Logo_Primary_BlackWhite%20(JPG)

Minutes

 

OF Ordinary
COUNCIL MEETING

HELD ON

Tuesday 6 February 2018

AT 6.30pm

at the Barry Road Community Activity Centre, 36 Barry Road, Thomastown


 

 

COUNCILLORS

 

KRIS PAVLIDIS                               MAYOR, SOUTH WEST WARD

LAWRIE COX                                   SOUTH WEST WARD

STEVAN KOZMEVSKI                   SOUTH WEST WARD

CAZ MONTELEONE                       SOUTH WEST WARD

EMILIA LISA STERJOVA               DEPUTY MAYOR, NORTH WARD

TOM JOSEPH                                  NORTH WARD

RICKY KIRKHAM                            NORTH WARD

SAM ALESSI                                    SOUTH EAST WARD

ALAHNA DESIATO                         SOUTH EAST WARD

NORM KELLY                                  SOUTH EAST WARD

MARY LALIOS                                 SOUTH EAST WARD


 

 

SENIOR OFFICERS

 

 

SIMON OVERLAND                          CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

RUSSELL HOPKINS                         DIRECTOR COMMUNITY SERVICES

STEVE O’BRIEN                                DIRECTOR PLANNING AND MAJOR PROJECTS

NICK MANN                                       DIRECTOR CITY TRANSPORT & PRESENTATION

HELEN SUI                                        DIRECTOR CORPORATE SERVICES

LIANA THOMPSON                          DIRECTOR PARTNERSHIPS & ENGAGEMENT

MICHAEL TONTA                              MANAGER GOVERNANCE

 


 

ORDER OF BUSINESS

 

The 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         behaviour to be observed at the meeting.. 9

1.4         9th Anniversary – 2009 victorian bush fires.. 9

1.5         WELCOMING CITIES.. 10

1.6         Present.. 10

2.            Apologies.. 10

3.            Declarations of Interest.. 11

4.            Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting.. 11

5.            questions to councillors, Petitions and Joint Letters.. 13

5.1         questions to councillors.. 13

5.1.1       Proposed Roundabout: Betula Avenue/Belmont Way, Mill Park   13

5.1.2       Mill Park Leisure Centre Redevelopment. 13

5.1.3       Mill Park Leisure Centre Redevelopment. 13

5.1.4       Mill Park Leisure Centre Redevelopment. 13

5.1.5       Mill Park Leisure Centre Redevelopment. 14

5.1.6       Mill Park Leisure Centre Redevelopment. 14

5.1.7       Mill Park Leisure Centre Redevelopment. 14

5.1.8       Mill Park Leisure Centre Redevelopment. 14

5.1.9       Mill Park Leisure Centre Redevelopment. 14

5.1.10    Mill Park Leisure Centre Redevelopment. 14

5.1.11    Mill Park Leisure Centre Redevelopment. 14

5.1.12    Mill Park Leisure Centre Redevelopment. 15

5.1.13    Mill Park Leisure Centre Redevelopment. 15

5.2         Petitions.. 16

5.2.1       Mill Park Leisure Centre Closure.. 16

5.2.2       OBJECTION TO PLANNING APPLICATION 715748 – 23 NICKSON STREET BUNDOORA.. 16

5.2.3       Spencer Street, Thomastown.. 16

5.2.4       Budget - Projects Funded.. 17

5.3         Joint Letters.. 17

Nil Reports.. 17

6.            Officers’ Reports.. 19

6.1         Planning and Major Projects.. 21

6.1.1       Planning Scheme Amendments C192 and C220 - VicRoads Administrative Changes to Road Related Provisions and Plenty Road Project. 21

6.1.2       Planning Scheme Amendment C209 - Heritage Overlay - Exhibition Outcomes.. 29

6.1.3       Planning Scheme Amendment C221 - River Red Gum Protection Policy - Authorisation.. 43

6.1.4       CONSTRUCTION OF A NETBALL COURT SHELTER AT LAURIMAR PRIMARY SCHOOL CONTRACT NO. 2017-198 - TENDER EVALUATION REPORT  51

6.1.5       Planning Scheme Amendment C224 - Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) Local Policy - Authorisation   55

6.1.6       Planning Scheme Amendment C223 - Child Care Centre Local Planning Policy - Authorisation.. 67

6.1.7       Planning Scheme Amendment C217 - Rezoning Authorisation - 100 Cravens Road, Mernda. 75

6.1.8       345W Plenty road, mill park - buildings and works within the heritage overlay and the removal of vegetation.. 81

6.2         Community Services.. 91

6.2.1       Whittlesea Reconciliation Group - Terms of Reference   91

6.2.2       Youth Discount Card.. 95

6.3         City Transport and Presentation.. 107

6.3.1       Proposed Roundabout: Betula Avenue / Belmont  Way, Mill Park.. 107

6.3.2       SUPPLY AND DELIVERY OF ONE WATER TANKER – TENDER EVALUATION – CONTRACT 2014-2Z19. 119

6.3.3       Contract No. 2017-144  - Maintenance of Growling Frog Golf Course.. 123

6.3.4       Contract Number 2017-75B - Recyclables and Acceptance Sorting Services:  - Tender Evaluation and Due Diligence Findings.. 127

6.4         Corporate Services.. 133

6.4.1       Part 49 Sackville Street, Mernda - Road Discontinuance   133

6.4.2       Contract Variation for Employee Assistance Program   137

6.5         Partnerships & Engagement.. 141

6.5.1       Contract for Provision of Online Demographic Tools; Contract No. 2017-26. 141

6.5.2       Assemblies of Councillors Report 6 February 2018. 145

6.5.3       Appointment of Councillor Representation on Organisations and Committees.. 149

6.6         Executive Services.. 153

Nil Reports.. 153

7.            Notices of Motion.. 155

7.1           NOTICE OF MOTION NO 846 -  RESCISSION OF COUNCIL RESOLUTION ITEM 7.9 NOTICE OF MOTION 845 – RECONSIDERATION OF PROJECTS FUNDED IN 2017/18 BUDGET. 155

7.2           NOTICE OF MOTION NO 847 - RECONSIDERATION OF PROJECTS FUNDED IN 2017/18 BUDGET. 157

7.3           NOTICE OF MOTION NO 850 - DEMOLITION OF HERITAGE BUILDINGS   159

7.4           NOTICE OF MOTION NO 851 - WHITTLESEA PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C204 - PLENTY VALLEY TOWN CENTRE STRUCTURE PLAN   161

8.            Questions to Officers.. 162

9.            Urgent Business.. 162

10.         Reports from Delegates Appointed to Council by Other Bodies.. 162

11.         Questions to Councillors.. 162

12.         Confidential Business.. 163

12.1       Planning and Major Projects.. 163

Nil Reports.. 163

12.2       Community Services.. 163

Nil Reports.. 163

12.3       City Transport and Presentation.. 163

12.3.1    waste collection.. 163

12.4       Corporate Services.. 163

12.4.1    Inhouse Valuations Services Review... 163

12.5       Partnerships & Engagement.. 163

Nil Reports.. 163

12.6       Executive Services.. 163

12.6.1    MEETINGS OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 13 November 2017 to 19 January 2018. 163

13.         Confidential notices of motion.. 163

13.1        NOTICE OF MOTION NO 848 - RESCISSION OF ITEM 61.1 - MILL PARK LEISURE CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT STAGING PLAN.. 163

13.2        NOTICE OF MOTION NO 849 - MILL PARK LEISURE CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT OPTIONS.. 163

14.         Closure.. 164

 

 

Note:

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

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                               Tuesday 6 February 2018

 

1.         Opening

1.1       MEETING OPENING AND PRAYER

The Chief Executive Officer opened the meeting with a prayer at 6.30PM.

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       behaviour to be observed at the meeting

Good evening everyone and welcome to a meeting of the Whittlesea City Council.

Council meetings are run in accordance with Council’s Procedural Matters Local Law which provides rules of behaviour for members of the public at the meeting. 

In particular, I ask you to remain silent at all times during the meeting and to not record any part of the meeting.

If you are called to order for any improper or disorderly conduct and you do not comply with the direction, you may be ordered to leave the meeting.

The meeting may be adjourned where improper or disorderly conduct occurs.

I ask you to take note of these requirements and to please refrain from interrupting the meeting.

Members of the gallery, we have reports on the agenda that relate to confidential matters including the Mill Park Leisure Centre Redevelopment.

You are welcome to stay and hear the discussion on the Ordinary Agenda items. At the conclusion of those items we will close the open portion of the meeting to enable Council to consider confidential business in another room.

1.4       9th Anniversary – 2009 victorian bush fires

On 7 February 2009 Victoria experienced the worst bushfires in the nation’s recorded history. 

Tomorrow we will pause to remember and honour the 173 persons who died on that day 9 years ago. 

Many hundreds of other people suffered extensive property damage and trauma. 

It was an horrendous day for our City with 12 of our residents losing their lives; more than two thousand homes were destroyed and 230 people were displaced.

Even today some people from the high impact areas still suffer serious health issues.

The journey over the past nine years has been to rebuild homes and the more difficult task of rebuilding lives.

Every year on 7 February at 11am Council observes a minute of silence to remember and pay respect to those who died.

Council’s flags will be flown at half-mast as we remember the 2009 Victorian bushfires and thank our staff and the many hundreds of volunteers for their support and dedication to the response.

We also acknowledge the wonderful work of emergency services and volunteers who work to continue to keep our community safe.

A Community Remembrance Service will be held at the Whittlesea Community Gardens, Laurel Street, Whittlesea at 6.45pm on Wednesday night.

1.5       WELCOMING CITIES  

The Whittlesea Council is one of just 14 municipalities across Australia to join the International Welcoming Cities network.  This is a global movement which provides a framework to help support newly-arrived residents.

As a Council that already leads the way in diversity issues and is committed to inclusion, joining the Welcoming Cities Network will provide us with the international support we need to strengthen our policies and strategies so we can move beyond just embracing our newly arrived residents to really supporting them to become part of our community.

We also know that cities that work to foster an environment of belonging and participation for new residents enjoy many benefits including economic growth and a strong community.

1.6       Present

Members:

Cr Kris Pavlidis                    Mayor (South West Ward)

Cr Lawrie Cox                     Councillor (South West Ward)

Cr Stevan Kozmevski         Councillor (South West Ward)

Cr Caz Monteleone             Councillor (South West Ward)

Cr Ricky Kirkham                Councillor (North Ward)

Cr Tom Joseph                    Councillor (North Ward)

Cr Emilia Lisa Sterjova        Deputy Mayor (North Ward)

Cr Norm Kelly                      Councillor (South East Ward)

Cr Sam Alessi                      Councillor (South East Ward)

Cr Alahna Desiato               Councillor (South East Ward)

Cr Mary Lalios                     Councillor (South East Ward)

Officers:

Mr Simon Overland             Chief Executive Officer

Mr Steve O'Brien                 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 Liana Thompson            Director Partnerships & Engagement

Mr Michael Tonta                Manager Governance

 

2.         Apologies

Nil

3.         Declarations of Interest

THE FOLLOWING DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST WERE MADE TO THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PRIOR TO THE MEETING:

Cr Lalios declared an indirect interest by close association in item 6.3.1 Proposed Roundabout: Betula Avenue/Belmont Way, Mill Park.

 

 

4.         Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Cox

Seconded:               Cr Joseph

 

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

Special Meeting of Council held 9 January 2018

Carried

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                               Tuesday 6 February 2018

 

5.         questions to councillors, Petitions and Joint Letters

5.1       questions to councillors

5.1.1    Proposed Roundabout: Betula Avenue/Belmont Way, Mill Park

Dragana Stegnjaic

1.    Why has it been recommended that a roundabout in a dip is safer than speed humps or cushions or an elevated intersection? 

2.    If Council deems that a roundabout is the safest option against the concerns of the community then is Council willing to accept responsibility if there is an accident at hour homes and someone becomes injured, killed or property damaged because of a poor decision that did not consider the serious concerns of the residents?

The Mayor Cr Kris Pavlidis

A roundabout is the most appropriate and effective road safety and traffic improvement treatment for this location.

Driver behaviour is the responsibility of the driver and Council will not accept any liability for any motorists acting irresponsibly and/or outside the Road Rules.

 

5.1.2    Mill Park Leisure Centre Redevelopment

Coralee Lowe

Are you disclosing to customers applying for new memberships that the centre may be closing for 2 years?

Members with contracts that extend past closure date – how will they be compensated?

How do you propose to keep membership numbers when you re-open in 2 years will fees/membership prices remain comparable?

 

5.1.3    Mill Park Leisure Centre Redevelopment

Kim Lam

Has Council considered other feasible options before making decision to close the Mill Park Leisure completely for redevelopment?

What are your plans to ensure that current members will return to use the facilities once the renovations are complete?

 

5.1.4    Mill Park Leisure Centre Redevelopment

Judi Andrews

Can you assure me that your vote will be cast with the best interest of the Mill Park Leisure Centre community in mind and not politically motivated?

When considering your vote will you take into account those senior and teenage members who will find it difficult to access other centres?

 

5.1.5    Mill Park Leisure Centre Redevelopment

David Strantzen

What plans have you put in place to ensure these students will continue to enjoy group fitness classes run by the professional staff employed by MPL?

 

5.1.6    Mill Park Leisure Centre Redevelopment

Josie Vinar

When making your decision to close the centre for 2 years did you take into account the elderly?

 

5.1.7    Mill Park Leisure Centre Redevelopment

Lorraine Palazzolo

If you close this centre who will employ me and the other 199 staff and where will my beautiful family 2000+ people go?

 

5.1.8    Mill Park Leisure Centre Redevelopment

Maureen Hocking

What efforts are in place to find us a new gym to attend while renovations are going ahead and is there any assistance with payments being implemented as currently over the age of 55 we receive a discount and only pay $24 per fort night, a lot of gyms in the area charge a lot more than this?

Many members including myself and Cleo have used the facility as part of rehab after major surgery. Where will members like ourselves go that have limited travel access?

 

5.1.9    Mill Park Leisure Centre Redevelopment

Tajindar Kaur

When making your decision to totally close the centre for 2 years, did you take into account the Mental Health of the community?

 

5.1.10  Mill Park Leisure Centre Redevelopment

Aurora Saracino

Considering Mill Park Leisure Centre is a testament to the wonderful supportive community we have, has the council considered the impact the closure of the centre will have on the disabled, sick and elderly?

 

5.1.11  Mill Park Leisure Centre Redevelopment

Brenda Vinar

When making your decision have you considered the youth?

Why is it not possible to build the new extension in parts whereby the facility would stay open for business rather than a complete shutdown?

 

5.1.12  Mill Park Leisure Centre Redevelopment

Di Hynes

Are council going to meet with members of Mill Park Leisure Centre prior to making a decision regarding closure or not of the centre during renovations?

 

5.1.13  Mill Park Leisure Centre Redevelopment

Nella Villani

Have any council members ever visited the leisure centre to see firsthand how the closure of the gym will affect so many people in the community?

5.1.14  Mill Park Leisure Centre Redevelopment

Santo Spinello

On what basis did Council resolve for the Mill Park Leisure Centre Redevelopment Staging Plan to be fully closed and for what period?

 

Why was it not practical and or financial for partial redevelopment at stages of the Mill Park Leisure Centre?

 

Was consideration given and made by Council to consider the loss of staff jobs whether they are employed full-time, part-time, or as volunteers for the entire period of the redevelopment?

 

Was consideration made by the Council to consider membership disadvantages by transferring the services to other centres and when will the membership be formally advised?

 

What would be the estimated total expenditure for the total closure as compared to a staging partial closure for the centre to be redeveloped?

 

Can Council advise its ratepayers how many Councillors voted for, against and or abstained to the resolution for this item to be carried?

Answer to 5.1.2 to 5.1.14

The Mayor Cr Kris Pavlidis

As I mentioned earlier, thank you for these questions. This item is being dealt with in the confidential section of the agenda and therefore Council is unable to answer your questions at this time.

Once a decision is made, Council will respond to your questions in writing and advise you of Council’s decision.


 

 

 

motion to suspend standing orders

Cr Kirkham moved a motion to suspend Standing Orders to deal with items 13.1 and 13.2 and that those items be dealt with in the open section of the Council Meeting.

motion

Moved:                       Cr Kirkham

Seconded:               Cr Lalios

 

THAT Council resolve to suspend Standing Orders to deal with items 13.1 and 13.2 and that those items be dealt with in the open section of the Council Meeting.

LOST

Division

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

 

For

Cr Kirkham

Cr Kelly

Cr Lalios

Cr Monteleone

Cr Desiato

Against

Cr Pavlidis

Cr Kozmevski

Cr Alessi

Cr Cox

Cr Sterjova

Cr Joseph

Abstained

Nil

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

lost


5.2       Petitions

5.2.1    Mill Park Leisure Centre redevelopment Closure

Cr Kelly tabled a petition received from 1,185 residents and 99 non-residents requesting Council keep Mill Park Leisure Centre open and operating during the upcoming renovations and upgrade.

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Kelly

Seconded:               Cr Monteleone

 

THAT Council resolve to receive the petition and that this petition be considered at item 13.1 in the closed section in this meeting.

Carried

5.2.2    OBJECTION TO PLANNING APPLICATION 715748 – 23 NICKSON STREET BUNDOORA

File No:                                   715748

Cr Lalios tabled a petition received from 51 residents and 9 non-residents objecting to Application for Planning Permit 715748 at 23 Nickson Street Bundoora.

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Lalios

Seconded:               Cr Alessi

THAT Council resolve to receive the petition from 51 residents and 9 non-residents objecting to Planning Permit 715748 relating to property at 23 Nickson Street Bundoora and consider the petition in conjunction with the Council Report on this planning permit application.

Carried

 

5.2.3    Spencer Street, Thomastown

Cr Lalios tabled a petition received from 74 residents and 55 non-residents regarding safety concerns, complaints by residents, business owners, property owners, and customers about accidents and near misses that have occurred in Spencer Street, Thomastown, coupled with a fatality at the intersection of Spencer Street and Dalton Road, Thomastown. Council needs to:

·         Urgently review design proposals developed in 2011 for indented parking bays and widening Spencer Street;

·         Urgently seek input from Spencer Street business operators to progress a suitable proposal and design;

·         Undertake works in Spencer Street as soon as possible, to address parking, road safety and local congestion issues; and

·         Continue to work with, and advocate to VicRoads to improve road safety at the intersection of Spencer Street and Dalton Road, Thomastown including a suggestion by residents to investigate a ‘keep clear’ zone.

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Lalios

Seconded:               Cr Kelly

 

THAT Council resolve to receive the petition and a report be prepared.

Carried

 

5.2.4    Tennis pavillion at shields street, epping

Cr Monteleone tabled a petition received from 111 residents regarding item 7.2 – Notice of Motion No 847 – Reconsideration of Projects funded in 2017/18 Budget. Residents request Council vote against the Motion before Council to reconsider projects funded in the 2017/18 budget and to proceed with the funding of a portable pavilion/change room and portable toilet with 20 car parks etc. at Prism Park connected to the existing tennis courts at Shields Street, Epping.

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Monteleone

Seconded:               Cr Kelly

 

THAT Council resolve to receive the petition and a report be prepared.

Carried

5.3       Joint Letters

Nil Reports 


 

motion to suspend standing orders

Cr Kirkham moved a motion to suspend Standing Orders to consider items 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 at this point in the meeting.

motion

Moved:                       Cr Kirkham

Seconded:               Cr Lalios

 

THAT Council resolve to suspend Standing Orders to consider items 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4 at this point in the meeting.

lost

Division

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

 

For

Cr Kirkham

Cr Kelly

Cr Lalios

Cr Monteleone

Cr Desiato

Against

Cr Pavlidis

Cr Kozmevski

Cr Alessi

Cr Cox

Cr Sterjova

Cr Joseph

Abstained

Nil

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

lost

 

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                               Tuesday 6 February 2018

 

6.         Officers’ Reports

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Joseph

Seconded:               Cr Kozmevski

 

THAT Council resolve to adopt the Recommendations for items numbers 6.1.1, 6.1.3, 6.1.4, 6.1.5, 6.2.1, 6.3.2, 6.4.2, 6.5.1 and 6.5.2.

Carried

 

 

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 6 February 2018

 

6.1       Planning and Major Projects

6.1.1    Planning Scheme Amendments C192 and C220 - VicRoads Administrative Changes to Road Related Provisions and Plenty Road Project

File No:                                  192654

Attachments:                        1        Amendment C192 Plan Package

2        Amendment C220 Public Acquisition Overlay Plans    

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Team Leader Growth Area Projects   

 

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY

It is recommended that Council resolve to:

1.       Support VicRoads as planning authority for proposed Planning Scheme Amendment C192. 

2.       Support VicRoads as planning authority for proposed Planning Scheme Amendment C220. 

3.       Support the request made by VicRoads to the Minister for Planning to grant exemption from the notification requirements in accordance with section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act for proposed Planning Scheme Amendments C192 and C220.

KEY FACTS AND / OR ISSUES

·        VicRoads, as a Planning Authority, are seeking written consent from Council to facilitate two Planning Scheme Amendments (C192 and C220).

 

·        These amendments propose to make procedural changes to update the Road Zone planning maps and the Public Acquisition Overlay relating to freeway and arterial road infrastructure. 

 

·        Amendment C192 seeks to rezone land declared by VicRoads as freeway or arterial road to Road Zone 1 (RDZ1); rezone existing RDZ1 land that is surplus to VicRoads’ requirements to its underlying zone; and delete redundant the Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO2) from land that has already been acquired by VicRoads to deliver the O’Herns Road interchange.

 

·        Amendment C220 seeks to apply the Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO2) to land associated with the Plenty Road Stage 2 upgrade/duplication and include an Incorporated Document to enable works associated with the project.

 

·        VicRoads have requested that these Amendments are undertaken with exemptions from Section 17, 18 and 19 of the Planning and Environment Act. This process will fast track the amendments and allow the acquisition and compensation legal process under the Land Acquisition and Compensation Regulations 2010 to commence for the Plenty Road project.


