. 115

10.1      udia national congress.. 115

10.2      australian local government womens association conference.. 115

11.         Questions to Councillors.. 116

12.         Confidential Business.. 117

12.1       Planning and Major Projects.. 117

Nil Reports.. 117

12.2       Community Services.. 117

Nil Reports.. 117

12.3       City Transport and Presentation.. 117

12.3.1    SUPPLY AND DELIVERY OF TWO HINO FG/BUCHER VT651 ROAD SWEEPERS - CONTRACT 2014-2Z13 - CONTRACT FINALISATION.. 117

12.3.2    Provision of Road Signs and Associated Products - MAPS 1407- 0316 - Contract Finalisation.. 117

12.3.3    Bridge Inn Road Duplication - Finalisation Report. 117

12.4       Corporate Services.. 117

12.4.1    Tender Evaluation for Contract 2016-202 - Insurance Portfolio.. 117

12.4.2    TEMPORARY AGENCY STAFF MANAGEMENT SYSTEM - VARIATION REPORT. 117

12.5       Partnerships & Engagement.. 117

Nil Reports.. 117

12.6       Executive Services.. 119

12.6.1    MEETINGS OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 8 March to 7 April 2017  119

13.         Closure.. 120

 

 

Note:

In these Minutes, Resolutions adopted by Council are indicated in bold text.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                                    Tuesday 18 April 2017

 

1.         Opening

1.1       MEETING OPENING AND PRAYER

The Acting Chief Executive Officer opened the meeting with a prayer at 6.31PM.

1.2       ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF TRADITIONAL OWNERS STATEMENT

On behalf of the City of Whittlesea the Mayor recognised the rich Aboriginal heritage of this country and acknowledged the Wurundjeri Willum Clan as the Traditional Owners of this place.

 

1.3       Present

Members:

Ricky Kirkham                     Mayor (North Ward)

John Butler                          Councillor (North Ward)

Emilia Lisa Sterjova             Councillor (North Ward)

Norm Kelly                           Deputy Mayor (South East Ward)

Alahna Desiato                    Councillor (South East Ward)

Mary Lalios                          Councillor (South East Ward)

Lawrie Cox                          Councillor (South West Ward)

Stevan Kozmevski              Councillor (South West Ward)

Caz Monteleone                  Councillor (South West Ward)

 

Officers:

Ms Liana Thompson            Acting Chief Executive Officer

Ms Kristen Jackson             Acting Director Planning and Major Projects

Mr Russell Hopkins             Director Community Services

Mr Nick Mann                      Director City Transport & Presentation

Ms Helen Sui                       Director Corporate Services

Ms Belgin Besim                  Acting Director Partnerships & Engagement

Mr Michael Tonta                Manager Governance

1.4       welcome

The Mayor Cr Ricky Kirkham welcomed Cr Jackson Taylor from the Knox City Council who was present at the meeting.

2.         Apologies

Apology

Apologies were received on behalf of Cr Pavlidis and Cr Alessi.

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Cox

Seconded:               Cr Kozmevski

 

THAT the Councillor's apology be received and leave be granted.

Carried

 3.        Declarations of Interest

NIL or select from the following options for type of interest and delete others:

4.         Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Kelly

Seconded:               Cr Monteleone

 

That the following Minutes of the preceding meeting as circulated, be confirmed:

Ordinary Meeting of Council held 21 March 2017

Adjourned Meeting of Council held 28 March 2017

Special Meeting of Council held 28 March 2017

Carried

 

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Butler

Seconded:               Cr Kelly

 

THAT Council resolve to defer the confirmation of the Minutes for the Special Council Meeting held 7 March 2017 to later in the meeting.  

Carried


 

5.         Consideration and Action on Petitions and Joint Letters

5.1       Petitions

5.1.1    petition - support and advocate the construction of the E6 Freeway and an acoustic wall adjouning Plenty Road.

File No:      177059

A petition from 193 residents and 29 non-residents who support and advocate the construction of the E6 Freeway and an acoustic wall.

.

Moved:                       Cr Lalios

Seconded:               Cr Desiato

 

THAT Council resolve to:

1.       Refer point 1 of the petition – Support and advocate for the construction of the E6 Freeway to take some pressure off Plenty Road to Item 6.3.1 – E6 Transport Corridor tabled in the agenda; and

2.       Write urgently to the Minister for Roads, Vic Roads and local Members of Parliament supporting point 2 of the petition requesting acoustic walls along Plenty Road in the affected areas.

Carried

 

 

5.2       Joint Letters

Nil Reports 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                                    Tuesday 18 April 2017

 

6.         Officers’ Reports

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to adopt the Recommendations for items numbers 6.1.4, 6.1.5, 6.1.7, 6.2.2, 6.4.2, 6.4.3, 6.4.4 and 6.5.2 .

 

 

Group Adoption of Items En Bloc

Councillors may choose not to consider reports on the Notice Paper individually and to resolve to adopt, in one resolution, the recommendations listed on the Notice Paper for a number of reports. Such a resolution will have the effect of adopting the Officer’s recommendation for each of the reports identified in the Council resolution. The remaining items of business are considered and voted on separately.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                                    Tuesday 18 April 2017

 

6.1       Planning and Major Projects

6.1.1    15 & 15A Barak Parade, Doreen - request for extension of time to planning permit - construction of two single storey dwellings

File No:                                  713352

Attachments:                        1        Locality Maps

2        Development Plans   

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Planning Officer   

 

APPLICANT:                                  Mr C Papotto

COUNCIL POLICY:              Nil

ZONING:                               General Residential Zone

OVERLAY:                            Development Contributions Plan Overlay (Schedule 6)

Development Plan Overlay (Schedule 5)

Incorporated Plan Overlay (Schedule 1)

Vegetation Protection Overlay (Schedule 1)

REFERRAL:                          Nil

RECOMMENDATION:         That Council approve an extension of time

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

An application has been received to extend a planning permit (No. 713352) allowing the construction of two single storey dwellings at 15 and 15A Barak Parade, Doreen. The application seeks to extend the time for the commencement and completion of the development.  The permit was originally granted on 16 February 2012 by planning officers under delegation.  Two previous extensions of time to the permit were granted on 24 January 2014 and 12 April 2016, respectively.  Following the last extension, the permit expired on 16 February 2017 as development had not yet commenced.  The permit allows for extension requests to be made within six months of the expiry date.

This application is being reported to Council because planning circumstances have changed since the permit was initially granted.  The report recommends that the extension of time be approved as it is likely that if a fresh application were to be made for the same development a further planning permit would be granted.

The changed circumstances set out in this report relate to the State-wide reformed Residential Zones introduced under Amendment VC116 (gazetted 1 July 2014).  Under the Amendment the subject land was rezoned from ‘Residential 1’ to ‘General Residential’. The development approved under the Permit has been assessed to be consistent with the purpose of this new zone. The subject site is not affected by the Housing Diversity Strategy.    

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject sites are described as Lots 1 and 2 on Plan of Subdivision 721837V and more generally known as 15 and 15A Barak Parade, Doreen. The site is located on the north side of Barak Parade, approximately 180m west of Yan Yean Road, Doreen (see Attachment 1).  The site is regular in shape and gently undulates with a fall of approximately 1.6m from east to west. Combined, both sites have a total site area of 646m2

The site is currently vacant and vehicular access is provided via an existing concrete crossing located within the southeast corner of the land.

The surrounding area is generally characterised by modern estate-style double and single storey dwellings.

BACKGROUND

Planning Permit No. 713352 was granted on 16 February 2012 authorising the construction of two single storey dwellings (see Attachment 2). The application was issued under delegation by officers as the proposal was generally in accordance with an approved development plan.  Consequently, the application was exempt from advertising requirements. 

Two previous extensions of time to the permit were granted on 24 January 2014 and 12 April 2016.  Following the last extension, the permit expired on 16 February 2017 as development had not yet commenced.  Condition No. 18 of the permit allows for extensions of time to be granted if development does not commence within the two year period.

Subdivision Permit 608373 was issued on 22 August 2013. This permit allowed for a two lot subdivision that is consistent with the endorsed plans under Planning Permit No. 713352. Condition 4(ii) requires the owner of the land to enter into a Section 173 Agreement that requires any development on the land to be in accordance with the development approved under Planning Permit No. 713352. 

current permit extension request

The applicant seeks an extension of one (1) year from the current Permit lapse date (16 February 2017) to commence the development due to issues with the builder and financial hardship due to unemployment. It has been indicated that construction is expected to commence immediately. 

ASSESSMENT

When the permit was issued on 16 February 2012, the land was located in a Residential 1 Zone.  On 1 July 2014, Amendment VC116 was approved by the Minister for Planning which introduced the new State-wide reformed residential zones to all established areas within the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  The subject site is now zoned ‘General Residential’ (Clause 32.08 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme). The subject site is not affected by the Housing Diversity Strategy.

The proposed development (see Attachment 2) is for two single storey dwellings. The development approved under the Permit remains consistent with Clause 55 (ResCode) of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.

The applicable principles for considering extensions of time have been established by VCAT, are based on legal precedent and are applied by all councils.  These tests are referred to as the ‘Kantor’ tests (named after the legal case which introduced them).  The tests guide decisions and provide a degree of certainty for all stakeholders who may be affected by decisions relating to the extensions of time.

It should be noted that there are no statutory provisions for notifying other affected persons of extension of time requests.

The ‘Kantor’ tests are set out below with comments under each heading relevant to the current application.

Whether there is a change of planning policy

The change in zoning brought about by the approval of Amendment VC116 has been discussed previously in this report.  These changes continue to support the current proposal. 

Whether the landowner is seeking to ‘warehouse’ the permit

There is no evidence that the permit holder is seeking to ‘warehouse’ the permit (i.e. not intending to act on the permit in the foreseeable future). The permit holder has indicated that construction will begin immediately.

Intervening circumstances bearing on the grant or refusal of the extension

There are no intervening circumstances bearing on the grant or refusal of the extension other than the permit holder’s own personal and financial circumstances.

The total elapse of time

A period of five years has elapsed since the permit was initially granted in 2012.

Whether the time limit originally imposed was adequate

The time limit imposed was reasonable.  The permit holder was given the benefit of a standard two year commencement and four year completion period, and two previous extensions.

The economic burden imposed on the landowner by the permit

This relates to the degree to which the permit holder is economically committed to the permit proposal as a consequence of actions taken to give effect to the permit.  No development has commenced under the permit, however plans have been endorsed under the planning permit.

The probability of a permit issuing should a fresh application be made

As discussed above, under the reformed residential zones, the site is now zoned ‘General Residential’. This zone allows for, and encourages, the provision of diverse housing options. In light of this, it is likely that the permit for the construction of two single storey dwellings would be granted on the subject land should a fresh application be made.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

The purpose of limiting the life of a permit is to ensure that it does not become inappropriate due to a change in circumstances.  The reformed residential zoning was introduced into the Whittlesea Planning Scheme subsequent to the issue of the permit.  These changes in policy suggest that it would be likely that the current proposal would be supported if a fresh application were to be made.  On these grounds it is recommended that the extension of time be granted. 

 

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to approve the application to extend Planning Permit No. 713352 for a further one year for the construction of two single storey dwellings at 15 and 15A Barak Parade, Doreen, and advise the applicant accordingly.

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Monteleone

Seconded:               Cr Kelly

 

THAT Council resolve to adopt the Recommendation.

Carried

 

Division

Immediately after the motion was voted on, Cr Ricky Kirkham called for a division which resulted in the following votes being recorded.

 

For

Cr Kozmevski

Cr Kelly

Cr Lalios

Cr Cox

Cr Monteleone

Cr Desiato

Against

Cr Kirkham

Cr Butler

Abstained

Cr Sterjova

Based on the votes cast during the Division, the motion was carried.

carried


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                                    Tuesday 18 April 2017

 

6.1.2    5 Madison court, bundoora - construction of two dwellings & subdivision into two lots

File No:                                  716034

Attachments:                        1        Locality Maps

2        Development Plans   

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Planning Officer   

 

APPLICANT:                                  Absolute Building Consultancy 

COUNCIL POLICY:              Clause 21.09 - Housing

ZONING:                               General Residential Zone

OVERLAY:                            Development Contributions Plan Overlay

REFERRAL:                          Nil

OBJECTIONS:                      10

RECOMMENDATION:         That Council refuse the application

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

The applicant proposes to construct two double storey dwellings on the subject land.  The existing crossing located on the northern side of the frontage will be retained to provide vehicular access to both dwellings.

Advertising of the proposal resulted in 10 objections being received.  The grounds of objection relate to neighbourhood character, front setback non-compliance, overlooking, overshadowing, dwelling design, parking/traffic congestion, noise impacts, construction concerns, and property devaluation.

The proposal demonstrates an unsatisfactory level of compliance with the provisions of Clause 52.06 and Clause 55 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme and does not meet all objectives in relation to neighbourhood character, residential policy, street setback, landscaping, parking location, dwelling entry, and private open space.

The Housing Diversity Strategy (HDS) nominates the site as being within the Suburban Residential change area.  The proposal does not comply with the Key Design Principles of this change area and is therefore considered to be inconsistent with the objectives of Clause 21.09-4 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.

On the basis of the Clause 21.09, 52.06 and 55 assessments, it is recommended that Council refuse the application.

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA                                   

The subject site is located on the southern side of Madison Court, approximately 50m west of Belah Street and 290m south of Settlement Road, Bundoora (see Attachment 1).  The site is an irregular shaped allotment and provides a frontage to Madison Court of approximately 12.0m and a depth of approximately 59.4m, providing an overall site area of 720m2.  The site has a north-west to south-east fall of 4.5m. The site is currently developed with a detached single storey brick dwelling with a pitched tile roof and detached garage to the rear of the site. Vehicular access to the site is provided via a proposed single concrete crossing located off the northwestern corner of the property.  There is no vegetation of significance contained within the site.

The surrounding area is generally characterised by residential land uses with single storey dwellings on site being typical of the prevailing built form, as well as some examples of double storey built form to the east. There are some limited examples throughout the broader area of multi dwelling developments within the area, in particular to the east and northeast of the site.

The subject site is located in proximity to the following sites, services and infrastructure:

·        Holt Park (250m southeast)

·        Bundoora Park Public Golf Course (350m south)

·        Norris Bank Primary School (590m northeast)

·        Norris Bank Parklands (760m northeast)

restrictions and easements

The site is legally described as Lot 81 on Plan of Subdivision 083465.  Covenant E108387 applies to the land and relates to the materials used (brick / brick veneer / stone) in the construction of any dwellings(s) on the land. Both proposed dwellings will be compliant as they will be constructed of brick and have an external appearance of brick.

There are no further restrictions on title that preclude Council from determining the application.

The site is encumbered by a 2.44m wide drainage and sewerage easement that runs along the rear (southwest) boundary.

Proposal

It is proposed to construct two double storey dwellings on the subject land (see Attachment 2).

Dwelling No. 1 has street frontage to Madison Court and contains three bedrooms, a separate kitchen, a meals area, two living rooms and amenities.

Dwelling No. 2 will contain an open plan kitchen/meals/living area, a laundry and powder room at ground level.  At first floor level, the dwelling will contain four bedrooms, a bathroom, a rumpus and amenities.

The proposed two lot subdivision seeks to provide each of the proposed dwellings with its own allotment as well as part of the driveway as common property.


 

Details of the proposed development are outlined in the following table:

 

Height/Scale

Number of Bedrooms

Setbacks

Private Open Space

Car Parking

Maximum Height

Dwelling No. 1

Double Storey

3

5.7m front (north)

5.0m side (east),

0m side (west),

16.0m rear (south).

26m2

Double garage (5.6m x 6.0m)

6.9m

Dwelling No. 2

Double Storey

4

26.6m front (north)

0m side (east),

4.1m side (west),

2.4m rear (south).

97m2

Double garage (5.7m x 6.4m)

7.6m

Public Notification

Advertising of the application has resulted in 10 objections being received.  The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

1.       Detrimental impact on neighbourhood character

2.       Reduced front setback not in keeping with the area

3.       Overlooking in to private open space areas

4.       Overshadowing private open space areas

5.       Inappropriate dwelling design

6.       Parking/traffic congestion (through overdevelopment of the area)

7.       Noise impacts associated with the additional number of dwellings

8.       Impacts of construction activity

9.       Property devaluation

HOUSING DIVERSITY STRATEGY

The Housing Diversity Strategy (HDS) provides a strategic framework for future residential development in the established areas of the municipality for the next 20 years. It aims to guide the future location and diversity of housing stock and identifies areas of housing growth and change, including areas where future housing growth will not be supported.  In general, it aims to encourage higher residential densities and a diversity of housing types and sizes into areas within convenient walking distance to public transport and activity centres.

The HDS is now a reference document in the Whittlesea Planning Scheme and an assessment against it is provided under Standard B2 of the Clause 55 assessment.

ASSESSMENT AGAINST CLAUSE 55 OF THE WHITTLESEA PLANNING SCHEME

The following table provides details on whether the proposal complies with the requirements of Clause 55 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  Under these provisions a development:

·    Must meet all of the objectives

·    Should meet all of the standards

If Council is satisfied that an application for an alternative design solution meets the objective, the alternative design solution may be considered.


 

 

 

ü - Compliance
× -  Non compliance

Objectives

Standards

Comments

B1

Neighbourhood Character

X

X

The overall form, scale, and siting of the proposal fails to meet the objectives of Clause 55.02-1- Neighbourhood Character, as it does not respect the existing characteristics of the neighbourhood.

A study of the area demonstrates that the following are established design elements for dwellings in the Madison Court area:

·      Setback consistency.

·      Elaborate landscaping to the front setback, particularly on the northern side of Madison Court.

·      Generous secluded private open space areas.

·      Defined access points to enter the dwelling.

The proposed development does not have regard to this character for the following reasons:

·      Excessive front setback variation of 2.1m.

·      Reduced landscaping opportunity within the front setback, due to the setback proposed.

·      The secluded private open space area for Dwelling No. 1 is minimal.

·      Lack of a defined access point to enter Dwelling No. 1 as there is no clear path indicating entry / reference to the dwelling.

These inconsistencies indicate that the proposal is an inappropriate overdevelopment of the subject land that is not in keeping with the character of the area.

B2

Residential Policy

X

X

The subject site is located within the Suburban Residential Change Area within the HDS.  This Change Area encourages a range of low to medium building heights that can be integrated within existing housing stock. Front setbacks are to allow for sufficient landscaping, including a canopy tree. Increased side and rear setbacks are encouraged to allow for appropriate landscaping and building separation. The site coverage objectives of the policy seek to achieve increased landscape opportunities.

The proposed development is assessed to be inconsistent with the key design principles outlined in the HDS. The indicative landscape areas shown on the plans submitted do not allow sufficient space to accommodate adequately sized canopy trees within the secluded private open space area of Dwelling No. 1 due to the minimal area proposed. This is a missed opportunity to soften the impact of the proposed built form and increase amenity to future occupiers.

B3

Dwelling Diversity

N/A

N/A

Only applicable to developments of ten (10) or more dwellings

B4

Infrastructure

ü

ü

 

B5

Integration with the street

ü

ü

 

B6

Street setback

X

X

The front setback provided forward of the abutting dwelling fails to respect the existing neighbourhood character, not satisfying the objective of Clause 55.03-1.

 

B7

Building height

ü

ü

 

B8

Site coverage

ü

ü

 

B9

Permeability

ü

ü

 

B10

Energy efficiency

ü

ü

 

B11

Open space

N/A

N/A

Only applicable if public or communal open space is to be provided on site or adjacent to the development

B12

Safety

ü

ü

 

B13

Landscaping

X

X

As assessed under Standard B2, the proposal fails to provide for an appropriate opportunity for the planting of canopy trees throughout the secluded private open space area of Dwelling No. 1, thus not satisfying the requirements of Clause 55.03-8.

B14

Access

ü

ü

 

B15

Parking location

X

X

The windows located within the lounge of Dwelling No. 2 do not comply with Standard B15.

The proposed design outcome is considered to be unacceptable as the subject windows will allow for vehicular noise to impact the amenity of the occupants due to the location of the lounge. Located directly in front of the lounge is a common accessway area that will regularly be used as a turning bay. In light of this, it is considered that the development does not satisfy the requirements of Clause 55.03-10.

B17

Side and rear setbacks

ü

ü

 

B18

Walls on boundaries

ü

ü

 

B19

Daylight to existing windows

ü

ü

 

B20

North-facing windows

ü

ü

 

B21

Overshadowing open space

ü

ü

 

B22

Overlooking

ü

ü

 

B23

Internal views

ü

ü

 

B24

Noise impacts

ü

ü

 

B25

Accessibility

ü

ü

 

B26

Dwelling entry

X

X

The design fails to provide a defined point of pedestrian access to the entrance of Dwelling 1. Thus, the proposal fails to address the requirements of Clause 55.05-2.

B27

Daylight to new windows

ü

ü

 

B28

Private open space

ü

ü

It is acknowledged that the private open space areas set aside for both dwellings meet the minimum required under Standard B28.

However, it is considered that the usability of the secluded private open space area for Dwelling No. 1 will not be adequate to meet the requirements of the occupants of a sizeable three bedroom dwelling due to the compromised shape and inconvenient design of the space as a consistent minimum dimension is not maintained. This is a result of the layout design of the dwelling where it is evident that the secluded private open space area has not been thoughtfully designed within the overall design.

B29

Solar access to open space

ü

ü

 

B30

Storage

ü

ü

 

B31

Design detail

ü

ü

 

B32

Front fences

ü

ü

 

B33

Common property

ü

ü

 

B34

Site services

ü

ü

 

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN OVERLAY (SCHEDULE 3)

The site is affected by the Development Contributions Plan Overlay.  Pursuant to Clause 45.06 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, the Development Contributions Plan Overlay enables the levying of contributions for the provision of works, services and facilities prior to development commencing.  Schedule 3 to the overlay requires contributions for drainage infrastructure for medium density residential development at a current rate of $2.19 per square metre of the total site area. This requirement must be included as a condition on any planning permit that is issued.