 

Report

Background

VicRoads are seeking written consent from Council to facilitate two separate Planning Scheme Amendments that would make procedural changes to Road related provisions and mapping within the Whittlesea Planning Scheme. Amendment C192 proposes to ensure that all declared freeway and arterial road infrastructure is appropriately zoned in line with the Ministerial Direction: The Form and Content of Planning Schemes to accurately reflect the status of the land. Amendment C220 seeks to enable the acquisition of land to facilitate Plenty Road upgrade and duplication. These two separate amendments are discussed in turn within this Council Report.

Amendment C192

Item 15 of Ministerial Direction: The Form and Content of Planning Schemes states: “A road which is declared as a freeway or an arterial road under the Road Management Act 2004 must be shown as a Road Zone – Category 1 on the planning scheme maps.”

As the Roads Corporation, VicRoads is responsible for declaring and managing all freeway and arterial road infrastructure in Victoria.  To this end, they are also responsible for periodically reviewing this infrastructure to ensure the land use zone identified in local Planning Scheme maps accurately reflect the extent and current status of their declared infrastructure. 

This amendment has been presented to Council previously in separate forms, the first on 17 February 2004 and again on 21 May, 2013. Council resolved to support VicRoads to act as the Planning Authority under section 11(a) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and for the Minister for Planning to exempt the proposed amendment from notification requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, given its procedural nature. This amendment was not advanced at the time due to staffing limitations at VicRoads.

VicRoads wishes to re-commence this process and increase the scope of procedural matters given the time that has elapsed. As such, Council is now being asked to re-consider the proposal. The updated Planning Maps reflecting the specific zone changes are included as Attachment 1. 

Amendment C220

In addition to the above amendment, VicRoads are seeking support for another Planning Scheme Amendment for the application of the Public Acquisition Overlay. This identifies sections of land associated with the Plenty Road upgrade/duplication project and for the inclusion of an Incorporated Document into the Whittlesea Planning Scheme to facilitate the delivery of the duplication and Bridge Inn Road upgrade.

The amendment follows on from the 19 September, 2017 Council Report where it was outlined that acquiring land is required to facilitate the delivery of the Plenty Road project, which included Council owned land. As part of the land acquisition process for Council owned land, Council agreed to forgo a transfer of funds between the State and Council, rather, supported that VicRoads deliver a Shared Path during the construction phase of the upgrade which was to roughly the same value of the land. Specifically, Council resolved at its September meeting to: 

1.       Accept VicRoads offer to deliver the Shared User Path on the west side of Plenty Road as part of the Plenty Road Upgrade Project, offset by the value of Council owned land that will be acquired for the Project.

2.       Fund any difference between the value of land required for the project, and the cost of the Shared User Path, from existing allocations within the New Works Program.

Proposal

Amendment C192

VicRoads’ recent infrastructure review propose to re-zone land associated with declared road infrastructure to Road Zone 1, and to re-zone surplus Road Zone 1 land to its underlying zone forms the majority of this amendment.  The amendment also looks to remove superfluous Public Acquisition Overlay where land has been secured by VicRoads.

A summary of the list of changes are below accompanied by an Officer response. The Mapping Change Reference corresponds to Attachment 1:

Table 1: C192 Proposed Changes

Mapping Change Reference

Roads Impacted

Council Officer Response

1 – Delete Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO)

O’Herns Road and Hume Fwy

Support deletion of PAO as the land required for the interchange has been secured by VicRoads.

2 – Rezone to Road Zone 1 (RDZ1), Rural Conservation Zone (RCZ) and Farming Zone (FZ)

As above

Request that RCZ and FZ be maintained as RDZ1. Council notes that O’Herns Road is about to be declared by VicRoads as part of the broader interchange delivery package and nominating land as alternative land use other than road is counterintuitive. 

3 – Rezone to Road Zone 1 (RDZ1)

Humevale

Support zone change to better reflect the existing alignment of the road.

4 – Rezone to Special Use Zone 4 (SUZ4) and Rural Conservation Zone (RCZ)

Craigieburn Road, Wollert

Support rezoning to SUZ4 as the land is surplus to the delivery of the road and is within the Austral Bricks Quarry holding.

Zoning should remain as RD1Z for land within the Ring Road area infrastructure. This approach is consistent with Plan 10 where waterways are Road Zone 1 where bridges are located.

5 – Rezone to Road Zone 1 (RDZ1)

Plenty Road

This section of Plenty Road has been declared by VicRoads, it is suitable for RDZ1 designation.

Officer note: the zone will need to be refined when duplication occurs

6 – Rezone to Road Zone 1 (RDZ1)

Bridge Inn Road and Yan Yean Road

Support nominating Bridge Inn Road as RDZ1 as it has been declared by VicRoads.

Officer note: the zone will need to expand when duplication occurs.

7 – Rezone to Road Zone 1 (RDZ1)

Bridge Inn Road

Support nominating Bridge Inn Road as RDZ1 as it has been declared by VicRoads.

Officer note: the zone will need to expand when duplication occurs.

8 – Rezone to Comprehensive Development Zone 4 (CDZ4)

Hume Fwy

Strongly support rezoning surplus land associated with the Hume Freeway to CDZ. The Design and Development Overlay 2 should also be included on these sites to ensure appropriate noise attenuation measures are provided to properties adjoining the Hume Fwy. Amending the Schedule to Clause 66.04 (Referral of permit applications under local provisions) should also be done to identify VicRoads as the referral authority for all permits triggered by DDO2. This referral requirement is already identified in DDO2 and currently applied to all relevant permit applications.

9 – Rezone to Road Zone 1 (RDZ1)

Cooper Street and High Street (not Dalton)

Support rezoning as land is within State ownership and used for the purposes of a road. Note: that it is the intersection of High St not Dalton Road.

10 – Rezone to Road Zone 1 (RDZ1) and Industrial 1 Zone (IN1Z)

Metro Ring Road and Hume Fwy

Support rezone to RDZ1 where land is used for the purposes of the Ring Road or within State ownership. Question the application of the IN1Z on the southern side of the Ring Road. The Property boundaries do not align and the infrastructure within these sites are related to the Ring Road.

11 – Rezone to Road Zone 1 (RDZ1) and Public Use Zone 4 – Transport (PUZ4)

Hume Fwy and Barry Road

Support rezone to RDZ1 for land associated with Hume Fwy and support the surplus land adjoining the Whittlesea Gardens to PUZ4 (Transport) as it is owned by VicRoads.

12 – Rezone to Industrial 1 Zone (IN1Z) and Road Zone 1 (RDZ1)

Dalton and Settlement Roads

Support rezoning as land is within State ownership and used for the purposes of road.

Amendment C220

The upgrade of Plenty Road for all users and modes of transport to improve traffic flow, safety and access has been a priority for Council for many years. In response to Council’s advocacy work, the State recently committed approximately $139.4M for the upgrade of Plenty Road in two stages; the first in Mill Park (Stage 1) and the second from South Morang to Mernda (Stage 2).

Stage 1 of the project, (between McKimmies Road to Bush Boulevard), includes:

·    widening the road with an additional lane in each direction (over 2.8 kilometres)

·    improving five major intersections including Childs Road and Centenary Drive

·    installing traffic barriers to prevent crashes

·    building safer lanes for cyclists

·    installing safety barriers making it safer for all road users

Stage 2 of the project, (between Bush Boulevard to Bridge Inn Road), includes:

·    widening the road from four to six lanes between Bush Boulevard and Riverdale Boulevard

·    widening the road from two to four lanes between Riverdale Boulevard and Bridge Inn Road

·    improving bike and walking facilities

·    improving major intersections including Bridge Inn Road

The proposed amendment would apply the Public Acquisition Overlay to land required for the Plenty Road duplication associated with Stage 2 of the Plenty Road upgrade and incorporate a document into the Whittlesea Planning Scheme Clause 52.03 and Clause 81 to facilitate the delivery of these projects.  

The areas affected by the Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO) are identified in Attachment 2. VicRoads have advised that land acquisition has been restricted to small splays of private land (for most parcels) and that no buildings will be acquired as part of this project.

The application of the PAO is formalising the process within the Planning Scheme that is to be undertaken by VicRoads under the Section 9 of the Land Acquisition and Compensation Regulations 2010.

Consultation

VicRoads, as the Planning Authority, will be requesting that the Minister for Planning proceed with these amendments under section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act. This would grant an exemption from the notice and public exhibition requirements that normally apply to Planning Scheme amendments.

With respect to C220, consultation with landowners is being carried out by VicRoads separate to the amendment process. The below information has been provided by VicRoads outlining the different consultation that has been undertaken with landowners and the community to date:

·    Approximately 15,000 resident homes were invited to attend a September information session via letterbox drop.

·    Information sessions were advertised in the local paper, at the Mill Park Library and in the RMIT newsletter.

·    South Morang, Mill Park, Doreen, Mernda postcodes were geo-targeted via Facebook advertising over a two week period.

·    Approximately 50 people attended two information sessions in September 2017.

·    VicRoads notified all affected land owners on the Plenty Road upgrade project via written correspondence.

·    Approximately half of all affected land owners came to the land owner exhibition.

·    All of the affected landowners have been contacted via phone and email correspondence to discuss individual circumstances and provided with an opportunity to raise issues.

·    One presentation to the Mernda Rail Community Reference Group with plans to attend future bi-monthly meetings.

·    Two community drop-in sessions in December 2017 and January 2018.

·    The community drop-in sessions were broadly promoted through a postcard distribution, website, direct email and geo-Facebook.

VicRoads have advised that they will continue to engage the community, and Council, throughout the duplication process.

The ultimate acquisition and compensation will be dealt with via a separate legal process under the Land Acquisition and Compensation Regulations 2010.

Financial Implications

Council will be compensated for the land acquired by VicRoads required for the Plenty Road duplication Stage 2. This will be negotiated between the Council valuer and the Valuer General through a separate process.

Previously, at the 19 September 2017 Council meeting, Council resolved to transfer Council owned land (i.e. in the order of 1,837m2) associated with Stage 1 of the Plenty Road upgrade/duplication to VicRoads, as a value offset, to enable the construction of a Shared User Path on the west side of Plenty Road. A similar approach may be investigated for the Stage 2 land subject to valuations and further discussion with VicRoads.

As VicRoads are the Planning Authority for both amendments, the proposed amendments will be prepared and submitted by VicRoads to the Minister for Planning. As such, there will be no financial implications for Council associated with the administrative processing of the amendments.

Policy strategy and legislation

The proposed amendment primarily arises from section 7(6) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, which requires the City of Whittlesea to comply with a direction issued by the Minister for Planning as to the form and content of any planning scheme under section 7(5) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. In this regard, item 15 of Ministerial Direction: The Form and Content of Planning Schemes states:

“A road which is declared as a freeway or an arterial road under the Road Management Act 2004 must be shown as a Road Zone – Category 1 on the planning scheme maps.”

The corresponding changes to delete PAO2 and apply DDO2 proposed by this amendment reflect the existing local Planning Scheme provisions put in place to facilitate the delivery of the Craigieburn Bypass.

 

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

Council Priority                    Planning and Infrastructure

Future Direction                   Accessibility in, out and around our City

Theme                                   Built environment

Strategic Objective              Our neighbourhoods are designed to be well-connected and create cohesive communities

 

Links to the Community Plan

The proposed amendment supports Future Direction 2: Accessibility in, out and around our City. In particular, it relates to the strategic objective identified for Transport: “Our road network provides adequate access to the municipality and beyond” by ensuring the accuracy of local planning provisions for freeway and arterial road infrastructure.

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

VicRoads has requested permission to advance planning scheme amendments to the local Planning Scheme provisions associated with declared freeways and arterial roads.

These changes proposed as part of C192 are procedural in nature.  They are required to satisfy the obligation of the Ministerial Direction: The Form and Content of Planning Schemes and make corresponding changes to existing local Planning Scheme provisions in line with the planned delivery and upgrading of freeway and arterial infrastructure across the municipality.

The application of the PAO and inclusion of the Incorporated Document associated with C220 are essential to enable the upgrade and duplication of Plenty Road – Stage 2 works.

It is appropriate that VicRoads act as Planning Authority for land that they manage. It is recommended that Council support VicRoads acting as Planning Authority for proposed amendments and also support VicRoads’ request to the Minister for Planning for exemption from notification requirements under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, for the reasons outlined in this Report.

 

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to:

1.       Support VicRoads as the Planning Authority for proposed Planning Scheme Amendment C192. 

2.       Support VicRoads as the Planning Authority for proposed Planning Scheme Amendment C220. 

3.       Support the request made by VicRoads to the Minister for Planning to grant exemption from the notification requirements in accordance with section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act for proposed Planning Scheme Amendments C192 and C220.

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Joseph

Seconded:               Cr Kozmevski

 

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

Carried

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                               Tuesday 6 February 2018

 

6.1.2    Planning Scheme Amendment C209 - Heritage Overlay - Exhibition Outcomes

File No:                                  195307

Attachments:                        1        Amendment C209 Submissions/Council Response

2        C209 HO Map Mayfield Precinct - as exhibited

3        Individual HO 1321, 1325 and 1345 Plenty Road

4        C209 HO Map 260 Craigeburn Rd - as exhibited

5        C209 HO Map 260 Craigeburn Rd - post exhibition

6        Site Context Map 250 O'Herns Road, Epping.   

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Strategic Policy Planner   

 

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY

1.       Support Council Officer Recommendations as outlined in Attachment 1 of this report in relation to the submissions received to Amendment C209;

2.       Request the Minister for Planning appoint an Independent Planning Panel to consider the unresolved submissions to this Amendment;

3.       Offer in-principle support to the potential relocation of the significant heritage dwelling at 250 O’Herns Road, Epping, on the basis that the dwelling be relocated and sited in a location adjacent the public open space as mandated in the Aurora DP Part 2, with an outcome to the satisfaction of Council and subject to a Section 173 agreement.  The Section 173 agreement will require details on what aspects of the heritage dwelling are to be relocated, relocation/transporting details, a cultural management plan to ensure the long term protection, retention of the heritage building and all costs associated with the relocation and preparation of the agreement, will be covered by the proponent;

4.       Authorise Council Officers to continue negotiating with the submitters to resolve the outstanding submissions, as appropriate, prior to the commencement of any Planning Panel Hearing; and

5.       Advise all submitters of the above resolution.

 

KEY FACTS AND / OR ISSUES

·        Amendment C209 proposes to apply the Heritage Overlay to six additional places of local heritage significance, add one heritage precinct (“Mayfield Heritage Precinct”) and to amend the heritage curtilage for two sites already covered by the Heritage Overlay.

·        Of the seven submissions received to the amendment, four submissions have been resolved. Of the three unresolved submissions, one is subject to a specific resolution of Council to resolve that submission, with the remaining two submissions to be referred to a Planning Panel, as is required. 

·        Officers are seeking a Council resolution to continue to negotiate the unresolved submissions, prior to any Panel Hearing.

·        In line with statutory requirements Council must make a decision within 60 business days of the closing date for submissions, being 1 February 2018. An extension has been granted to allow the matter to be reported to Council at the 6 February 2018 meeting, noting the Christmas break and Officers endeavours to resolve submissions.

·        It is recommended to request the Minister for Planning to appoint an Independent Planning Panel to consider the unresolved submissions.

Report

BACKGROUND

This report seeks to advise Council of the exhibition outcomes of Amendment C209 which proposes to apply the Heritage Overlay to six additional places identified as of local heritage significance and to add one heritage precinct known as the “Mayfield Heritage Precinct”. It also seeks to amend the curtilage for two sites already affected by the Heritage Overlay.

There are currently 161 individual sites afforded Planning Scheme protection under the Heritage Overlay (HO) under the Whittlesea Planning Scheme. This represents a culmination of significant work undertaken by the City of Whittlesea to identify, assess, and protect places of local heritage significance across the City of Whittlesea.

The strategic basis to identify, assess, and protect places of local heritage significance has been guided through two key heritage studies that include the:

·    Whittlesea Heritage Study (Meredith Gould Architects, 1991); and

·    Whittlesea Heritage Study (Context Pty Ltd., 2009-2011; reviewed in 2014).

In May 2015 Council adopted Amendment C153 which resulted in the protection of a large number of the City of Whittlesea’s heritage sites, adding 88 new places to the HO schedule.

Under the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the City of Whittlesea as Planning Authority, has a statutory obligation “to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other which are of …historical or otherwise special cultural values” (section 4(b)). To this end the City must undertake local heritage studies to identify places of interest and appropriately apply the HO to places identified as having Local (or higher) significance.

Amendment C209 is the next step in the ongoing incremental identification, assessment and protection of significant heritage places within the City of Whittlesea. The sites proposed as part of this amendment were initially “flagged” as potentially warranting heritage protection and/or requiring further investigation on their heritage significance through the advancement/refinement of strategic Development Plans, Precinct Structure Plans and development applications within the site and surrounds.

As part of Council’s ongoing commitment to the conservation of its local heritage, Heritage Consultant, Ray Tonkin was commissioned in May 2017 to investigate the heritage significance of a number of these “flagged” sites to ascertain if there was merit for their inclusion as part of the HO. The heritage citation reports for each of the proposed sites provide the strategic justification for application of the HO including the extent of heritage curtilage area that forms the basis of this amendment. This will bring the number of individual sites afforded heritage protection under the HO in the Planning Scheme to 167 properties.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT

The sites proposed for heritage protection under Amendment C209 are:

Application of New Heritage Overlay (all sites are of local heritage significance)

·    300 McDonalds Road, South Morang- Former South Morang Station Masters House.

·    250 O’Herns Road, Epping – Myee (Dwelling).

·    105 Hunters Road, Mernda- Sea View Park (Stone cottage remnants and surrounds).

·    1190 Donnybrook Road, Donnybrook - St Martins (Stone cottage and surrounds).

·    260 Craigieburn Road, Wollert - Wattle Park (Dry stone walls and surrounds).

·    395 Epping Road, Wollert – Inverlochie (Stone cottage and surrounds).

 

Amend the Existing Heritage Overlay Curtilage

·    10A Sir John Terrace (formally known as 65A Cravens Road) - Black Braes Farm (HO14: Dwelling and agricultural outbuilding).

·    1485 Plenty Road, Mernda - Preston Hall (HO68: Blue stone dwelling and surrounds).

Application of New Heritage Precinct

·    Mayfield Precinct - 1321, 1325 and 1345 Plenty Road, Mernda (All individual properties are already covered by a specific HO).

Table 1 provides a summary of each site included in this Amendment and the proposals as per the heritage assessment reports, that form the basis of exhibition of the Amendment.

Table 1: Proposed Additional Heritage Overlay Sites.

Property Address/Precinct or Place identification.

Scope of Investigation

Statement of Significance obtained.

Heritage Significance buildings/features on site.

Recommendation

300 Mc Donalds Road, South Morang - Former South Morang Station building

New Addition to Heritage Overlay.

Yes

Railway station embankment, Station house and trees within the vicinity.

Application of the HO.

The railway house and embankment is of historic and archaeological interest, relating to the early rail. This site is currently in an area earmarked for the Mernda Rail extension. The heritage site is incorporated into the Mernda Rail extension design detail, at this stage.

Mayfield Precinct:

1321 Plenty Road, Mernda - The Poplars

1325 Plenty Road, Mernda - former school site

1345 Plenty Road, Mernda - Mayfield Presbyterian Church.

New Precinct in the Heritage Overlay to allow consideration of the sites as a group.

Yes

The Mayfield Precinct recognises the broader visual connection and relationship to each other that the three heritage sites have.

All three sites have individual HO’s however it is recommended to apply HO over the three sites together to create the Mayfield HO precinct. The creation of the precinct will reinforce the historical connection of the three places.

105 Hunters Lane, Mernda.

New Addition to Heritage Overlay

Yes

Cottage granite remnants and cypress trees.

Application of the HO.

The site is an important remnant of early settlement in Mernda particularly its longstanding occupation by the Popple family.

1190 Donnybrook Road, Donnybrook – St Martins.

New Addition to Heritage Overlay.

Yes

Basalt Cottage, shed, drystone walls and remnant vegetation.

Application of the HO. 

The site is of historic and architectural importance as a nineteenth century farm operation.

260 Craigieburn Road, Wollert – Wattle Park.

New Addition to Heritage Overlay.

Yes

Drystone walled yards, the associated orchard and archaeological remnants of an earlier farm complex.

Application of the HO.

The site is a remnant of early pastoral settlement. It has archaeological significance in revealing evidence of an earlier homestead complex.

250 O”Herns Road, Epping – Myee.

New Addition to Heritage Overlay.

Yes

Victorian weatherboard dwelling.

Application of the HO.

The house is historically significant as an example of remnant early twentieth century farming activity. The site is subject to an interim HO until 31 August 2018, while Council progresses Amendment C209 for permanent heritage protection (see below).

395 Epping Road, Wollert - Inverlochie.

New Addition to Heritage Overlay.

Yes

Farm Complex including Basalt cottage, remnant underground tank, drystone walls, cattle yards, vegetation associated with the farm.

Application of the HO.

The cottage and farming complex is historically and architecturally significant as evidence of early pastoral/farming activity.

1485 Plenty Road, Mernda - Preston Hall.

Site  currently covered by HO68.  Potential   to reduce current curtilage was investigated.

Yes

Bluestone House, dry stone walls, quarries.

HO68 curtilage to be reduced.

The house is significant as an example of an early 1860s substantial dwelling. The dwelling is particularly significant for its sitting away from and above Plenty Road, in an open landscape setting.

This site is in Council ownership and is located within the Mernda Strategy Plan area, identified as regional open space. The current curtilage applies to an extensive area reflecting the former title boundary. Noting the future of the site as an active regional recreational reserve and the current Masterplan for the site, a review was commissioned to assess the appropriateness of the current curtilage. The heritage advice supported a partially reduced curtilage to the north and south but maintains the significant ‘view line from Plenty Road’ which is of particular importance. The reduced curtilage provides suitable protection to this historic building in an open setting whilst still allowing the site to be developed for public purposes. This amendment reduces the curtilage in accordance with the updated heritage citation.