CAR PARKING 

Clause 52.06 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme prescribes the rate and design standards for car parking spaces required on site.  Pursuant to this clause the following car spaces are required:

Dwelling No.

No. of bedrooms

Car spaces required

Car spaces provided

Complies

1

3

2

2

Yes

2

4

2

2

Yes

 

Garages should be at least 6.0m long and 3.5m wide for a single space and 5.5m wide for a double space (measured inside the garage or carport).  An open car space should be at least 4.9m long and 2.6m wide.  The proposal complies with these requirements.

Clause 52.06-8 requires that where an accessway serves four or more car spaces or connects to a road in a Road Zone, the accessway must be designed so that cars can exit the site in a forward direction.

An assessment of the vehicular turning movements demonstrates that a vehicle utilising the northernmost space within the Dwelling No. 1 garage and the easternmost space within the Dwelling No. 2 garage will not be able to safely and efficiently exit in a forward direction as impacts with the northeastern side boundary and internal Dwelling 1 fence will occur. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal fails to meet the requirements of Clause 52.06 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.

Comments on Grounds of Objection

1.       Detrimental impact on neighbourhood character

The shape, siting, form, and scale of the dwellings are not are not site responsive as the plans are derived from standard mass-produced layouts that have been designed for use by volume builders. The lack of reference to the site and its surroundings has translated into the various neighbourhood character inconsistencies demonstrated within this proposal (as discussed within the Clause 55 assessment). Accordingly, the overall proposal is considered to be a departure to the existing character of the area and will have a detrimental impact on this character. 

 

2.       Reduced front setback not in keeping with the area

The advertised plans show Dwelling No. 1 to have a front setback of 5.0m. This was not compliant with the requirements of Standard B6, where 7.8m was required (the distance of the setback of the existing building on the abutting allotment). The applicant has since submitted concept plans that show a 5.7m setback, the average of the abutting allotment to the west and the side setback of the corner site facing Valley Road. As set out previously in this report, this proposed setback is still considered to be an unacceptable outcome that is a departure to the established neighbourhood character. 

 

3.       Overlooking in to private open space areas

The use of ‘hi-lite’ windows and fixed obscure glazing to habitable room windows at first floor level will ensure that there will be no overlooking into neighbouring properties in accordance with Standard B22.

 

4.       Overshadowing private open space areas

The plans and shadow diagrams submitted, and the Clause 55 assessment demonstrate compliance with Standards B19 and B21.

 

5.       Inappropriate dwelling design

While the facades of the dwellings are considered to be consistent with the requirements of Standard B31, it is maintained that the layout designs of both dwellings are not sensitive to the site, as discussed under the ground of objection  ‘Detrimental impact on neighbourhood character’ above. Thus, the dwelling design is deemed to be inappropriate. 

6.       Parking/traffic congestion (through overdevelopment of the area)

While Parking issues have been identified as part of the current layout and design, it is considered that the general area is capable of accommodating a limited increase in density as part of any further development of the site for two dwellings.

 

7.       Noise impacts associated with the additional number of dwellings

The development as proposed complies with Standard B24 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme which seeks to contain noise sources in developments that may affect existing dwellings and to protect residents from external noise.  The proposal is for residential use of the land in a residential area and the development will not require external mechanical plant or any other inappropriate source of noise.  While some additional noise will be generated by virtue of the greater number of residents on the land, this is acceptable in a residential area.  In terms of the impact of noise generated during the construction period, it can be expected that there will be some level of amenity loss due to noise generated by on-site building activities.  These activities will be required to comply with the Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2008.

 

8.       Impacts of construction activity

This objection notes the impact of the proposed buildings and works will impact upon stability of the land. This is a geotechnical issue that would be appropriately addressed by a qualified Building Surveyor.

 

9.       Property devaluation

It has been consistently upheld by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) that property devaluation is not a relevant planning consideration.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

The application has been assessed against the Whittlesea Planning Scheme and in particular the objectives and standards of Clause 52.06, Clause 55 and the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks including the Housing Diversity Strategy.  The proposal demonstrates an unsatisfactory level of compliance.  It is considered that the proposal is inappropriately designed, and will have a detrimental impact on the character of the neighbourhood and on existing surrounding residential properties. Accordingly, refusal of the application is recommended.

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to Refuse Planning Application No. 716034 and issue a Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit for the construction of two dwellings and subdivision into two lots at 5 Madison Court, Bundoora, on the following grounds:

1.       The proposal does not comply with Clause 21.09 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  Specifically, the application fails to comply with the Key Design Principles specified within the Housing Diversity Strategy and therefore does not achieve the objectives of 21.09-4 ‘Change Areas in the Established Suburbs’. 

2.       The proposal does not comply with Clause 55 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  Specifically, the application does not achieve the following objectives:

a)      Clause 55.02-1 Neighbourhood Character

b)      Clause 55.02-2 Residential Policy

c)      Clause 55.03-1 Street Setback

d)      Clause 55.03-8  Landscaping

e)      Clause 55.03-10 Parking location

3.       The proposal does not comply with Clause 52.06-8 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Cox

Seconded:               Cr Lalios

 

THAT Council resolve to adopt the Recommendation.

Carried

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                                    Tuesday 18 April 2017

 

6.1.3    111 Scanlon drive, epping - construction of a warehouse

File No:                                  716202

Attachments:                        1        Locality Maps

2        Development Plans   

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Planning Officer   

 

APPLICANT:                                  PL Group Pty Ltd

COUNCIL POLICY:              22.09     Industrial Development Policy

ZONING:                               Comprehensive Development Zone (Schedule 2)

OVERLAY:                            Development Contributions Plan Overlay (Schedule 4)

Development Plan Overlay (Schedule 14)

REFERRAL:                          Nil

OBJECTIONS:                      The application was not required to be advertised.

RECOMMENDATION:         That Council not support the application and represent this position to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

It is proposed to construct an 857m2 warehouse on a vacant industrial lot of 1,250m2 at 111 Scanlon Drive, Epping. The lot forms part of a newly created industrial subdivision (Alliance Business Park) within the Cooper Street Employment Area.

The applicant has lodged an appeal with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) because of a failure in determining the application within 60 days.  The purpose of this report is to recommend an officer position on the proposal which will need to be represented before the Tribunal.

This report recommends that the application not be supported.  While the use of the land for industry and warehousing is encouraged, the proposed development has been assessed as deficient having regard to a range of provisions under the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject land is located on the northern side of Scanlon Drive, approximately 55m east of Gateway Boulevard, Epping (see Attachment 1).   The land (described as Lot 49 PS 724897K) forms part of Stage 5 of the Alliance Business Park developed by MAB.  Development of lots within this stage has only recently commenced and land surrounding the subject land is largely vacant or under construction.  The broader area forms part of the Cooper Street Employment area.

The subject land comprises a vacant, cleared and level lot of 1,250m2 with a depth of 50m and a frontage of 25m to Scanlon Drive.

 

Restrictions and easements

The subject land is affected by Covenant AM995313Y which sets out subdivision, use, and maintenance restrictions.  These restrictions are not directly relevant to the application proposal and do not preclude Council from forming a position on the application.  The subject land is not affected by any easements.

Proposal

It is proposed to construct an 858m2 warehouse on the land with associated car parking, access and landscaping (see Attachment 2).  The warehouse will contain an ancillary office (at mezzanine level) and staff amenities (at ground level).  Access is proposed via two crossovers.  The submitted plans provide for 14 car parking spaces (including one disabled parking space) and a single loading bay. 

A 3.0m landscape setback is proposed along the frontage which can contain four small canopy trees, smaller plants and ground cover. 

The warehouse is proposed as a speculative development.  A planning permit to allow the use of the land for a warehouse may be required if the particular warehouse use has potential for adverse amenity outcomes.

The application was lodged on 28 September 2016.  A request for further information was made on 31 October 2016.  A response was received on 14 December 2016.  However, this information did not address all changes required by Council and a further request was made on 24 January 2017.  The applicant has chosen not to respond to this additional request for further information but has instead lodged a failure to determine application as the 60 day statutory period has been exceeded (by virtue of the initial request for further information being made outside of the 28 day period).  The VCAT application was made on 16 February 2017.  A hearing date has been set for 6 July 2017 (unless the matter is resolved through mediation and negotiation prior to that date).

Public Notification

The application is exempt from public notice requirements because the land is affected by a Development Plan Overlay.  A development plan for the estate has been previously approved by Council and the use of the land for industrial purposes is generally in accordance with this plan.


PLANNING ASSESSMENT

State and Local Planning Policy Framework

Clause 17.02-1 and 17.02-2 set out State planning policy provisions relating to industrial land development and design.  Relevant strategies seek to ‘protect and carefully plan existing industrial areas to, where possible, facilitate further industrial development.’ 

 

Clause 15.01-2 requires that Council have regard to urban design principles when considering non-residential development including a requirement that new development ‘should achieve high standards in architecture and urban design’ and that consideration be given in relation to ‘…the setting in which buildings are designed and the integrating role of landscape architecture.’  As identified further in this report, the proposed development has been assessed as deficient in this area.

 

Clause 21.10 sets out local planning policy provisions relating to economic development and employment opportunities which seek to create jobs/housing balance and diverse employment opportunities – particularly within the Cooper Street Employment Area.  Relevant strategies seek to apply ‘existing Development Guidelines to the assessment of new developments in industrial areas’. 

 

Clause 22.09 (Industrial Development Policy) sets out the importance of industrial design to attract new investment.  Relevant policies seek to encourage appropriate design and landscape outcomes that enhance and approve the appearance of industrial areas.

 

Zoning and Overlay Provisions

Clause 37.02 - Comprehensive Development Zone (Schedule 2)

A permit is not required to use the subject land for a warehouse where defined conditions under the Scheme can be met.  However, a planning permit is required under the zone for buildings and works.  A purpose of the zone seeks to ‘encourage a high standard of urban design and landscaping in accordance with the Cooper Street Employment Area Design and Use Guidelines.’  The zone provisions require that Council consider the Design and Use Guidelines and the extent that application proposal complies with them.  The Guidelines are an incorporated document under the provisions of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme (Clause 81.01).  

The principle reason that the application is not supported is because the proposed development does not comply with the Guidelines in relation to the proposed landscape setback.  The Guidelines (section 3.6) state that: ‘for industrial developments fronting a main road…the building setback is to include a 4.5 metre fully landscaped area.  No other development will be permitted within this landscape area.’  This requirement seeks to make provision for larger canopy trees, assist in the screening of car parking areas when seen from the street and increase the permeability of sites.  Council officers requested this setback both in the first and second request for further information.  However, the applicant has resisted making this change on both occasions and has continued to show a 3.0m front landscape setback.

The Guidelines note that each application proposal may be considered on its individual merits – taking into account the individual circumstances of a site, site attributes, surrounding character and adjoining land uses.  The Guidelines further state:

Council may refuse a proposal that does not comply with the guidelines, or may seek to modify a non-conforming development by imposing conditions designed to achieve compliance.  The onus rests with the applicant, in respect to an application that does not comply with the guideline, to clearly demonstrate:

 

a)   Understanding of the purpose of the guidelines;

b)   That the provisions are inappropriate for a particular proposal and/ or development; and

c)   How a proposal will satisfy the purpose of the guideline in the event that non-compliance is permitted.

The applicant has not addressed this requirement other than to state that the 3.0m width:

…‘will allow for an appropriate level of landscaping along the frontage…[and] with time will allow the planting of trees which will act as a screen for the proposal thus providing further articulation to the building from this part of Scanlon Drive.’

Officers remain unsatisfied with this response and it should be noted that a minimum 4.5m landscape setback has been required for recent planning permit granted within this stage of the estate (and is being required with respect to current application proposal for similar developments).

The requirement was not able to be conditioned in this instance as the small additional area would impact on the provision of car parking (and reduce the provision below that required by the planning scheme).  The changes require a reduction in the floor area of the warehouse via amended plans.  The applicant is not prepared to make these changes.

The deficiencies in the provision of landscaping are further compounded by the proposal two separate crossovers.  The remaining areas of landscaping available in the context of these works is small and fragmentary and not considered sufficient to accommodate the required level of landscape embellishment designated for this area.

The proposed development has been assessed as not meeting the Guidelines with respect to the following further provisions:

Site permeability

A target permeable area of 15 percent of the site is preferred.  The proposed permeability based on the current plans has been assessed as less than 10 percent.  Increasing the landscaped front setback to 4.5m would assist in achieving this objective and would also reduce the extent of stormwater runoff.

Internal vehicular movements and pedestrian access from the street frontage

Refer to parking and access assessment further in this report.

The design and architectural treatment of the proposed warehouse has been assessed under the Guidelines to be satisfactory.

 

Clause 43.04 - Development Plan Overlay (Schedule 14)

 

The existing subdivision has been approved in accordance with the development plan approved under these provisions.  The plan gives further support to the Design Guidelines and sets out a development vision and design objectives consistent with these Guidelines.  To the extent that the application proposal is not consistent with the Guidelines, it is also not consistent with the approved development plan.

Clause 45.06 - Development Contributions Plan Overlay (Schedule 4)

 

The requirements of this Overlay have been fulfilled at the subdivision stage.

 

Particular Provisions

 

Clause 52.06 – Car Parking

Clause 52.06 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme prescribes the rate and design standards for car parking spaces required on site.  Pursuant to this clause the following car spaces are required:

Proposed Use

Clause 52.06

Car Parking Rate

Size/No.

No. of Spaces required

No. of Spaces provided

Total Planning Scheme Shortfall

 

Warehouse

 

 

1.5 to each 100sqm of net floor + 2

 

857m2 total

 

14

 

14

 

0

 

Notwithstanding that the required number of car parking spaces have been provided, it has been confirmed by Council’s City Design and Transport Department that the proposed car parking access and layout is unsatisfactory. Access to the development should be provided so that the vehicles can exit the development in a forward direction.  This has not been satisfied as vehicles utilising parking bays 1 and 2 and 13 and 14 will have difficulty exiting the site in a forward manner.  This will also affect  accessibility and manoeuvrability of larger vehicles accessing the roller doors and loading bay and pedestrian movements from the street. Overall the parking layout is deemed to be impractical, inefficient, and unsafe.

Clause 52.07 – Loading and Unloading of Vehicles

 

This clause sets out the requirements for the loading and unloading of commercial vehicles and aims to prevent loss of amenity and adverse effect on traffic flow and safety. The proposal complies with these requirements.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

The application has been assessed against State and local planning provisions including design guidelines which form part of an incorporated document under the Scheme.  While elements of the proposed development and design satisfy these provisions, the proposal has been assessed as deficient with respect to landscaping, permeability, parking and access arrangements.  The proposal will require redesign to address these deficiencies so as to comply with planning provisions. It is recommended that Council not support the application proposal and that officers represent such views before VCAT.

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to not support Planning Application No. 716202  for the construction of a warehouse at 111 Scanlon Drive, Epping, and represent this position at Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal on the following grounds:

1.       The proposal does not comply with Clause 37.02 ‘Comprehensive Development Zone (Schedule 2)’ and in particular does not have regard to the purpose of the zone and application requirements and decision guidelines relating to building and works.

2.       The proposal does not comply with the requirements of the ‘Cooper Street Employment Area Design and Use Guidelines’ incorporated document.

3.       The proposal does not comply with the design objectives of the Cooper Street Employment Area Development Plan (Schedule 14).

4.       The proposal does not comply with Clause 52.06 (Car Parking) due to the unsafe and impractical car-parking layout proposed.

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Cox

Seconded:               Cr Kozmevski

 

THAT Council resolve to adopt the Recommendation.

Carried

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                                    Tuesday 18 April 2017

 

6.1.4    1925 Plenty Road, Yan Yean - Buildings and Works
Associated with an Existing Recreation Facility (Tennis Club) Including the Removal of Native Vegetation and Alteration of Access to a Road Zone Category 1

File No:                                  716145

Attachments:                        1        Locality Maps

2        Development Plans

3        Photos of Trees to be Removed   

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Senior Planning Officer   

 

APPLICANT:                                  City of Whittlesea

COUNCIL POLICY:              22.10     River Red Gum Protection Policy

ZONING:                               Green Wedge Zone

OVERLAY:                            Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 1

 

REFERRAL:                                   VicRoads

                                              

OBJECTIONS:                     Nil

RECOMMENDATION:         That Council approve the application

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

It is proposed to undertake buildings and works associated with Council’s T.H. Hurrey Recreation Reserve at 1925 Plenty Road, Yan Yean.  Part of the reserve is currently used as recreation facility (tennis club).  The proposed works, which are currently funded from Council’s 2017/18 capital works program, will provide for a comprehensive upgrade of the facility through the provision of refurbished and additional courts, a new pavilion, improved amenities, landscaping, car parking and improved vehicle access from Plenty Road.

The proposed works will require a number of small native trees and shrubs to be removed including a patch of native vegetation containing ten small and regenerating River Red Gums.  This application is being reported to Council because of the need to remove the small River Red Gums. The removal of one or more River Red Gums, regardless of size, must be reported to Council under its Instrument of Delegation.

No objections were received as a result of advertising the application. 

The proposal demonstrates a satisfactory level of compliance with the State and local planning policies (including Council’s River Red Gum Protection Policy) and particular provisions relating to parking, native vegetation and road access.  The proposal has also been assessed as compliant with the Green Wedge Zone and Significant Landscape Overlay (Schedule 1) which affect the land.  It is therefore recommended that Council approve the application.

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject site is located within the rural community of Yan Yean, approximately 50m south of the Plenty Road and Donnybrook Road intersection (see Attachment 1).  The site is irregular in shape and has a frontage of approximately 223m to Plenty Road and a depth of approximately 190m. The site contains a total area of 3.9ha.  The land is predominately cleared of native vegetation other than for scattered mature River Red Gums and planted trees and shrubs.  The land forms part of the lower eastern slope of Sheoak Hill which forms part of the broader Whittlesea Hills (extending northward to the Whittlesea Township).  The land adjacent to Plenty Road is relatively level although it rises 7m in the southwest corner of the site where it forms the eastern flank of Sheoak Hill.  Access to the subject land is via an all-weather crossover from Plenty Road at the southern end of the site. 

Existing facilities are confined to the southern portion of the land with the northern balance of the land retained as pasture (which is regularly slashed). 

A vacant small rural lot abuts the southern boundary of the land which may be capable of containing a future single dwelling at a future date (subject to a planning permit).  Rural land parcels to the west are associated with existing dwellings which abut Donnybrook Road.  A further three dwellings (which includes one dwelling under construction) are located on small rural-residential lots abutting the northern boundary of the subject land.  These dwelling have direct access on to Donnybrook Road.

The land opposite Plenty Road comprises the unused Whittlesea railway corridor and further rural properties (abutting Old Plenty Road).  The subject land forms part of the non-urban break between the Mernda Doreen growth area and the Whittlesea Township.

Although the land is commonly described as a ‘reserve’, it does not have reserve status and is not zoned for public park and recreation purposes under the provisions of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  The land is legally described as Lot 1 LP 65842.

The land has historically been used for recreation purposes for a number of decades and has accrued rights for such purposes.  The current application is therefore only for buildings and works.

restrictions and easements

The Certificate of Title for the property shows that the site is not affected by any registered covenants or section 173 Agreements.  The land is encumbered by a drainage easement along the northern boundary (although it should be noted that no buildings or works are proposed in this area). 

Proposal

The application is for a substantial upgrade of the existing recreation facilities which will involve a new building and works, removal of some native vegetation, provision of parking and upgraded access from Plenty Road.  These works (refer Attachment 2) require a planning permit under the provisions of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.

Specific details of the proposed buildings and works are outlined below:

·    Replacement of two tennis courts and provision of a further two new courts

·    Construction of a new pavilion (230m2) incorporating improved amenities (club room, meeting room, canteen, change rooms and storage areas)

·    Tennis court lighting

·    New shelter, pathways, picnic tables, barbeques and play equipment.

·    New vehicle access from Plenty Road, including reinstatement of the existing access

·    Car parking areas

·    Removal of 26 native trees and shrubs, including ten juvenile River Red Gums with a Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) of 18.0cm or less (see Attachment 3).

Details of the trees and shrubs to be removed are as follows:-

 

Species

Height

Spread

DBH (Combined)

Health

Age

Comment

Eucalyptus cladocalyx ‘Nana’

Dwarf Sugar Gum

Tree #8

9 m

7 m

47 cm

Good

Mature

(15-25yrs)

Amenity Value: Low

Retention Value: Low

Acacia floribunda

Catkin Wattle

Tree/Shrub #9

8 m

8 m

35 cm

Fair

Over Mature

(1-5yrs)

Amenity Value: Low

Retention Value: Low

Melaleuca styphelioides

Prickly Paperbark

Tree/Shrub #10

9 m

3 m

19 cm

Fair

Mature

(15-25yrs)

Amenity Value: Low

Retention Value: Low

Eucalyptus cladocalyx ‘Nana’

Dwarf Sugar Gum

Tree #11

10 m

6 m

41 cm

Good

Mature

(15-25yrs)

Amenity Value: Low

Retention Value: Low

Eucalyptus cladocalyx ‘Nana’

Dwarf Sugar Gum

Tree #12

11 m

6 m

54 cm

Good

Mature

(5-15yrs)

Amenity Value: Low

Retention Value: Low

Eucalyptus leucoxylon

Yellow Gum

Tree #13

19 m

6 m

28 cm

Fair

Mature

(5-15yrs)

Amenity Value: Low

Retention Value: Low

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

River Red Gum

Tree #29

6 m

2 m

10 cm

Good

Immature

/Juvenile

Low amenity Value

Sapling small trees that have self-seeded in area

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

River Red Gum

Tree #30

6 m

2 m

10 cm

Good

Immature

/Juvenile

Low amenity Value

Sapling small trees that have self-seeded in area

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

River Red Gum

Tree #31

6 m

3 m

10 cm

Good

Immature

/Juvenile

Low amenity Value

Sapling small trees that have self-seeded in area

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

River Red Gum

Tree #32

7 m

2 m

10 cm

Good

Immature

/Juvenile

Low amenity Value

Sapling small trees that have self-seeded in area

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

River Red Gum

Tree #33

7 m

2 m

10 cm

Good

Immature

/Juvenile

Low amenity Value

Sapling small trees that have self-seeded in area

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

River Red Gum

Tree #34

7 m

3 m

14 cm

Good

Immature

/Juvenile

Low amenity Value

Sapling small trees that have self-seeded in area

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

River Red Gum

Tree #35

8 m

3 m

13 cm

Good

Immature

/Juvenile

Low amenity Value

Sapling small trees that have self-seeded in area

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

River Red Gum

Tree #36

6 m

2 m

10 cm

Good

Immature

/Juvenile

Low amenity Value

Sapling small trees that have self-seeded in area

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

River Red Gum

Tree #37

8 m

4 m

17 cm

Good

Immature

/Juvenile

Low amenity Value

Sapling small trees that have self-seeded in area

Eucalyptus leucoxylon

Yellow Gum

Tree #38

11 m

5 m

22 cm

Fair

Mature

(5-15yrs)

Amenity Value: Moderate

Retention Value: Moderate

Eucalyptus leucoxylon

Yellow Gum

Tree #39

8 m

4 m

18 cm

Fair

Mature

(25-50yrs)

Amenity Value: Low

Retention Value: Low

Melaleuca styphelioides

Prickly Paperbark

Tree/Shrub #40

3 m

3 m

13 cm

Good

Mature

(15-25yrs)

Amenity Value: Very Low

Retention Value: Very Low

Melaleuca styphelioides

Prickly Paperbark

Tree/Shrub #41

5 m

5 m

18 cm

Good

Mature

(15-25yrs)

Amenity Value: Low

Retention Value: Low

Callistemon viminalis

Weeping Bottle Brush

Shrub #42

3 m

2 m

10 cm

Good

Mature

(15-25yrs)

Amenity Value: Very Low

Retention Value: Very Low

Shrub not found

Shrub #43

N/A

N/A

Melaleuca styphelioides

Prickly Paperbark

Tree/Shrub #44

4 m

3 m

15 cm

Good

Mature

(15-25yrs)

Amenity Value: Very Low

Retention Value: Very Low

Hakea salicifolia

Willow Hakea

Shrub #45

3 m

3 m

15 cm

Poor

Over Mature

(1-5yrs)

Amenity Value: Very Low

Retention Value: Remove

Melaleuca linariifolia

Flax Leaf Paperbark

Tree/Shrub #46

4 m

3 m

15 cm

Good

Mature

(15-25yrs)

Amenity Value: Very Low

Retention Value: Very Low

Hakea salicifolia

Willow Hakea

Shrub #47

4 m

4 m

15 cm

Fair

Over Mature

(5-15yrs)

Amenity Value: Very Low

Retention Value: Very Low

Hakea salicifolia

Willow Hakea

Shrub #48

4 m

2 m

10 cm

Fair

Over Mature

(5-15yrs)

Amenity Value: Very Low

Retention Value: Very Low

Melaleuca linariifolia

Flax Leaf Paperbark

Tree/Shrub #49

3 m

3 m

15 cm

Good

Mature

(15-25yrs)

Amenity Value: Very Low

Retention Value: Very Low

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

River Red Gum

Tree #50

9 m

3 m

15 cm

Good

Immature

/Juvenile

Low amenity Value

Sapling small trees that have self-seeded in area

 

The new pavilion (to be constructed adjacent to the existing building) will be constructed from a range of materials including brick and formed structural steel.  The building will have façade treatments including timber battens and glazed brickwork. 

Public Notification

The application was advertised to all abutting and surrounding property owners and occupiers and a sign was placed on the land for the prescribed period of 14 days.  No objections were received as a result of this notification. 

Where a responsible authority is also the applicant for a planning permit, the Planning and Environment Act (1987) and Clause 67 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme set out particular notice requirements. In relation to the removal of native vegetation, Council was required to refer the application to the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP).  The authority has not responded to the notice after 14 days and this can be taken as a non-objection to the proposal.

ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE WHITTLESEA PLANNING SCHEME

The following provisions of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme are considered relevant to this application.

 

State Planning Policy Framework

 

Clauses 11.03-1 and 11.03-2 set out objectives and strategies relating to open space planning and management.  Objectives seek to ensure that provision of open space is linked to the needs of the community and is ‘designed to accommodate people of all abilities, ages and cultures.’  The proposed works are underpinned by broader open space strategies and needs assessment which has identified this project as a priority.

 

Clause 12.01 sets out provisions for the protection of biodiversity and native vegetation management with an emphasis on avoiding and minimising losses.  Where losses are unavoidable, offsets are required to contribute to biodiversity gains elsewhere.

 

Local Planning Policy Framework

 

Clause 21.04-4 - Open Space Network

 

A key objective of this Clause is ‘to plan for the comprehensive leisure and recreation needs of existing and future residents and to support the establishment of tourism enterprises that are compatible with the local environment and pattern of land uses’.  It is considered that the proposed redevelopment will support this objective and also ‘promote an increased range of outdoor recreation opportunities for the community’.

 

Clause 22.10 – River Red Gum Protection Policy

 

The objective of this Clause is ‘to ensure that the development of urban and rural areas takes into account the presence, retention, enhancement and long term viability of River Red Gums’.  The proposed redevelopment will retain and protect all large River Red Gums.  Removal will be restricted to regrowth and juvenile saplings that have emerged over recent years.

 

Zoning and Overlay Provisions

 

Green Wedge Zone

 

The purposes of the zone (relevant to the current application) are listed below:

 

·    To recognise, protect and conserve green wedge land for its agricultural, environmental, historic, landscape, recreational and tourism opportunities, and mineral and stone resources; 

·    To protect, conserve and enhance the cultural heritage significance and the character of open rural and scenic non-urban landscapes; and

·    To protect and enhance the biodiversity of the area.

 

A permit is required to construct or carry out works in association with a ‘Section 2’ use under the zone and this includes the use of land for a ‘restricted recreation facility’ (the use that defines the current and proposed uses).   As noted previously in this report, the subject land has historically been used for recreation purposes for a number of decades and has accrued rights for this purposes. 

 

The development of land within the Green Wedge Zone must have regard to relevant decision guidelines which are set out below:

 

·    The capability of the land to accommodate the proposed use or development

The proposed site is capable of accommodating the additional development.  Only part of the site is to be redeveloped and the majority of the site will be retained as informal open space. 

A land capability assessment report has been undertaken which demonstrates that waste water can be contained on the land under a waste water treatment and irrigation system which accords with the Environment Protection Authority publication Code of Practice – Onsite Wastewater Management.  Council’s Community Wellbeing Department has assessed the plans and are satisfied in relation to the proposed recommendations.  Amendments to the plan and conditions on any permit issued will be required to address this element of the proposal.

 

·    Whether the site is suitable for the use or development and the compatibility of the proposal with adjoining land uses

The proposed buildings and works have been assessed to be of a scale and appearance suitable for the site.  Existing rural dwellings are sufficiently setback from the facility.  Tennis court lighting will be baffled to prevent light spillage onto adjoining properties.  As previously noted in this report, the application proposal has been advertised and no objections have been received.

 

·    The need to minimise any adverse impacts of siting, design, height, bulk, and colours and materials to be used, on landscape features, major roads and vistas

The design of the building, including the colour and materials, are considered to be appropriate for the site and its rural context.  The design of the club room will not have an adverse impact on surrounding dwellings or when viewed from the Plenty Road corridor.  Future stages of the project will also include an upgrade of the T.H. Hurrey Reserve, which will enhance views into the site via landscape embellishment. 

 

Significant Landscape Overlay - Schedule 1

 

The purpose of this Overlay is ‘to identify significant landscapes, as well as to conserve and enhance the character of significant landscapes’The subject land falls within the ‘Whittlesea Hills’ landscape unit which forms a distinctive non-urban break between Mernda and the Whittlesea Township.  Development within these areas must have regard to these values.

 

The proposed development is at the base of the hills and will not have an adverse impact on the ridgeline and viewlines.  As previously stated, the buildings and works will be appropriately designed and integrated with landscaping.  Although there is some vegetation removal associated with the works, from a landscape perspective these are considered minor and appropriate.  The recreation area will retain a ‘rural’ tennis club outlook. 

 

Particular Provisions

 

Clause 52.17 – Native Vegetation

 

Under these provisions, Council is required to consider the steps that have been taken to minimise impacts and losses.  In the context of the current proposal, Council can be satisfied that the loss of a small patch of Plain Grassy Woodland and regenerating River Red Gums is unavoidable and can be appropriately offset.  All existing large mature River Red Gums on the land will be protected and actively managed as part of the current proposal.  DELWP have been notified of the proposal and have not objected or set out any particular requirements.  However, targeted survey of Matted Flax Lily will need to be undertaken prior to development commencing.  Removal of previously planted native trees and shrubs will not need to be offset.  This removed vegetation will be replaced with new landscaping.

Clause 52.29 – Land Adjacent to a Road Zone

 

A planning permit is required for the modified and improved access to the site from Plenty Road.  The application was referred to VicRoads who have specified requirements for the construction of the new access and crossover.  These requirements form part of the proposed conditions.

 

Clause 52.06 – Car Parking

 

Pursuant to Clause 52.06 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, the following car parking rates are required for the proposed development:-

 

Proposed Use

Clause 52.06

Car Parking Rate

Size / No.

No. of Spaces Required

No. of Spaces Provided

Total Planning Scheme Shortfall

 

Tennis Court

 

4 to each court plus 50% of requirement of any ancillary use

 

6 tennis courts

 

24

 

44

 

0

The car parking provision meets the planning scheme requirements.  Those spaces provided in excess of the minimum requirements will ensure that overflow spaces are available to meet future needs and special events.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under Section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989, Officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

The application has been assessed against the relevant provisions of the Planning Scheme including provisions relating to development in the Green Wedge Zone and Significant Landscape Overlay.  The proposed development adequately responds to these provisions and other provisions relating to native vegetation, parking and access.  The proposed upgrade of the recreation facility will provide for an identified community need and it is therefore recommended that a Planning Permit be issued, subject to appropriate conditions.

 

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to approve Planning Application No. 716145 and issue a Planning Permit for, buildings and works associated with an existing restricted recreation facility, native vegetation removal and modification of access to a Road Zone Category 1 at 1925 Plenty Road, Yan Yean, in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions:-

1.       Before the development starts, three copies of a revised plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority, showing:-

          (a)     Sensitive construction methods for Tree Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 18 in                     accordance with Sections 11.2 and 11.3 of the Arboricultural Assessment                (Greenwood Consulting, 3 February 2017).

          (b)     An amended Landscape Plan to include; Yellow Box, Swamp Gum,                          Melbourne Yellow Gum, Black Sheoak, Dropping Sheoak, Blackwood,                      Lightwood, Sweet Bursaria, Silver Banksia, Sticky Hop Bush and Rock             Correa. 

2.       The development allowed by this Permit and shown on the plans and / or schedules endorsed to accompany this Permit must not be amended for any reason without the consent of the Responsible Authority.

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

4.       Prior to the commencement of works, all scattered trees and remnant vegetation to be retained as set out in the endorsed plans must be protected:-

          (a)     In accordance with Sections 12.1 -12.3 of the Arboricultural Assessment                 (Greenwood Consulting, 3 February 2017). 

          (b)     In accordance with the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) to the standards                         requirements by the City of Whittlesea (SDL.2.01). 

5.       Areas of native vegetation to be retained must be temporarily fenced off with secure fencing that complies with the Australian Standard for the protection of trees / native vegetation on development sites (AS4970-2009).

6.       Fencing must be signposted as ‘Tree Protection Zone’ and   must remain in place for the entire construction period.

7.       The area of potential Matted Flax-lily habitat must be temporarily fenced and signage installed nominating this area as an exclusion zone until targeted surveys have been completed and / or any other requirements under the EPBC Act 1999 satisfied.

8.       No construction works, compaction, nor any placement or storage or fill, vehicles, machinery or materials are permitted to occur within the Tree Protection Zones and other exclusion areas.

9.       All timber less than 300mm diameter and branch / leaf material should be shredded for reuse as mulch.

10.     Prior to commencement of works, a Construction Site Environmental Management Plan (CSEMP) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority to address the potential impacts of construction works and restoration of the site.  The CSEMP must address methods for noise, dust, erosion and  sediment control, waste and chemical management, flora / fauna protection, weed control and site restoration.

11.     Prior to commencement of works, all personnel on site must be inducted into the CSEMP and all flora and fauna conservation requirements.

12.     Prior to the removal of vegetation authorised by this Permit, the Applicant must provide a native vegetation offset that is in accordance with the Permitted Clearing of Native Vegetation – Biodiversity assessment guidelines and the Native Vegetation Gain Scoring Manual.  Offsets must contribute a gain of the required general biodiversity equivalence units, be located within the boundary of the Whittlesea municipality or the Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority area and have a strategic score of at least 80 per cent of the strategic biodiversity score of the native vegetation approved for removal. 

VicRoads Conditions (Condition Nos. 13 – 15)

13.     Before the commencement of works amended plans must be submitted to and approved by the Roads Corporation. When approved by the Roads Corporation, the plans may be endorsed by the Responsible Authority and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and two copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application (by Onemilegrid Reference CLP300 Revision B dated 22/09/2016) but modified to show:

          (i)      CHR(S)/AUL(S) treatment. The design must be based on the existing speed            limit of 100 km/h or if lengths not achievable to maximise the length                          wherever possible.

          (ii)     Swept paths for the design vehicle.

          (iii)    Sight distance in accordance with AustRoads Part 4A (Guide to Road                      Design) are provided.

          (iv)    Trees within the eastern verge within the clearzone (based on 100km/h)                  removed or suitable barrier protection provided.

          (v)     Appropriate recommendation for tree removal or protection for the western           verge and treatment of the dished invert. 

          (vi)    Appropriate road marking or pavement treatment to ensure that the centre             is easily identifiable in dark conditions (Item 3).

14.     Prior to the occupation of the approved building and infrastructure associated with the TH Hurry Reserve/ Tennis Courts, the following roadworks on the proposed access from the site to Plenty Road, Yan Yean, must be completed at no cost to and to the satisfaction of the Roads Corporation.

(i)      Deceleration lane.

(ii)     Turning lanes.

(iii)    Removal of trees and /or barrier installation to Plenty Road.

(iv)    Road markings.

(v)     Creation of new access and removal and reinstatement to shoulder and         verge.

15.     A separate consent for works within the road reserve and the specifications of these works is required under the Road Management Act. For the purposes of this application the works will include provision of:

(i)      Deceleration lane.

(ii)     Turning lanes.

(iii)    Removal of trees and/ or barrier installation of existing access.

(iv)    Road markings.

(v)     Creation of new access to Plenty Road and removal and reinstatement to      shoulder and verge of existing access.

16.     Discharge of stormwater from the land will be required by means of an underground pipe drainage system designed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and discharging to the legal point of discharge in a street or an underground pipe drain to the requirements of the Responsible Authority.  In this regard no water shall be discharged from any pipe or paved area onto the surface of any adjacent land.

17.     Stormwater flows in excess of the approved capacity of the pipe drainage system must not be trapped by any construction but must be permitted to flow over the finished surface of the site to the street or drainage easement.

 

18.     Before starting any buildings or works, engineering plans showing a properly prepared design (with computations) for the internal drainage and method of disposal of stormwater from all roofed and sealed areas, including the use of an on-site detention system (if required), must be submitted to Council for approval.  All internal drainage works must be completed to Council’s satisfaction prior to using or occupying any building on the site. 

19.     Prior to using or occupying any building on the site, the permit holder is required to construct at no cost to Council, drainage works between the subject site and the Council nominated point of discharge (external drainage).  Such external drainage must be designed by a qualified engineer and submitted to and approved by Council.  Computations will also be required to demonstrate that the Council’s drainage system downstream of the nominated point of discharge will not be overloaded by the new development.  Construction of the drainage system must be carried out in accordance with Council specifications and with Council supervision.

20.     Before the use and/or development starts, areas set aside for parked vehicles and access lanes (excluding the overflow car parking) as shown on the endorsed plan must be:

    (a)     Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

    (b)     Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with                 the plans.

    (c)     Surfaced with fully sealed material including asphalt, coloured concrete,                 coloured patterned concrete, interlocking paving, bricks or other materials              to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

    (d)     Drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

    (e)     Line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes to the                            satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

    (f)      Clearly marked to show the direction of traffic along access lanes and            driveways to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

    Parking areas, access lanes and driveways must be kept available for these purposes at all times.

21.     Before the use of the development starts, the car parking areas and access ways (excluding the overflow car parking) must be drained, and fully sealed and constructed with asphalt, interlocking paving bricks, coloured concrete or other similar materials to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

22.     In areas set aside for car parking, measures must be taken to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent damage to fences or landscaped areas.

23.     A minimum of 24 car spaces must be provided on the land for the development hereby permitted, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

24.     A minimum of 2 car space(s) must be provided for the exclusive use of disabled persons. The car space(s) must be provided as close as practicable to suitable entrance(s) of the building and must be clearly marked with a sign to indicate that the space(s) must only be utilised by disabled persons.

25.     A sign to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be provided directing drivers to the area set aside for car parking and must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The sign must not exceed 0.3 square metres in area.

26.     Prior to the commencement of development, a signage and line-marking plan showing all road markings and signs is to be submitted to Council for approval. The use and installation of signs and line marking must be in accordance with all relevant standards, including Council standard drawings, VicRoads, Australian Standards and AustRoads.

27.     The on-site wastewater system must comply with the current EPA publication Code of Practice – Onsite Wastewater Management in relation to the wastewater treatment system and irrigation field(s). 

28.     The permit holder shall be responsible to meet all costs associated with reinstatement and/or alterations to Council or other Public Authority assets deemed necessary by such Authorities as a result of the development.  The permit holder shall be responsible for obtaining prior specific written approval for any works involving the alteration of Council or other Public Authority assets.

29.     Upon completion of all buildings and works authorised by this permit the permit holder must notify the Responsible Authority of the satisfactory completion of the development and compliance with all relevant conditions.

30.     Any litter generated by building activities on the site shall be collected and stored in an appropriate enclosure which complies with Council’s Code of Practice for building/development sites.  The enclosures shall be regularly emptied and maintained such that no litter overspills onto adjoining land.  Prior to occupation and/or use of the building, all litter shall be completely removed from the site.

31.     During the construction phase, a truck wheel washing facility or similar device must be installed and used to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority so that vehicles leaving the site do not deposit mud or other materials on roadways. Any mud or other materials deposited on roadways as a result of construction works on the site must be cleaned to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority within two hours of it being deposited.

32.     This permit will expire if:-

(a)     The approved development does not start within three years of the date of this permit; or

(b)     The approved development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to above if a request is made in writing.  This request must be made before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date where the development has not yet started and within 12 months after the permit expiry date where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully started before the permit expires.

NOTES

Advanced Trees

An advanced tree under this permit shall generally constitute the following:-

Evergreen – minimum container size 45 litre spring ring, calliper at ground level 50mm.

Deciduous – minimum calliper at ground level 65mm, minimum height 2 metres.

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Kelly

Seconded:               Cr Butler

 

The above Recommendation was adopted unchanged as part of an en bloc Resolution Moved by Cr Kelly, Seconded by Cr Butler.   See Section 6 - Officers' Reports for further information on items adopted en bloc.

Carried

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                                    Tuesday 18 April 2017

 

6.1.5    2 Luzon Court, Lalor - Construction of two double storey dwellings

File No:                                  716160

Attachments:                        1        Locality Maps

2        Development Plans   

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Senior Planner   

 

APPLICANT:                                  MS Designer Living Pty Ltd

COUNCIL POLICY:              Clause 21.09 - Housing

ZONING:                               General Residential

OVERLAY:                            Development Contributions Plan (Schedule 3)

REFERRAL:                          Nil

OBJECTIONS:                      Four

RECOMMENDATION:         That Council approve the application

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

The applicant proposes to demolish the existing dwelling and construct two double storey dwellings.

Advertising of the proposal resulted in four objections being received. The grounds of objection relate to the height and mass of the proposal, overlooking and overshadowing into neighbouring properties, property devaluation and additional noise.

The proposal demonstrates a satisfactory level of compliance with the provisions of Clause 55 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme and meets all standards relating to overshadowing and overlooking. The proposal also meets the requirements relating to site coverage, permeability and the provision of private open space.

The Housing Diversity Strategy (HDS) nominates this site as being within the Suburban Residential Change Area. The proposal complies with the preferred density and design principles of this Change Area and is considered to be an acceptable two dwelling development in an appropriate location as nominated by the HDS.

On the basis of the Clause 55 assessment and the proposal’s general compliance with State and local policies, it is recommended that Council approve the application.

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The subject site is a residential property located on the northern side of Luzon Court, Lalor, approximately 35m south of Childs Road (see Attachment 1). The subject site is flat and irregular in shape with a frontage to Luzon Court of 16.2m and a depth of 35.0m giving a total site area of 595m2.  The site currently contains a detached single storey dwelling constructed out of brick with a concrete tile hipped roof.  There is no vegetation of significance contained within the site.