65A Cravens Road, Mernda. Black Braes Farm

Currently covered by HO14.  Potential   to reduce current curtilage.

Yes

House, Cow bales and wells.

HO14 curtilage to be reduced.

The proposed curtilage reduction will not compromise protection of the significant farmhouse and ensures future buildings or works do not adversely affect views and vistas to the façade. Under Subdivision Permit 711758, for the Settlers Hill Estate (which encompasses Black Braes farm) the applicant was required to submit a Conservation Management Plan (CMP). The CMP was prepared by Bryce Raworth in March 2016 and outlined the significant contributory structures within the HO curtilage, presenting an amended site plan with a reduced curtilage around the farm complex.

Council Officers sought independent heritage advice on the CMP and proposed reduced curtilage plan. Council’s independent heritage advice supported the reduction, stating that the revised curtilage will present a positive outcome from a heritage perspective and will ensure future development is sympathetic to the heritage buildings on the site and reflects the surrounding subdivision layout. This Amendment is considered the next and final step in formalising the extent of the HO14 applicable for the site.

AMENDMENT AND PUBLIC EXHIBITION PROCESS

Council considered Amendment C209 on 27 June 2017, and resolved to:

‘Request the Minister for Planning to authorise the preparation and exhibition of a Planning Scheme Amendment to apply the Heritage Overlay to six sites, one Heritage Precinct to be known as the “Mayfield” Precinct and amend the curtilage of two sites currently covered by the Heritage Overlay HO14 and HO68 as recommended in the relevant heritage citation reports.’

Ministerial Authorisation to exhibit Amendment C209 was granted. It was subsequently placed on exhibition for an extended period of eight weeks between 7th September and 2nd November 2017. Notification packages were sent to all affected property owners and occupiers, relevant community groups, Statutory Authorities and prescribed Ministers. The notification package contained the statutory amendment documents and the specific heritage citation report.

 

Seven submissions were received in response to the exhibition process. Council officers considered each of the submissions, which included meeting with submitters with a view to resolving submissions, where possible. Four submissions have been resolved, whilst three submissions remain unresolved. One of the unresolved submissions is subject to a particular resolution of Council, which would address the submitters concerns. On the basis that there are unresolved submissions, and in line with statutory process, Council is required to request that the Minister for Planning convene an independent Planning Panel to assess and make recommendations on the remaining unresolved submissions. The submissions received are discussed in more detail below.

DISCUSSION

Submissions Received

Council received seven submissions as part of the exhibition process. As is common practice in Amendment processes, Council officers contacted all submitters with a view to discussing the detail of submissions and to ascertain whether there was any potential to resolve any issues raised. A summary of the seven submissions received to the Amendment and the officer response to each is provided in Attachment 1: Amendment C209 Submissions/ Council response. 

Four of the submissions were able to be resolved and Council Officers have received confirmation that these submissions have been withdrawn. The issues raised in the resolved submissions are summarised as follows: 

·    Update documentation to correct errors/anomalies in information of a minor nature.

·    Amend the HO schedule to allow the heritage place to be used for “prohibited uses” under the zone. This will allow a broader range of uses for a heritage place to be considered. This broader range of uses may include the opportunity for the heritage site to be used as a café or restaurant for example, which would not compromise the heritage protection of the site.

·    Amend the proposed site curtilage to better reflect and align with the significant heritage features on site.

Despite Council officers meeting with all submitters in an effort to discuss and resolve all of the issues raised, three submissions remain unresolved. The unresolved submissions are discussed below.

Unresolved Submissions

Mayfield Precinct

Amendment C209 proposes application of a heritage precinct to be known as the “Mayfield Precinct” which will encompass three properties 1321, 1325 and 1345 Plenty Road, Mernda. These sites are currently individually covered by the HO (Refer to Attachment 2 and 3). The application of the precinct acknowledges the historic relationship of the built form across the three sites. As such it will ensure that any proposed new use or development takes into account the impact on the adjoining sites included in the precinct.

A submission was received from the individual property owner at 1325 Plenty Road, Mernda that opposed the application of the Heritage precinct based on the limits it would impose on future development of the site and the related financial loss.

It is important to note that the application of a HO or heritage precinct does not prohibit development, subdivision, or demolition. The HO/precinct simply requires that planning approval be obtained where a trigger within Clause 43.01 – Heritage Overlay exists. As a HO already applies to this property, any proposed use or development already requires a planning permit and must meet the objectives of Clause 43.01. The application of the heritage precinct by Amendment C209 does not change this or trigger any additional permit requirement. It will however require any proposed development/use to consider the interface and impact on the heritage significance of the adjoining sites within the precinct. 

The application of the Mayfield Precinct is supported by the Mayfield Heritage Precinct citation report prepared by Context in March 2012 and is a Council resolution as part of the Mayfield Precinct Development Plan approved on 20 March 2012.

In respect to the financial loss and impact on the land values that was raised in the submission, the potential for this is difficult to determine either way. However, it is important to recognise that the application of a HO is based on standard practice methodologies derived from the Burra Charter, Australian ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) and the Heritage Victoria Assessment Framework. The decision to add the Mayfield Precinct into the HO, is based on whether it meets the threshold for significance under the prescribed criteria and not on other non-heritage related factors.

For all intents and purpose, the issues raised by this submission are an objection to the existing individual HO already applied to this site. The application of the new heritage precinct does not change the limits imposed on future development of the site or any perceived financial loss that is not already limited by the existing individual HO.

Given Officers have been unable to resolve this submission, Council will need to request that the Minister for Planning convene an independent Planning Panel to hear the submission, in line with the statutory process.

Revised HO Curtilage - 260 Craigieburn Road, Wollert

The site at 260 Craigieburn Road, Wollert, was flagged as a potential European historic site in the Wollert Precinct Structure Plan. The heritage assessment undertaken by Heritage Consultant Ray Tonkin (commissioned by Council), identified the dry stone walled yards, orchard trees and archaeological remnants of an earlier farm complex as the significant heritage elements of the site. The proposed “exhibited” heritage curtilage for the site identified a broad circular shaped curtilage.

Two submissions were received in relation to this site. One was received from the VPA Victorian Planning Authority (VPA) and another from Eight Property Investment on behalf of the individual landowner.

The VPA submission noted there was no in principle objection to the application of the HO however they did have an issue with the circular nature of the proposed curtilage and the extent to which it extends beyond the historic features of the site on the basis it will create unnecessary permit triggers.

The submission received from Eight Property Investment objected to the shape of the proposed HO curtilage but also objected to the northern extent of the proposed HO curtilage on the basis that it extends into areas earmarked for residential development in the Wollert Precinct Structure Plan (PSP), triggering unnecessary permit requirements.

In considering these two submissions, particularly the extent of the HO curtilage, further advice was sought from Heritage Consultant, Ray Tonkin, to undertake a further assessment of the heritage values and investigate the opportunity to reduce the proposed curtilage. The findings of this further assessment noted that it is considered reasonable to amend the proposed circular curtilage to a more practical polygon shape which would more closely follow the significant dry stone walls of the farm complex (Refer to Attachment 4 and 5). However, the heritage advice received did not support the submitter’s position for the reduction of the curtilage in the northern section of the complex. This section of the site marks a walled area, remnant of a once productive orchard, and is considered integral to the site’s heritage significance.  

The PSP nominates the proposed HO site as suitable for development adjoining open space, subject to further assessment.  However, it is noted that the PSP at a strategic level does not preclude the protection of places of local heritage significance being identified by Council, following further detailed assessment.

In light of this advice, Officers advised both submitters of the opportunity to revise the curtilage to a polygon shape to more closely align to the heritage elements of the site. Submitters were also advised that the heritage advice did not support the reduction of the HO curtilage, from the northern section of the heritage complex.

The VPA advised that they had no objection the revised polygon curtilage which would provide a better design outcome and incorporate the heritage features of the complex. Accordingly, Council received confirmation that their submission was withdrawn.

However, Eight Property Investment on behalf of the landowner, advised they did not support the proposed revised curtilage on the basis the northern portion of the curtilage impacts on how the site can be developed. It is noted that the submitters have lodged a subdivision planning application which is currently under consideration by Council officers that proposes to remove the northern section of the complex containing the remnant walled orchard and mature pine trees, to allow for residential development. As such this submission has not been able to be resolved, and the submission will need to be referred to an independent Planning Panel. It is noted that there is still scope for officers to potentially negotiate to resolve this submission prior to Panel.

Alterative Design Outcome - 250 O’Herns Road, Epping

The HO is proposed to be applied to the site at 250 O’Herns Road, Epping. The Edwardian weatherboard dwelling located on site has been identified as being of historic and architectural significance to the City of Whittlesea based on a heritage assessment prepared by Heritage Consultant, Ray Tonkin. The dwelling located on the site was originally constructed in 1917 and is significant as a remnant of early twentieth century farming activity in the Wollert district (Refer to Attachment 6 -Site Context Map).

The site is subject to an interim HO under Amendment C207, gazetted by the Minister for Planning in August 2017. The basis for the interim controls was triggered by an application to demolish the building, which was received prior to the commencement of this Amendment (C209). The interim HO was approved for the site on the basis that Council progress an amendment to introduce permanent heritage protection for the site.

A submission to this Amendment was received from Tract consultants on behalf of the landowner for the site. The submission opposed the application of the HO on the basis that it did not meet the required thresholds for heritage protection, as outlined in a heritage assessment prepared for the landowner by Biosis consultants. The submission suggests that the current location of the dwelling and proposed HO curtilage will significantly prejudice redevelopment opportunities for the site and the wider Aurora Development Plan (DP) Area. It is noted that the property containing the dwelling has frontage to O’Herns Road and is affected by the Aurora DP.

The Aurora DP provides for a commercial/mixed use outcome along the entire frontage of O’Herns Road, while the opposite side of O’Herns Road forms part of the Cooper Street Employment Area. Noting the planning framework that applies to the site, the submission included for consideration, the following in respect to the proposed HO site:

·    Relocation of the heritage significant weatherboard dwelling to an alternative location on the property, in the vicinity of the northern boundary of the site.

·    The relocated dwelling to be located adjacent to an area of future open space on the property, as mandated by the Aurora DP Part 2. The provision of open space is required to be 900sqm in area, in accordance with the DP. This is to provide a locational context next to open space to reflect an open farm setting.

·    The HO curtilage to be applied to the future site of the relocated dwelling.

Noting the proponent’s position, further advice was sought from Council’s Heritage Consultant on whether this approach could be supported. To this end, in principle heritage support was received for the potential future relocation of the heritage place, subject to a range of provisos to ensure the heritage significance of the dwelling is not compromised and to ensure the location and curtilage provided maintains an “open farm setting”. Officers believe that this approach is worthy of consideration on the basis that:

·    Heritage advice supports the potential relocation of the heritage dwelling (subject to a range of provisos);

·    The heritage building will be retained and protected via a HO on the same property proximate to its original location;

·    The heritage building will be located away from the frontage of a future six lane arterial road and commercial and mixed uses along O’Herns Road, closer to the residential component of the Aurora DP;

·    There will be greater potential for re-use opportunities in the alterative location; and

·    Maintenance of the “open farm setting” through its relocation adjacent to future open space.

A cultural heritage management plan will be required to ensure the long term protection, relocation and restoration of the heritage dwelling. All costs associated with the relocation and necessary supporting heritage reports to Council’s satisfaction, will also be required  to be covered by the proponent.

Implementation of the Relocation Proposal

Should the proposal outlined above be entertained by Council it is important that sufficient confidence be provided to Council and to the proponent regarding the future implementation of this proposal and appropriate safeguards.

Given planning approvals have not been granted yet for the future development/layout of the site, it is considered appropriate that the HO be applied to 250 O’Herns Road, Epping in the interim, as exhibited as part of Amendment C209. In conjunction with this, that ‘in principle’ agreement should be given by Council for consideration of the future relocation of the heritage building. It is therefore recommended by Officers that as part of the resolution of Amendment C209, Council agree to the potential relocation of the significant heritage dwelling at such time as the site is to be developed. In this context it is considered that a Section 173 Agreement is the appropriate tool to achieve these objectives. Such an agreement would detail the manner and nature of the relocation process and each party’s responsibilities, including relevant reports/management plans regarding how the heritage dwelling is to be relocated and restored/maintained. Importantly, it will also contain the principles to guide the future site location and HO curtilage.

The Consultant on behalf of the landowner has confirmed that he is willing to withdraw the submission subject to Council agreeing to the relocation of the dwelling and the satisfactory resolution of the form and content of the Section173 Agreement.

Noting the above, it is recommended that Council provide ‘in principle’ support to the relocation of the heritage dwelling on the basis that a suitable Section 173 Agreement can be developed which details the specifics of the relocation and siting of the heritage dwelling and its ongoing maintenance/retention and protection.

Under such an approach the Section 173 Agreement would need to be finalised well before any Panel Hearing. This is to provide sufficient opportunity to advise Planning Panels whether the parties have come to an agreement and the submission is formally withdrawn, or alternatively whether parties cannot come to an agreement and the matter proceeds to a Panel on the basis of the submission. Should Council not support the relocation option then the submission will need to be referred to a Planning Panel.

CRITICAL DATES

Ministerial Direction 15, prescribed by the Minister for Planning, requires that Council must request the appointment of a Planning Panel within 60 business days of the closing date for submissions, being 1 February 2018. An extension has been granted to allow the matter to be reported to Council at the 6 February 2018 meeting, noting the Christmas break and Officers endeavours to resolve submissions.

In accordance with required practice, Council officers lodged a request for a pre-set panel hearing date for the week of 20 February 2018 for any Planning Panel required for Amendment C209. These dates will be formalised following a Council resolution, and Request to be Heard forms will be sent to submitters prior to commencement of any Panel. 

Policy strategy and legislation

·    Under the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the Planning Authority must give effect to the objectives of planning in Victoria, including: “to conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of…historical or otherwise special cultural value” (section 4(b)).

·     Council must undertake local heritage studies to identify places of interest and appropriately apply the HO to places identified as having local (or higher) significance. The application of the HO is the only statutory mechanism for conserving locally significant heritage places.

·     Under the Heritage Act 1995, a place considered to have State (or higher) significance may be listed on the Victorian Heritage Register, and a permit must be obtained from Heritage Victoria to carry out specified works or activities. The Planning Scheme (Heritage Overlay) should identify State (or higher) significant places in this regard.

·     Whittlesea Planning Scheme:

Clause 15.03-1 (Heritage conservation) compels Local Governments to “Identify, assess and document places of natural and cultural heritage as a basis for their inclusion in the planning scheme.”

Clause 21.08 (Built Environment and Heritage) identifies the Local Planning Policy objective “To increase the level of protection for and opportunities for incorporation of the City’s European and Aboriginal heritage.

Clause 22.04 (Heritage Conservation Policy) identifies the Local Planning Policy objective is “To identify, protect and maintain the integrity and character of Whittlesea’s heritage places”.

·     The Green Wedge Management Plan 2011-2021 identified the following:

P26: Following the heritage study undertaken during 2009/10, implement and apply a Heritage Overlay to all significant places not protected. Any proposed amendment to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme will provide additional opportunity for public submission.

 

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

Council Priority                    Planning and Infrastructure

Future Direction                   Places and spaces to connect people

Theme                                   Planning our space

Strategic Objective              Urban design helps build our connection to place, the natural environment and the community

 

Amendment C209 is consistent in meeting the objectives in the Community Plan and the Council Plan, particularly Council Plan Goal 4.4 “Council will work towards strengthening and implementing planning tools to build connections”. This Amendment will achieve this by linking places and the community through the recognition, appreciation and protection of places identified as local heritage significance in the Municipality.

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

Amendment C209 supports Council’s recognised commitment to protecting its local heritage through its ongoing implementation of sites identified as significant to the Heritage Overlay as well as its statutory obligation. The need for this amendment arises from Council’s responsibility as set out in the Planning and Environment Act, 1987.

This amendment seeks to apply the Heritage Overlay to six new places, one heritage precinct (Mayfield Heritage Precinct) and modify the existing heritage curtilage of two sites currently covered by the Heritage Overlay. This will bring the number of individual sites afforded protection under the Heritage Overlay in the Whittlesea Planning Scheme to 167 properties in total.

Following the exhibition period a total of seven submissions were received. A summary of the submissions received and the officers’ response is provided in Attachment 1. Four submissions have been resolved as part of Council officers’ discussions with submitters and the required changes will be incorporated as part of the post-exhibition documentation.

As three submissions remain unresolved, in accordance with the Planning Scheme Amendment process Council is required to request that the Minister for Planning appoint an independent Planning Panel under Part 8 of the Planning and Environment Act, 1987 to consider the unresolved submission.

With respect to the property at 250 O’Herns Road, Epping, it is considered that it warrants heritage protection. This position is based on specialist heritage assessment of the site. Notwithstanding, the proposal from the landowner to relocate the heritage dwelling elsewhere on the property, is worthy of consideration. It is recommended that as part of the resolution of Amendment C209, Council agree in principle, to the potential relocation of this significant heritage dwelling at such time as the site is to be developed, subject to a Section 173 Agreement. The Section 173 Agreement is to ensure the dwelling is relocated in a manner and location, to the satisfaction of Council and the proponent. The Section 173 will also require a cultural management plan to ensure the long term protection, retention and restoration of the significant heritage dwelling. This approach is supported by Heritage Consultant, Ray Tonkin. If a mutually acceptable Section 173 Agreement can be achieved then the proponent will withdraw the submission and the Heritage Overlay will apply to the site. Alternatively, if agreement cannot be reached this submission will be referred to the Panel.

Notwithstanding the appointment of a Planning Panel, it also recommended that Council authorise officers to continue to negotiate and resolve issues with the submitter as appropriate, prior to the commencement of any Panel Hearing.

It is recommended that Council resolve to support the Council officer recommendations as outlined in Attachment 1 of this report, and request the Minister for Planning appoint an Independent Planning Panel to consider the unresolved submissions to this Amendment.

 

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to:

1.    Support Council Officer Recommendations as outlined in Attachment 1 of this report in relation to the submissions received to Amendment C209;

2.    Request the Minister for Planning appoint an Independent Planning Panel to consider the unresolved submissions to this Amendment;

3.    Offer in-principle support to the potential relocation of the significant heritage dwelling at 250 O’Herns Road, Epping, on the basis that the dwelling be relocated and sited in a location adjacent the public open space as mandated in the Aurora DP Part 2, with an outcome to the satisfaction of Council and subject to a Section 173 agreement.  The Section 173 agreement will require details on what aspects of the heritage dwelling are to be relocated, relocation/transporting details, a cultural management plan to ensure the long term protection, retention of the heritage building and all costs associated with the relocation and preparation of the agreement, will be covered by the proponent;

4.    Authorise Council Officers to continue negotiating with the submitters to resolve the outstanding submissions, as appropriate, prior to the commencement of any Planning Panel Hearing; and

5.    Advise all submitters of the above resolution.

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Joseph

Seconded:               Cr Sterjova

 

THAT Council resolve to

1.    Remove the proposed reduction to the curtilage of HO14, 10A Sir John Terrace (formally known as 65A Cravens Road, Mernda) - Black Braes Farm from Amendment C209, to retain the existing HO14 curtilage on this property;

2.    Advise the landowner of 10A Sir John Terrace (formally known as 65A Cravens Road, Mernda) - Black Braes Farm of resolution item 1. above, and provide an opportunity for the landowner to make a late submission in relation to HO14 on this property;

3.    Offer in-principle support to the potential relocation of the significant heritage dwelling at 250 O’Herns Road, Epping, on the basis that the dwelling be relocated and sited in a location adjacent the public open space as mandated in the Aurora DP Part 2, with an outcome to the satisfaction of Council and subject to a Section 173 agreement.  The Section 173 agreement will require details on what aspects of the heritage dwelling are to be relocated, relocation/transporting details, a cultural management plan to ensure the long term protection, retention of the heritage building and all costs associated with the relocation and preparation of the agreement, will be covered by the proponent;

4.    Excluding resolution item 1. above, support all other Council Officer Recommendations as outlined in Attachment 1 of this report in relation to submissions received to Amendment C209;

5.    Request the Minister for Planning appoint an Independent Planning Panel to consider the unresolved submissions to this Amendment;

6.    Authorise Council Officers to continue negotiating with the submitters to resolve the outstanding submissions, as appropriate, prior to the commencement of any Planning Panel Hearing; and

7.    Advise all submitters of the above resolution.

Carried

 Division

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

 

For

Cr Pavlidis

Cr Kozmevski

Cr Kirkham

Cr Alessi

Cr Cox

Cr Sterjova

Cr Joseph

Against

Nil

Abstained

Cr Desiato

Cr Lalios

Cr Kelly

Cr Monteleone

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

carried


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                               Tuesday 6 February 2018

 

6.1.3    Planning Scheme Amendment C221 - River Red Gum Protection Policy - Authorisation

File No:                                  195885

Attachments:                        1        Draft Updated River Red Gum Protection Policy

2        Tree Protection Zones Standard   

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Strategic Policy Planner   

 

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY

THAT Council resolve to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to formally commence Planning Scheme Amendment C221 to update Clause 22.10: River Red Gum Protection Policy of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.

KEY FACTS AND / OR ISSUES

·   Amendment C221 proposes to update the existing Clause 22.10 River Red Gum Protection Local Policy in the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.

 

·   This amendment represents the first review to this key Council policy since its incorporation into the Whittlesea Planning Scheme in 1998.

 

·   The amendment will make updates to the policy to ensure the policy remains relevant and effective. The proposed changes are minor in nature and do not change the policy intent, rather they strengthen and update the policy.