The surrounding area is generally characterised by single storey dwellings with low to high front fences. The adjoining properties to the east and west of the site are single storey and constructed in brick. Examples of medium density development within the immediate vicinity are located at 5 Luzon Court and 78 Monash Street. 

The subject site is located in proximity to the following sites, services and infrastructure:

·    Bus route 566 - Lalor to Northland via Plenty Road (150m north)

·    Lalor North Primary School (250m south)

·    Bus route 556 - Epping to Northland via Keon Park (320m west)

·    Dalton Road shops 350m north)

·    Lalor North Secondary College (460m east)

·    Partridge Recreation Reserve (500m west)

·    St Monicas College (620m north)

·    Melbourne Polytechnic (800m north).

restrictions and easements

The site is legally described as Lot 236 on Plan of Subdivision 087430. Covenant 2738643 applies to the land and requires dwellings to be constructed of brick or brick veneer. The proposed dwellings do require some alteration to the façade treatments to ensure that the dwellings are consistent with the covenant. This has been addressed by a permit condition included in the recommendation section of this report.

Proposal

It is proposed to construct two double storey dwellings (see Attachment 2). The existing dwelling will be demolished.

The two double storey dwellings (Dwelling Nos. 1 and 2), will each contain an open plan kitchen/lounge/meals area, amenities, one bedroom at the ground level and three additional bedrooms at the upper level, bathroom and attached garage. The dwellings will utilise the existing accessway located on the east side of the property.  A new accessway is proposed near the western boundary, providing each dwelling with separate vehicle access.

Details of the proposed development are outlined in the following table:

 

Height/Scale

Number of Bedrooms

Setbacks

Private Open Space

Car Parking

Maximum Height

Dwelling No. 1

DoubleStorey

4

8.3m front (south), 1.0m side (west) and 5.3m rear (north)

85.5m2 (including 43.4mof secluded private open space)

Single garage (6.0m x 4.4m) and an open car parking space in a tandem configuration.

7.7m (overall)

 

Dwelling No. 2

DoubleStorey

4

7.8m front (south), 0m side (east) and 5.8m rear (north)

60.3m2 (including 43.3mof secluded private open space)

Single garage (6.0m x 3.5m) and an open car parking space in a tandem configuration.

7.6m (overall)

 

Public Notification

Advertising of the application has resulted in four objections being received.  The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows:

1.       Overlooking/overshadowing affecting neighbouring properties

2.       Parking and traffic

3.       Not consistent with neighbourhood character

4.       Devaluation of property

5.       Noise and disruption during construction

HOUSING DIVERSITY STRATEGY

The Housing Diversity Strategy (HDS) provides a strategic framework for future residential development in the established areas of the municipality for the next 20 years.  It aims to guide the future location and diversity of housing stock and identifies areas of housing growth and change, including areas where future housing growth will not be supported.  In general, it aims to encourage higher residential densities and a diversity of housing types and sizes into areas within convenient walking distance to public transport and activity centres.

The HDS is now a reference document in the Whittlesea Planning Scheme and an assessment against it is provided under Standard B2 of the Clause 55 assessment.

ASSESSMENT AGAINST CLAUSE 55 OF THE WHITTLESEA PLANNING SCHEME

The following table provides details on whether the proposal complies with the requirements of Clause 55 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme (WPS).  Under these provisions a development:

·    Must meet all of the objectives

·    Should meet all of the standards

If Council is satisfied that an application for an alternative design solution meets the objective, the alternative design solution may be considered.

 

 

ü - Compliance
× -  Non compliance

Objectives

Standards

Comments

B1

Neighbourhood Character

P

P

Developments within the area are generally from the 1960s and typically detached, single storey houses.  Garages, where provided, are generally located at the rear of the property whereas verandah style carports are located in front of the main building line or aligned with the building façade.

Neighbouring properties have varying street frontage setbacks ranging from 7-8m.

The design of the proposed dwellings and material used including concrete roof tiles, brickwork, 22 degree roof pitch, gutters, fascia and eaves and front portico entrance, complement the existing character of the area without attempting to replicate a specific dwelling style.

B2

Residential Policy

P

P

The proposal provides an appropriate response to both the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks through proposing a development that offers diversity to the existing housing stock

The HDS nominates the subject site as located within the Suburban Residential Change Area (Clause 21.09-4 of the WPS). This Change Area encourages standard density development comprised of detached dwellings and dual occupancies/duplexes.

Key design principles include low building heights that reflect the existing building scale and character, front setbacks to allow for significant landscaping including large canopy trees, standard site coverage, increased areas of private open space and the provision of an extra-large canopy tree in the rear setback.

The proposed development is consistent with the preferred density and key design principles outlined in the HDS.

B3

Dwelling Diversity

N/A

N/A

Only applicable to developments of ten (10) or more dwellings

B4

Infrastructure

P

P

 

B5

Integration with the street

P

P

 

B6

Street setback

P

P

 

B7

Building height

P

P

 

B8

Site coverage

P

P

 

B9

Permeability

P

P

 

B10

Energy efficiency

P

P

 

B11

Open space

N/A

N/A

Only applicable if public or communal open space is to be provided on site or adjacent to the development

B12

Safety

P

P

 

B13

Landscaping

P

X

A landscape plan has not been provided with the application.  It is considered that this can be dealt with by a condition on any permit that is issued.

B14

Access

P

P

 

B15

Parking location

P

P

 

B17

Side and rear setbacks

P

P

 

B18

Walls on boundaries

P

P

 

B19

Daylight to existing windows

P

P

 

B20

North-facing windows

P

P

 

B21

Overshadowing open space

P

P

 

B22

Overlooking

P

P

 

B23

Internal views

P

P

 

B24

Noise impacts

P

P

 

B25

Accessibility

P

P

 

B26

Dwelling entry

P

P

 

B27

Daylight to new windows

P

P

 

B28

Private open space

P

P

 

B29

Solar access to open space

P

P

 

B30

Storage

P

P

 

B31

Design detail

P

X

To ensure the proposal is acceptable in the neighbourhood setting, a condition will be added on any permit issued requesting a colour and material schedule.

B32

Front fences

N/A

N/A

No front fences are proposed.

B33

Common property

N/A

N/A

The proposed duplex layout will not require the creation of common property.

B34

Site services

P

P

 

CAR PARKING 

Clause 52.06 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme prescribes the rate and design standards for car parking spaces required on site.  Pursuant to this clause the following car spaces are required:

Dwelling No.

No. of bedrooms

Car spaces required

Car spaces provided

Complies

1

4

2

2

Yes

2

4

2

2

Yes

Garages should be at least 6.0m long and 3.5m wide for a single space and 5.5m wide for a double space (measured inside the garage or carport).  An open car space should be at least 4.9m long and 2.6m wide.  The proposal complies with these requirements. 

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS PLAN OVERLAY (SCHEDULE 3)

The site is affected by the Development Contributions Plan Overlay.  Pursuant to Clause 45.06 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, the Development Contributions Plan Overlay enables the levying of contributions for the provision of works, services and facilities prior to development commencing.  Schedule 3 to the overlay requires contributions for drainage infrastructure for medium density residential development at a current rate of $2.19 per square metre of the total site area. This requirement must be included as a condition on any planning permit that is issued.

Comments on Grounds of Objection

1.       Overlooking/overshadowing into neighbouring properties

Through the use of ‘hi-lite’ windows and obscure glazing, the applicant has ensured that there will be no overlooking into neighbouring properties.  The shadow diagrams submitted with the application show that the level of overshadowing experienced by neighbouring properties will be minimal and in accordance with the objectives and standards of Clause 55. 

2.       Parking and traffic

The proposed development provides car parking in accordance with the requirements of Clause 52.06 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, both in terms of the number of parking spaces and the design of the spaces.

3.       Not consistent with neighbourhood character

The height, mass and bulk proposed is considered to be appropriate for the area. The design incorporates design features of dwellings found in the immediate vicinity of the site such as a hipped roof, eaves and brick veneer construction.  Both dwellings are provided with appropriate recessing and articulation at first floor level to ensure their impact is diminished. 

4.       Devaluation of property

It has been consistently upheld by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) that property devaluation is not a relevant planning consideration. 

5.       Noise and disruption during construction

Some noise and disruption during the construction of dwellings is normal within residential areas. During the construction phase, builders must comply with the relevant restrictions imposed by EPA Victoria.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

The application has been assessed against the Whittlesea Planning Scheme and in particular the objectives and standards of Clause 52.06, Clause 55 and the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks including the Housing Diversity Strategy. The proposal demonstrates a satisfactory level of compliance subject to conditions. It is considered that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the character of the neighbourhood nor on existing surrounding residential properties and accordingly approval of the application is recommended.

 

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to approve Planning Application No. 716160 and issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for the construction of two double storey dwellings at 2 Luzon Court, Lalor, in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions:

1.       Prior to the endorsement of the plans, the permit holder must pay to Council a contribution for drainage pursuant to Clause 45.06 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  The drainage contribution will be subject to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) applicable at the time of payment.

2.       Before the development starts, three copies of amended plans/elevations must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority, showing:

a)      A schedule (including samples) of all external materials and colours for all walls, roofs, and doors including hard surface areas to be used for the construction of the proposed dwellings/buildings, including access ways.  Any proposed access way must be constructed from coloured concrete, bricks, pavers and not from plain concrete. The schedule must be consistent with Covenant E057199, which is registered to the property title.

b)      Elevations consistent with the schedule of colours and materials.

c)      A landscape plan in accordance with Condition No. 3.

3.       A detailed landscape plan prepared by a person suitably qualified or experienced in landscape design must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and show all proposed landscaping, including details of any vegetation to be retained, the location of all new planting, a schedule of plant species and height at maturity, and a maintenance schedule.  Species selection is to be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and include at least one large canopy tree within the front setback of the site and one extra-large canopy tree within the rear setback of the site.  Any proposed trees must be at an advanced stage of growth when planted.

4.       The development allowed by this permit and shown on the plans and/or schedules endorsed to accompany this permit shall not be amended for any reason without the consent of the Responsible Authority.

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

6.       Before the use of the development allowed by this permit starts, landscaping works shown on the endorsed plan must be completed and then maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

7.       Before the use of the development starts, the car parking areas and access ways must be drained, and fully sealed and constructed with asphalt, interlocking paving bricks, coloured concrete or other similar materials to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

8.       In areas set aside for car parking, measures must be taken to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent damage to fences or landscaped areas.

9.       Vehicular access to the site must be by way of a vehicle crossing constructed in accordance with Council’s Vehicle Crossing Specifications to suit the proposed driveway(s) and the vehicles that will be using the crossing(s).  The location, design, and construction of the vehicle crossing(s) must be approved by the Responsible Authority.  Any existing unused or redundant crossing(s) must be removed and replaced with concrete kerb, channel and naturestrip to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  All vehicle crossing works are to be carried out with Council supervision under a Road Opening Permit.

10.     Discharge of stormwater from the land will be required by means of an underground pipe drainage system designed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and discharging into an approved outlet in a street or an underground pipe drain to the requirements of the Responsible Authority.  In this regard no water shall be discharged from any pipe or paved area onto the surface of any adjacent land.

11.     Before starting any buildings or works, engineering plans showing a properly prepared design (with computations) for the internal drainage and method of disposal of stormwater from all roofed and sealed areas, including the use of an on-site detention system (if required), must be submitted to Council for approval.  These internal drainage works must be completed to Council’s satisfaction prior to using or occupying any building on the site.

12.     Before the use of the development commences, reticulated (water, sewerage, gas and electricity) services must be constructed and available to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

13.     The permit holder shall be responsible to meet all costs associated with reinstatement and/or alterations to Council or other Public Authority assets deemed necessary by such Authorities as a result of the development.  The permit holder shall be responsible for obtaining prior specific written approval for any works involving the alteration of Council or other Public Authority assets.

14.     Prior to occupation of any dwelling on the subject site, a letter box and house number to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority shall be provided for each dwelling.

15.     At all times during the construction phase of the development, the permit holder shall take measures to ensure that pedestrians are able to use with safety any footpath along the boundaries of the site.

16.     Upon completion of all buildings and works authorised by this permit the permit holder must notify the Responsible Authority of the satisfactory completion of the development and compliance with all relevant conditions.

17.     Any litter generated by building activities on the site shall be collected and stored in an appropriate enclosure which complies with Council’s Code of Practice for building/development sites.  The enclosures shall be regularly emptied and maintained such that no litter overspills onto adjoining land.  Prior to occupation and/or use of the building, all litter shall be completely removed from the site.

18.     During the construction phase, any mud or other materials deposited on roadways as a result of construction works on the site must be cleaned to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority within two hours of it being deposited.

19.     This permit will expire if:

a)      the approved development does not start within two years of the date of this permit; or

b)      the approved development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

Before the permit expires or within six months afterwards, the owner or the occupier of the land to which it applies may ask the Responsible Authority for an extension of time. The Responsible Authority may extend the time within which the development is to be started or completed.

Notes:

Advanced Trees

An advanced tree under this permit shall generally constitute the following:

Evergreen – minimum container size 45 litre spring ring, calliper at ground level 50mm.

Deciduous – minimum calliper at ground level 65mm, minimum height 2 metres.

 

Easements

No structure may be built over an easement on the subject site without the consent of the relevant Responsible Authority.

 

Street Numbering Note

Please note that property addresses and numbering is allocated by Council.  This is usually formalised at the time of the subdivision, however it is Council’s intention to number the proposed allotments/apartments/dwellings as follows:

Dwelling No. 1   2 Luzon Court, Lalor

Dwelling No. 2   2A Luzon Court, Lalor

Please check with Council’s Subdivision Department to verify all street numberings.

 

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Kelly

Seconded:               Cr Butler

 

The above Recommendation was adopted unchanged as part of an en bloc Resolution Moved by Cr Kelly, Seconded by Cr Butler.   See Section 6 - Officers' Reports for further information on items adopted en bloc.

Carried

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                                    Tuesday 18 April 2017

 

6.1.6    Planning Efficiencies and Delegations

File No:                                  192007

Attachments:                        1        Statistical Analysis

2        Sample weekly 'Call in' list

3        Instrument of delegation

4        Example Procedure   

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Manager Development Assessment   

 

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

A comprehensive review of the planning assessment process has not been undertaken within the City of Whittlesea for over 2 decades.  Planning has become more complex with additional considerations, as well as significant increases in population and application numbers over that period.

 

It is important to ensure that those decisions needing to be made by Council are made at that level, whilst remaining applications are processed promptly and efficiently to ensure minimal delays and impact on the local economy, job growth and investment (including infrastructure).

 

This report outlines the impact the current planning assessment process is having on Council performance and provides options available to streamline and improve the decision making process, without compromising Council oversight and control.  The streamlined process also provides opportunity to free up Council time for a greater focus on higher level strategic matters, like planning controls that shape planning assessments.

 

Introduction

Council’s instrument of delegations under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 allow Council Officers to make decisions on behalf of Council.  While many of these decisions are administrative in nature, such as requesting additional information, some decisions may have broader implications for the municipality.  Despite changes to the statutory planning framework over the last few decades, and the growing and changing population, workload and community needs/involvement in applications, the planning delegation from Council to members of Council staff has remained unchanged for assessments and been reduced when considering permit extensions.

Background

The current delegation that applies to planning permit applications at the City of Whittlesea is as follows:

·    Council determines an application if objections have been received;

·    Council determines an application that results in the loss of one or more River Red Gums;

·    Officers cannot refuse an application other than for ‘procedural matters’ such as prohibited activities; or as directed by a statutory referral authority; or applications that are contrary to a restrictive covenant; and

·    Council determines the great majority of applications for extension of time for a permit.

 

The preparation of Council reports requires a significant amount of Council Officer time and can delay the decision making process by a minimum of 4 weeks, although this can extend out to closer to 11 weeks where a matter is deferred.

 

Analysis was undertaken for the 2016 calendar year where on average more than 90 applications are presented to Council across the calendar year (approx 6 per Council meeting), which represents around 10% of all applications received for that year.  This is now forecasted to increase to around 15-20 planning matters (including extension of time requests) being reported to each meeting which has been evident at the first two meetings of 2017.

 

The estimated value of works for permits is over half a billion dollars annually which is comparative with the City of Hume and City of Wyndham, as well as bigger inner city Councils.  The State Government’s 2010 expansion of the growth areas means that development activity will continue to be a key focus for the City of Whittlesea for considerable time.  To ensure that our competitive advantage as a preferred location for investment is maintained, and our resources are focused on ensuring quality outcomes for the Community, it is critical that we explore opportunities to streamline our decision making processes, without limiting the ability for elected representatives to represent community views.

Our Performance

An analysis of statistics in relation to planning applications and reports to Council across 2016 revealed that:

·    89% of those matters decided by Council were consistent with the Officer recommendation of which 47 (57%) were decided en bloc. 

·    100% of all tree removal applications referred to Council were consistent with the officer recommendation and decided en bloc.

·    Of the 5 planning permit applications where Council’s decisions have overturned officer recommendations in 2016, 3 have been appealed at VCAT to date, of which only one has been heard.  Of the one heard VCAT reversed Council’s decision.

 

Refer attachment 1 for more information on the above analysis.

 

In summary the analysis revealed that more than half of the applications were decided en bloc without discussion, indicating there is opportunity for streamlining the decision process, without compromising Council control. 

 

These trends have continued for the first three meetings of 2017 with 89% (43/47) of decisions adopting the officer recommendation, two of which with minor adjustments and only around 10 matters having been discussed by Council with over 70% being decided en bloc and without any discussion.

 

Over the past 3 years, on average more than 125 extension of time requests have been received each year.  These requests are now being reported to Council where a change in circumstance has occurred or where the recommendation is for a refusal.  13 were reported to Council over the last 3 meetings of 2016 with Council supporting 9 of the recommendations and overturning 4, which all related to officer recommendations for refusal. 


 

Delegation Analysis

Previous and current surveys of Councils (comprising both Growth area and north region Councils) demonstrate that the level of delegation is higher for other Councils when compared to the City of Whittlesea.  More general investigations indicate Whittlesea has one of the lowest planning delegations in Victoria. Importantly, many other Councils have a ‘call in’ process that assists filtering those applications that Councillors are and are not interested in, as opposed to using a catch all mechanism.  The criteria for delegation can vary based on the number of objections, if it’s a straight refusal, or the type of application, such as tree removal, where a permit is being appealed at VCAT, or if it’s an application for extension of time.  

1.   Objections

 

Delegating decisions based on the number of objections received in response to a planning application is a common mechanism to determine whether a matter can be determined by Council Officers or at a Council Meeting.

 

With regard to the level of delegation, the Councils previously surveyed allow planning permit applications with between 3 to 14 objections to be determined under delegation, with the exception of City of Banyule, which does not specify a number of objections and essentially uses a call in process to identify planning applications that are to be determined at a Council meeting.  Some of the objector requirements have qualifiers, such as that the objector must live within 200m of the site that is the subject of the application and the most commonly used trigger is that of 5 objections.

 

Council will also occasionally receive petitions and group objections in response to planning permit applications.  Each petition and group objection, despite the number of signatures, is measured as one objection (common among Councils), although petitions will often call the on the Council to do something like refuse an application, rather than identify how they will be affected by a proposal.

 

The Act identifies that an objection made must state the reasons for the objections and how the objector would be affected by the grant of a permit.  The Act also outlines that where a number of people make a single objection (a group objection), it is still classed as only one objection.

 

Unless a petition identifies specific concerns and how the signatories would be affected, it technically has no weight within the planning process and does not constitute an objection, however it is noted that in most cases, petitions will identify concerns as well as call on the Council to make a particular decision, thereby defaulting to a group objection.

 

2.   Refusals

 

Currently, applications that clearly propose a development or use that is contrary to the planning scheme policy or fail to meet the technical /specific provision of the scheme require the application to be listed for Council to determine.  The exception is for procedural matters which have not been identified in the delegations, such as where a referral authority has objected and Council has no option but refusal, or where there is a breach of a registered restrictive covenant, or where something is prohibited.

 

Mitchell Shire has expanded the procedural or to also include situations where the required and necessary information has not been provided, or where a proposal is not in accordance with an approved Development Plan, Precinct Structure Plan or other approved plan. In addition Mitchell considers refusal procedural where an advertising direction has not been complied with in a specific time, not less than 14 days.

 

Based on analysis, a majority of all applications at Whittlesea are supported (96%) and it is rare that an officer’s recommendation of refusal of a planning application be overturned by Council, with the exception of some extension of time requests which are delegated to officers at all other Council’s previously surveyed.

 

3.   Tree Removal

 

An application involving the removal of one or more river red gum trees must be referred to Council for a decision, unless falling into a VicSmart category where it is then dealt with under delegation.  This is irrespective of health, safety, size and whether they are regrowth or otherwise.

 

VicSmart was established through an amendment to the Planning and Environment Act in September 2012 to allow a streamlined permit process to be set up in planning schemes for straightforward, low impact proposals. The vast majority of planning applications received by the City of Whittlesea are assessed under normal procedures, however, there are a small number (<5%) processed under the VicSmart provisions.  VicSmart provisions establish the CEO, or delegated officer, as the responsible authority, overriding Council delegations for permits in that category. 

 

The fact that the current delegations do not distinguish between the size and health of a trees means that an application as simple as removal of a sapling, or large dead tree that is a safety hazard still needs to be reported to Council.

 

4.   VCAT and Mediation/Compulsory Conference

 

In some circumstances, Council officers are asked by Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to make a decision on behalf of Council.  This typically occurs during mediation/compulsory conferences but can also occur during a hearing.  Discussions with other Councils revealed that many do not have a formal process in place, but allow Council officers to make decisions on behalf of the Council at VCAT.  In these cases it is understood that there is an expectation that any decision made by a Council officer on behalf of the Council will be consistent with any previous decision of the Council.