 

·   A Local Planning Policy only applies in instances when a planning permit application is already required by the Planning Scheme. The policy will not place additional permit requirements on applicants. Its sole purpose is to guide decision making when considering a planning permit application.

 

·   The River Red Gum Policy was discussed during the Amendment C187 Wollert Precinct Structure Plan Panel Hearing, which reinforced the role and validity of the policy. 

 

·   The proposed changes address issues identified as part of the internal review of the policy and the outcomes of the Wollert Panel, in particular to ensure maximum River Red Gum retention is a design priority, support regeneration by protecting juvenile trees, ensure trees proposed for retention be sited on public land in appropriate locations as approved as part of the planning process, and include reference to the City of Whittlesea Tree Protection Standards (Nov 2014).

 

·   It is recommended that authorisation is sought from the Minister for Planning to commence the amendment exhibition process.


 

Report

Background

This report is seeking a Council resolution to request authorisation from the Minister for Planning to commence Planning Scheme Amendment C221 to update the existing Clause 22.10 River Red Gum Protection Local Policy in the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.

The River Red Gum (RRG) Protection Policy was developed and included in the Whittlesea Planning Scheme in 1998.  The aims of the policy are to ensure the long term protection and viability of RRGs in growth areas and in existing areas. These objectives continue to be important given the high level of urban growth occurring across the municipality.

This policy has contributed to the protection and retention of one of our key landscape features for the long term benefit of our community. RRG retention is identified in the Community Plan as being highly valued by our community, setting the City of Whittlesea apart from other growth area municipalities.

2015 River Red Gum Protection Policy Review

The requirement for a review of the RRG Protection Policy initially formed part of the Environment Sustainability Strategy (ESS) 2012-2022, adopted by Council in May 2013. The Sustainability Planning Unit undertook a review of the policy in 2015 which included a desk top analysis and internal consultation.

The review concluded that the policy was working well, in particular that the current policy:

·       Is well known in the community, with developers and across Council, leading to high tree retention rates,

·       There is the opportunity to provide greater focus on the re-generation of trees,

·       Should discourage trees within individual private lots and,

·       Update the reference documents listed under the policy, to include the Tree Protection Zones (TPZ).

Outcomes of the Wollert PSP Panel Hearing

 

Subsequent to this review, the RRG Protection Policy was discussed during the Amendment C187 Wollert Precinct Structure Plan (PSP) Panel Hearing.

 A key objective of the pre-panel version of the PSP sought to “maximise the retention of scattered RRGs and other remnant indigenous trees through responsive subdivision design”. Council’s position at Panel was supported by background research that demonstrated a proven track record for achieving greater than 80% retention of mature RRGs across development of the growth areas.

In April 2016, the Panel Report for Amendment C187 Wollert PSP was released. The Panel Report ultimately accepted the role and validity of the RRG Protection Policy. The Panel Report recommended some changes to the PSP wording in relation to retention of RRGs. While the maximum retention of scattered RRGs and other remnant indigenous trees was retained, the amended wording provides Council with greater discretion in the assessment of planning applications, to ensure it does not have unexpected or too onerous an outcome where alternative design solutions to retain the trees may be possible.

The Panel Report also recommended amending the policy to include specific reference to Wollert. This has highlighted the need to strengthen the policy to clarify that it relates to development in growth areas as well as existing urban and rural areas.

Amendment C187 Wollert PSP (gazetted February 2017), particularly the Panel Report, was the most significant test of the RRG Protection Policy, and Council’s approach to the retention of RRGs. It reinforced the legitimacy of the policy in terms of the overall approach and the quantum of trees protected, and recognised the contribution RRGs make to our community, environment and landscape.

2017 River Red Gum Protection Policy Review

Following the release of the Wollert Panel Report, the Strategic Planning and Design Department undertook a further review of the RRG Protection Policy. The review of the RRG Protection Policy in June 2017 included consideration of the:

·        Outcomes of the 2015 review by Sustainability Planning (discussed above),

·        Outcomes of the Wollert PSP Panel Report in relation to the local policy (discussed above), and

·        Internal consultation in regards to the implications of the Wollert PSP Panel Report and any further improvements to the current policy.

The 2017 review concluded that the RRG Protection Policy warranted minor updates to reflect the outcomes of the internal review and the Wollert PSP Panel Report, to ensure the policy remains relevant and effective. These updates are discussed further below. A copy of the updated policy is included as Attachment 1 to this report.

DISCUSSION

The proposed updates to the existing RRG Protection Policy have been informed by the outcomes of the internal review, and in particular, the outcomes of the Amendment C187 Wollert PSP Planning Panel (discussed above). The drafting of the changes comply with the State Government planning practice note ‘Writing a Local Planning Policy (PPN08)’.

Practical implementation of the policy

The policy applies to the protection of RRGs across the municipality to ensure development in existing and future urban areas, as well as in rural areas, take into account the presence, retention, enhancement and long term viability of RRGs.

Since its inclusion in the Planning Scheme in 1998, the RRG Protection Policy has successfully shaped the landscape in respect to the protection, retention and incorporation of RRGs into the design of urban development across the municipality. This element of our landscape sets our municipality apart from other growth areas.

A Local Planning Policy only applies in instances where a planning permit is already required by the Planning Scheme. This policy will not place additional permit requirements on applicants. Its sole purpose is to guide decision making when Council is considering a planning permit application. It can help an applicant and the community understand how a proposal will be considered and what will influence decision-making.

Key changes proposed by the Amendment

The purpose of Amendment C221 is to make minor updates to the existing policy to ensure it remains relevant and effective in guiding planning decisions, particularly amid extensive growth and development in the municipality. This amendment represents the only change to this key Council policy since its incorporation into the Whittlesea Planning Scheme in 1998.

The changes proposed can be summarised as follows:

·        Include specific reference to development in ‘future’ urban areas (i.e. growth areas),

·        Include a policy objective to ensure maximum RRG retention is considered as a priority in the design of any development or subdivision (consistent with the objectives of Urban Growth Zone Schedule 5 and Wollert PSP Section 4.4),

·        Strengthen wording to support regeneration of RRGs including protection of juvenile trees,

·        Clarify that RRG trees proposed for retention be sited in public open space or road reserves in appropriate locations as approved as part of the planning process,

·        Include relevant objectives relating to the Tree Protection Zones (TPZ) in the policy, to give the TPZ guidelines sufficient weight and,

·        Include the City of Whittlesea Tree Protection Zone Standards (Nov 2014), as a reference document.

Maximise River Red Gum retention

Whilst the current policy recognises the intrinsic value of RRGs and encourages their retention it is not explicit that retention should be “maximised”.

 

It is proposed to update the policy to reflect the outcomes of the Wollert PSP Planning Panel Report and be consistent with the objectives of Urban Growth Zone Schedule 5 and Wollert PSP Section 4.4. In particular, to ensure maximum RRG retention is considered as a priority in the design of any development or subdivision. This is appropriate to reflect its outcomes and to ensure consistency.

River Red Gum regeneration

The current wording of the policy reads as follows:

“Ensure that, where feasible, areas of significant River Red Gum regeneration are protected in any development proposal.”

It is proposed to update the policy to strengthen this wording in recognition of the importance of juvenile RRG trees.  Ensuring development design allows for the regeneration of RRG trees is fundamental to the survival of mature trees. Protecting juvenile RRGs through the development design process is also important for protecting the species, particularly as the estimated growth rate of a mature RRG tree is less than a centimetre of diameter a year.

The need to strengthen this regeneration aspect of the policy was raised by the Parks and Open Space Department and Sustainability Planning Unit through the internal consultation. We are therefore seeking to place greater emphasis on juvenile trees to assist in the preservation of RRGs in appropriate locations, where sufficient room is provided for them to grow.

The revised wording proposed by this amendment will “Recognise that juvenile River Red Gum trees have an important role to play in the preservation of mature specimens.

RRGs identified for retention not to be sited on private lots

The current policy provides some scope for RRGs to be located on private lots, provided the lot is large enough to accommodate a suitable development envelope that does not disturb the tree or its root system.

Notwithstanding this, the siting of RRG trees on private lots is generally discouraged through the subdivision approvals process as it is not ideal for the long term protection of the trees. Past experience has shown that, in instances where this has occurred, the health and integrity of the RRG tree is often compromised, or over time the trees shedding branches can pose a threat to people or property, resulting in tree removal. Where a tree is permitted to be retained on a private lot, the landowner would be required to go through a formal approval process to seek removal.

On this basis, it has become standard Council practice that trees identified for retention be sited on public land in subdivision design approvals, where appropriate setbacks and TPZ can be managed in the long term. This ensures protection of the RRG trees in perpetuity and minimises any risk posed by their siting on private lots.

To strengthen Council’s position, it is proposed to update the current wording to clarify that RRG trees proposed for retention should be sited in public open or road reserve, rather than on private lots. This is consistent with Clause 21.04-5: Strategy 2.2 of the Municipal Strategic Statement which is discussed below in the Policy, Strategy and Legislation section.

Include a reference to the Tree Protection Zones Standards

The current RRG Protection Policy includes a reference to the River Red Gum Protection Policy guidelines adopted in 1998. These guidelines have been superseded therefore they are no longer used by the Strategic Planning and Design or the Development Assessment Departments as it does not reflect Council’s current standards for TPZs. Further, the principles of the guidelines are already incorporated into the objectives of Clause 22.10; hence they are superfluous.

It is therefore proposed to remove reference to the River Red Gum Protection Policy guidelines from the policy. These will instead be replaced by a reference to Council’s TPZ Standards, dated November 2014 (see Attachment 2) which reflect Council’s current approach.  This is consistent with the Wollert PSP which also contains the same TPZ Standards.

In addition, it is proposed to include relevant objectives relating to the TPZs in the policy, to give the TPZ Standards sufficient weight and to provide clearer guidance for developers, Council officers and the community on Council’s accepted standards.

Consultation

Internal consultation has been undertaken to inform the updates to the existing policy.

Officers also consulted DELWP, who given the minor nature of the changes, did not raise any concerns with the proposed policy updates.

Critical Dates

If authorisation from the Minister for Planning is granted, it is likely that exhibition of the Amendment will commence in March for 4 weeks.

Council officers will report to Council on the results of the exhibition process. If submissions are received and remain unresolved, Council will need to refer these to a Planning Panel.

Financial Implications

Minor fees will be incurred as part of the normal Planning Scheme Amendment process.  No other significant financial impost is expected to Council.

Policy strategy and legislation

The RRG Protection Policy is supported by the following clauses in the Planning Scheme:

State Planning Policy Framework

·    Clause 12.01-1 - Protection of biodiversity - to assist the protection and conservation of biodiversity, including native vegetation retention and habitats.

·    Clause 12.01-2 - Native vegetation management - to achieve no net loss in the extent and quality of native vegetation by applying a risk-based approach to managing native vegetation as set out in the guidelines.

 Local Planning Policy Framework

·    Clause 21.02-3 – Key Issues: Environment and Landscape Values recognises a key visual landscape feature of the municipality is the extent of mature River Red Gums, estimated to be between 200-800 years of age. Maximising protection is a key feature in the City.

·    Clause 21.04-5 – Habitat Creation and Revegetation includes strategies:

Strategy 2.2: Encourage subdivisions designed and constructed to protect existing River Red Gums where possible in open space or road verges.

Strategy 2.4: Retain and restore natural landscape character where possible, with special emphasis on River Red Gum.

·    Clause 21.04-6 – Green Wedge Areas includes the following strategy:

Strategy 2.7: Encourage River Red Gum regeneration.

·    Clause 21.05-2 – Biodiversity - recognises River Red Gums are an important part of the landscape, have heritage value and provide habitat and food for native fauna.

·    Clause 21.09-1 – Housing: Capacity and Location - includes the following strategy:

Strategy 1.5: Plan to create ‘unique’ local identity through implementation of Place-Making techniques and the linking of new communities to local features or focal points including River Red Gums.

·    Clause 22.10 - River Red Gum Protection Policy - protection of River Red Gums to ensure development takes into account the presence, retention, enhancement and long term viability of Red Gums.

Particular Provisions

·    Clause 52.17 – Native Vegetation – that planning approval is required to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation on land that has an area greater than 0.4 hectares.

The RRG Protection Policy is also supported by the following Council Strategies:

·    Environmental Sustainability Strategy (ESS) 2012–2022 - a 10 year framework for Council and the Community to work together towards a more sustainable future. A review of the RRG Protection policy is an Action identified in the ESS.

 

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

Council Priority                    Planning and Infrastructure

Future Direction                   Places and spaces to connect people

Theme                                   Planning our space

Strategic Objective              Urban design helps build our connection to place, the natural environment and the community

 

The Amendment supports design outcomes that protect our natural environment, specifically RRGs across the municipality. It is consistent with the objectives in the Community Plan and Council Plan, in particular, Council Plan Goal 4.4: Council will work towards strengthening and implementing planning tools to build connections.

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

Conclusion

Since the inclusion of the River Red Gum Protection Policy in the Planning Scheme it has successfully shaped the landscape in respect to the protection, retention and incorporation of River Red Gums into the design of development across the municipality.  This is a policy that is highly valued by the community.

Amendment C221 seeks to update the existing policy to ensure it continues to remain relevant and effective in guiding planning decisions amid the extensive growth and development of the municipality. In particular, the updates reflect the outcomes of an internal review of the policy and the outcomes of the Amendment C187 Wollert Precinct Structure Plan Planning Panel. The proposed changes are minor in nature and do not change the policy intent, rather they strengthen and update the policy.

It is recommended that Council resolve to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to formally prepare and exhibit Amendment C221 to update the Clause 22.10 River Red Gum Protection Policy of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, as detailed in Attachment 1 of this report.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to formally commence Planning Scheme Amendment C221 to update Clause 22.10: River Red Gum Protection Policy of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, as detailed in Attachment 1 of this report.

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Joseph

Seconded:               Cr Kozmevski

 

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

Carried

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                               Tuesday 6 February 2018

 

6.1.4    CONSTRUCTION OF A NETBALL COURT SHELTER AT LAURIMAR PRIMARY SCHOOL CONTRACT NO. 2017-198 - TENDER EVALUATION REPORT

File No:                                  195877

Attachments:                        1        Tender Evaluation - Confidential    

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Senior Contracts Executive   

 

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY

It is recommended that contract number 2017-198 for Construction of a Netball Court Shelter at Laurimar Primary School:

·    is awarded to Greenline Group Pty Ltd.

·    for the lump sum price of $202,600 (excluding GST).

KEY FACTS AND / OR ISSUES

The tender evaluation panel advises that:

 

·    Three tenders were received.

·    The recommended tender was the highest ranked and is considered best value.


 

Report

Background

The purpose of this contract is to provide a netball court shelter at Laurimar Primary School.

Tenders for the contract closed on 13 December 2017.  The tendered prices and a summary of the evaluation are detailed in the confidential attachment.

EVALUATION

No member of the Tender Evaluation Panel declared any conflict of interest in relation to this tender evaluation.

A Tender Probity and Evaluation Plan was designed specifically for this tender process and it was authorised prior to this tender being advertised.  All tenders received were evaluated in accordance with that plan.  The evaluation involved scoring of conforming and competitive tenders according to these pre-determined criteria and weightings:

Criteria

Weighting

Price

50%

Capability

23%

Capacity

20%

Impact

7%

The weightings reflect the relative importance of each element to this particular contract.  They were determined as being most appropriate after considering numerous factors including (but not restricted to) the time, quality, risk and contract management requirements which were likely to have the most impact on the achievement of best value.

Only tenders that are conforming and competitive are fully scored. In this instance, all three tenders were conforming.

The evaluation outcome was as follows:

TENDERER

CONFORMING

COMPETITIVE

SCORE

RANK

Tenderer A (Greenline Group Pty Ltd)

Yes

Yes

86.8

1

Tenderer C

Yes

Yes

80.7

2

Tenderer B

Yes

Yes

72.9

3

Refer to the confidential attachment for further details of the evaluation of all tenders.

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

Council Priority                    Organisational Sustainability

Future Direction                   Good Governance

Theme                                   Continuous Improvement

Strategic Objective              Council explores and adopts best practice models

The project aims to create a lit, protected outdoor learning and active sports and recreation space where Laurimar Primary students can participate in enhanced learning, active play time and after-school care opportunities under shelter.

 

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 tender from Greenline Group Pty Ltd was determined to be best value and it is considered that this company can perform the contract to the required standards. 

 

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to:

1.         Accept the tender submitted by Greenline Group Pty Ltd for the sum of $202,600 (excluding GST) for the following contract:

Number:    2017-198

Title:          Construction of a Netball Court Shelter at Laurimar Primary School

subject to the following conditions:

a)    Tenderer to provide proof of currency of insurance cover as required in the tender documents.

b)    Price variations to be in accordance with the provisions as set out in the tender documents.

c)    Tenderer to provide contract security as required in the tender documents.

2.         Approve the funding arrangements detailed in the confidential attachment.

3.         Sign and seal the Contract documents.

 

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Joseph

Seconded:               Cr Kozmevski

 

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

Carried

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                               Tuesday 6 February 2018

 

6.1.5    Planning Scheme Amendment C224 - Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) Local Policy - Authorisation

File No:                                  195896

Attachments:                        1        Clause 22.01 Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) Local Planning Policy   

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Senior Strategic Policy Planner   

 

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY

THAT Council resolve to:

1.   Obtain Authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit Amendment C224 to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, as detailed in Attachment 1 of this report, together with other consequential changes to the Municipal Strategic Statement and Schedule 1 to the Activity Centre Zone (Epping Central Metropolitan Activity Centre) in the Scheme to accommodate the policy.

2.   If 1. Above is NOT supported by the Minister for Planning, seek Authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit an Amendment to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.

3.   Advise the DELWP that it is Council’s preference that the Amendment be undertaken as one concurrent amendment process with other councils proposing the same Amendment.

KEY FACTS AND / OR ISSUES

·    Amendment C224 proposes to introduce an Environmentally Sustainable Development Local Policy into Clause 22.01 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.

·    The creation of an environmentally sustainable development planning policy is an action in the recently adopt Climate Ready Whittlesea (2017) climate adaptation plan.

·    The policy seeks to ensure that residential and non-residential development (that meets size thresholds) achieves best practice across seven environmental objectives.

·    The policy provides statutory weight to the voluntary approach currently sought of applicants under the Sustainable Design Assessment in the Planning Process program, in place at the City of Whittlesea since 2012.

·    The policy is essentially identical to other Environmentally Sustainable Development policies already introduced into the Planning Schemes of ten other Councils.

·    Five other Councils are considering an environmentally sustainable planning policy, providing potential for a group council Amendment. A section 20(4) Amendment will be requested from the Minister for Planning, which would exempt the Amendment from statutory notification, on the basis the policy is identical to existing gazetted policies.

    

Report

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this report is to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit Amendment C224 to introduce an Environmentally Sustainable Development Local Policy to Clause 22.01 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.  

The City of Whittlesea has been using the Sustainable Design Assessment in the Planning Process (SDAPP) program on a voluntary basis since 2012.

SDAPP provides a framework for environmental performance across a range of Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) themes that assist in the assessment of planning permit applications for residential, mixed use, and commercial developments. Introduction of an ESD local policy will provide statutory weight within the Whittlesea Planning Scheme to the current voluntary SDAPP process.

The Climate Ready Whittlesea (2017) climate adaptation plan was adopted by Council in November 2017. A key action outlined in this plan was the development of an ESD policy. To respond to this adopted action, officers engaged with CASBE (Council Alliance for a Sustainable Built Environment) and began a process of communicating with other local governments interested in undertaking an ESD Amendment.

The proposed ESD policy builds on a significant body of work already undertaken at the local and state level to improve the integration of ESD into the planning system. To date, ESD policies have been successfully implemented by ten other Victorian Councils.

The Cities of Banyule, Moreland, Port Phillip, Stonnington, Whitehorse and Yarra gazetted an ESD policy through group Planning Scheme Amendment C177 in 2013. Subsequently, the Cities of Darebin, Manningham, Monash and Knox have also introduced ESD policies (Manningham and Darebin via a group council Amendment GC42 in 2017).

An Environmentally Efficient Design Advisory Committee (EEDAC) was appointed in 2013 by the Minister for Planning to review and oversee the first Amendment C177 process and the submissions received. In its final report released in 2014, the EEDAC recommended adoption of the amendment with minor changes and further noted that:

·      There is a strong legislative and policy framework that supports the need for sustainable development which recognises that both planning and building have a significant role to play in achieving it;

·      There is a role and statutory obligation for planning to advance sustainability;

·      Whilst the existing State Planning Policy Framework and Victoria Planning Provisions provide a good starting point for the inclusion of sustainability, there are clear areas for improvement; and

·      There are clear positive economic, social and environmental benefits to be gained through improved sustainable development outcomes in planning.

The planning panels overseeing successive ESD amendments also provided recommendations that the ESD policy is necessary and should be approved. Therefore there is substantial support for the introduction of an ESD policy at the City of Whittlesea.

Why is the policy needed?

An ESD policy is supported by, and implements, several existing Council plans and strategies. Most recently, the preparation of an ESD local planning policy has been identified as an action area in Council’s recently adopted Climate Change Adaptation Plan: Climate Ready Whittlesea (2017), a document with the principle aim to minimise the consequences of climate shocks and stresses that impact Council and the broader community.

The inevitable physical impacts of climate change include extreme heat events which can have drastic impacts on vulnerable people in the community. The proposed policy responds to these issues through the inclusion of objectives around indoor environment quality that will ensure new development considers passive heating and cooling, ventilation and orientation.

Ultimately, the policy will ensure greater resilience for the community against the future effects of climate change such as flooding, drought and extreme heat.

From a statutory perspective, there is a gap in guidance in the current State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF). Whilst the SPPF recognises the importance of ESD principles, it fails to provide specific guidance and direction on its implementation. Councils are left to utilise voluntary measures to negotiate with developers on each individual permit application, which has led to poor outcomes and an inconsistent approach across Councils. The proposed ESD policy provides clear objectives and application requirements for applications.