 

At the City of Whittlesea, current delegation requires matters in this category that have been determined by Council to be reported back to Council to enable appropriate representation at VCAT.  This is not always possible due to timeframes and the cyclical nature of the Council meetings.

 

It is acknowledged that there is some flexibility with respect to forming a position on a matter where an appeal against a failure to make a decision has been lodged.  Delegates can form a view where timeframes do not permit something going back to Council, and a report must be presented to the subsequent meeting for information.

 

The situation becomes even more complex, as in many instances during the VCAT process amended plans are circulated that may address some or all of Council’s reasons for the refusal.  There will be instances where sufficient time is afforded to prepare a report to Council seeking a consent order based on the changes; however this will not always be the case

 

5.   Extension of time to planning permit requests

 

Delegates have the power to extend the time of a permit (both commencement and completion) where circumstances have not changed.  This is somewhat ambiguous to interpret and in many instances will have no bearing on the decision, especially for those extensions to permits that are to complete works that have already started.

 

All refusals of extension of time requests must go to Council regardless of changed circumstances.

Call in Procedures

All Councils previously surveyed have a process in place to ensure that the Councillors are made aware of planning applications that have been lodged and enable Councillors to ‘call in’ applications of interest to Council Meetings for a decision. The process for “call in” varies amongst the Councils surveyed and has been adapted to the level of delegation that exists.  Some Councils require a ‘seconder’ to a request to call a matter in which ensures an even more transparent process that can reduce criticism of individual councillors.

 

Refer to attachment 2 for an example on how a “call in” report may look. Depending on Council’s view, this could be revised to include more or less information to satisfy Council.

DISCUSSION

There is no question that certain types of applications should be presented to Council for a decision, including those that are important to Councillors in their role in representing the Community.  In fact the Local Government Act describes the role of Council as providing leadership by establishing strategic objectives, through taking into account the diverse needs of the community in decision making, and ensuring resources are managed in a responsible and accountable manner to name a few.

 

Finding the balance is difficult and while there are opportunities for Council to be more involved at a strategic level in formulating planning controls and policy that guide the future development, there will always be instances on the ground where involvement should be occurring at the statutory level.  That balance must also have regard for the competing interests of both applicants and objectors. We do not want to unnecessarily hold up decisions and add costs and timelines that can impact on local businesses, job stimulation and creation of new homes for members of our community.  We also want to provide clarity for objectors as quickly as possible as applications can place a mental strain on community members who may not want a development occurring next door to them.

 

Job growth is becoming increasingly competitive amongst growth area Council’s due to the rapid increase in population and travel times to employment.  Being able to facilitate and fast track certain commercial applications that generate jobs can be difficult due to the timeframes associated with presenting applications to Council.

 

A high majority of extension of time requests are approved and there will almost always be a change in circumstance as the planning scheme is an evolving document.  The level of change can vary considerably and in many cases will not affect the outcome (i.e. a change to the Municipal Strategic Statement of a higher level policy would be unlikely to render an application inappropriate), however in other instances it will.  Given the breadth of what constitutes a change in circumstance, almost every extension of time request will be required to be reported to Council irrespective of the recommendation which will contribute an extra 125 reports on average annually which is more than 8 per meeting on top of planning applications.

 

There are also risks to local builders needing to complete developments and having to wait for the next available Council meeting for confirmation that their permit has been extended to complete development.  This can in some instances be a 4 or more week wait which impacts on the coordination of other local trades, impacts on income as the next job may not be able to be started and can affect settlement dates for new owners moving in.

Decision timeframes are yet another important consideration having regard to delegations as they are important to applicants and service users as well as how Council is measured by the State Government through Local Government Performance Reporting Framework and via the ‘Know Your Council’ website.  The decisions on average for 2015/16 were 19 more days per application than other similar growth and interface councils, whilst we also achieved 3% less on average for the number of decisions made within the statutory timeframe.  This trend has continued to Quarter 2 for the 2016/17 period with additional days to a decision and even less being decided within the statutory timeframe.

 

There were a total of 27 planning permit applications reported to Council for a decision in quarters 1 & 2 of the 2016/17 financial year.  Only 1 of these was decided within the 60 statutory day timeframe, with the remaining 97% decided outside. 

 

One of the key contributing factors to this result is the number of applications that are reported to Council and the lead in time needed to prepare and review the reports that, in the majority of cases, result in the application being determined outside of the statutory timeframe.

Proposal

To summarise the earlier content, delegations should:

·    Ensure those applications of importance at the higher level to the community are being considered by Council;

·    Avoid unnecessary delays for matters being caught up in the process unintentionally;

·    Enable efficiency in decision making, use of resources and Council meeting time; and

·    Ensure open transparency in decision making.

 

To achieve this, it is proposed that the planning delegation be revised as follows:

 

·    Make changes to position titles to ensure they are correct and accurate;

·    Introduce a ‘call in’ procedure that requires 2 Councillors (a requestor and seconder) to advise the CEO, Director and/or Manager that they would like a matter to be brought before Council for a decision;

·    All applications that receive 5 or more objections to be considered by Council;

·    All applications that contain a petition or group objection with 5 or more signatures to be considered by Council;

·    Applications can be refused under delegation, unless called in by Council;

·    Applications involving the removal of two or more river red gum trees that have a trunk diameter of 50 centimetres or more at 1.3 metres above ground level must be reported to Council for a decision;

·    The power to form a position on a matter after an appeal has been lodged can occur under delegation unless there were more than 5 objections, a petition or group objection with 5 or more signatories or the matter had been ‘called in’ before the appeal was lodged; and

·    All applications seeking an extension of time can be considered under delegation where officers are recommending approval, unless called in by Council.

 

The above proposal ensures that Councillors retain the right for matters over certain criteria to be ‘called in’ prior to a decision being made which is the most effective method for capturing those matters that should be brought before Council and that does not unnecessarily hold up decisions and timeframes.

 


 

There will need to be key mechanics behind the ‘call in’ process including:

 

·    Provision of weekly lists provided to Councillors via the Councillor portal for review; Refer to Attachment 2 for example “call in” report

·    Agreed criteria for more significant applications that would be identified on the list;

·    Better access to our online Planning Application Status and Tracking Application (PASTA) which allows real time review of live applications and where they are in the process via the Whittlesea website;

·    Agreed procedures for ‘calling in’ applications, Refer Attachment 4 for example; and

·    Agreed procedures for requesting more information about an application to enable decisions to be made, Refer Attachment 4 for example.

 

The current delegations would be used as the criteria for what would appear on the weekly distribution list, except for extension of time requests where the officer recommendation was for approval.  Consultation with Councillors revealed that this was not an interest area.  These changes would achieve an increase in the number of planning permit applications being decided under delegation which would have the benefit of Council focussing on the matters that are important to them and more time would be provided to discuss and debate those important applications during meetings.  It would enable an increase in the decisions made within the 60 day statutory timeframe and continued methods of providing information to Council on delegated decisions would need to be maintained.

 

Under this proposal, the amount of information being made available to Councillors would be increasing in volume and frequency enabling them to make more informed decisions about what should be presented to Council for a decision.

 

This proposal is reflected in the changes to the Instrument of Delegation from Council to Members of Council Staff– see Attachment 3.

 

To complement the delegation reforms, it would also be proposed that a priority development process be developed and implemented that sets a specific focus for facilitating developments that create jobs and investment within the municipality.

Consultation

In preparing this report, consultation has taken place with relevant representatives from internal departments and the options were presented at a Council Forum on 14 February 2017 and 28 March 2017.  Additional meetings have occurred with Councillors not in attendance at the initial forum to ensure that their views were taken into consideration in preparing this report and proposal.

Where views have differed as part of the consultation process, the more restrictive requirement has been included in the recommended criteria to ensure those matters needing to be considered by Council are brought before a Council meeting for a decision.

A Communications Plan will be developed so that any decision on the revised delegations will be publicised to regular applicants, objectors and through other media streams.

Financial Implications

At present, each Council Report can take 2 to 5 days of preparation, review, editing, documenting and finalising so that it can be considered at a relevant Council meeting.

 

The community benefits through faster decisions as processing times are reduced, customer service is enhanced, new homes are built, there is increased economic development and job creation as well as increased investment across the municipality.

Policy strategy and legislation

As a legal entity, Council can exercise certain powers by resolution of the whole Council at a Council meeting or through members of Council staff acting on its behalf. This Instrument delegates Council powers directly from Council to members of Council staff under section 98 of the Local Government Act 1989.

Delegations are to positions and not to individuals to ensure that delegations do not become obsolete or ineffective in the event of a staff member leaving the organisation or being absent or on leave. In these instances, the delegated powers of the position are automatically transferred to the Council officer acting in the position.

 

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

FUTURE DIRECTION          Good Governance

Theme                                   Continuous improvements

Strategic Objective              Council adopts best practice models of operation

 

Future Direction 3: Growing Our Economy – There are a diverse range of local employment opportunities

 

Future Direction 7: Good Governance – Council provides an efficient and effective service to residents

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

Changing legislation, increasing proportion of applications with objections and the increasing focus on more strategic planning matters of significance by Council demonstrates a need for change to the current planning delegation. Opportunities exist for Council to maintain the same level of control that it currently has on planning assessments, through the introduction of a “call in” process, whilst reducing red tape for the applicants.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to:

1.       Delegate the powers, duties and functions set out in Instrument of Delegation (attachment 3) to members of Council staff, subject to the conditions and limitations specified in the Instrument effective from 19 April 2017;

 

2.       Authorise the distribution of a weekly list of planning applications for call-in purposes; and

 

3.       Investigate, prepare and implement a priority development process with associated criteria to facilitate planning applications that create jobs and investment.

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Sterjova

Seconded:               Cr Cox

 

THAT Council resolve to adopt the Recommendation.

UNANIMOUSLY Carried

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                                    Tuesday 18 April 2017

 

6.1.7    Request for Amendment to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme - Community Infrastructure Levy

File No:                                  164687   

Responsible Officer:           Acting Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Team Leader Strategic Infrastructure Planning   

 

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) on behalf of the Minister for Planning, has offered all councils the opportunity to be included in a Ministerial amendment that will give effect to recent increases to the maximum chargeable rate of Community Infrastructure Levy from $900 to $1,150 per dwelling, where increases can be justified. This is the first increase to the levy cap since 2004.

Council’s Strategic Infrastructure Planning team has reviewed Council’s Development Contributions Plans. The review found that changes to the Community Infrastructure Levy will limit Council’s exposure to shortfalls for delivery of community infrastructure items, and can be justified in seven of Council’s Development Contributions Plans. Accordingly, this report recommends that Council write to the Minster for Planning, requesting the proposed amendment to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme. Requests to the Minister are due by 21 April 2017.

Introduction

On 11 October 2016, the Minister for Planning introduced changes to the Development Contributions Plan (DCP) system serving to increase the maximum chargeable Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) from $900 per dwelling to $1,150 per dwelling.

The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) on behalf of the Minister for Planning, has written to all councils offering them an opportunity to join a Ministerial amendment process, prepared by DELWP, that aims to give effect to recent changes to the CIL increase where appropriate, and provide for any future increases to the CIL under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act). This letter was received by Council on 15 March 2017.

To inform a response, Council officers have undertaken a review of all active incorporated DCPs in the Whittlesea Planning Scheme. The review has found that changes are required to seven Development Contributions Plans and/or Development Contributions Plan Overlay Schedule text in order to give effect to the recent CIL increases, as well as to provide for any future increases to the CIL.

Background

Under Section 46J of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act), a Development Contributions Plan may provide for the imposition of a development infrastructure levy (DIL) and/or a community infrastructure levy (CIL).

The content of what can be funded by the DIL and CIL components in a DCP is guided by the Ministerial Direction on the Preparation and Content of Development Contributions Plans:

·        The DIL component of a DCP is levied on a per hectare basis, and covers the majority of costs for essential infrastructure items such as roads, drainage, land acquisition and essential family and children’s facilities. These are collected from the developer or subdivider through the planning permit process.

·        Where applicable, the CIL component is designed as a contribution towards items for social and community purposes such as pavilions and libraries. It only applies to residential land use/development, and is typically levied at the building permit stage.

The content of the City of Whittlesea’s development contributions plans vary quite considerably between plans, reflecting the different approaches typically applied by the State government at the specific time of preparation of each plan. For example, under the Epping North Local Structure Plan DCP, the CIL is funding the construction of a community activity centre, whereas under the Wollert Development Contributions Plan, CIL contributions are directed towards the cost of construction a number of sporting pavilions, higher order infrastructure such as indoor sporting centre and a library. The total value of projects funded by the CIL applying in each DCP area therefore varies considerably.

The estimated cost of delivering CIL-funded infrastructure items, and the determination regarding the proportion of those costs which may be captured through the DCP, are decided through the preparation and approval of a DCP. To determine the applicable CIL rate per dwelling, the delivery costs apportioned to the DCP are divided by the number of lots anticipated for the DCP area through the strategic planning process. Project costs are then indexed, typically annually, in accordance with the indexation provisions of each DCP.

As the content of DCPs and the respective Development Contributions Plan Overlay schedules reflect the now out-dated provisions, an amendment to the incorporated DCP is required in order for councils to apply the increased CIL, where appropriate.

nOTIFICATIONS

As a proposed Ministerial amendment giving effect to a Governor in Council Order, notification will be at the discretion of the Minister for Planning.

Critical Dates

21 April 2017 – Deadline for submitting a request for the proposed amendment to the Minister for Planning

DISCUSSION

Council officers have undertaken a review of all DCPs in the Whittlesea Planning Scheme to determine whether increases to the cap are justified, and if so, what changes are required to the Scheme in order for Council to charge a higher CIL rate.

The review examined the following elements:

·        The 2016/17 indexed value, per dwelling, of projects funded by each DCP,

·        The wording of the relevant DCPO schedule, and

·        The wording of the relevant DCP document.

Table 1 below provides the 2016/17 indexed value of CIL-funded projects in Council’s existing Development Contributions Plans per dwelling, and an assessment of whether changes to either the DCPO Schedule or the incorporated DCP are required to give effect to the CIL provisions of the new DCP system. DCPs requiring changes to give effect to the CIL increases are highlighted.

Table 1 – Overview of Council’s CILs

DCP Name

DCPO Schedule Ref

2016-17 value of CIL projects per lot

Change to Schedule required

(Y/N)

Change to DCP text required

(Y/N)

Comment

Epping North

DCPO1

$450.00

N

N

Amendment not justified - majority of DCP area developed and indexed value of projects is not projected to exceed $900 in life of DCP

Harvest Home

DCPO2

$457.66

N

N

Amendment not justified - majority of DCP area developed and indexed value of projects is not projected to exceed $900 in life of DCP

Mernda Strategy Plan (Precincts 2A, 2B, 3, 4 & 5)

DCPO5

DCPO6

DCPO7 DCPO8

DCPO9

$190.60

N

N

Amendment not justified - majority of DCP area developed and indexed value of projects is not projected to exceed $900 in life of DCP

Epping North East

DCPO10

$881.78

Y

N

Indexed rate likely to exceed $900 in coming years. Amendment recommended.

English Street

DCPO15

$689.72

Y

N

Indexed rate may exceed $900 in coming years. Amendment recommended due to remaining life of the DCP.

Lockerbie

DCPO11

$803.83

Y

N

Indexed rate likely to exceed $900 in coming years. Amendment recommended.

Lockerbie North

DCPO12

$989.78

Y

N

$900 already exceeded. Amendment recommended.

Quarry Hills

DCPO13

$1,271.93

Y

Y

$900 already exceeded. Amendment recommended.

Epping Central

DCPO14

$1,511.98

Y

Y

$900 already exceeded. Amendment recommended.

Wollert

DCPO16

$4,293.38

Y

N

Gazetted with new $1,150 cap, however current schedule does not provide for future increases. Amendment recommended.

Note that CIL provisions do not apply under the new Infrastructure Contributions Plan system, and therefore will not apply to the proposed Donnybrook/Woodstock Infrastructure Contributions Plan. 

The outcomes of the review as shown in Table 1 are summarised below:

·        Three of Council’s DCPs (Epping North, Harvest Home and Mernda Strategy Plan), have CILs that are significantly under the $900 per dwelling cap. The majority of the DCP areas in these instances have also already been developed. It is not recommended that these DCPs are included in the proposed Planning Scheme Amendment.

·        Three of Council’s DCPs (Epping North East, Lockerbie, and English Street), have rates that are approaching the current $900 cap. Epping North East is quite close to the former $900 cap, as is Lockerbie. It would be some time before indexation brings the English Street CIL rate to the $900 cap, however the majority of the DCP area is still to develop and the timing of development completion is not known. All recommended for inclusion in the proposed Planning Scheme Amendment to increase the cap to $1,150 and provide for future increases.

·        Three of Council’s DCPs (Lockerbie North, Quarry Hills, and Epping Central), have CILs that currently exceed the $900 cap, and so are also recommended for inclusion in the proposed Planning Scheme Amendment to both increase the cap to $1,150 and provide for future increases. 

·        Whilst the $1,150 cap already applies to the newly gazetted Wollert DCP, changes to the DCPO schedule are recommended so as to provide for future increases to the CIL cap.

The $1150 per dwelling cap acts as a maximum chargeable CIL rate. Where the indexed per dwelling rate is less than the $1,150 cap, only the lower indexed rate can be charged. Where the indexed value of CIL projects per dwelling is greater than or equal to $1,150, only $1,150 per dwelling may be charged.

As the current indexed rate for the Epping North, Harvest Home and Mernda Strategy Plan DCP areas is far below the $900 cap currently applying, and the majority of development within those areas has occurred, officers consider that there is insufficient justification to apply a planning scheme amendment to either increase the cap, or provide for future increases.

In Quarry Hills, Epping Central and Wollert DCPs, the indexed value of CIL-funded projects exceeds the cap. In those instances, Council is responsible for funding the difference between CIL funds collected through the DCP, and the cost of delivering those items. Noting that often the CIL projects are higher order community infrastructure items, Council may seek external funding contributions such as grants to ameliorate the extent of any shortfalls that may remain even after the increased CIL rate comes into effect.

The 2016 increase of the Community Infrastructure Levy cap from a $900 to $1,150 per dwelling was the first increase in the maximum CIL rate since 2004, and as such the levy has not kept pace with the cost of delivering CIL-funded projects. The increase to the capped rate will reduce the financial burden to Council associated with funding shortfalls for the delivery of community infrastructure projects already identified as necessary for the community.

The offer for a DELWP-prepared, Ministerial amendment to effect the CIL increases represents a practical, streamlined approach to an amendment process that would otherwise have the potential to be a lengthy process should council prepare their own individual amendments.

Noting the analysis above, it is recommended that Council write to the Minister for Planning requesting that the Department prepare an amendment to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme to give effect to the increases to the CIL cap for the nominated DCPs.

Policy strategy and legislation

By enabling the collection of funds necessary for the timely provision of necessary community infrastructure as identified in the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, the proposed Ministerial amendment accords with the following:

Planning and Environment Act 1987 – Section 46;

Ministerial Direction on the Preparation and Content of Development Contributions Plans 11 October 2016;

Whittlesea Planning Scheme - Clause 19.03-1: To facilitate the timely provision of planned infrastructure to communities through the preparation and implementation of development contributions plans; and

Whittlesea Planning Scheme – Clause 22.11 Development Contribution Plan Policy: To ensure the provision of basic infrastructure in a timely fashion to meet the needs generated by new development.

 

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

FUTURE DIRECTION          Accessibility in, out and around our city

Theme                                   Access to services

Strategic Objective              We can access Council services

 

The proposed amendment to increase the CIL cap in Council’s existing DCPs will contribute to the achievement of the above strategic objective by improving Council’s ability to capture funds required for the construction of planned community infrastructure necessary for the delivery of Council’s services.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning is proposing a Ministerial amendment that seeks to give effect to increases to the Community Infrastructure Levy cap from $900 to $1,150 per dwelling made by the Minister for Planning in October 2016.

Noting that the cap has not increased since 2004, the increase is a welcome step towards securing the funds required to deliver Community Infrastructure Levy funded projects already identified in Council’s existing Development Contributions Plans.

Seven of Council’s Development Contributions Plans either currently exceed, or have the capacity to exceed the former $900 cap. An amendment to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme is required to give effect to increased rates, and to provide for any future increases to the levy under the Planning and Environment Act 1987, where appropriate. 

The application of the increased Community Infrastructure Levy cap, and the ability to respond to future increases of the levy, will reduce Council’s exposure to funding shortfalls for the delivery of community infrastructure projects that have already been identified as necessary in Council’s Development Contributions Plans.

Accordingly, it is recommended that Council write to the Minister for Planning requesting that the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning prepare an amendment to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme

·        to give effect to the increased Community Infrastructure Levy cap for the English Street, Epping Central, Epping North East, Lockerbie, Lockerbie North, and Quarry Hills Development Contributions Plans; and

·        to ensure that those Development Contributions Plans, and the Wollert Development Contributions Plan, can respond to any future State government increases to the CIL.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to write to the Minister for Planning to request that the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning prepare an amendment to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme to:  

1.       Give effect to recent increases to the Community Infrastructure Levy cap to the English Street, Epping Central, Epping North East, Lockerbie, Lockerbie North, Quarry Hills DCPs; and

2.       Provide for any future increases to the Community Infrastructure Levy under the Planning and Environment Act 1987, for the Wollert DCP as well as those DCPs listed in 1 above.

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Kelly

Seconded:               Cr Butler

The above Recommendation was adopted unchanged as part of an en bloc Resolution Moved by Cr Kelly, Seconded by Cr Butler.   See Section 6 - Officers' Reports for further information on items adopted en bloc.