The proposed amendment will ensure that best practice ESD initiatives are considered at the time of planning approval for new developments so as to maximise integrated design outcomes and minimise costs associated with retrofit and poor design. Currently, environmental considerations are left to the building approvals stage when it is too late and thus more costly to implement ESD principles due to design and layouts being ‘locked in’. 

The introduction of the ESD policy also seeks to address rising household utility costs through the introduction of water and energy saving measures. This is a critical issue given the expectation that utility bills will likely continue to increase in the foreseeable future. 

PROPOSED DRAFT PLANNING POLICY

Amendment C224 introduces a Local Planning Policy to ensure that development achieves best practice in environmental sustainability, from initial planning stages. Specifically, the proposed Amendment will:

·    Introduce a new Clause 22.01 Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) into the Local Planning Policy Framework of the City of Whittlesea Planning Scheme.

·    Make minor changes to Schedule 1 of the Activity Centre Zone (ACZ) affecting Epping Central to remove references to ESD that will be replaced and superseded by the proposed policy.

·    Make minor changes to the Municipal Strategic Statement at Clause 21.08-5: Environmentally Sustainable Design to add a new Objective and Strategies relating to the ESD policy, and insert the policy as a consideration under “Policy Guidelines”.

The proposed Clause 22.01 policy contains objectives and application requirements, although the policy will only apply in instances when a planning permit application is already required by the Planning Scheme. The details of the policy are discussed below.

In developing the policy and determining the appropriate planning triggers, project officers considered a number of factors, including: Whittlesea’s current development profile, potential environmental benefits, internal staff capacity, and the need to remain consistent with ESD policies that have already been introduced by other Councils. A detailed discussion on these matters, along with corresponding data, is included in an ESD Planning Policy Rationale Report that provides justification for the proposed policy direction.

Advice from the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) is that the policy must be practically identical to the ESD policies recently introduced by the Cities of Darebin and Manningham in Amendment GC42, as these were subject to the most recent Planning Panel process. The only variation should be the specific planning triggers that are set, with the rest of the policy and objectives remaining the same.

A copy of the policy is included in Attachment 1 – Clause 22.01 ESD local planning policy.

Details of the proposed local policy

The proposed policy applies at the planning application stage and only applies in instances where a planning permit is already required by the Planning Scheme. Only applications that meet specific size thresholds (the ‘planning triggers’) will be required to meet the objectives of the policy. Applicants will submit an ESD report with their initial planning application that will show how their proposed development has integrated the following ESD measures (where applicable and appropriate for the given site):

·        Energy performance

·        Water resources

·        Indoor Environment Quality

·        Stormwater Management

·        Transport

·        Waste Management

·        Urban Ecology

There are two different types of ESD reports that applicants will be required to submit alongside their planning applications, determined by the size of the proposed development:

o   A sustainable design assessment (SDA) for small-to-medium developments. An SDA is a simple sustainability assessment of a proposed design at the planning stage. An SDA can be prepared by the applicant. The submission of a Built Environment Sustainability Scorecard (BESS) report, will satisfy the application requirements for an SDA;

o   A sustainable management plan (SMP) for large developments. An SMP is a detailed assessment of a proposed design at the planning stage. An SMP requires more information about performance outcomes and how a higher level of sustainability will be achieved. A consultant is required to prepare an SMP in most cases.

Completion of the recommendation contained in either the SDA or SMP report, as agreed with Council officers, will then form a planning permit condition and the approved final report will become an endorsed document.

The key tool used to assess the sustainability performance of a development is BESS (Built Environment Sustainability Scorecard), which is a free online tool developed specifically for Victorian Local Governments. The tool provides a sustainability rating for residential, non-residential and mixed-use developments that requires data inputs on the ESD categories. Alternatively, Green Star is a more complex tool and also provides holistic ratings. A BESS or Green Star rating is required to be included in both SDA and SMP reports.

To determine whether an SDA or a more detailed SMP is required, size thresholds are included in the proposed policy. Project officers have undertaken significant analysis of Whittlesea’s development profile and resourcing in order to set the planning triggers at an appropriate level for the municipality. These triggers are consistent with a few other Councils.

The final planning triggers proposed for the policy are outlined in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Proposed ESD Triggers and Application Requirements

Type of Development

Proposed ESD LPP

Application requirements

Accommodation/mixed-use with residential component of:

Residential planning permit application triggers

·      2-9 new dwellings; or

·      Development of a building for accommodation other than dwellings with a gross floor area between 100m2 and 1000m2; or

Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA)

·      10 or more new dwellings;

·      Development of a building for accommodation other than dwellings with a gross floor area of more than 1000m2; or

Sustainable Management Plan (SMP)

Non-residential planning permit  application triggers

(e.g. childcare centre, medical centre, commercial uses, industry, warehouse)

·          Development of a non-residential building with a gross floor area between 300m2 and 1000m2; or

·          Alterations and additions between 300m2 and 1000m2.

Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA)

·      Development of a building with a gross floor area over 1000m2; or

·      Alterations and additions over 1000m2.

Sustainable Management Plan (SMP)

DISCUSSION

Practical implementation through the planning application process

It is envisaged that the need for an SDA or SMP report would be raised at a pre-application meeting with applicants, where the requirements and objectives of the policy can be discussed in detail.

For both assessment levels, the information would be shown in the plans/documentation accompanying an application. Some examples of the types of ESD solutions that might be included in either an SDA or SMP report include:

·        Glazing and shading

·        Solar orientation

·        Active and passive ventilation systems

·        Site ecology

·        Shade vegetation

·        Energy and water efficient equipment

·        Landscaping

·        Solar PV

·        Green travel plans outlining how sustainable modes of transit will be accommodated and encouraged through inclusions such as end-of-trip facilities such as showers, bicycle parking, and connections to public transport (for larger developments requiring SMPs only).

If planning officers are satisfied with the SDA or SMP, the report will become an approved document under the planning permit, and planning conditions will be created that reflect a satisfactory SDA or SMP has been submitted and any further initiatives that have been agreed to by the applicant.   

The policy is worded to allow flexibility in meeting the objectives of the policies, and a fit-for-purpose solution will be sought in each individual application.

Implications for planning applicants

Concerns regarding the up-front costs for landowners have been addressed by the EEDAC committee appointed by the Minister for Planning, and in subsequent planning panels. The committee noted that the key benefit of including the proposed ESD policies in the Planning Scheme is that sustainable design can be incorporated at the initial planning stage with little additional upfront cost and can minimise on-going servicing and operating costs. Furthermore, any upfront capital cost is negated by the improved lifecycle costs over the life of a building, including reduced servicing bills such as water and energy.

Additional application expenses will be minimal for a majority of applicants. The majority of applications will require SDAs, which can be completed by applicants using free online tools. A sustainability consultant will be required to develop SMPs that will garner some additional costs for applicants of larger developments. This is a nominal cost relative to the overall costs of large, high profile developments where additional rigour and expense in the planning stages are justified and expected.

It is important to highlight the benefits of ESD to property owners and developers:

·        Obtaining planning certainty in relation to ESD by addressing mandatory Building Code of Australia (BCA) energy efficiency requirements as early as possible;

·        Lowering the building’s impact on the environment;

·        Future-proofing occupants against the rising costs of power and water, as well as ensuring higher property returns in the future;

·        Preparing for the Mandatory Disclosure Scheme (building energy efficiency) which will soon be introduced to residential and commercial markets;

·        Improving indoor comfort for residents and users by considering factors such as the building’s orientation, external shading, efficient use of water and the materials used; and

·        Greater resilience for the community against the future effects of climate change such as flooding, drought and extreme heat.

A suite of tools will be developed and implemented alongside the policy to assist applicants with further information about ESD and meeting the policy requirements. These tools will include web-based information and hard-copy documents available at the planning counter.

Proposed Amendment process

There are currently ten other Councils in the process of preparing a new ESD policy including the Cities of: Greater Dandenong, Kingston, Hobsons Bay, Bayside, Moonee Valley, Brimbank, Wyndham, Melton, Maroondah and Greater Bendigo. Of these ten Councils, six including the City of Whittlesea are in a position to consider Council reports in February and March of this year, to seek authorisation for an Amendment. These Councils include the Cities of Wyndham, Bendigo, Kingston, Melton and Maroondah. On this basis, it is recommended that Council request that DELWP support a concurrent amendment process with these Councils. A group council (GC) amendment will streamline the decision making process and reduce the overall cost associated with a planning panel, should one need to be appointed to consider any submissions to the amendment.

Notwithstanding, all Councils involved in the proposed Amendment have agreed to request a 20(4) Amendment be granted by the Minister for Planning. In a 20(4) Amendment the Minister for Planning takes over the approvals process and exempts the Amendment from statutory notification. It is considered appropriate in this circumstance given the policy is identical to that already adopted and gazetted by ten other Councils, and has already been thoroughly tested in panel processes. 

It should be noted that if the Amendment proceeds to a Panel or Ministerial Advisory Committee, it is anticipated that a single report will be produced that will be provided to the Minister and the Councils at the same time.

Interaction with the Building Legislation

Concerns about the potential for overlap and conflict of an ESD planning policy with the National Construction Code (NCC) has been deliberated at length by the EEDAC committee and the Planning Panels overseeing Amendment C177 and GC42. The findings of the most recent GC42 panel states:

·    That the policy does not overlap or contravene the role of the NCC because the NCC only seeks to achieve minimum compliance, whereas considering and incorporating ESD at the planning stage allows an opportunity to exceed minimum compliance through using basic passive design principles which is best done at project conception.

·    The NCC does not cover passive design, water use reduction (except for class 1 buildings), stormwater pollution, materials and waste which all need to be considered to create a sustainable building.

CONSULTATION

Relevant internal departments have been consulted in the development of this policy, in particular to determine the development profile, planning triggers, its implementation and resourcing.

As a member of the Council Alliance for a Sustainable Built Environment (CASBE), the City of Whittlesea has consulted regularly with the other member Councils who are part of this third round of Councils seeking an ESD policy. In particular, officers have consulted on the policy rationale, evidence gathering to support the planning triggers and the proposed approach.

Officers also consulted DELWP, who advised that any proposed new ESD policy must be consistent with existing ESD policies in other Planning Schemes, with the only variation being the applicable planning triggers.

CRITICAL DATES

If a 20(4) Amendment is not granted, it is likely that the exhibition of the Amendment will commence for a period of four weeks in April 2018.

If so, officers will report to Council on the results of the exhibition process, and if no submissions are received a recommendation will be made to Council to approve the Amendment. If submissions are received and remain unresolved, then Council officers will request that a Planning Panel Hearing be established.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

It is envisaged that an additional 0.6 EFT staff resource will be required to handle the assessment of SDA and SMP reports. This staff resource will ideally have a specialist ESD skill set to lead the assessments of larger and more complex reports and provide advice to applicants. It is proposed that this position would also provide initial capacity building support and training to statutory planning staff, who will eventually take up the assessments of the smaller SDA reports independently.

The Climate Ready Whittlesea adaptation plan approved by Council identifies the need for the development of the ESD policy, and the resourcing implications are also detailed in the report.

It is important to note that the development of this policy is a key action listed in the Climate Ready Whittlesea adaptation plan, adopted by Council in November, 2018. A budget request for the ESD position, as outlined in Climate Ready Whittlesea, has been made as part of the upcoming budgeting process.

Policy strategy and legislatioN

The following Council strategies and Local and State planning policies are supported by this amendment.

Local Strategies

·    Whittlesea Community Plan 2030 – Includes key direction ‘Living Sustainably’ that employs key measurement indicators of household water usage, energy use and waste generation.

·    Whittlesea Council Plan 2017-2021 – Includes ‘Environmental Sustainability’ as a key Council priority and the following goal and strategies:

­  Goal to effectively manage our environmental impacts over the long term.

­  Key Strategy: reduce water use, greenhouse gas emissions and waste

­  Key Strategy: Help our community to live sustainably

·    Integrated Transport Strategy 2014 – The Land Use and Transportation objective contains the following actions:

­  Action LUT 3.1 Implement active transport initiatives in targeted areas to improve the health and wellbeing of the community.

­  Action LUT 3.2. Investigate the feasibility of preparing Green Travel Plan guidelines to mitigate the transport impacts of new development proposals.

·    Environmental Sustainability Strategy (ESS) 2012-2022 The ESS outlines a 10-year framework for Council and the community to work together towards a more sustainable future, and contains the following relevant actions:

­  Action W1.1: Utilise the full range of planning and development tools to conserve water resources and protect waterways and catchments, including planning permits.

­  Action W1.5: Extend best practice water sensitive urban design to cover development of non-residential land uses including mixed-use, industrial and commercial.

­  Action U3.4: Investigate the use of, and where appropriate, apply discretionary tools that can be utilised during the planning application and development assessment process to achieve sustainability outcomes.

­  Action U3.6: Review the Whittlesea Planning Scheme to ensure the provisions, policies and tools of the Scheme integrate consideration of climate change risks in the assessment process for planning and building applications.

­  Action U3.7: Where existing planning tools and methods are inadequate, research and pursue the creation of more innovative and effective approaches to support sustainable development. 

­  Action U5.1: Encourage new buildings within the City of Whittlesea to exceed minimum environmental performance standards by integrating building performance standards into the City of Whittlesea’s planning application process.

·    Climate Ready Whittlesea (2017)

Climate Ready Whittlesea is Council’s climate change adaptation plan. Its principle aim is to minimise the risks and consequences of climate impacts on the community and Council operations. Climate impacts include extreme temperatures, fire, rainfall and drought, storms and flooding. The plan identifies an action area to increase the thermal comfort of private dwellings by:

­  Increasing the thermal comfort of private dwellings by joining CASBE Councils to implement ESD Local Planning Policies into their Planning Schemes.

­  Ensuring that Development Assessment staff are appropriately trained in reviewing ESD assessments.

Local Planning Policy Framework

·     Municipal Strategic Statement Clause 21.08-3 Environmentally Sustainable Design: Outlines Council’s goals to create an environmentally sustainable city through the inclusion of ESD principles in layout and construction techniques, building operations and design elements. The following objectives are included:

­  To support water sensitive urban design

­  To apply integrated water management principles

­  To minimise the environmental impact of construction

·     Municipal Strategic Statement Clause 21.06-2 – Water: Outlines the importance of water sustainability including quality and supply and the need for integrated management using a whole-of-water-cycle approach. It includes an objective to “reduce unnecessary potable water use and maintain water quality” under which the following strategies are listed:

­  Strategy 1.1: Ensure water sensitive urban design is part of new and existing urban development

­  Strategy 1.2: Ensure water efficiency is an integral part of building design, including setting standards to maximize the use of water efficient fittings and appliances, water tanks and grey water systems.

­  Strategy 1.3: Encourage use of alternative water (rain, storm and grey water).

·     Proposed IWCM Local Planning Policy Clause 22 Whittlesea Planning Scheme

Planning Scheme Amendment C127 is currently underway and proposes to introduce a new Integrated Water Cycle Management (IWCM) Local Planning Policy at Clause 22.03 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme. The aim of the IWCM policy is to improve sustainable water management in the City of Whittlesea through the planning and development process, and applies to all land within the urban growth boundary. The policy adopts a whole-of-water-cycle approach and will require new buildings, works, as well as commercial and industrial subdivision to meet industry accepted best practice stormwater treatment standards and consider potable water alternatives.

The four week exhibition period for Amendment C127 has now concluded with no submissions received. A Council report requesting adoption of Amendment C127 will be reported to Council on 6 March 2018. The proposed IWCM and the ESD policies both contain different planning triggers and will be implemented concurrently through the Whittlesea Planning Scheme to improve water sustainability at the City of Whittlesea. The policies contain similar overarching objectives to improve water sustainability at the City of Whittlesea, however the IWCM policy includes more detailed considerations for a wider range of development including multi-lot subdivisions.

State Planning Policy Framework

The Amendment supports implementation of the following SPPF clauses in the Scheme:

·     Clause 11 – Settlement: Clause 11.03-2 Activity Centre Planning: To improve the social, economic and environmental performance and amenity of activity centres.

·     Clause 11.06 – Metropolitan Melbourne: Clause 11.06-6 Sustainability and Resilience: To “create a more sustainable and resilient city that manages its land, biodiversity, water, energy and water resources in a more integrated way”. There are a number of strategies to achieve this that include improving energy, water and waste performance of buildings through ESD and energy efficiency upgrades.

·    Clause 14.02 – Water: Clause 14.02-2 - Water Quality: includes an objective to “protect water quality”; and 14.02-3 Water Conservation: includes an objective to ensure “water resources are managed in a sustainable way”.

·    Clause 15.02 – Sustainable Development: Clause 15.02-1 Energy and resource efficiency: this objective seeks to “encourage land use and development that is consistent with the efficient use of energy and the minimisation of greenhouse gas emissions”.

·    Clause 19 – Infrastructure: Clause 19.01 – provision of renewable energy: the objective of this clause is to “promote the provision of renewable energy in a manner that ensures appropriate siting and design consideration are met.”; Clause 19.03-2 Water supply, sewerage and drainage: The objective of this clause indicated the need to “plan for the provision of water supply, sewerage and drainage services that efficiently and effectively meet State and community needs to protect the environment”; and Clause 19.03-3 Stormwater: The objective of this policy is “to reduce the impact of stormwater on bays and catchment”.

 

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

Council Priority                    Environmental Sustainability

Future Direction                   Living sustainably

Theme                                   Sustainable city

Strategic Objective              We promote sustainable development for housing, transport, public buildings and open spaces

 

The proposed ESD policy will assist in the achievement of this objective by ensuring new development captured by the policy meets the relevant environmental design standards to minimise the consequences of climate shocks and stresses that impact Council and the broader community.

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 City of Whittlesea is committed to making the City a more sustainable place to live and work. Critical to achieving this is ensuring that new development meets appropriate environmental design standards.

Proposed Amendment C224 will introduce a new Environmentally Sustainable Development Policy, together with other minor consequential changes to the Municipal Strategic Statement and Schedule 1 to the Activity Centre Zone (Epping Central Metropolitan Activity Centre). 

The new policy will ensure best practice environmentally sustainable design initiatives are considered from the design stage of a building and throughout its construction and ongoing management. This has the benefit for occupants in terms of cost savings on utilities, a healthier indoor environment and reduced impact on the environment.

The proposed policy is consistent with the ten other existing ESD policies that have been tested in planning panels. It builds on a large body of work already undertaken at the local and state level to improve the integration of ESD into the planning system.

Most importantly, the policy will serve to protect the community from rising utilities costs and build a more resilient, secure and sustainable community.

Council officers have undertaken significant analysis to ensure that the thresholds contained within the policy are equitable, efficient and appropriate.

An opportunity now exists for the City of Whittlesea to join four other Councils in a group council Amendment to introduce a new ESD policy, and to request that the Minister for Planning approve a 20(4) Amendment process that will exempt the Amendment from formal notification processes.

It is recommended that Council resolve to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to formally commence Amendment C224 to introduce the new ESD policy, as detailed in Attachment 1 this report, together with other consequential changes to the Municipal Strategic Statement and Schedule 1 to the Activity Centre Zone (Epping Central Metropolitan Activity Centre) in the Scheme to accommodate the policy.

 

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to:

1.       Obtain Authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit Amendment C224 to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme under Section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, as detailed in Attachment 1 of this report, together with other consequential changes to the Municipal Strategic Statement and Schedule 1 to the Activity Centre Zone (Epping Central Metropolitan Activity Centre) in the Scheme to accommodate the policy.

2.       If 1. Above is NOT supported by the Minister for Planning, seek Authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit an Amendment to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.

3.       Advise DELWP that it is Council’s preference that the Amendment be undertaken as one concurrent amendment process with other councils currently proposing the same Amendment.

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Joseph

Seconded:               Cr Kozmevski

 

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

Carried

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                               Tuesday 6 February 2018

 

6.1.6    Planning Scheme Amendment C223 - Child Care Centre Local Planning Policy - Authorisation

File No:                                  195242

Attachments:                        1        Draft Child Care Centre Policy   

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Senior Strategic Policy Planner   

 

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY

THAT Council resolve to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to formally commence Planning Scheme Amendment C223 to update Clause 22.05: Child Care Centre Local Planning Policy of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, as detailed in Attachment 1 of this report.

KEY FACTS AND / OR ISSUES

·    Amendment C223 proposes to replace the existing Clause 22.05 Child Care Centre Local Planning Policy of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme with an updated policy.

 

·    There is a perception that as a growth area, there is a demand for child care centres, which has led to many speculative applications in inappropriate locations and an oversupply in child care places in the municipality.

 

·    This has resulted in a substantial increase in the number of planning applications for child care centres, in both the established suburbs and the growth areas.

 

·    The current policy is dated and lacks the guidance necessary to assist in the preparation and assessment of these applications.

 

·    The proposed updated policy outlines Council’s expectations regarding the location and design of child care centres, in particular it seeks to address: the need for the centre in the location proposed, preferred location and appropriate co-location options, improved built form outcomes, pedestrian and vehicular accessibility, waste collection, and off-site amenity impacts.

 

·    Notwithstanding concerns regarding an oversupply, the policy provides for flexibility and discretion to be applied where a proposed child care centre is located in or adjacent to an activity centre or sited on a collector road that avoids extra generation of traffic on residential streets.

 

·    A Local Planning Policy only applies in instances when a planning permit application is already required by the Planning Scheme. The policy will not place additional permit requirements on applicants. Its sole purpose is to guide decision making when considering a planning permit application.

 

·    It is recommended that authorisation is sought from the Minister for Planning to commence the amendment exhibition process.


 

Report

Background

The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to commence Planning Scheme Amendment C223 to replace Clause 22.05 Child Care Centre Local Planning Policy of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme with an updated policy.

Council has an existing Child Care Centre (CCC) Local Planning Policy (LPP) at Clause 22.05 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme (WPS).  The current policy comprises limited policy content and is over 15 years old.

The municipality is experiencing a substantial increase in the number of child care centre proposals, both in the established suburbs and the growth areas. This increase has raised concerns that proposals are often speculative, sought in inappropriate locations and contain flawed siting and design responses. The key concerns are summarised below:

·        The number of CCC’s exceeds the level of demand in many areas of the municipality;

·        Inappropriate co-location proposals e.g. next to service stations, convenience restaurants  or car washes;

·        Locating centres on roads with very high traffic volumes, raising safety concerns;

·        Poor designs that make these often large centres look like oversized dwellings, leaving insufficient space for the provision of car parking;

·        Designs that provide poor solar access to playspaces; and

·        Proposals that do not adequately consider waste management and collection in their design.

The current policy requires additional guidance to adequately address or provide a framework to respond to these issues.

An internal Working Group was established with cross-Council representation to identify and workshop the issues to inform the drafting of the revised policy. 

A Local Planning Policy only applies in instances where a planning permit application is already required by the Planning Scheme. Its sole purpose is to guide decision making when considering a planning permit application. 

This report was presented to Council 18 December 2017 at which time it was resolved “THAT Council resolve to defer the item to a subsequent meeting”.

A copy of the revised policy is included in Attachment 1 to this report.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of Amendment C223 is to update the existing Clause 22.05 CCC Policy which has been developed in accordance with the State Government planning practice note ‘Writing a Local Planning Policy (PPN08)’, and in consultation with the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP).  The policy comprises the following sections: policy application, policy basis, objectives, specific policy provisions, decision guidelines and reference documents.

The policy outlines the City of Whittlesea local context and the need for the policy. This includes a rapidly increasing population, in conjunction with unprecedented numbers of applications, where supply greatly exceeds demand. It also highlights the need for the location and built form outcomes of CCC’s to make a positive contribution to the community in order to satisfy broader land use and development objectives for the municipality. 

The policy sets out what Council is trying to achieve to address the issues arising from current CCC applications.  In particular, it seeks to ensure proposals:

·        Satisfy a demonstrated need for the local community;

·        Prioritise Activity Centre or appropriate non-residential/community hub locations;

·        Discourage locations near roads with, or planned to have, high traffic volumes;

·        Ensure the siting and design of centres positively contribute to the appearance of the surrounding context;

·        Provide separation of pedestrian and vehicular/waste collection access and movement through the site; and

·        Ensure CCC’s safeguard residential amenity.

Decision guidelines are included to highlight the criteria Council officers will review any proposal against, when considering CCC applications. The criteria reinforce the content contained in the revised policy. Relevant supporting documents are listed as reference documents in the policy to assist when preparing and/or deciding on a proposal.

Practical implementation of the policy

The policy will apply to all CCC applications proposed in the municipality, and only where a planning permit is already required by the WPS. This includes CCC’s in both the established and the establishing areas of the municipality, as well as both private sector and Council facilities (i.e. kindergartens providing sessional programs). The policy itself will not trigger for the need for a permit. The proposed policy will provide guidance for applicants in understanding Council’s expectations for the location and design outcomes for CCC’s.

Key elements of the policy

Key elements of the revised policy are discussed below.  

Need and preferred location

The foremost concern with proposals being received by Council is that they are in inappropriate locations, including in areas that are already well serviced by CCC’s.  Further, many are proposed to be co-located with inappropriate non-residential uses, and/or are sought on roads that carry very high traffic volumes. CCC’s in inappropriate locations do not meet wider land use and community building objectives, as identified within the Council Plan and various State and Local Planning Policy directives. 

To address this, the policy encourages applicants to:

·    Demonstrate that a need for the CCC exists for the local community in the location sought. This will ensure the viable operation of the proposed application and avoid poor community outcomes. It is important to note that need is different to competition, which is not a valid planning consideration under the Planning and Environment Act;

·    Locate the CCC in an Activity Centre or identified non-residential/ community use location or hub well serviced by public transport, bicycle and pedestrian networks. Proposals are encouraged to locate within a 400m walkable distance of an Activity Centre or recognised cluster of community uses, and within 200m walkable distance of an existing or future planned public transport stop or train station. Both distances are to be measured by the shortest route reasonably accessible by foot;

·    Child care centres are encouraged on a suitable scale of road, in particular collector roads are preferred over arterial roads or local streets. Associated traffic is not compatible with a local street environment, while traffic volumes and speeds on higher order roads (collector roads) do not provide a safe environment for parents with small children. Positioning on a collector road provides a safer environment for vehicles, adults and children when accessing and exiting a site. This reflects the Department of Education’s position to not support new schools on arterial roads. It is noted that Vic Roads also limit property access to arterial roads to maintain safety and traffic flow; and

·    Non-compatible co-location options are identified and include uses such as service stations, car washes and convenience restaurants.

Siting and design

Built form and siting outcomes are also key concerns with many current CCC applications.  Car parking is usually provided at the front of the site, requiring the CCC building to be set back behind the car parking. This often results in building setbacks and built form that is out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood, particularly when sought as a stand-alone proposal and/or located in residential areas. These setbacks also limit opportunities for passive surveillance and connection with the street. With CCCs becoming larger enterprises, and with the abovementioned Activity Centre/co-location outcomes sought, CCC’s should encompass a design response that better reflects their non-residential, essential community use purpose.

Urban design principles are incorporated into the policy to overcome these concerns. They promote the non-residential/community support role provided by CCCs and enhance the presentation of the building within its setting, as well as the overall appearance of the municipality. These include:

·    Adopting front setbacks consistent with surrounding front setbacks and locating car parking areas at the side or rear of the building or within an undercroft;

·    Providing building entries that address the street, are easily recognisable and are a design feature of the building;

·    Providing well designed and interesting facades that use a variety of quality finish materials, (including transparent glazing), materials that age well and positively contribute to the character of the surrounding neighbourhood;

·    Avoiding high and solid front fencing treatments;

·    Encouraging front fencing treatments that integrate with the overall design and presentation of the CCC building;

·    Seeking a ‘statement’ built form response for centres on corner sites; and

·    Seeking a variety of quality landscaped outcomes, improved solar access to play spaces, north facing where practicable, with natural shade options.

Pedestrian and vehicular accessibility

Given the nature of CCCs, that very young children and vehicles need to access and exit the site, car parking areas and the building safely, the policy provides guidance on how these areas should be designed and presented on-site. Pedestrian movement throughout a site is encouraged to be prioritised. 

Waste collection

Waste collection, in particular, is often an afterthought for many proposals.  Most centres rely on private collection services. It is Council policy that private services cannot collect from the kerb, instead waste must be collected from within the site. As collection requirements have usually not been considered, the only area available for collection on-site is usually in the car parking area. This causes obvious conflicts especially during peak pick-up and drop-off times. To address this, the policy encourages waste collection areas to be appropriately located in a manner which facilitates the collection vehicle entering and leaving the site in a forward direction to minimise vehicular and pedestrian conflict.

Off-site amenity impacts

Safeguarding the amenity of residential properties is important, particularly in the establishing areas covered by Development Plans (DPs) and Precinct Structure Plans (PSPs), where CCC proposals are usually exempt from Public Notification.  Common amenity concerns with CCC’s include visual impacts, overlooking, noise and location of playspaces, odour from waste storage areas and traffic impacts.

The policy supports the sensitive siting and design of proposals that include locating storage areas and playspaces away from sensitive residential spaces, to limit noise impacts. It also seeks to ensure appropriate provision is made for waste collection facilities to minimise their negative impacts both on and off site in terms of noise and vehicle movement/access.

Consultation

Extensive internal consultation has been undertaken to inform development of the policy, including a cross-Council Working Group with representatives from a range of departments. 

Officers have also consulted DELWP on the content of the proposed LPP. The key issue has been in fitting in with the content and style requirements of DELWP. There has been ongoing discussion to refine the drafting of the policy, which has informed this final version.

Critical Dates

If authorisation from the Minister for Planning is granted, it is likely that exhibition of the Amendment will commence in March for 4 weeks.

Council officers will report to Council on the results of the exhibition process. If submissions are received and remain unresolved, then Council Officers will request a Planning Panel Hearing be established.

Financial Implications

Minor fees will be incurred as part of the normal Planning Scheme Amendment process.  No other significant financial impost is expected to Council.


 

Policy strategy and legislation

The development of the policy is supported by the following:

State Planning Policy Framework

The following sections of the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) support the policy:

·    Clause 11 Settlement – that land use planning recognises and contributes towards a high standard of urban design and amenity, accessibility and land use and transport integration.

·    Clause 11.03-2 Activity centre planning – which seeks to encourage the concentration of uses into activity centres that provide a variety of land uses that are highly accessible to the community and that meet local needs.

·    Clause 15.01-1 Urban design and Clause 15.01-2 Urban design principles – whereby planning should achieve high quality urban design and architectural outcomes that contribute positively to local urban character and sense of place, and minimises detrimental impacts on neighbouring properties.

Local Planning Policy Framework

The following clauses of the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) support the policy:

·    Clause 21.04-1 Activity Centre Planning – seeks to incorporate a mix of retail, commercial and community facilities within an activated street based environment.

·    Clause 21.08-1 Urban Design, which seeks to utilise urban design principles to inform built form outcomes including:

Ø To utilise urban design principles to support built outcomes which encourage connection to place and the community,

Ø To avoid visually dominant car parks in new developments,

Ø To create walkable neighbourhoods defined by a 400-800m walk to facilities.

·    Clause 21.12 Infrastructure – builds on Clauses 21.04-1 & 21.04-2 to co-locate community based facilities and maximise beneficial relationships between compatible uses, including to:

Ø Co-locate facilities close to other community assets including retail precincts, arts facilities and libraries to maximise accessibility and convenience to users.

Ø Develop hubs and precincts with the aim of facilitating an integrated service provision.

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

Council Priority                    Planning and Infrastructure

Future Direction                   Places and spaces to connect people

Theme                                   Planning our space

Strategic Objective              Urban design helps build our connection to place, the natural environment and the community

The revised policy builds on objectives in the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) of the WPS, which seek to utilise urban design principles to inform built form outcomes. This is relevant for non-residential buildings, including CCC’s, to help build a connection to place.

Council Priority                    Planning and Infrastructure

Future Direction                             Places and spaces to connect people

Theme                                    Built environment

Strategic Objectives                      Our neighbourhoods are designed to be well-connected and create cohesive communities

The CCC Policy builds on the MSS objectives supporting co-location of retail, commercial and community uses in a walkable catchment and connected to public transport.

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 revised Child Care Centre Policy is a substantial and extensive update of the current policy. It will enable officers to more effectively implement wider ranging land use and planning objectives for the municipality. The updated policy clearly sets out Council’s expectations for proposals and provides greater guidance regarding the development of child care centres.

The revised policy has undergone a widespread consultation process with internal stakeholders and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. All parties support the policy update.

It is recommended that Council resolve to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to formally prepare and exhibit Amendment C223 to update Clause 22.05: Child Care Centre Local Planning Policy of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, as detailed in Attachment1 of this report.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to formally commence Planning Scheme Amendment C223 to update Clause 22.05: Child Care Centre Local Planning Policy of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, as detailed in Attachment 1 of this report.

 Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Kelly

Seconded:               Cr Monteleone

 

THAT Council resolve to defer this item to a subsequent meeting.

Carried


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                               Tuesday 6 February 2018

 

6.1.7    Planning Scheme Amendment C217 - Rezoning Authorisation - 100 Cravens Road, Mernda.

File No:                                  195051

Attachments:                        1        Attachment 1- Context Plan

2        Attachment 2- Subject Site   

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Senior Strategic Planner   

 

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY

The report recommends that Council resolve to:

1.       Seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit an amendment to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme under Section 20(2) of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), to rezone land at 100 Cravens Road, Mernda, to General Residential Zone and apply the Development Overlay Schedule 27 and the Vegetation Protection Overlay and remove the Significant Landscape Overlay from the property. 

2.       Advise the affected stakeholders of the above and any decisions of the Minister for Planning.

KEY FACTS AND / OR ISSUES

The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval to request authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit a Planning Scheme Amendment to rezone the entire property at 100 Cravens Road, Mernda from the Rural Conservation Zone to a General Residential Zone.

·        The subject site was brought into the Urban Growth Boundary in 2009.

 

·        The proposed rezoning is in line with the implementation of the Quarry Hills Regional Parkland land assembly.

 

·        A Heritage Overlay protecting the existing dwelling was applied to the site in 2015. This will be protected as part of any future development of the land.

 

·        The landowner has entered into a Section 173 Agreement with Council for the payment of the Growth Area Infrastructure Contribution, and local Developer Contributions.

 

·        It is now appropriate for the planning scheme amendment process to be commenced for the land to be rezoned for urban development and for the relevant overlays to be applied consistent with surrounding land which is currently being developed.

 

·        Given the procedural nature of the amendment it is considered appropriate to seek an exemption from some of the notification requirements under Section 20(2) of the Planning and Environment Act.


 

Report

background

This proposal is part of the on-going strategic framework associated with the Quarry Hills Regional Parkland and the Mernda West Precinct (Attachment 1).

The site was included in the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) as part of Amendment VC68 in 2009. As part of this amendment, the UGB was shifted however, the underlying zoning remained ‘non-urban’. This approach was implemented to ensure that agreements were entered into for the transfer of land into the Quarry Hills Regional Parkland and the payment of the requisite development contributions, as a requisite for any rezoning for residential purposes.

The property at 100 Cravens Road, Mernda, is located within the Quarry Hills Regional Parkland interest area and the whole site was brought into the Urban Growth Boundary in 2009 (Attachment 2). No land within this site is required to be transferred into public ownership for the purposes of the Quarry Hills Regional Parkland.

However, an agreement was still required for the site, committing to the payment of relevant contributions/infrastructure payments. The landowners have recently signed this agreement and the rezoning of the site can now be advanced.

The proposed amendment will ensure consistency in the planning provisions applied to sites within the Mernda West Precinct, and allow for the development of land inside the Urban Growth Boundary in line with the Mernda West Precinct and the strategic vision of the Quarry Hills Regional Parkland.

SUBJECT SITE

100 Cravens Road, Mernda (Attachment 2) is approximately 4 hectares in size and is currently occupied by a single residential dwelling, and a series of outbuildings.

The site is currently zoned Rural Conservation 1 (RCZ1) and is affected by Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO2). The dwelling on the site is affected by the Heritage Overlay Schedule 19 (HO19).

Land to the north, south, east and west of the subject site have been developed with conventional residential development.

No part of the land is required to be transferred into public ownership as part of the Quarry Hills Regional Parkland project.

The proposed Amendment seeks to:

·    Rezone the property to a General Residential Zone from the Rural Conservation Zone.

·    Apply a Development Plan Overlay (Schedule 27) and a Vegetation Protection Overlay to the property.

·    Remove the Significant Landscape Overlay from the site as the Development Plan Overlay and the Vegetation Protection Overlay are the more relevant controls to apply to land which is likely to be the subject of development proposals.

This will bring the subject site proposed for rezoning into line with the planning framework applied to the rest of the Mernda Strategy Plan area.

PROPOSAL

The proposed rezoning is the first step in facilitating the future development of the parcel. Detailed planning of the site will then be required to be undertaken prior to any application to subdivide the land. The application of the Development Plan Overlay (Schedule 27) will provide the framework under which the site will be required to be developed.

As well as rezoning the subject land within the UGB to a General Residential Zone, the amendment also seeks to apply a Development Plan Overlay Schedule 27 and a Vegetation Protection Overlay to the subject site. This will bring these parcels into line with the planning framework applied to the rest of the Mernda Strategy Plan area.

The proposed amendment will also remove the Significant Landscape Overlay from the subject sites as the Development Plan Overlay and the Vegetation Protection Overlay are the more relevant controls to apply to land which is likely to be the subject of development proposals.

The Vegetation Protection Overlay in particular is able to ensure that adequate regard is given to the preservation of remnant vegetation in a development context. The statutory controls proposed are consistent with the controls applying to the development areas which adjoin the subject sites.

No changes are proposed to be made to the Heritage Overlay that applies to the subject site. The Heritage Overlay (HO119) was applied to a portion of 100 Cravens Road in 2015 in order to provide protection for a mid-1800s Victorian farm residence located at the property. The future planning and design undertaken for the site will be required to meet all of the requirements of HO119.  

It is important to note that given the site is already located within the UGB, the State Government has already strategically supported the concept of rezoning this parcel for urban development. The site represents a logical extension to the existing Development Plan areas.

NOTIFICATION

When considering the most appropriate course of action for notification, it is important to recognise the consultation that has been undertaken to date. In this instance, the landowner of 100 Cravens Road, Mernda, has regularly discussed the proposal with Council. This has culminated in the drafting and finalisation of Section 173 Agreements between the landowner and Council.

Further to this, the subject landowner and surrounding properties have been included in several review processes associated with State Government Urban Growth Boundary Reviews. It is also noted that all of the properties surrounding 100 Cravens Road have been through the same process as is proposed in this amendment and are currently being developed.

Given this amendment is the technical implementation of a long standing strategic approach, it is considered that a full amendment process is unnecessary. As such, it is considered appropriate to request that the amendment be undertaken using the provisions of Section 20(2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The provisions of Section 20(2) allow the Planning Minister to grant an exemption from the requirements relating to giving notice of an amendment (except for those notice requirements for any Minister as listed within the Regulations which cannot be exempted).

DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS

As previously noted, the landowner of 100 Cravens Road has entered into a Section 173 Agreement with Council committing to the payment of the requisite Development Contributions and Growth Area Infrastructure Contributions.

Policy strategy and legislation

While not required to transfer any land to Council for the purposes of the Quarry Hills Regional Parkland (QHRP), the subject site is located within the Quarry Hills Regional Parkland interest area and as such the policy and legislation associated with the project are still relevant to the proposal. 

The Quarry Hills Bushland Park Master Plan was approved by Council in 2010. This Master Plan provides the framework for the future development and expansion of the parkland, identifying sites which are likely to come into Council ownership in the short to medium term and outlines the design parameters for the development of parkland facilities including visitor nodes, walking trails and parkland interface treatments.

The QHRP are also referenced in the following Council strategies:

·        South Morang Local Structure Plan (1997);

·        Open Space Strategy (1997) and current draft Open Space Strategy;

·        Green Wedge Management Plan (2011); and

·        The Environmental Sustainability Strategy (2013).

As a result of Council’s submissions to the State Government and continued advocacy, the State Government and its agencies have formally recognised the significant opportunity that the Quarry Hills present for a regional parkland, and inter urban break within a wider linear network of open space. The Quarry Hills Regional Parkland has been recognised by the State Government through the Melbourne 2030 (previous metropolitan planning strategy) Smart Growth Committee, where funding was provided for technical reports to support the project. It is also identified within the current metropolitan planning strategy, Plan Melbourne and as part of the State Government’s Northern Growth Corridor Plan.

 

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

Council Priority                    Planning and Infrastructure

Future Direction                   Places and spaces to connect people

Theme                                   Planning our space

Strategic Objective              Urban design helps build our connection to place, the natural environment and the community

 

The proposed amendment will contribute toward the strategic objective of the Council Plan to use Urban Design in order to build connection to place and the community by enabling the strategic aims of the Quarry Hills Bushland Park Master Plan to be achieved. It will also contribute towards the strategic objective to establish the Quarry Hills Regional Parkland through the securing of additional land outside of the Urban Growth Boundary.

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 proposed amendment will facilitate the development of land located inside the Urban Growth Boundary in line with the existing and future plans for the Mernda West Precinct and the Quarry Hills Regional Parkland.

The planning controls which will be applied to the subject site as part of the proposed amendment are the most appropriate controls to guide the future planning of the land within the subject area. This will allow for Council to ensure that any residential development is well designed, and provides for a careful interface to the open space and to adjoining development in the Mernda West area.

The proposal for the amendment to be considered under Section 20(2) of the Planning an Environment Act, without the full public exhibition process is considered to be appropriate as there has already been significant consultation regarding, and implementation of, the proposed strategic framework forming part of this amendment across the Quarry Hills Parkland interest area. The development contribution and infrastructure agreement, which is a pre-requisite for advancement of the planning scheme amendment has been signed.

 

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to:

1.       Seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit an amendment to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme under Section 20(2) of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), to rezone land at 100 Cravens Road, Mernda, to General Residential Zone and apply the Development Overlay Schedule 27 and the Vegetation Protection Overlay and remove the Significant Landscape Overlay from the property;

2.       Seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit the amendment to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme via a full amendment process in accordance with the Planning and Environment Act (1987), should the Minister for Planning not consent to exhibition of the amendment under 20(2) of the Planning and Environment Act (1987); and

3.       Advise the affected stakeholders of the above and any decisions of the Minister for Planning.

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Joseph

Seconded:               Cr Sterjova

 

THAT Council resolve to

1.       Prepare a site specific Development Plan Overlay that provides design direction for the protection and integration of the Heritage Dwelling and curtilage into any future subdivision proposed for the subject site;

2.       Seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit an amendment to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme under Section 20(2) of the Planning and Environment Act (1987), to rezone land at 100 Cravens Road, Mernda, to General Residential Zone and apply a site specific Development Overlay Schedule and the Vegetation Protection Overlay and remove the Significant Landscape Overlay from the property;

3.       Seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit the amendment to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme via a full amendment process in accordance with the Planning and Environment Act (1987), should the Minister for Planning not consent to exhibition of the amendment under 20(2) of the Planning and Environment Act (1987); and

4.       Advise the affected stakeholders of the above and any decisions of the Minister for Planning.

Carried

 Division

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

 

For

Cr Pavlidis

Cr Kozmevski

Cr Alessi

Cr Cox

Cr Sterjova

Cr Joseph

Against

Cr Kirkham

Cr Kelly

Cr Lalios

Cr Monteleone

Cr Desiato

Abstained

Nil

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

carried


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                               Tuesday 6 February 2018

 

6.1.8    345W Plenty road, mill park - buildings and works within the heritage overlay and the removal of vegetation

File No:                                  716884

Attachments:                        1        Locality Maps

2        Development Plans

3        Tree photos   

Responsible Officer:           Director Planning & Major Projects

Author:                                  Planning Officer    

APPLICANT:                                  VicRoads

COUNCIL POLICY:              22.04 Heritage Conservation Policy

ZONING:                               General Residential Zone

OVERLAY:                            Development Contributions Plan Overlay

Heritage Overlay

REFERRAL:                          Nil

OBJECTIONS:                     One  

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY

THAT Council resolve to approve Planning Application No. 716884 and issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for Buildings and Works within the Heritage Overlay and the Removal of Vegetation subject to conditions.