Carried

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                                    Tuesday 18 April 2017

 

6.2       Community Services

6.2.1    City of Whittlesea Soccer Strategy 2017

File No:                                  194424

Attachments:                        1        City of Whittlesea Soccer Strategy 2017   

Responsible Officer:           Director Community Services

Author:                                  Leisure Planner   

 

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

The City of Whittlesea Soccer Strategy 2017 (Attachment 1) is tabled for Council consideration.

In developing the Soccer Strategy 2017, a comprehensive review of the sport including current industry trends, State trends, a facility audit and participation rates has been undertaken. To support this research, a consultation process was undertaken that included multiple consultation sessions with ten local soccer clubs, discussions with Football Federation Victoria and broad community consultation.

To address the issues identified by the review and consultation, five strategic directions have been developed to provide guidance for the future support and development of the sport within the municipality.

1.   Reviewing ground allocations to achieve best fit

2.   Move toward more equitable facility provision and maintenance level

3.   Improve the usage and viability of Epping Soccer Stadium

4.   Support female and junior participation growth by improving access to facilities

5.   Support player pathways and soccer community development.

To achieve the five strategic directions and allow the sport to continue to grow and cater to the needs of the Whittlesea community, a plan of 39 actions has been formulated. These actions have been prioritised over a 10-year timeframe to produce the City of Whittlesea Soccer Strategy Implementation Plan. All new works items will be referred to the new works program and associated approval process.

The Soccer Strategy will guide Council decision making to allow residents to have access to soccer programs through balanced provision and development of quality soccer facilities.

Background

As with the rest of Australia, soccer participation within the City of Whittlesea is increasing. Soccer participation has increased by almost 37% over the last five years. In 2016, there were 2,235 registered players across ten soccer clubs and potentially over 6,000 people associated with soccer in the Whittlesea area.

The City of Whittlesea’s previous soccer strategy was drafted in 2002. Since 2002, soccer has experienced considerable change.  The sport now has healthy elite national competitions (A-League and W-League) and has developed stronger development pathways for both men and women with the introduction of the National Premier League competition. 

Given the current and anticipated future population growth and changes to the sport since 2002, there is a clear need for a contemporary strategy to assist in the planning and delivery of soccer within the municipality.

The need for a soccer strategy was identified in Council’s Recreation Strategy 2012-2017.

The first draft of the Soccer Strategy recommended the relocation of six clubs to alternative sporting reserves to achieve a better fit.  It is important that the clubs are comfortable with the recommended relocations and have committee sign off of the proposed relocations.

Five of the six clubs have formally agreed in writing to relocate. Plenty Valley Lions FC declined to move as they do not believe Findon Recreation Reserve is a good fit for their club.  In response, Council Officers determined that Findon Recreation Reserve is also an appropriate facility for the Khlasa Lions Soccer Club, which has agreed to relocate. The Khalsa Lions Soccer Club was originally recommended to relocate to WA Smith Reserve; this outcome now opens up WA Smith Recreation Reserve for other uses such as rugby league. Officers will continue to work with The Plenty Valley Lions Football Club to address their further needs.

Proposal

The Soccer Strategy 2017 (Attachment 1) is tabled for Council consideration.

Consultation

Key stakeholder consultation was undertaken in three parts.

1.       Part one of the key stakeholder consultation included:

·     Interviews with all soccer clubs within the municipality, including a recent interview with Sporting Whittlesea.

·     Meetings with Football Federation of Victoria and Victorian (FFV) Churches Soccer Association.

·     Meetings with neighbouring municipalities.

·     Meetings with Melbourne City Football Club.

·     Meetings with Sport and Recreation Victoria (SRV).

·     Internal consultation across relevant Departments.

2.       Part two of the consultation included:

·     Summary sheet distributed to all soccer clubs outlining the findings from the issues and opportunities paper and inviting comment.

·     Secondary interviews with soccer clubs most impacted by the proposed draft recommendations (this was eight out of the ten clubs).

·     Follow up discussions with internal departments to explore proposed draft recommendations.

3.       Part three of the consultation included:

·     Face to face or telephone discussions with the clubs that had been recommended for relocation.

·     A Soccer Forum, attended by five of the ten clubs (all clubs invited), where the Draft Strategy findings were presented and comment sought from the clubs.

Broad scale community consultation was undertaken through Council’s Community Voice page and via the Council Facebook page.

Critical Dates

All the actions have been prioritised and are outlined in the Strategy Action Plan (Attachment 1- page 22).

KEY Issues and Strategic Directions

Key Issues

Participation and Growth: Participation in soccer is growing; this is being led primarily by a strong increase in junior participation. There has been a sharp decline in the number of females participating, due primarily to constraints in relation to access to facilities.

Ground Capacity and Use: A number of existing facilities are at or exceeding capacity and cannot support the forecast demand. In addition, there are a number of facilities that require upgrades to the playing surfaces, training lights and clubrooms to cater for increased participation.

Epping Soccer Stadium: The stadium is significantly underutilised as the facility does not adequately meet the needs of either local or elite clubs.

Growth Areas: Planning for future soccer facilities proposes that another 11 new soccer facilities (26 pitches) are required to meet the demand of new residents. This will be a significant capital cost.

Synthetic Surfaces: The initial capital cost to provide synthetic surfaces is substantial (currently in the order of $1.2 million); however, a review of soccer facilities that have either been developed or redeveloped with a synthetic surface indicated substantial benefits in terms of volume of use and severe weather tolerance (i.e. drought or heavy rain). The provision of an all-weather surface enables large volumes of teams to train and play on the pitch without causing significant damage or overuse issues and subsequent closures which are common with a turf pitch.

Strategic Directions

The five strategic directions below will address the key issues outlined above and provide guidance for the future support and development of the sport within the municipality.

1.       Reviewing ground allocations to achieve best fit

2.       Move toward more equitable facility provision and maintenance level

3.       Improve the usage and viability of Epping Soccer Stadium

4.       Support female and junior participation growth by improving access to facilities

5.       Support player pathways and soccer community development.

From these five strategic directions come 39 actions and will be implemented over the next ten years.

Financial Implications

New Works Budget

The recommended capital works program is for an estimated expenditure of $43.8 million over ten years (of which $11.5M is funded by developer contributions and State Government Funding). The table below identifies the projects funded in 2017/18 budget. All further new works items will be referred to the new works program and associated approval process.


 

Location

Project

PID

Harvest Home Road Recreation Reserve

Complete designs and construct pavilion.

1324

Painted Hills Recreation Reserve (Doreen South)

Design and construct a “club” level soccer facility.

703

Duffy Street Recreation Reserve

Upgrade the pavilion to meet contemporary standards and consider development of a MiniRoos pitch.

1462

H.R. Uren Recreation Reserve

Construct ball catching fence on southern goal boundary line.

2163

Partridge Street Recreation Reserve

Upgrade sports lights to training standard (50 lux) on the western pitch.

2115

Mosaic Recreation Reserve

Design and construct a “club” level soccer facility.

696

Sycamore Recreation Reserve

Undertake master plan for site.

1847

Operational Budget

A number of proposed actions require consideration as part of future recurrent or new works budget deliberations.

Policy strategy and legislation

The development of the Soccer Strategy was identified in the City of Whittlesea Recreation Strategy 2012-2017.  The Soccer Strategy 2017 is aligned to the recommendations of this strategy.

The Soccer Strategy has been developed in line with the all growth area planning document such as Precinct Structure Plans and Strategy Plans.

 

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

FUTURE DIRECTION          Places and spaces to connect people

Theme                                   Leisure & recreation

Strategic Objective              Our recreation facilities and open spaces are accessible and respond to local need

 

Soccer facilities/clubs are integral elements for building a strong community. It is estimated there are over 6000 local residents affiliated with soccer as players, coaches, administrators or volunteers. The recommendations outlined in the strategy will guide Council in the delivery of quality soccer facilities, strengthen player pathways and improve facility accessibility. This will allow the municipality’s local clubs to continue to meet the needs of the local community now and into the future.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

Soccer is an important sport for the City of Whittlesea; it estimated that over 6,000 people have an affiliation with a local soccer club.  Soccer has experienced growing participation in the municipality mostly lead by junior participants and the overall population growth.

The five strategic directions that formulate the basis of the Soccer Strategy will enable Council to implement actions to meet the needs of soccer participants now and into the future.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council Resolve to:

1.       Adopt the Soccer Strategy 2017 (Attachment 1); and

2.       Work with impacted clubs in relation to changes to ground allocations and developments.

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Lalios

Seconded:               Cr Cox

 

THAT Council resolve to adopt the Recommendation.

LOST

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                                    Tuesday 18 April 2017

 

6.2.2    Early Years Policy

File No:                                  SU/192088

Attachments:                        1        Early Years Policy   

Responsible Officer:           Director Community Services

Author:                                  Manager Family, Children and Young People   

 

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

Delivery of the Early Years policy fulfils a commitment in Council’s Connect: A municipal plan for children, young people and their families in the City of Whittlesea 2013 to 2018.  The Early Years Policy outlines Council’s commitment to applying evidence based, best practice approaches to the delivery of quality outcomes for all children (antenatal - 8 years) and their families. 

Local government has both a statutory and social responsibility to deliver social and physical infrastructure that is designed to strengthen individual and community wellbeing, capacity and connection.  The Early Years Policy expands on these responsibilities and articulates Council’s role and guiding principles that underpin all of Council’s actions to support the healthy development of children in the early years, and to also support their parents and carers.

It is proposed that Council adopt the Early Years Policy. 

Background

The Victorian Government identifies the critical role of local government in early childhood. State and local government together provide collective stewardship of the early years system.

Research shows the lifelong social and economic benefits to children, families and the broader community of investing in early childhood:

·    Investing in the earliest years of life builds a solid foundation for children’s development and increases everyone’s potential to contribute to society as productive adults. Programs that support children in the early years are the very best investments we can make as a country’.1

·    ‘research shows that high-quality birth-to-five programs for disadvantaged children can deliver a 13% per year return on investment.’2

Furthermore, as a signatory to the Victorian Child Friendly Cities and Communities Charter, Council commits to applying the principles and building local capacity to support the development of children.

The City of Whittlesea provides a range of services and programs for children in the early years including Maternal and Child Health, Family Day Care, kindergarten central enrolment, partnerships and training for early years’ service providers, playgroups support and facilitation, infrastructure planning and design and lease and service agreement management for kindergarten provision.

Proposal

The Early Years Policy outlines Council’s role, the policy objectives and the guiding principles that underpin all of Council’s actions to deliver quality outcomes for all children (antenatal - 8 years).

Council’s role in the Early Years

·    Provider – Council provides social and physical infrastructure that ensures the provision of quality integrated services and programs for children and their families.

·    Facilitator – Council facilitates education, partnerships and strategic networking opportunities to build the local service system, and strengthen the capacity of families.

·    Advocate – Council works with, and on behalf of the community to ensure services and infrastructure remain accessible, responsive and coordinated. It advocates for practices that reflect what children, parents and carers say they need and aspire to, and are informed by evidence and research.

Objectives of the Policy

·    Deliver timely, accessible and innovative services, programs and practices, that are responsive through all life stages of the City of Whittlesea’s children and their families, recognising that their health, safety, education and well-being is paramount.

·    Deliver all legislative, regulatory and funding requirements related to the provision of Early Years services.

·    Utilise robust evidence to inform policy, planning and the delivery of social and physical infrastructure.

·    Strengthen prevention and early intervention approaches in response to emerging vulnerabilities including social isolation, population growth impacts and family violence.

·    Lead and resource local partnerships to strengthen and build the local service system.

Consultation

The need to develop this policy was identified in Connect: A municipal plan for children, young people and their families in the City of Whittlesea 2013 to 2018.  Through the development of the Connect plan significant community and stakeholder consultation was undertaken. Recently further consultation has been undertaken with diverse stakeholders to inform the development of this policy and other key plans.

Policy strategy and legislation

National and State

Recent national reforms (including Early Years Learning Framework, Council of Australian Government’s National Partnership on Universal Access -15 hours kindergarten) are based on a recognition of the importance of early childhood development in providing the foundations for a person’s social, educational, economic and personal wellbeing across the life span.

The Victorian Government’s  Roadmap to Reform: strong families, safe children (Department of Health and Human Services), Education State (Department of Education and Training DET) and Marrung-Aboriginal Education Plan 2016-2026 (DET) provide the contemporary context for improving the health, wellbeing, development and educational outcomes for all children, with a particular focus on vulnerable children, and their families. The key themes reflected in these policy documents include:

·    Improving access to universal services in early childhood to better support child development, and family engagement, capacity and skills;

·    Creation of pathways and support for transition into education;

·    Supporting children and families in need with integrated wrap around supports and targeted early interventions.

The Victorian Government identifies the critical role of local government in early childhood. It is acknowledged that:

·    Victorian councils play a major role in planning, developing and implementing the local early years system, of which the provision and/or management of kindergarten services is a primary part.3

·    ‘Local government - as a key provider and major owner of kindergarten facilities - plays a central role in improving quality, provision and access at the local level’.4

·    ‘Local government as the provider and supporter of Maternal and Child Health services sees all Victorian children from birth’.5

City of Whittlesea

Delivery of the Early Years policy fulfils a commitment in Connect: A municipal plan for children, young people and their families in the City of Whittlesea 2013 to 2018. 

Council endorsed the Victorian Child Friendly Cities and Communities Charter in 2016 and thereby Council recognises the need for increased participation by children in decision-making forums and creating child friendly environments, and thereby supports the following principles:

·    Freedom for children to experience environments that consider their needs;

·    Respect and dignity for children to express their individual opinions, participate in and contribute to decisions about their communities and their wellbeing;

·    Equitable access to supportive environments and services for children regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion or ability.’6

Council has a proud history of investing in the Early Years and developing collaborative partnerships to achieve positive outcomes for children and their families.

 

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

FUTURE DIRECTION          Good Governance

Theme                                   Continuous improvements

Strategic Objective              Council adopts best practice models of operation

 

This policy reflects Council’s commitment to evidence based, best practice approaches to deliver quality outcomes for all children (antenatal - 8 years) and their families. 

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

The Early Years Policy outlines Council’s approach, role, objectives and principles that underpin all actions to deliver quality outcomes and support optimal health and wellbeing for all children (antenatal - 8 years), and their families in the City of Whittlesea. 

 

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to adopt the Early Years Policy.

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Kelly

Seconded:               Cr Butler

 

The above Recommendation was adopted unchanged as part of an en bloc Resolution Moved by Cr Kelly, Seconded by Cr Butler.   See Section 6 - Officers' Reports for further information on items adopted en bloc.

Carried

 

  

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                                    Tuesday 18 April 2017

 

6.3       City Transport and Presentation

6.3.1    E6 Transport Corridor

File No:                                  177059

Attachments:                        1        History of Council's Position

2        Outer Metropolitan Ring Road Plan

3        E6 Transport Corridor Plan   

Responsible Officer:           Director City Transport & Presentation

Author:                                  Team Leader Strategic Transport   

 

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

This report has been prepared in response to a Council resolution of 28 June 2016 and a petition with 514 signatures requesting that Council support and advocate for the delivery of a six lane freeway along the E6 Transport Corridor.

The E6 corridor is an important transport link for existing and future communities.  The development of this corridor, along with improvements to the City’s existing arterial road network, is critical to alleviating traffic congestion and accommodating future population growth.  Council has a long-held position of supporting the construction of an arterial road, rather than a freeway, along the corridor.  An arterial road has similar transport benefits to a freeway for local residents, will have more connections to the City’s local network than a freeway and will have a reduced impact on the amenity of adjoining neighbourhoods.

This report recommends that Council maintains its long-held position on the arterial road form for the E6 corridor.  Support for a freeway along the corridor could be reconsidered in the future subject to the analysis of any new traffic data provided to or developed by Council.

Background

Council has long supported the E6 Transport Corridor as a key transport link to serve the needs of existing and future communities and reduce traffic congestion on the existing road network.  The E6 will provide an alternative north south route to the High Street/ Epping Road and Plenty Road corridors.

The key discussion around the E6 Transport Corridor related to the form that the road takes i.e., an arterial road or freeway.  Council has maintained its support for an arterial road since 2002, on the basis that the E6 freeway will have significant amenity and social impacts for nearby residents and that an arterial road provides good transport capacity, and better access for the local community (refer to detail in Attachment 1).

The State Government reconfirmed its position in 2008, that the E6 should be constructed as freeway.


 

Petition details

A petition requesting that Council support and advocate for the delivery of a six lane freeway along the E6 Transport Corridor, with 514 signatories, was tabled at a Council meeting held on Tuesday 28 June 2016, where Council resolved to:

1.   Note the petition from 514 people (473 residents and 41 non-residents);

 

2.   Note that Council’s top ten advocacy position is for the E6 to be constructed from the Metropolitan Ring Road to Bridge Inn Road as an arterial road; and 

 

3.   A report to be prepared.

Broader metro transport corridor & network

E6/ Outer Metropolitan Ring (OMR) Transport Corridor

In 2009, VicRoads released details on the conceptual design of the E6 Transport Corridor as a six lane freeway extending 23 kilometres from the Metropolitan Ring Road to Beveridge/ Kalkallo connecting to the Outer Metropolitan Ring Road (OMR) Transport Corridor and the Hume Freeway.  The proposal includes freeway interchanges at Childs Road, Findon Road, with options of interchanges either at Lehmanns Road, Bridge Inn Road and/ or Masons Lane, and interchanges at Donnybrook Road and Grants Road (refer to Attachment 3). A Public Acquisition Overlay has been applied along the E6 Transport Corridor in the Whittlesea Planning Scheme which means that a planning mechanism is in place to compulsorily acquire the land. 

The following rationale has been provided by VicRoads on the role of the E6 from a metropolitan wide perspective:

·    OMR/ E6 would connect residential and employment growth areas in Melbourne's north and west; enhance connections between international transport hubs such as airports, the Port of Geelong and the proposed Donnybrook/ Beveridge Interstate Rail Freight Terminal; and serve as an important route to interstate and major regional destinations.

 

·    In 2008, VicRoads undertook some first principles modelling (as the model at the time did not include population growth arising from expansion of the urban growth boundary), which indicated that a freeway is required to address peak hour traffic demands in Melbourne’s north.

 

·    VicRoads acknowledges that the corridor may initially be constructed as an arterial road and be upgraded to a freeway in the future. However, access points onto the E6 will only be provided where future freeway access ramps have been planned. This means that McKimmies Road and McDonalds Road will not have access to the E6.

Victoria’s 30 Year Infrastructure Strategy, prepared by Infrastructure Victoria, and released in December 2016, has placed a 15-30 year construction timeline for the OMR/E6 corridor.  The Infrastructure Victoria strategy does suggest further consideration of staging and integrated land use planning, including defining trigger points prior to its commencement.  The Infrastructure Victoria strategy also makes reference to some sections of the corridor being warranted earlier, perhaps initially as an arterial road

In addition a plan developed by Infrastructure Australia has identified the preservation of the OMR/E6 corridor(s) as a high priority initiative within a five year period.  Whilst the E6 corridor is already preserved via a Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO), the plan recommends that land be acquired once it becomes available. 


 

Whittlesea’s Road Network

Council adopted an Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS) for the City of Whittlesea in March 2014.  Its objective was to establish a policy framework to respond to the future transport needs of the city’s new and established communities and to align Council’s transport strategies, plans and investment priorities with State Government’s priorities. 

A key action of the Strategy was to undertake a municipal wide transport modelling project to forecast traffic demand compared to road network capacity.  This model was developed in 2014 using the State Government’s Victorian Integrated Transport Model (VITM) for the years 2021 and 2031.

The E6 was modelled at 2031 from the Metropolitan Ring Road to the Outer Metropolitan Ring Road at Hume Freeway as a four lane arterial road and separately as a four lane freeway.  The modelling outputs revealed that both options for the E6 offered significant additional capacity to the road network.

With the E6 as an arterial road, traffic was reduced significantly in the morning peak period on High Street by up to 15%, Epping Road (10%), Edgars Road (15%), Cooper Street (13%) and Dalton Road (20%).  With the E6 as a freeway, the output showed only marginally better reductions at between one and two percent in traffic on the surrounding road network.

The model identified that significant transport benefits would be derived for existing and future City of Whittlesea residents through the development of the E6 as an arterial road, in combination with other key transport projects such as the Edgars Road extension, O’Herns Road Interchange, Findon Road extension, Epping Road duplication, Plenty Road widening and Bridge Inn Road duplication.

It is usual for traffic modelling to be updated as population projections change.  If an updated model identifies an increase in transport benefits for the City’s residents based on a freeway along the corridor, it would be prudent for Council to reconsider its position on the form of the E6.

arterial road versus freeway

Council has consistently maintained its position that the E6 Transport Corridor is critical in addressing population growth and providing a much needed alternative north-south route to the High Street-Epping Road corridor and the Plenty Road corridor. It will provide access to the Metropolitan Ring Road and to other major attractors such as activity centres and employment hubs within the municipality and the broader region.

The key difference between Council and VicRoads position relates to the ultimate form of the road.  Council has undertaken a detailed transport model that identifies the transport benefits for City of Whittlesea residents are very similar whether the E6 is constructed as an arterial road or a freeway. 

The construction of the E6 as a freeway will attract more vehicles through the municipality which is incompatible with abutting residential communities. Modelling outputs show a 28% reduction in daily traffic volumes on the Hume Freeway that will be transferred to the E6, if constructed as a freeway at 2031. The E6 as a freeway effectively becomes a duplication of the Hume Freeway that will result in adverse impacts on adjoining residential communities. 