KEY FACTS AND / OR ISSUES

·    An application has been lodged by VicRoads to remove nine trees and to carry out works within the Council-owned tree reserve along Plenty Road in Mill Park, to facilitate a Shared User Path and the upgrade of Plenty Road from four to six lanes between McKimmies Road and Bush Boulevard.

 

·    The project is to commence in early February 2018 to be completed by the end of December 2018.

 

·    The application was advertised, which resulted in one objection being received.  The concerns raised were related to the loss of amenity associated with the tree removal and traffic noise associated with Plenty Road.

 

·    Although planning provisions strongly encourage the retention of trees within a heritage overlay, the removal of the trees and carrying out of works are necessary to accommodate critical infrastructure to service the City’s growing population.

 

·    Engineering and design options to retain all of the trees are not considered feasible and would result in the project being unviable, as well as posing an unacceptable safety risk to users.

·    Tree removal has been minimised to the extent possible with only nine trees proposed for removal out of around 100 trees existing on the land affected by the Heritage Overlay ensuring at least a 90% retention rate has been achieved.

 

·    The proposal demonstrates a satisfactory level of compliance with the relevant provisions of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme without significantly impacting on the historical significance, whilst appropriate compensatory planting will be required as a condition.


 

Report

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

The trees for removal and proposed works are located within the Council-owned tree reserve at 345W Plenty Road, Mill Park located immediately north of the Childs Road intersection (see Attachment 1).  The Council reserve contains over 100 trees and is affected by the Heritage Overlay acknowledging the trees origin as part of the Mill Park estate.  Land to the west of the Council reserve forms part of the established Mill Park residential area with existing dwellings backing on to the Council reserve.

Proposal

The application is for the removal of nine trees located within the existing Council-owned tree reserve and works associated with the Council initiated Shared User Path (see Attachment 1).

Tree Removals

The removal of trees is required to accommodate the upgrading of Plenty Road from a four lane to six lane divided arterial road along with a new signalised intersection at Mayfield drive, a new mid-block signalised pedestrian crossing between Childs Road and Centenary Drive, and the upgrade of four existing signalised intersections, as well as the aforementioned Shared User Path project initiated by Council.

The subject trees have been assessed by a consulting arborist appointed by VicRoads (Greenwood Consulting).  Details of the trees for removal are provided below (extracted from section 3.1.1 of the applicant’s submitted report prepared by WSP 14 August 2017). Please see Attachment 3 for a photo of each tree. 

Tree Number

Assessment

Tree #438:

This is a quercus, species robur. The retention value of this tree is “moderate”, meaning it is considered to be of moderate value to the site. It has been assessed that the construction impact to this tree is “moderate”.

Further to the arborist assessment, the road design has since progressed and now includes a safety guard rail approximately 2.3m away, hence removal is required.

Tree #454

This is a quercus, species robur. The retention value of this tree is “moderate”, meaning it is considered to be of moderate value to the site. It has been assessed that the construction impact to this tree is “moderate”.

Further to the arborist assessment, the design has since progressed and now includes a safety guard rail approximately 2.3m away, hence removal is required.

Tree #465

This is an ulmus, species procera. The retention value of this tree is “moderate”, meaning it is considered to be of moderate value to the site. It has been assessed that the construction impact to this tree is “moderate”.

Further to the arborist assessment, the road design has since progressed and now includes a safety guard rail approximately 2.3m away, hence removal is required.

Tree #489

This is a eucalyptus species. The retention value of this tree is “high”, meaning it is considered to be of high value to the site. It has been assessed that the construction impact to this tree is “high”.

Further to the arborist assessment, the road design has since progressed and is within close proximity (under three metres) to the Structural Root Zone (SRZ) of this tree, hence removal is required.

Refer to the Public Notification section of the report below.

Tree #529

This is a eucalyptus, species leucoxylon. The retention value of this tree is “high”, meaning it is considered to be of high value to the site. It has been assessed that the construction impact to this tree is “high”, indicating that construction intrusion is excessive and tree retention is not possible within the development as currently proposed, and hence it is recommended for removal.

Tree #552

This is a eucalyptus, species cladocalyx. The retention value of this tree is “moderate”, meaning it is considered to be of moderate value to the site. It has been assessed that the construction impact to this tree is “high”, indicating that construction intrusion is excessive and tree retention is not possible within the development as currently proposed, and hence it is recommended for removal.

Tree #569

This is a melaleuca, species armillaris. The retention value of this tree is “remove”, meaning it is considered to be of poor health and/or structure, with a short useful life expectancy. It has been assessed that the construction impact to this tree is moderate, and that removal should be at the discretion of the arborist on site, through visual investigation.

Further to the arborist assessment, the road design has since progressed and is directly intersecting the centre of the SRZ of this tree, hence removal is required.

Tree #582

 

This is a eucalyptus, species gomphocephala. This is a non-indigenous native tree that was planted as a street tree or for amenity purposes (non-remnant). The retention value of this tree is “low”, meaning it is considered to be of low value to the site. It has been assessed that the construction impact to this tree is low.

Further to the arborist assessment, the road design has since progressed and is intersecting the Structural Root Zone (SRZ) of this tree, hence removal is required.

Tree #640

 

The only tree to be removed in relation to the Shared User Path

 

This is a eucalyptus, species cladocalyx. The retention value of this tree is “moderate”, meaning it is considered to be of moderate value to the site. It has been assessed that the construction impact to this tree is “none”. This tree is required for removal as part of the Council Shared User Path project.

The works to be carried out have been designed to minimise the number of trees to be removed, with only those that cannot avoided remaining for removal. The tree protection zone and structural root zone characteristics of the subject trees have been documented in the arborist report.  The proposed works will occur substantially within these critical zones and for this reason the subject trees are not capable of retention.

Shared User Path

The proposed Shared User Path is to be 3.0m wide and is to be constructed on a 50mm crushed rock base and made of concrete pavement. The pavement is 125mm thick. A portion of the path passes through the Heritage Overlay (HO123) affected land.

Public Notification

VicRoads Consultation

Prior to the planning application being advertised, VicRoads undertook separate consultation with known family members of the victims from a past tragic car accident, which had occurred at this location.  A roadside memorial will be affected as one of the trees proposed for removal currently contains the memorial, refer to Tree #489 in the table above.

Additionally, VicRoads placed signage at the site for approximately one month to capture the views of anyone attending the memorial and have also indicated that they will replace the temporary memorial with a permanent plaque in accordance with their Roadside Memorial Policy.

Formal Advertising

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

1.       Loss of amenity associated with tree removal and vehicle noise.

PLANNING ASSESSMENT

The State Planning Policy Framework

Transport (Clause 18)

This policy emphasises the need to improve roads in developing outer suburban areas to cater for car, bicycle and public transport – with an emphasis on providing safe and efficient transport corridors. The proposal is for tree removal to facilitate a major road upgrade within the municipality, and therefore the proposal is considered to be consistent with this State policy.

Local Planning Policy Framework

Transport (Clause 21.11)

Objective 1 of Clause 21.11-1 ‘Integrated Transport’ is:

To establish an efficient, interconnected multi-modal transportation system which increases the level of accessibility and choice within and beyond the City of Whittlesea.

Strategy 1.5 of this Objective states (officer emphasis):

Support improvements to major north-south and east-west roads including Plenty Road widening, Epping Road widening, O’Herns Road widening, Findon Road extension and Bridge Inn Road widening and upgrade.

Objective 1 of Clause 21.11-2 ‘Sustainable Modes of Travel’ is:

To improve transport options and accessibility outcomes for residents.

The strategies of this Objective state:

Strategy 1.1 Provide a safe urban environment for walking through appropriate infrastructure and a built environment that encourages walking.

Strategy 1.2 Deliver walking paths and supporting infrastructure to improve access to activity centres, employment areas, schools, community facilities and public transport interchanges.

Strategy 1.3 Provide a safe urban environment that enables cycling to be a viable mode for a wide variety of trips in the municipality and to neighbouring municipalities.

Strategy 1.4 Deliver cycling paths and appropriate supporting infrastructure, such as signage and bicycle parking, in key locations across the cycling network.

As the proposal is to allow for tree removal to facilitate the expansion of a major road within the municipality and the construction of a Shared User Path, the proposal is considered to be consistent with these policies.


 

Heritage Conservation Policy (Clause 22.04)

Clause 22.04-4 of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme provides guidance when considering applications for tree removal and works within the public realm.  It is policy to:

Trees & Vegetation

·     Protect significant tree/s and vegetation from adjacent development and/or changes in immediate environmental conditions that may have a detrimental impact upon the integrity and visual context of significant tree/s and vegetation.

·     Protect the mature canopy of existing/re-established trees within the land containing the heritage place.

·     Require pruning (if required) to be in accordance with AS 4373 – 2007 ‘Pruning of Amenity Trees’.

·     Where significant or contributory trees need to be removed, support ‘like for like’ replacement of the tree/s that is significant or is a contributory element to a heritage place unless an alternative planting strategy has been approved by Council. An alternative species of tree, or no replacement, may be considered when:

-     Changes in the site conditions since the species was first planted mean that the original species is no longer appropriate.

-    The original species is inappropriate given the local climate, soils or other reasons and an alternative would be more suited.

-    The species is identified as an environmental weed and cannot be appropriately managed when planted.

-    The species is at risk from pest or disease and another species would be more appropriate.

Public Realm

·     Retain contributory heritage elements within the public realm.

·     Discourage changes to the shape and position of roads and footpaths if these are contributory elements of a heritage place or precinct.

·     Discourage the replacement of medians or tree planting that would interrupt important vistas or create a visual intrusion on streetscapes.

·     Support the location of services away from sensitive public realm elements.

·     Require that existing conditions are recorded and, where possible, reinstated where the replacement of services requires the removal of any contributory elements in the public realm.

Zonings and Overlays

General Residential Zone (Clause 32.08)

Planning approval is not required for tree removal or construction of the path or road within this zone.


 

Heritage Overlay, Schedule 123 (Clause 43.01)

A permit is required to:

·    Construct a building or carry our works, including bicycle pathways and trails.

·    Remove, destroy or lop a tree if the schedule to the overlay identifies the heritage place as one where tree controls apply.

A portion of the works associated with the Shared User Path will be located within the Heritage Overlay (HO123). Pursuant to Clause 43.01-1 within the Whittlesea Planning Scheme, a permit is required to carry out works within the overlay, including bicycle pathways and trails. Hence, a planning permit is required to construct the Shared User Path within this overlay.

The Heritage Overlay (HO123) is specified in the Whittlesea Planning Scheme as a schedule with tree controls and is related to the ‘Avenue of Trees – gums, oaks, pines’.

The City of Whittlesea Heritage Study prepared by Meredith Gould Architects Pty Ltd 1990 gave it a ‘C’ grading for local significance and recommended Planning Scheme Protection. The notable features are documented as follows:

‘Avenue of Tree – Gums & Oaks’ 8.06

Part of Mill Park Farm. Whittlesea Historical Society was formed to save these oak trees.

‘Oak Avenue’ 9.06

This avenue is believed to be part of the plantings of the Mill Park estate and a prominent landmark in the Plenty Road corridor. It illustrates the earlier rural context of this region and the large Mill Park estate. The local historical society was instrumental in preventing the removal of these trees during the major roadworks for the Mill Park residential subdivision.

Discussion

The applicant has recognised the significance of the subject trees, which has informed the design of the road works. This has manifested in nine trees needing to be removed from around 100 existing trees within the parcel of land.  As detailed within the plans, the majority of trees within the entire reserve are to be retained, thus preserving the values and characteristics of the Heritage Place that contributes towards the amenity of the immediate area. 

The loss of nine trees within the entire reserve is considered to be minimal and an acceptable outcome to allow for the construction of a Shared User Path and major arterial road upgrade that services the municipality and the broader (northern) area of metropolitan Melbourne.  Compensatory planting will be required as a condition of any permit to ensure the stand of trees maintains its presence and continues to contribute to the historical significance of the Mill Park estate. 

The proposal is considered to be consistent with the State and Local planning policies for improved transport networks and infrastructure. The proposal is considered to have long-term net community benefits without significantly impacting on the heritage significance and has been appropriately located and designed.

Development Contributions Plan Overlay, Schedule 3 (Clause 45.06)

Pursuant to Item 4 of Schedule 3, the proposed works are exempt from the requirements of this Overlay.

Comments on Grounds of Objection

Loss of amenity

The concerns of this objection relate to the loss of trees and projected increase in traffic noise resulting in the perceived detrimental impacts on the amenity of the individual and the area of Mill Park.

Losing trees that contribute to the amenity of an area is always unfortunate and the applicant has endeavoured to avoid as many trees as possible to minimise the impact on the historical significance and amenity derived from those trees.  An extensive number of trees will be retained and compensatory planting to offset the loss of the nine trees will be required, ensuring the amenity associated with the collective of trees along this stretch of road is retained.

Any increase in noise from the projected increase in traffic due to the road upgrade is beyond the scope of this particular assessment which relates only to the impact on the historical significance associated with the tree removal and shared path construction.

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

VicRoads, as the responsible road authority, have requested the removal of a nine trees within a Council reserve, to facilitate the upgrade of Plenty Road, and works to allow for a Shared User Path.  The authority has demonstrated that the loss has been minimised, is unavoidable and necessary under the provisions of the Whittlesea Planning Scheme. Appropriate offsets will also be required to compensate for the impacts on the heritage place. Accordingly, it is recommended that a Notice of Decision of grant a Planning Permit be issued.

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to approve Planning Application No. 716884 and issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for Buildings and Works within the Heritage Overlay and the Removal of Vegetation in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions:

1.       Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, prior to the commencement of works, a tree protection plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.  The Plan must identify tree protection measures for any trees to be retained where works will be occurring within the canopy drip line, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

2.       Prior to the completion of works, the permit holder must prepare and submit a plan demonstrating the planting of a tree (at a semi-advanced state) at 345W Plenty Road, Mill Park, at a ratio of one to each tree removed, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

3.       The removal of the trees allowed by this permit and shown on the plans endorsed to accompany this permit shall not be amended for any reason without the consent of the Responsible Authority.

4.       The tree protection measures identified on the endorsed plans or described in the endorsed documents must be implemented prior to construction commencing and must be maintained at all times during construction to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

5.       Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority, replacement planting must be completed within 12 months of the completion of works.

6.       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. 

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

8.       At all times during the removal of the trees, the permit holder shall take measures to ensure that pedestrians are able to use with safety any footpath along the boundaries of the site.

9.       The removal and lopping of the trees allowed by this permit must be undertaken to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

10.     No other vegetation, other than that shown on the endorsed plan, shall be destroyed, felled, lopped, ring barked or uprooted, without the consent of the Responsible Authority.

11.     Upon completion of the removal of the tree 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.

12.     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.  All litter shall be completely removed from the site, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

13.     The amenity of the locality must not be adversely affected by the activity on the site, the appearance of any buildings, works or materials, emissions from the premises or in any other way, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

14.     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.

15.     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.

 

Cr Lalios left the meeting at 8.10pm prior to the vote on item 6.1.8 and returned to the meeting after a vote on this item was taken.

Cr Desiato left the meeting at 8.12pm prior to the vote on item 6.1.8 and returned to the meeting after a vote on this item was taken.

 

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Alessi

Seconded:               Cr Kozmevski

 

THAT Council resolve to adopt the Recommendation.

Carried

  


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                               Tuesday 6 February 2018

 

6.2       Community Services

6.2.1    Whittlesea Reconciliation Group - Terms of Reference

File No:                                  183271

Attachments:                        1        Whittlesea Reconcilation Group Terms of Reference   

Responsible Officer:           Director Community Services

Author:                                  Manager Community Cultural Development   

 

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY

That Council resolve to:

1.   Adopt the amendment to the Whittlesea Reconciliation Group’s Terms of Reference to read:

 “A quorum of three Aboriginal and three non-Aboriginal voting members is required for each meeting, to enable decisions to be made”.

2.   Notify the Whittlesea Reconciliation Group of Council’s decision.

KEY FACTS AND / OR ISSUES

This report seeks Council’s adoption of the amended Whittlesea Reconciliation Group’s (WRG) Terms of Reference.

At its meeting on 7 December 2017, the WRG amended the Terms of Reference to reduce the numbers required for a quorum. The amendment has reduced the quorum requirement from four Aboriginal and four non-Aboriginal voting members to three Aboriginal and three non-Aboriginal voting members. This amendment represents the only amendment to the Terms of Reference which were last updated by Council at its meeting 21 March 2017.

The Whittlesea Reconciliation Group is a community based group which was established in November 2001. The WRG is a key reference group for Council on the continuing reconciliation process and works to foster understanding of historical, cultural and contemporary issues by creating opportunities to increase understanding of Aboriginal people and Aboriginal culture and by bringing all people together to support reconciliation.

·    The group sets six ordinary meetings per annum. Additional meetings and planning sessions are scheduled as required.

·    The voting membership of the WRG is comprised of ten Aboriginal; eight non-Aboriginal and two Councillors, including the Mayor of the day.

·    Council officers provide secretariat support and are non-voting, ex-officio.

·    The previous quorum requirement of four Aboriginal and four non-Aboriginal voting members was not always achieved at meetings, and items for decision were being deferred to future meetings.

·    It was determined that a smaller quorum number would address this issue. A quorum of six will sufficiently represent the interests of the group as a whole and enable the group to make decisions as required thereby facilitating the successful functioning of the WRG.

Report

Background

As defined by Reconciliation Australia: Reconciliation is about building better relationships between the wider Australian community and Aboriginal peoples for the benefit of all Australians. 

Council, at its meeting on 28 August 2001, resolved to establish the Whittlesea Reconciliation Group (WRG) along with a Terms of Reference for the group.

On 17 September 2002, the City of Whittlesea adopted a Statement of Commitment to Reconciliation and the Indigenous (Aboriginal) Reconciliation Policy. In the intervening years Council has undertaken a number of significant initiatives including the adoption of Council’s first Reconciliation Action Plan (RAP) on 25 September 2012. Council’s first RAP was a significant milestone for Council and the local Aboriginal community. An updated Aboriginal Reconciliation Policy was adopted by Council at its meeting on 25 August 2015 and states:

The City of Whittlesea values local Aboriginal communities and cultures; Council recognises they hold a special place as the First Peoples of Australia. Council is committed to inclusivity, equity and engagement with local Aboriginal people and communities.

The purpose of the Policy is to commit to the process of reconciliation between Council and Aboriginal people living in the City of Whittlesea. The Policy affirms the rights Aboriginal people hold within the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 and Council’s Aboriginal Inclusion Charter.  One of the key objectives of the Policy is to provide ongoing support to the Whittlesea Reconciliation Group.

Most recently, Council adopted its Stretch Reconciliation Action Plan on 30 March 2017.

The WRG Terms of Reference were last updated by Council at its meeting on 21 March 2017.

Proposal

This report seeks Council’s endorsement of the amended Whittlesea Reconciliation Group’s Terms of Reference. The amendment stipulates that three Aboriginal and three non-Aboriginal voting members are required to make a quorum. No other amendments were made to the previous Terms of Reference.

Consultation

The Terms of Reference have been updated by the Whittlesea Reconciliation Group.

Critical Dates

The amended Terms of Reference to come into effect prior to the first WRG meeting scheduled for 2018 on Thursday 22 February 2018.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications associated to consideration of the Whittlesea Reconciliation Groups (updated) Terms of Reference.

Policy strategy and legislation

Shaping Our Future: Whittlesea 2030 Strategic Community Plan

The Community Plan details our community’s vision for the City of Whittlesea to the year 2030. It provides direction for the provision of key projects and services which enable us to meet the needs of our community and deliver quality and culturally appropriate services and facilities. It identifies seven Future Directions to achieve this vision. The Whittlesea Reconciliation Group directly supports Future Direction 1 – Inclusive and Engaged Community:

          Our City is diverse and that is its strength. People from many countries with different languages, faiths, and customs have made it their home. There are also urban and rural communities. When we are together we learn and grow through each other’s experiences. We build skills and capacity so everyone can fully engage and participate in community life. All voices are heard and decision making takes account of all views. Our inclusive, engaged community is resilient and strong.

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

Council Priority                    Health and Wellbeing

Future Direction                   Inclusive and engaged community

Theme                                   Social inclusion

Strategic Objective              We respect and promote our Aboriginal heritage and community

 

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

As a community-based group, the WRG is a critical group that both supports and facilitates reconciliation through the provision of operational advice and symbolic significance. Council is proud of the longevity, stability and accountability associated with the group. A reduction in voting members required for a quorum will assist the WRG to facilitate effective meetings and continue to be an important part of Council business for many years to come.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to:

1.       Adopt the amendment to the Whittlesea Reconciliation Group’s Terms of Reference to read:

 “A quorum of three Aboriginal and three non-Aboriginal voting members is required for each meeting, to enable decisions to be made”.

2.       Notify the Whittlesea Reconciliation Group of Council’s decision.

 Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Joseph

Seconded:               Cr Kozmevski

 

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

Carried


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                               Tuesday 6 February 2018

 

6.2.2    Youth Discount Card

File No:                                  160078

Attachments:                        1        Examples of youth information and discount cards   

Responsible Officer:           Director Community Services

Author:                                  Team Leader Youth Services   

 

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY

THAT Council:

1.       Not introduce a youth discount card, and continue to provide subsidised activities and events for young people through the provision of School Holiday Grab Bags.