Constructing the E6 as an arterial road, with access points onto all east-west roads along the route, provides the following local community benefits in comparison to a freeway:

·    Amenity impacts to existing residential communities abutting the E6 in Bundoora, Mill Park and Epping will be minimised whereas a freeway will create visual intrusion from physical barriers like noise walls, and additional air and noise pollution, particularly along narrower parts of the corridor.

 

·    More access points from the existing road network to an E6 arterial will create a more permeable road network that will support local trips and better access to the corridor from surrounding suburbs.  An arterial road can be used more effectively by all modes of transport, unlike a freeway where access points will be limited and public transport and cycling restricted.

 

·    The arterial road will not be a significant barrier between communities on either side of the corridor, compared to a freeway.

Construction of the E6 Transport Corridor as an arterial road combined with other upgrades to the arterial road network will significantly increase the capacity of the city’s road network. This combination of projects will alleviate traffic congestion, help to provide for the transport needs of future communities and will be complementary to surrounding land uses. Council will continue to advocate for the timely implementation of these projects.

Consultation

Consultation of the E6 Transport Corridor has been undertaken by State agencies over the years via various Strategic Plans, where responses have been provided by Council. (refer to Attachment 1).

The State Government sought public submissions on the proposed route for the OMR and E6 from 17 June to 17 July 2009. All landowners and occupiers were notified and advertisements placed in metropolitan and local newspapers. Following the consideration of public submissions, a number of alignment options for the OMR and E6 were displayed for public comment during 24 August to 21 September 2009. On 31 August 2009, the State Government held a public meeting in the City of Whittlesea on the alternative E6 alignment options

A number of submissions received during the consultation process sought that the E6 should only be constructed as an arterial road.  Some submission also sought the upgrade of the broader arterial road network in preference to the construction of the E6 as a freeway.

Financial Implications

The construction of the E6 Transport Corridor either as a freeway or arterial road will incur significant cost, however the works will be funded by the State Government.

Policy strategy and legislation

Construction of the E6 Transport Corridor will assist in the delivery of the following Future Direction(s) as described in the Council Plan 2013 – 2017:

•        Accessibility in, out and around our City

•        Growing our economy

•        Places and spaces to connect people

 

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

FUTURE DIRECTION          Accessibility in, out and around our city

Theme                                   Transport

Strategic Objective              Our road network provides adequate access to the Advocate municipality and beyond

 

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

Council has remained consistent since 2002 that the E6 Transport Corridor be constructed as an arterial road.  Transport modelling undertaken in 2015 identifies that, for existing and future City of Whittlesea residents, the transport benefits of the E6 as an arterial road are similar to benefits observed as a freeway.  The modelling outputs and analysis reveal the critical need to construct the E6 Transport Corridor (as an arterial road) in combination with other arterial road improvements, to free up road capacity on the surrounding network and reduce travel times.  Developing the E6 as an arterial road is more complementary to existing residential communities in the municipality than a freeway.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to:

1.       Reaffirm that the E6 Transport Corridor be constructed as an arterial road;

2.       Continue to advocate for the timely construction of the E6 and other key transport projects to address traffic congestion and the transport needs of existing and future communities;

3.       Further consider its position on the form of the corridor when new traffic data becomes available; and

4.       Write to the head petitioner advising of Council’s position.

  

MOTION

Moved:                       Cr Cox

Seconded:               Cr Sterjova

THAT Council resolve to:

1.       Reaffirm that the E6 Transport Corridor be constructed as an arterial road;

2.       Continue to advocate for the timely construction of the E6 and other key transport projects to address traffic congestion and the transport needs of existing and future communities;

3.       Further consider its position on the form of the corridor when new traffic data becomes available;

4.       Continue with community consultation; and

5.       Write to the head petitioner advising of Council’s position.

 

LOST

Councillor John Butler left the Council Chamber at 7:34PM and returned at 7.35PM before the item was voted on.

 

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Monteleone

Seconded:               Cr Desiato

 

THAT Council resolve to:

1.       Continue to advocate for the timely construction of the E6 and other key transport projects to address traffic congestion and the transport needs of existing and future communities;

2.       Further consider its position on the form of the Corridor when new traffic data becomes available;

3.       Write to the Minister for Roads; Vic Roads and local members of parliament, advocating that the E6 is constructed earlier than the 15-30 year timeframe than that identified in the 30 year Infrastructure strategy released in December 2016;

4.       Noting that the E6 is identified in the 30 year Infrastructure strategy released in December 2016, by the state government as forming part of the outer metropolitan ring road;

5.       Commence community consultation; and

6.       Write to the head petitioner advising of Council's position.

 

Carried

 

Division

Immediately after the motion was voted on, Cr Ricky Kirkham called for a division which resulted in the following votes being recorded.

 

For

Cr Kozmevski

Cr Kirkham

Cr Kelly

Cr Lalios

Cr Monteleone

Cr Desiato

Cr Butler

Cr Sterjova

Against

Nil

Abstained

Cr Cox

Based on the votes cast during the Division, the motion was carried.

carried


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                                    Tuesday 18 April 2017

 

6.4       Corporate Services

6.4.1    Lease - Ambulance Victoria - Part of 73 McDonalds Road Epping

File No:                                  SU172954

Attachments:                        1        Site Plan & Photo

2        Lease Plan   

Responsible Officer:           Director Corporate Services

Author:                                  Senior Property Officer   

 

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

This report seeks Council approval to invite public submissions under Section 190 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 on a proposed lease currently being negotiated with Ambulance Victoria (‘AV’) for use of part of the land known as 73 McDonalds Road, Epping (see Attachment 1 – Site Plan & Photo and Attachment 2 – Lease Plan).

The proposal seeks to surrender the current lease held by AV in favour of a new long term lease to enable the establishment of a larger, more modern facility that will accommodate the increased number of paramedics and vehicles, as well as improving the facilities to improve response rates to medical emergencies.

The proposal is part of $27.3 million boost to rebuild and upgrade ambulance stations and medical vehicles and meet the on-going needs of a rapidly growing community within the municipality. 

Background

Representatives of AV have approached Council officers seeking an agreement to surrender its existing lease in favour of a proposed new lease.

The proposal seeks to align a new lease with the establishment and operation of a new start-of-the-art facility ($1.74 million) that will be funded by the State Government.

The proposal seeks to revamp the existing ambulance services and allocate funding ($144 million) that will be allocated under 2016/17 budget and divided between multiple services, including the rebuild and upgrade of stations and vehicles ($27.3 million) and improvements to the Response Rescue fund ($60 million).

AV has occupied these premises since its construction in 1991, which was funded locally through the community.  AV presently has three teams stationed at Epping and attends to 500 callouts each month.  Demand for services is now at a premium and the present staff have now outgrown the facility.  The proposed new 30 year lease (with 10 year further term) will ensure services will continue without interruption.

Proposal

To invite public submissions on the proposed lease to be offered to Ambulance Victoria for an initial period of 30 years with one provision of a further 10 year term.  The Tenant will pay a commencement date rental of $104 per annum (plus GST) that will be reviewed annually (‘CPI – All Melbourne index’)

Consultation

External consultation has been held between Council officers and AV representatives to ensure that the proposed lease is drawn in the appropriate manner and is beneficial to all parties involved.  The lease would be drawn as a ‘land only’ agreement and recognise that the building and all improvements are owned, managed and insured by Ambulance Victoria.  A maintenance schedule will be developed to reconfirm that no works would be carried out by Council as part of the lease.

Critical Dates

Council officers and AV representatives have noted that the current lease will expire on 30 September 2018 which provides both parties with an opportunity to negotiate a new lease in conjunction with the establishment of a larger, more modern facility.

public submissions

Council will invite public submissions under Section 190 & 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 with regard to the proposed lease.  An advertisement will be placed in the Whittlesea Leader newspaper and Council’s website on Wednesday 26 April 2017 requesting that public submissions be received by Wednesday 24 May 2017 (12 noon).

Financial Implications

Following discussions with Ambulance Victoria, Council’s Manager Property & Valuation Services has proposed that the annual rental of $104 per annum (plus GST) be applied for the initial term secured under the lease.  The rent will be reviewed annually to CPI ‘All Melbourne Index’.

Council officers have confirmed that all costs associated with the decommissioning of the existing ambulance station and the establishment of a new facility will be borne by Ambulance Victoria. A media release, dated 27 May 2016, confirmed that the total funding allocated to the project would be $1.74 million.

Policy strategy and legislation

Council must seek public submissions on the proposed lease under Section 190 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989.  Submissions will be invited for a period no less than 28 days and referred onto an elected Committee of Council for consideration.  The appointed Committee will consider and report all findings to Council for its final recommendation at their next available meeting. 

 

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

FUTURE DIRECTION          Growing our economy

Theme                                   Economic development

Strategic Objective              Local businesses are supported

 

The proposal seeks to enable the establishment of a larger, more modern facility and allow paramedics greater access to facilities to improve response rates to medical emergencies.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

To invite public submissions on the proposed lease following negotiations with Ambulance Victoria for use of part of the land known as 73 McDonalds Road, Epping.

 

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to:

1.       Invite public submissions in accordance with Section 190 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989, on its intentions to lease part of the land located at 73 McDonalds Road, Epping, to Ambulance Victoria.  The lease will be drawn under the following terms and conditions –

a)      The Tenant will be offered a lease for an initial period of 30 years with a provision of a further 10 year term.

b)      The Tenant will pay a commencement date rental of $104 per annum (plus GST) that will be reviewed annually (‘CPI – All Melbourne index’).

2.       Establish an advisory Committee of Council comprising of Cr............; Cr…........; Cr….........; and Cr….........; to consider any written submissions received on the proposal and make recommendations to Council on any such submissions.

3.       Authorise the Acting Chief Executive Officer to carry out administrative procedures necessary to enable Council to carry out its functions under Section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989.

4.       Receive a further report on the proposed lease following the close of the submission period.

 

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Butler

Seconded:               Cr Desiato

 

THAT Council resolve to:

1.       Note that the current lease at 73 McDonalds Road, Epping will expire on 30 September 2018;

2.       Begin negotiations with Ambulance Victoria to purchase this site at market value; and

3.       Report these outcomes to Council for further consideration.

Carried


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                                    Tuesday 18 April 2017

 

6.4.2    Unconfirmed Minutes of Audit & Risk Committee Meeting

File No:                                  160616

Attachments:                        1        Unconfirmed Minutes of Audit & Risk Committee Meeting 2 March 2017   

Responsible Officer:           Director Corporate Services

Author:                                  Internal Compliance Officer   

 

Report

Summary

As part of Council’s Audit & Risk Committee Charter, minutes of meetings are to be presented to Council after each Audit & Risk Committee meeting.

Background

The Audit & Risk Committee is an independent advisory committee of Council and its role is to report to Council and provide appropriate advice and recommendations on matters presented to it.  It acts in this capacity by monitoring, reviewing and advising on issues within its scope of responsibility and assisting Council’s governance obligations to its community.

The Audit & Risk Committee considered a number of reports at its meeting held on 2 March 2017, as well as confirming minutes from the previous meeting held on 24 November 2016.

Main agenda items included:

·    Audit & Risk Committee work plan

·    CEO’s report on compliance / non-compliance

·    Financial performance report for the period ended 31 December 2016 and 2016/17 mid-year budget review

·    Risk management report

·    Disaster recovery testing results

·    Internal Audit:

Internal audit status report

Internal audit review:  Planning Application Permits

·    Outstanding action items report from previous internal audits

·    External Audit:

External Audit Strategy

·    Internal compliance reviews

·    External agency examinations

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

Future Direction          Good Governance

Theme                                   Resource Management

Strategic Objective              Council is financially sustainable for the long term

The establishment of the Audit & Risk Committee and the reports it receives are reflective of Council’s commitment to the implementation of good governance principles.  The Committee provides advice to Council to assist with fulfilling its oversight responsibilities for the financial and non-financial reporting process, internal controls, the audit process, risk management and Council’s process for monitoring compliance with legislation and regulations and the Code of Conduct.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

CONCLUSION

That Council note the unconfirmed minutes of the Audit & Risk Committee meeting attached to the report.

 

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to note the unconfirmed minutes of the Audit & Risk Committee meeting held on 2 March 2017.

 

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Kelly

Seconded:               Cr Butler

 

The above Recommendation was adopted unchanged as part of an en bloc Resolution Moved by Cr Kelly, Seconded by Cr Butler.   See Section 6 - Officers' Reports for further information on items adopted en bloc.

Carried

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                                    Tuesday 18 April 2017

 

6.4.3    Committee of Council Recommendation - Lease - Animal Welfare Facility - 490 Cooper Street Epping

File No:                                  SU195110

Attachments:                        1        Site Plan   

Responsible Officer:           Director Corporate Services

Author:                                  Senior Property Officer   

 

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

To report on the recommendations presented by the Committee of Council regarding the proposed lease currently being negotiated with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Victoria (‘RSPCA Victoria’) for the establishment and use of the Epping Animal Welfare Facility (‘EAWF’) within part of Council’s land known as 490 Cooper Street, Epping (see Attachment 1 – Site Plan) 

Background

Council, at its meeting held on 28 February 2017, formally resolved to invite public submissions in relation to the proposed lease with RSPCA Victoria for the establishment and use of the EAWF within part of Council’s land known as 490 Cooper Street, Epping.

In December 2015, the Cities of Whittlesea, Darebin and Moreland entered into a joint agreement for the development and operation of the EAWF within part of Council’s land at 490 Cooper Street, Epping.

Construction of the facility has recently been completed following a joint two stage tender process to which the City of Whittlesea was the lead tenderer.  The facility will be retained in the ownership of the City of Whittlesea with significant financial contributions from Darebin and Moreland Council, equating to 40% of the capital and operational costs.  The appointed service provider will be responsible for all fit-out costs to meet all Animal Collection and Animal Welfare service requirements.

The lease will be granted to the RSPCA Victoria for a period of ten years with terms and conditions in line with the recently awarded tender for the provision of services for the Cities of Whittlesea, Darebin and Moreland.

Proposal

To seek Council’s approval on the proposed lease in consideration of the public submissions received (none) and findings of the Elected Committee of Council (no requirement to meet).

Committee off council

A Committee of Council, comprising of Cr Lawrie Cox; Cr Stevan Kozmevski, Cr Caz Monteleone and Cr Kris Pavlidis was appointed to consider any written submissions received in response to Council’s public notice advertised in the Whittlesea Leader newspaper on Tuesday 7 March 2017.

No submissions were received at the close of the advertising period (5 April 2017, 12 noon).  A memo was sent to the Committee of Council on Wednesday 5 April 2017, advising that no public submissions were received and the Committee of Council hearing would not be required.

Financial Implications

Council’s Manager Property & Valuations has recommended an annual lease rental of $1 per annum (plus GST) be charged in light of the anticipated financial contributions ($450,000) that will be invested by the Applicant to ensure that the premise be made fit for purpose.   

The EAWF will cater for our existing animal management numbers and includes a ‘growth factor’ to cater for up to 10 years before the facility would require expansion.  The total capital project cost for the construction of the EAWF is $11,037,141.  Based on the apportionment model set out in this report, the capital contribution from the parties to the Agreement is as follows:  Whittlesea $6,622,284; Moreland $2,361,948; Darebin $2,052,908.  Total cost is $11,037,141 with a contribution total of $4.415 million from our partner Councils.

Policy strategy and legislation

Council must seek public submissions on the proposed lease under Section 190 of the Local Government Act 1989.  Submissions will be invited for a period no less than 28 days and referred onto an elected Committee of Council for consideration.  The appointed Committee will consider and report all findings to Council for its final recommendation at their next available meeting. 

 

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

FUTURE DIRECTION          Growing our economy

Theme                                   Economic development

Strategic Objective              Local businesses are supported

 

The proposal seeks to establish an Animal Welfare Facility and grant a lease to RSPCA Victoria for the on-going management of the facility.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

It is recommended that Council enter into a lease with RSPCA Victoria, for the establishment and use of an animal welfare facility within part of Council’s land known as 490 Cooper Street, Epping, and enable an early access agreement to be established to permit the required fit-out works to be completed.

 

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to:

1.       Note that public submissions on the proposed lease with the RSPCA Victoria were invited in accordance with Section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 and that no submissions were received at the close of the public submission period.

2.       Enter into a lease with RSPCA Victoria for part use of the land known as 490 Cooper Street, Epping, under the following terms and conditions –

 

a)      RSPCA Victoria will be offered a lease for a period of ten years with no provision of a further term (noting that the lease can be terminated without cause at each five year interval).

b)      RSPCA Victoria will be charged an annual rental of $1 per annum (plus GST) under the lease in light of the anticipated financial contributions ($450,000) that will be invested by the Applicant to ensure that the premise is made ‘fit for purpose’.

c)      The lease will run concurrently with the conditions set out under ‘Contract number 2016-70 - Provision of Animal Welfare Services’.

3.       Authorise the Acting Chief Executive Officer to negotiate all other terms and conditions, including the signing of the lease agreement and entering into an early access agreement that will enable RSPCA Victoria to occupy the premises immediately and undertake the required works to ensure the premises is made ‘fit to purpose’.

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Kelly

Seconded:               Cr Butler

 

The above Recommendation was adopted unchanged as part of an en bloc Resolution Moved by Cr Kelly, Seconded by Cr Butler.   See Section 6 - Officers' Reports for further information on items adopted en bloc.

Carried

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                                    Tuesday 18 April 2017

 

6.4.4    Assemblies of councillors - 18 April 2017

File No:                                  188199   

Responsible Officer:           Acting Director Partnership and Engagement

Author:                                  Governance Officer   

 

Report

Summary

To report to Council the records of Assemblies of Councillors in accordance with Section 80A(2) of the Local Government Act.

Background

The Local Government Act 1989 requires records of Assemblies of Councillors to be reported to an ordinary Council meeting and recorded in the minutes of that meeting.

A meeting is an assembly of Councillors if it considers matters that are likely to be the subject of a Council decision or the exercise of a Council delegation and the meeting is:

·    A planned or scheduled meeting that includes at least half the Councillors and a member of Council staff; or

·    An advisory committee of Council where one or more Councillors are present.

A record must be kept of an assembly of Councillors which lists the Councillors and members of Council staff attending, the matters discussed, disclosures of conflict of interest and whether a Councillor left the meeting after making a disclosure.

Proposal

Assemblies of Councillors records not previously reported to Council are detailed in the following table:-

Assembly Details

Councillor attendees

Officer attendees

Matters discussed

Council Forum

7 March 2017

Cr Kirkham

(Mayor)

Cr Kelly
(Deputy Mayor)

Cr Alessi

Cr Butler

Cr Desiato

Cr Cox

Cr Kozmevski Cr Lalios

Cr Monteleone

Cr Pavlidis

Cr Sterjova

CEO

DCS

DCRS

DCTP

DPE

DPMP-A

TLST

MCDT

1.     Traffic Congestion Response & Transport Priorities.

2.     Vicroads Presentation to City of Whittlesea.

 

Nil disclosures

Council Forum

8 March 2017

Cr Kirkham

(Mayor)

Cr Kelly
(Deputy Mayor)

Cr Butler

Cr Desiato

Cr Lalios

Cr Monteleone

CEO-A

DCS

DCRS

DCTP

DPMP-A

DPE-A

OSP

MPV

TLR

MLCF

TLSP

TLGAP

MSP

1.     Quarry Hills Regional Parkland Landscape Master Plan.

2.     Future Uses – 45 Regent Street Mernda.

3.     Community Plan and Community Wellbeing Indicators.

4.     City of Whittlesea Soccer Strategy 2017-2016.

5.     Thomastown Industrial Area Strategy.

6.     Plenty Valley Town Centre Structure Plan.

7.     Aurora Planning Scheme Amendment: Rezoning of 239-255 Craigieburn Road, Wollert from farming zone to comprehensive development zone.

Nil disclosures

Council Forum

14 March 2017

Cr Kirkham

(Mayor)

Cr Kelly
(Deputy Mayor)

Cr Alessi

Cr Butler

Cr Desiato

Cr Cox

Cr Lalios

Cr Monteleone

Cr Pavlidis

Cr Sterjova

CEO-A

DCS

DCRS

DCTP

DPMP-AA

DPE-A

MFA

TLMA

MPV

SSA

1.     2017/18 Proposed Budget.

Nil disclosures

Council Forum

15 March 2017

Cr Kirkham

(Mayor)

Cr Kelly
(Deputy Mayor)

Cr Alessi

Cr Butler

Cr Desiato

Cr Cox

Cr Lalios

Cr Monteleone

Cr Pavlidis

Cr Sterjova

CEO-A

DCS

DCRS

DCTP

DPMP-A

DPE-A

MFA

TLMA

MMP

TLBS

SSA

1.     2017/18 Proposed Budget.

Nil disclosures

Council Forum

20 March 2017

Cr Kirkham

(Mayor)

Cr Kelly
(Deputy Mayor)

Cr Alessi

Cr Butler

Cr Desiato

Cr Cox

Cr Lalios

Cr Monteleone

Cr Pavlidis

Cr Sterjova

CEO-A

DCS

DCRS

DCTP

DPMP-A

DPE-A

MFA

TLMA

MMP

TLBS

SSA

1.     2017/18 Proposed Budget.

Nil disclosures

 

CEO Employment Matters Advisory Committee

24 March 2017

Cr Kirkham

(Mayor)

Cr Lalios

 

CEO-A

 

1.     CEO KPIs.

Nil disclosures

 

Whittlesea Reconciliation Group Meeting

23 February 2017

Cr Kirkham

(Mayor)

Cr Kelly
(Deputy Mayor)

 

 

1.     Professor  Ann Mitchell presented a project proposal regarding the Lalor Secondary College Bush Tucker Garden Project with Ian Hunter.

2.     Budget Report was tabled.

3.     The group made a decision to support an Aboriginal Gathering Place Feasibility Study.

4.     ALO Report was tabled.

5.     Koori Barbecue de-brief was held.

6.     Draft Stretch Reconciliation Action Plan 2017-2020.

7.     The group requested Council investigate; ‘Change the date/Australia Day’ and present a paper to the group.

8.     Inviting Public Health and Wellbeing Planning Team and Melbourne Polytechnic to 28 April meeting.

Nil disclosures

The table below represents an Index of Officer titles:

Initials

Title of Officer

Initials

Title of Officer

CEO

Chief Executive Officer – Michael Wootten

ALC

Aboriginal Liaison Coordinator – Donna Wright

DCS

Director Community Services – Russell Hopkins

TLACD

Team Leader Aboriginal and Cultural Diversity – Ben Waterhouse

DCRS

Director Corporate Services – Helen Sui

TLBS

Team Leader Business Support – Rod Cann

DCTP

Director City Transport and Presentation– Nick Mann

MMP

Manager Major Projects – Nick Mazzarella

DPE

Director Partnerships and Engagement – Liana Thompson

SSA

Strategy & Systems Accountant – Emily Phillips

DPMP-A

Acting Director Planning & Major Projects – Kristen Jackson

TLMA

Team Leader  Management Accounting – Graham Haylock

TLST

Team Leader Strategic Transport – Louie D’amore

MFA

Manager Finance & Assets – Amy Montalti

MCDT

Manager City Design & Transport – Ben Harries

MSP

Manager Strategic Planning – George Saisanas

CEO-A

Acting Chief Executive Officer – Liana Thompson

TLGAP

Team Leader Growth Area Projects – Kara Mahoney

DPE-A

Acting Director Partnerships and Engagement – Belgin Besim

TLSP

Team Leader Strategic Planning – James Lake

OSP

Open Space Planner – Justin Goon

MLCF

Manager Leisure & Community Facilities – Paul Reading

MPV

Manager Property & Valuations – Gino Mitrione

TLR

Team Leader Research – Kerryn Adams

DPMP-AA

Acting Director Planning & Major Projects – Julian Edwards

 

 

Consultation

Consultation has taken place with internal Council Officer representatives of each of the meetings and committees that qualify as an Assembly of Councillors.

Financial Implications

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

Policy Strategy and Legislation

Section 3C(2)(g) of the Local Government Act 1989 provides that one of Council’s facilitating objectives is to have regard to ensuring transparency and accountability in Council decision making.

Accordingly, section 80A of the Local Government Act 1989 requires that the Chief Executive Officer must ensure that the written record of an assembly of Councillors is, as soon as practicable:-

(a)     reported at an ordinary meeting of the Council; and

(b)     incorporated in the minutes of that Council meeting.

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

Future Direction     Good Governance

Theme                               Continuous improvement

Strategic Objective         Best practice models of operation are adopted by Council

Council Goal                    Council adopts best practice models of operation

The provision of this report is in line with the Future Direction 7 – Good Governance of Council’s Community Plan by ensuring Council adopts best practice models of operation.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

CONCLUSION

That Council note the record of the Assemblies of Councillors meetings in the table set out in the report.

 

Recommendation

THAT Council note the record of the Assemblies of Councillors meetings in the table set out in the report.

 

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Kelly

Seconded:               Cr Butler

 

The above Recommendation was adopted unchanged as part of an en bloc Resolution Moved by Cr Kelly, Seconded by Cr Butler.   See Section 6 - Officers' Reports for further information on items adopted en bloc.

Carried

  

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                                    Tuesday 18 April 2017

 

6.5       Partnerships & Engagement

6.5.1    Appointment of Additional Councillor Representative to the Municipal Association of Victoria

File No:                                  140748   

Responsible Officer:           Acting Director Partnership and Engagement

Author:                                  Governance Officer   

 

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

To appoint an additional Councillor representative to the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV).

Background

On 22 November 2016 Council resolved to appoint Cr Lalios as delegate and Cr Kirkham as substitute to the MAV for 2017.

As Cr Lalios has been elected MAV President, in line with MAV Rule – “6.3 – the Council from which the President is elected must appoint an additional representative to vote on matters under consideration by the State Council.”

Proposal

It is proposed that Council appoint an additional Councillor representative to the MAV and a substitute representative.

Critical Dates

The next State Council is taking place on 12 May 2017.

 

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

FUTURE DIRECTION          Inclusive & Engaged Community

Theme                                   Participation & decision making

Strategic Objective              Community decision making is inclusive

 

The appointment of Councillor representatives on various community organisations and committees provides an opportunity to encourage the development of community spirit within both internal and external organisations and committees.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

Nominations from interested Councillors are sought for an additional representative and substitute representative to be appointed to the MAV for the remainder of 2017.

 

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to:

1.       Nominate Cr ___________ as the additional delegate and Cr _____________ as the substitute delegate to the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) for the remainder of 2017; and

2.       Inform the MAV of the new appointments.

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Lalios

Seconded:               Cr Kelly

 

THAT Council resolve to:

1.       Nominate the Mayor Cr Ricky Kirkham as the additional delegate and Cr John Butler as the substitute delegate to the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) for the remainder of 2017; and

2.       Inform the MAV of the new appointments.

Carried

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                                    Tuesday 18 April 2017

 

6.5.2    MAYORAL AND COUNCILLOR ALLOWANCES

File No:                                  162919   

Responsible Officer:           Acting Director Partnership and Engagement

Author:                                  Governance Officer   

 

Report

EXECUTIVE Summary

The purpose of this report is to set allowances for the period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2021.

Background

At its meeting on 28 February 2017 Council resolved to:

1.       Give notice that it intends to set the level of Mayoral and Councillor Allowances at the maximum level for Category 3 for the four year period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2021;

2.       Invite public submissions under section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 on the proposed level of allowances; and

3.       Establish an advisory Committee of Council comprising The Mayor Cr Kirkham, Cr Monteleone and Cr Cox to consider any written submissions on the proposal made in accordance with section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 and report on and make recommendations to Council on any submissions at a subsequent meeting.

Proposal

Public submissions were invited on the proposed level of allowances and, at the close of the submission period, no submissions were received.

Accordingly, it is proposed that the level of allowances be set at the maximum level for Category 3, currently $94,641 per annum for the Mayor and $29,630 per annum for Councillors, for the four year period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2021.

Under Commonwealth taxation legislation, an amount equivalent to the superannuation guarantee, currently 9.5%, will be added to the allowances set and is not included in the above figures.

Allowance levels are subject to annual automatic adjustments that are announced in the Victorian Government Gazette by the Minister for Local Government.

Consultation

An advertisement was placed in the Whittlesea Leader newspaper and on Council’s website on 7 March 2017 inviting public submissions and a period of 28 days was allowed for submissions to be received.

 

The submissions period closed at 5pm on 4 April 2017.

 

At the closing date, no submissions were received.

Financial Implications

An appropriate budget allocation will be made in Council’s 2017/18 Budget for the mayoral and councillor allowances.

Policy strategy and legislation

The Local Government Act 1989 requires that Council must review and determine the level of mayoral and councillor allowances within the period of six months after a general election or by 30 June, whichever is the later.

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

FUTURE DIRECTION          Inclusive & Engaged Community

Theme                                   Participation & decision making

Strategic Objective              Community decision making is inclusive

 

Advertising the review of mayoral and councillor allowances ensures that the community is consulted and is involved in the decision making process.

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

Conclusion

This concludes the statutory post-election review of allowances and sets the Mayoral and Councillor Allowances for the four year period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2021.

 

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to set the level of allowances at the maximum level for Category 3, currently $94,641 per annum for the Mayor and $29,630 per annum for Councillors,  for the four year period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2021.

 

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Kelly

Seconded:               Cr Butler

 

The above Recommendation was adopted unchanged as part of an en bloc Resolution Moved by Cr Kelly, Seconded by Cr Butler.   See Section 6 - Officers' Reports for further information on items adopted en bloc.

Carried

  

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                                    Tuesday 18 April 2017

 

6.6       Executive Services

6.6.1    CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER EMPLOYMENT MATTERS ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CEMAC) MEMBERSHIP

File No:                                  N/A  

Responsible Officer:           Chief Executive Officers Matters Advisory Committee

Author:                                  Chief Executive Officers Matters Advisory Committee    

 

Report

Summary

With the recruitment process for the position of Chief Executive Officer imminent, this report seeks confirmation of the membership of CEMAC.

Background

Membership of the CEMAC is set out in the Terms of Reference adopted by Council on 9 August 2016, being the Mayor of the Day, two other Councillors and an Independent Person. 

At its meeting on 22 November 2016, Council appointed Councillors Lalios and Kozmevski to the Committee.  The Independent Person, Ms Topsy Petchy, was appointed by Council on 22 September 2015 for a two year term.

Consultation

The existing CEMAC Terms of Reference can be found on Council’s website.

Critical Dates

Recruitment for a Chief Executive Officer will commence shortly and the CEMAC plays a key role in assisting Council with that recruitment process. It is critical that all members of CEMAC be available to attend all scheduled meetings.

Financial Implications

Costs associated with the work of CEMAC are included in the recurrent budget.

Do not delete this line

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

FUTURE DIRECTION          Good Governance

Theme                                   Continuous improvements

Strategic Objective              Council adopts best practice models of operation

 

Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

Under section 80C of the Local Government Act 1989 officers providing advice to Council must disclose any interests, including the type of interest.

The Responsible Officer reviewing this report, having made enquiries with the relevant members of staff, reports that no disclosable interests have been raised in relation to this report.

conclusion

With the recruitment process for a Chief Executive Officer about to commence it is timely to ensure the membership of the CEMAC is up to date to support the recruitment process.

 

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to appoint Cr ______________________ and Cr ______________________ in addition to the Mayor of the Day and the Independent Person as members of the Chief Executive Officer Employment Matters Advisory Committee.

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Monteleone

Seconded:               Cr Lalios

 

THAT Council resolve to appoint Cr Mary Lalios and Cr Caz Monteleone in addition to the Mayor of the Day and the Independent Person as members of the Chief Executive Officer Employment Matters Advisory Committee.

Carried

   

Division

Immediately after the motion was voted on, Cr Lawrie Cox called for a division which resulted in the following votes being recorded.

 

For

Cr Kirkham

Cr Kelly

Cr Lalios

Cr Monteleone

Cr Desiato

Cr Butler

Against

Cr Kozmevski

Cr Cox

Cr Sterjova

Abstained

Nil

Based on the votes cast during the Division, the motion was carried.

carried

 

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                                    Tuesday 18 April 2017

 

7.         Notices of Motion

7.1       Notice of Motion - 823 - Urgent approval of Amendment C197 -
Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) Update

File No:                                   .

Author:                                  Cr Emilia Sterjova

 

Councillor Emilia Lisa Sterjova of the North Ward has given notice that it is her intention to move the following Motion at the Ordinary Meeting of Council to be held on Tuesday 18 April 2017 at 6:30pm:

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to write a letter to the Minister for Planning, requesting the urgent approval of Amendment C197 – MSS Update, to provide Council with a strategic policy basis to advance consideration of initiatives for the provision of social and affordable housing.

 

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Sterjova

Seconded:               Cr Lalios

 

THAT Council resolve to:

1.         Write a letter to the Minister for Planning, requesting the urgent approval of Amendment C197 – MSS Update, to provide Council with a strategic policy basis to advance consideration of initiatives for the provision of social and affordable housing; and

2.         Write to State and Federal Governments and relevant Ministers advocating for more investment for social and affordable housing in our community.

 

UNANIMOUSLY Carried

   

8.         Questions to Officers

Cr Mary Lalios asked a question to the Director City Transport & Presentation.

With regards to the pedestrian overpass on Bridge Inn Road to the Mernda Railway Station, how tall above ground will the bridge be at its highest point?

The Director City Transport & Presentation took this question on notice and will provide a response back to Councillors.

Cr Mary Lalios asked a follow up question.

Will there be ramps associated with the bridge?

The Director City Transport & Presentation understands that the bridge will not include ramps. It will have stairs and a lift however he will confirm this and provide a response back to Councillors.

9.         Urgent Business

Urgent Business

Cr Lalios sought leave to raise an item of urgent business in relation to Ramps at the Mernda Rail Station.

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Kelly

Seconded:               Cr Desiato

 

THAT Council resolve that this matter be dealt with as an item of Urgent Business.

Carried

 

Councillor John Butler left the Council Chamber at 8:46 PM.

 

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to:

1.       Join with Disability Justice Advocacy in relation to a request for an investigation under Section 127 of the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act (see below) about Public Transport Victoria (PTV) and the Level Crossing Removal Authority (LXRA), in relation to ramps at elevated stations along the Mernda rail extension, in line with Council's previous endorsed position of advocating for ramps at elevated stations along the Mernda Rail extension.

2.       Delegate to the CEO to sign off on a joint letter with Disability Justice Advocacy, on behalf of Council, by 30 April 2017.

(Direct extract from The Equal Opportunity Act)

When investigation may be conducted

The Commission may conduct an investigation into any matter relating to the operation of this Act if—

(a)     the matter—

(i)      raises an issue that is serious in nature; and

(ii)     relates to a class or group of persons; and

(iii)    cannot reasonably be expected to be resolved by dispute resolution or by making an application to the Tribunal under section 122; and

(b)     there are reasonable grounds to suspect that one or more contraventions of this Act have occurred; and

(c)     the investigation would advance the objectives of this Act.

Example

An organisation has a policy that indirectly discriminates against persons with a particular attribute. The Commission has received several calls complaining about this policy and the policy has received media attention. Although some claims that the policy is discriminatory have been settled on an individual basis, the policy has not been changed. The Commission may decide that, in these circumstances, an investigation could help identify and eliminate a systemic cause of discrimination.

 

extension of SPEAKING time

Moved:                       Cr Kelly

Seconded:               Cr Monteleone

 

THAT Council resolve to extend the speaking time for Cr Lalios by one minute.

Carried

 

 

Councillor John Butler returned to the Council Chamber at 8:51 PM.

 

 

9.1       Ramps at the mernda rail station

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Sterjova

Seconded:               Cr Cox

 

THAT Council resolve to defer this item.

LOST


 

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Lalios

Seconded:               Cr Kelly

THAT Council resolve to:

1.       Join with Disability Justice Advocacy in relation to a request for an investigation under Section 127 of the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act (see below) about Public Transport Victoria (PTV) and the Level Crossing Removal Authority (LXRA), in relation to ramps at elevated stations along the Mernda rail extension, in line with Council's previous endorsed position of advocating for ramps at elevated stations along the Mernda Rail extension.

2.       Delegate to the CEO to sign off on a joint letter with Disability Justice Advocacy, on behalf of Council, by 30 April 2017.

(Direct extract from The Equal Opportunity Act)

When investigation may be conducted

The Commission may conduct an investigation into any matter relating to the operation of this Act if—

(a)     the matter—

(i)      raises an issue that is serious in nature; and

(ii)     relates to a class or group of persons; and

(iii)    cannot reasonably be expected to be resolved by dispute resolution or by making an application to the Tribunal under section 122; and

(b)     there are reasonable grounds to suspect that one or more contraventions of this Act have occurred; and

(c)     the investigation would advance the objectives of this Act.

Example

An organisation has a policy that indirectly discriminates against persons with a particular attribute. The Commission has received several calls complaining about this policy and the policy has received media attention. Although some claims that the policy is discriminatory have been settled on an individual basis, the policy has not been changed. The Commission may decide that, in these circumstances, an investigation could help identify and eliminate a systemic cause of discrimination.

Carried


 

10.       Reports from Delegates Appointed to Council by Other Bodies

10.1     udia national congress

Cr Cox provided an overview of his attendance at the UDIA National Congress that took place in Perth on 4 April 2017 to 6 April 2017. He discussed the following:

·         New urban developments

·         Innovation infrastructure funding

·         Future developments

·         Study tours of developments in Perth

EXTENSION OF SPEAKING TIME

Moved:                       Cr Sterjova

Seconded:               Cr Monteleone

 

THAT Council resolve to extend the speaking time for Cr Cox by two minutes.

Carried

 

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Sterjova

Seconded:               Cr Kozmevski

 

THAT Council resolve to note the Delegate's report.

Carried

10.2     australian local government womens association conference

Cr Sterjova provided an overview of her attendance at the Australian Local Government Women’s Association Conference that took place in Launceston, Tasmania on 11 April 2017 to 13 April 2017. She discussed the following:

·         ALGWA elections

·         Mentoring Program

·         Accessible Portal for correspondence

·         Regular updates from various directorates direct to Councillors

·         Notification direct to Councillors of media releases

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Kozmevski

Seconded:               Cr Cox

 

THAT Council resolve to note the Delegate's report.

Carried


 

11.       Questions to Councillors

 

The answers provided verbally by the Mayor at the meeting in response to questions asked by members of the public are preliminary answers provided on a without prejudice basis.  A formal written response to each question is sent following the Council meeting which contains Council official position on the matter.

 

11.1   City of Whittlesea SOCCER STRATEGY 2017

Nick Monteleone

Question 1 - How does the proposed Soccer Strategy address the spiralling cost of children participating in community sport?

Question 2 - Is it Council policy to allocate community sporting facilities to non-incorporated clubs and are their risks if it does?

Question 3 - Does Council support the allocation of community sporting facilities to clubs who charge children thousands of dollars to play community sport?

The Mayor Cr Ricky Kirkham

Response to Question 1 - The majority of costs of children participating in sport are not Council related. The strategy will allow greater access to grounds and facilities by more children, therefore increasing participation.

Response to Question 2 - Facilities are not allocated to non-incorporated clubs. Clubs are required to provide evidence prior to their annual allocation of their incorporation status.

There are risks as non-incorporated clubs will not necessarily have the appropriate insurance coverage, protecting players and officials.

Response to Question 3 - Clubs set their own fees in line with the costs of running the club. For example, uniforms and equipment, Football Federation Victoria fees, coaches and ground hire fees. Council’s aim is to maximise participation for all at the lowest cost possible.

11.2   e6 tRANSPORT CORRIDOR

Eva Moran

If Council should vote for an arterial road, two lanes on either side so four lanes instead of three lanes on either side which equates to six lanes – what is the purpose of halting the construction of a Freeway / Outer Ring Road please?

The Mayor Cr Ricky Kirkham

Council has consistently maintained its position that the E6 Transport Corridor is critical in addressing population growth and providing a much needed alternative north-south route to the High Street-Epping Road corridor and the Plenty Road corridor. It will provide access to the Metropolitan Ring Road and to other major attractors such as activity centres and employment hubs within the municipality and the broader region.

The responsible authority for construction of the E6 is VicRoads, any position that Council has should not ultimately delay the timing of the planned delivery by VicRoads. Council will actively advocate for the project to be delivered as early as possible.


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                                    Tuesday 18 April 2017

 

12.       Confidential Business

12.1     Planning and Major Projects

Nil Reports

 

12.2     Community Services

Nil Reports

 

12.3     City Transport and Presentation

12.3.1  SUPPLY AND DELIVERY OF TWO HINO FG/BUCHER VT651 ROAD SWEEPERS - CONTRACT 2014-2Z13 - CONTRACT FINALISATION

12.3.2  Provision of Road Signs and Associated Products - MAPS 1407- 0316 - Contract Finalisation 

12.3.3  Bridge Inn Road Duplication - Finalisation Report

 

12.4     Corporate Services

12.4.1  Tender Evaluation for Contract 2016-202 - Insurance Portfolio

12.4.2  TEMPORARY AGENCY STAFF MANAGEMENT SYSTEM - VARIATION REPORT

 

12.5     Partnerships & Engagement

Nil Reports


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                                    Tuesday 18 April 2017

 

12.6     Executive Services

12.6.1  MEETINGS OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 8 March to 7 April 2017 

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Kelly

Seconded:               Cr Monteleone

 

THAT Council resolve to close the meeting to members of the public for the purpose of considering details relating to the confidential matters above in accordance with Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 as follows:

12.3.1  SUPPLY AND DELIVERY OF TWO HINO FG/BUCHER VT651 ROAD SWEEPERS - CONTRACT 2014-2Z13 - CONTRACT FINALISATION

Confidential in accordance with Section 89(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 1989.

12.3.2  Provision of Road Signs and Associated Products - MAPS 1407- 0316 - Contract Finalisation 

Confidential in accordance with Section 89(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 1989.

12.3.3  Bridge Inn Road Duplication - Finalisation Report

Confidential in accordance with Section 89(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 1989.

12.4.1  Tender Evaluation for Contract 2016-202 - Insurance Portfolio

Confidential in accordance with Section 89(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 1989.

12.4.2  TEMPORARY AGENCY STAFF MANAGEMENT SYSTEM - VARIATION REPORT

Confidential in accordance with Section 89(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 1989.

12.6.1  MEETINGS OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 8 March to 7 April 2017

Confidential in accordance with Section 89(2)(h) of the Local Government Act 1989.

Carried


 

ACCORDINGLY, THE MEETING WAS CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC AT 9.23PM.

THE MEETING WAS RE-OPENED TO THE PUBLIC AT 10.27PM.

EXTENSION OF MEETING TIME

Moved:                       Cr Kelly

Seconded:               Cr Monteleone

 

THAT Council resolve to extend the meeting for a further 30 minutes.

Carried

 

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Kelly

Seconded:               Cr Monteleone

 

That the Minutes of the Special Meeting of Council held 7 March 201 be confirmed.

 

Carried

13.       Closure

DELETE THE CLOSURE TEXT NOT REQUIRED

THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS THE MAYOR DECLARED THE MEETING CLOSED AT 10.31PM.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 9TH DAY OF MAY, 2017.

 

 

CR RICKY KIRKHAM

MAYOR