2.       Note that further work will be undertaken to ensure effective use of online platforms and social media to maximise communication with young people and their families.

KEY FACTS AND / OR ISSUES

·        A majority of Councils consulted had previously offered a youth discount card but had discontinued providing one due to questions around effectiveness and appropriateness of discounts.

·        There are a number of existing options available to young people in the City of Whittlesea to access discounted activities and services, including the School Holiday Grab Bag initiative provided by Council.

·        Increasingly young people look to the internet as a trusted source to locate appropriate information and support pathways.

·        A mobile app is one tool for information provision and engagement that can be utilised. There are a number of different methods of delivery of such an app, each having different time, cost and resourcing implications for Council.


 

Report

introduction

At its meeting of 31 October 2017 Council considered Notice of Motion 832 and resolved to investigate and report back to Council on options for, and costs associated with, the development of a ‘youth discount card’, in either hard or electronic format.

Research and consultation with other Local Government Youth Services teams, selected on the basis of similar profile or because they currently, or have recently offered discount cards, considered:

·    Models of youth discount cards including costs.

·    Experience of discount cards in fulfilling the aims of providing discounts and service information to young people.

After consultation with seven Youth Services teams from other municipalities there is little evidence to support youth discount cards being the most effective way to provide relevant information to young people, nor is there consistent evidence of its effectiveness in providing appropriate discounts to young people.

Background

Youth information and discount cards have been used by many local Councils over time and serve a number of distinct purposes, including:

·    Providing young people with a list of locally available and relevant services, often with a focus on emergency/ crisis support.

·    Acting as a promotional tool to raise the profile of such services within the community and the programs/ activities these services provide for young people.

·    Entitling the card holder to discounts at a range of local businesses, usually food outlets and recreational activities.

Council’s Youth Services team, Baseline for Young People (Baseline) previously offered an information and discount card for young people however this was discontinued in 2012 due to a range of considerations including cost effectiveness, resourcing challenges of keeping information up to date, low uptake of discounts and the changing nature of the way that young people access information.

Research Findings

Council staff consulted with seven Local Government Youth Services teams including:

·    Hume City Council

·    Wyndham City Council

·    Mitchell Shire Council

·    Whitehorse City Council

·    City of Monash

·    Maroondah City Council

·    Knox City Council

The Cities of Hume, Wyndham and Mitchell Shire were selected based on being similar in profile to the City of Whittlesea, while the Cities of Whitehorse, Monash, Maroondah and Knox were selected because they currently offer, or have recently offered a youth discount card for young people.

Below is a table outlining the current status of each local government consulted in relation to youth information and discount cards:

 

Discount card

Information card

Hume City Council

×

×

Wyndham City Council

×

×

Shire of Mitchell

P

P

Whitehorse City Council

×

×

City of Monash

P

P

Maroondah City Council

×

×

Knox City Council

×

P

Examples of current and previous youth information and discount cards can be found in Attachment 1.

Councils that currently provide a youth discount card gave the following feedback:

·    The City of Monash spoke positively of the initiative and suggested that it was a “valuable way of promoting their service and providing information about relevant supports for young people”. The card is distributed through schools and they report a very high take up of the card. The City of Monash report that they continue to produce their card as it is requested, and funded in part by local schools with minimal cost to Council.

·    Mitchell Shire note challenges in measuring the effectiveness of such a card and stated that anecdotally, businesses reported a low number of young people actually utilising the discounts. They also reported challenges in ensuring that the discounts made available are aligned with Council’s broader health and wellbeing objectives. After several years of delivering this initiative, Mitchell Shire is in the process of re-developing the card.

·    The City of Knox provided a youth information card from 1997 until it was discontinued in 2012. Recently however, Council moved to redevelop this card as a means of information provision, without the inclusion of discounts for young people. Knox Youth Services is also exploring opportunities for updating existing websites to make them more user friendly and accessible on mobile devices. It is also tasked with reporting back to Council on the feasibility of a ‘Knox specific mobile app’ for young people.

Councils that no longer provide such a card identified the following reasons as key factors in their decision:

·    Uncertainty of effectiveness. Anecdotal information provided by local businesses led a number of Councils to believe that the discounts associated with the cards were often not being utilised.

·    Resourcing requirements. Councils consulted reported the cost for design, printing and promotion of 10,000 youth discount cards at approximately $4,500. In addition, there was approximately 1.5 weeks of full time work for a staff member initially, plus ongoing time commitment of four hours per week to update information and oversee the initiative.

·    Challenges of alignment with Council’s health and wellbeing goals. Traditionally cards provided discounts at fast-food outlets which do not align with the broader objectives of Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plans and other related Council strategies.

·    Changing user requirements. The changing nature of the way that young people access information means that they are much more likely to access information online, rather than through a traditional paper-based card.

Overwhelmingly, those consulted believed that the card was not the most effective way to distribute information to young people or promote their service, and there was uncertainty about the effectiveness and take up of the discounts.

Current discount options for young people in the City of Whittlesea

There are a number of ways that students and young people in the City of Whittlesea are currently entitled to discounted activities and products:

·    Secondary school students: A majority of secondary schools provide Student ID cards that can be utilised to access discounts at businesses both locally and across the state. A Victorian Student Pass is available through PTV to allow students access to unlimited travel on all train, tram and bus services within their chosen zones.

·    TAFE and University students are provided with ID cards and can access many of the same discounts as secondary students. Tertiary students are also entitled to a PTV Tertiary Student ID which allows them to travel on a concession rate MYKI within Victoria.

·    Young people receiving either a Newstart or Youth Allowance payment from Centrelink may also be eligible for a Health Care Card which entitles holders to discounted rates on items such as utility bills, school/ TAFE/ University fees and a range of other services similar in nature to the Student ID card.

·    An existing app and website developed by young people for young people called Student Edge, https://studentedge.org/. This website, and accompanying app, collects and promotes discounts available to young people across Australia. The app includes an interactive map feature to enable young people to search for specific discounts in their local area.

In addition to these externally provided discounts, the City of Whittlesea also provides access to discounted school holiday activities through the School Holiday Grab Bags initiative.
Annually, Baseline offers:

·    School Holiday Grab Bags for young people aged between 12 and 17 years who live in the City of Whittlesea and currently attend school. The cost (currently $21) is subsidised by Council and bags are sold for a minimal fee to ensure that families have access to a range of discounted recreational activities each school holiday period throughout the year, such as;

­  1 AMF Bowling pass

­  1 mini golf pass

­  1 Readings movie ticket

­  1 Centre pass for Mill Park Leisure/ TRAC

­  1 Go Karting pass (usually April and June holidays)

­  1 NRG Force pass (mini golf, laser tag, etc)

­  1 Funfields pass (December holidays)

­  1 Melbourne Show pass (September holidays)

·    A discount on the Grab Bag price for families holding Health Care Cards.

·    Grab Bags each school holidays free of cost to community support agencies working with young people and their families who may be facing additional barriers to participation in these kinds of activities.

The School Holiday Grab Bags initiative is extremely popular, with the regular quota of bags allocated for the December 2017 school holiday period exhausted within only three days of being on sale. Between 2015-16 and 2016-17 the sales have been 566 and 687 bags respectively. The service is evaluated on a yearly basis and young people, parents and service providers report a high level of satisfaction with the service.

The benefits of providing discounted activities in this manner include:

·    The ability to ensure distribution across the entire municipality through allocation of Grab Bags within each of the districts.

·    Promotion of local businesses.

·    Provision of discounts on fun, healthy activities to young people.

·    The ability to monitor the uptake of discounts and tailor them accordingly on a term-by-term basis.

Provision of information and promotion of Council’s Youth Services

The experience of Baseline is that young people are increasingly more likely to access information about support and services online, often using mobile devices. Currently information is delivered in this manner through both Council and Baseline websites, and via various social media avenues. On the ‘Need Help’ page of the Baseline website there is information (including contact details) on a range of topics regarding emergency accommodation, alcohol and other drug services, mental health support and other services specifically for young people. The information contained on this website is updated annually.

Generalist information on a range of local community service agencies (e.g. Whittlesea Community Connections, Women’s Health in the North and Anglicare) is also available on the ‘Support and emergency relief services’ section of the Council website.

It is clear that children and young people are avid users of the internet, with studies showing that their usage tends to increase with age. Young people view the internet and social media as a primary source of entertainment, information and education, and often the first place they will go to seek out appropriate support pathways.

A mobile app is one method of communication and engagement that is being utilised by a number of local government Youth Services teams around the country, delivered as either a web app or native app. A web app is a page or series of web pages that are designed to work well on a range of different mobile devices, with any updates or added features immediately available without the need for users to download an update through their app store. A native app is a fully customised mobile app with tailored content and full functionality. There are a number of benefits and considerations relating to this method of information provision.

Benefits

Considerations

·      Information is available instantly on a mobile device at any time (providing there is internet access and data roaming available).

·      Mobile apps can be designed to be accessible for all local residents and developed to allow for a diverse range of accessibility options (e.g. text size, translation services and search engines).

·      Apps provide young people with an alternative medium for engaging with Council’s Youth Services, particularly for those young people who may be initially reluctant to visit the service or call on the phone.

·      A web app as opposed to a native app has the added benefit of being easily made available on both iOS and Google Play app stores, without the need for developing individual apps for each platform. This enable users of both Android and Apple devices to access the app.

·      Consideration of a web app would present an excellent opportunity for an evaluation and complete redevelopment of the existing Baseline website, including extensive consultation with young people to ensure that the app is engaging, effective and useful for its intended audience.

·      Some Council’s are moving away from native apps for youth engagement. While 3-4 years ago apps were at the forefront of technological advances, improvements in web design have progressed and it has been suggested that a move from native apps to web apps will be a more cost effective way of interacting and engaging with young people.

·      There is a risk that young people will not download an app. This risk could be mitigated through additional consultation with young people prior to the development of any app, and for young people to be actively involved in app design and content to ensure its relevance.

·      There is a risk that an app may receive initial downloads following marketing and promotion, however will not attract young people to return to the app and engage with its content.

·      A youth specific mobile app may not be cost effective if it reaches, or is used by only a small number of young people. This risk could be better understood by conducting more detailed cost benefit analysis. 

·      The cost of developing native apps (refer below for costings) for iOS and Google Play may be prohibitive. In order to develop and distribute information widely across both Apple and Android mobile devices, separate apps must be developed for both platforms.

·      Development of either a web or native app would require significant content redevelopment of the existing Baseline website content, plus creation of new content.

App costings

Development, implementation and upkeep of a mobile app would require significant and ongoing resourcing. Consultation with other councils and subject matter experts has estimated development of a web app to cost between $35,000 and $45,000. This includes research, consultation and content development. Additionally, there would be ongoing resource implications for keeping the information available through the app up to date; this is estimated at 0.2EFT with an approximate cost of $16,500 per annum.

The development of a customised native app for both iOS and Android platforms is estimated at costing between $30,000 and $50,000 per platform, requiring enlisting an appropriately skilled software developer. Ongoing maintenance of the app is costed at approximately $8,000 to $14,000 per annum for each platform. As with the web app there would be ongoing resource implications for keeping the app up to date, this is estimated at 0.2EFT with an approximate cost of $16,500 per annum.

The above costings are preliminary estimates; if more detailed costings are required an in-depth feasibility study and business case would need to be developed.

Proposal

That Council continue to provide discounted activities through the provision of School Holiday Grab Bags, and information regarding services and support through existing websites and social media channels.

In line with YouthPlan2030+, Baseline for Young People will investigate strategies to ensure effective use of online platforms including mobile apps and social media to maximise communication with young people and their families.

Consultation

Consultation was undertaken with seven local government Youth Services teams, as outlined above. Additionally discussions were held regarding options for web based apps with subject matter experts from the technology sector and the Information Services team at Council.

Critical Dates

There are no critical dates relating to this item.

Financial Implications

There are no immediate financial implications for Council. Continuation of the School Holiday Grab Bags initiative and current Baseline for Young People programs and methods of providing information will be covered within existing resources.

Policy strategy and legislation

Relevant initiatives of the YouthPlan2030+ Action Plan are to:

·    Provide young people, their parents and carers up-to-date information through the Baseline website about services available to them in regard to material basics; and

·    Ensure effective use of social media to maximise communication with young people and their families.

Connect: A municipal plan for children, young people and their families in the City of Whittlesea

The recommendations of this report align with Strategic Direction 3 – Resilient and robust children and young people.

 

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

Council Priority                    Health and Wellbeing

Future Direction                   Health and wellbeing

Theme                                   Healthy community

Strategic Objective              People of all ages and abilities are supported to live well with appropriate program, service and infrastructure delivery

 

Baseline for Young People will continue to provide co-created programs, community events, civic participation activities and social action projects in response to emerging challenges and aspirations. These ensure the opportunity for young people to:

·    Explore and express their identity in safe environments.

·    Develop skills for healthy attitudes, life choices and relationships.

·    Engage and connect to culture and community.

·    Access information on physical and mental health.

·    Promote active citizenship and civic engagement.

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

After consultation with seven Youth Services teams it is not clear that the youth discount card is the most effective way to provide relevant information to young people, nor is there consistent evidence of its effectiveness in providing appropriate discounts to young people.

There are a range of current discounts available to young people in the City of Whittlesea, including School Holiday Grab Bags. Grab Bags provide Council the ability to regularly evaluate the uptake of discounts and promote local businesses that align to Council’s health and wellbeing objectives.

It is recommended that Council continue to provide discounted activities through the provision of School Holiday Grab Bags, and that information regarding services and support to young people continue to be delivered through existing Council websites and social media channels and through established networks and partnerships.

 

 

Cr Desiato returned to the meeting at 8.17pm prior to the discussion of item 6.2.2 commencing.

Cr Lalios returned to the meeting at 8.28pm during the discussion of item 6.2.2.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to:

1.       Not introduce a youth discount card, and continue to provide subsidised activities and events for young people through the provision of School Holiday Grab Bags.

2.       Note that further work will be undertaken to ensure effective use of online platforms and social media to maximise communication with young people and their families.

motion

Moved:                       Cr Sterjova

Seconded:               Cr Cox

 

THAT Council resolve to:

1.       Prepare a report on the effectiveness of current online platforms, especially social media used by Council to attract, educate and incorporate young people and their families in civic life.

2.       Prepare a report that will outline current youth activities that Council is subsidising.

3.       Introduce and explore a council youth app which will replace the school holiday grab bags. This app will work to include all discounts found in school holiday grab bags that can be utilized on an app (bags given to families with discounts for local goods and services).

a.       Use this new app to advertise Council events, news to educate young people of youth services available. This will ensure that council has a new, cost effective means of advertising and educating the community. This information can be obtained from the baseline youth services website.

b.      Regularly update the app utilising information from the baseline youth services website.

c.       Focus on and promote local businesses in the City of Whittlesea by only providing discounts to local businesses, in p articular small businesses that may not provide student discounts with other organisations.

d.      Promote the inclusion of local businesses in this new app through a number of means including but not limited to; Facebook, Instragram, Email, Whittlescene magazine, local newspapers and radio stations.

e.       Explore sponsorship from local businesses to pay a fee to be included in the app. This fee will support the creation of the app.

f.       Explore sources of funding to create and maintain the app including council’s budget process.

g.      Report back to council after one year with the progress of the council youth app.

4.         Write a letter to surrounding councils to ask to combine resources to establish a cost effective app.

 

amendment

Moved:                       Cr Kirkham

Seconded:               Cr Kelly

 

THAT Council resolve to include an additional point 5 to the motion to read as follows:

5.         The design costs and ongoing recurrent costs be borne from the existing Youth Services budget.

lost

extension of speaking time

Moved:                       Cr Kelly

Seconded:               Cr Desiato

 

THAT Council resolve to extend the speaking time for Cr Lalios by a further two minutes.

lost

extension of speaking time

Moved:                       Cr Alessi

Seconded:               Cr Sterjova

 

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

Carried

 

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

Moved:                       Cr Sterjova

Seconded:               Cr Cox

 

THAT Council resolve to:

1.       Prepare a report on the effectiveness of current online platforms, especially social media used by Council to attract, educate and incorporate young people and their families in civic life.

2.       Prepare a report that will outline current youth activities that Council is subsidising.

3.       Introduce and explore a council youth app which will replace the school holiday grab bags. This app will work to include all discounts found in school holiday grab bags that can be utilized on an app (bags given to families with discounts for local goods and services).

a.       Use this new app to advertise Council events, news to educate young people of youth services available. This will ensure that council has a new, cost effective means of advertising and educating the community. This information can be obtained from the baseline youth services website.

b.      Regularly update the app utilising information from the baseline youth services website.

c.       Focus on and promote local businesses in the City of Whittlesea by only providing discounts to local businesses, in p articular small businesses that may not provide student discounts with other organisations.

d.      Promote the inclusion of local businesses in this new app through a number of means including but not limited to; Facebook, Instragram, Email, Whittlescene magazine, local newspapers and radio stations.

e.       Explore sponsorship from local businesses to pay a fee to be included in the app. This fee will support the creation of the app.

f.       Explore sources of funding to create and maintain the app including council’s budget process.

g.      Report back to council after one year with the progress of the council youth app.

4.       Write a letter to surrounding councils to ask to combine resources to establish a cost effective app.

Carried

Division

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

 

For

Cr Pavlidis

Cr Kozmevski

Cr Alessi

Cr Cox

Cr Desiato

Cr Sterjova

Cr Joseph

Against

Cr Kirkham

Cr Kelly

Cr Monteleone

Abstained

Cr Lalios

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

carried


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                               Tuesday 6 February 2018

 

6.3       City Transport and Presentation

6.3.1    Proposed Roundabout: Betula Avenue / Belmont  Way, Mill Park

File No:                                  SU 194852

Attachments:                        1        COLLISION DIAGRAM

2        ENDORSED LATM20 PLAN

3        PETITIONERS LOCALITY PLAN

4        ON-STREET PARKING

5        EXAMPLES OF DRIVEWAYS WITHIN ROUNDABOUTS

6        ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY   

Responsible Officer:           Director City Transport & Presentation

Author:                                  Traffic Engineer   

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY

That Council resolve to:

1.       Install a roundabout, as the most appropriate and effective road safety and traffic improvement treatment for the Betula Avenue and Belmont Way intersection in Mill Park.

2.       Proceed with the construction of a roundabout as part of the delivery of the 2018/19 New Works Program, noting that the proposed roundabout design has been amended to respond to petitioners concerns by incorporating:

a)      The provision of two hard stand manoeuvring areas to ensure an improved ease of ingress and egress of the directly affected residents;

b)      The repositioning of the roundabout to minimise parking loss, and maintain nature strip widths and amenity, as much as practicable; and

c)      The investigation of drainage capacity in the surrounding area to mitigate local flooding impacts.

3.       Advise all petitioners and residents in close proximity of Council’s decision on this matter, explaining the road safety improvement reasons for the decision.

KEY FACTS AND / OR ISSUES

·    The intersection and the proposed roundabout treatment have been the subject of a number of safety and operational concerns for several years.

·    As a result of objections from directly affected residents, the construction of the roundabout was deferred from the 2014/15 New Works Program.

·    Since this time, a further two serious accidents have occurred, resulting in three people being injured.

·    As part of the Local Area Traffic Management Plan 20 (LATM 20) which was developed in consultation with local residents, Council at its meeting on 27 June 2017 resolved to install a roundabout at the intersection of Betula Avenue and Belmont Way in Mill Park.

·    This report responds to a petition tabled at the Council meeting held on 31 October 2017, concerning the Council resolution to install a roundabout at this location.

Report

Background

The Betula Avenue and Belmont Way intersection has over the past several years been the subject of a number of concerns from the community regarding its operation, including:

·    Road safety;

·    Difficulty turning into and out of Belmont Way, especially in peak hours;

·    Traffic speeds and volumes along Betula Avenue and along Belmont Way;

·    Difficulty for pedestrians crossing Betula Avenue, at the intersection; and

·    Limited visibility.

As a result of these ongoing concerns, and due to a recorded serious injury accident occurring, the construction of a roundabout at this intersection was included as part of the 2014/2015 New Works Program.

Due to the concerns of some residents surrounding the intersection, the roundabout was deferred and did not proceed in 2014/15.

Since the decision to defer the roundabout, a further two crashes have occurred, resulting in three people being seriously injured (VicRoads’ CrashStats crash database). Attachment 1 provides details of the intersections recent accident record.

Recently as part of a broader scope of works for the Local Area Traffic Management Plan, LATM20 (Attachment 2) which was developed following significant consultation with the local community, Council at its meeting held on 27 June 2017 resolved to include the construction of the roundabout and fund its delivery in the 2018/19 New Works Program. The decision to install the roundabout was made in consultation with the LATM20 community working group.

Council received a petition from residents objecting to the construction of the roundabout at its meeting dated 31 October 2017 and resolved to receive a report from officers that investigated the petitioners concerns.

Local Road network, traffic and safety conditions

Road Network and Design

The existing T-intersection at Betula Avenue / Belmont Way is a key intersection in the local road network.  It connects Mill Park residents to the surrounding residential area and facilities such as: the Stables Shopping Centre, Mill Park Primary School, Mill Park Community Centre, pre-school, Maternal & Child Health Centre and RMIT (Attachment 3).

Betula Avenue is a bus route and classified as a major collector road in Council’s road hierarchy. The road is designed to carry up to approximately 10,000 vehicles per day (vpd) with traffic volumes slightly above this design threshold, currently at 10,500 vpd. The road is approximately 1.0km in length and has a 50km/h local road speed limit. Three roundabouts already exist along Betula Avenue.

Belmont Way is a local road, approximately 200m long.  It connects two local collector roads (Betula Avenue and Mill Park Drive) and has a 50km/h speed limit. Belmont Way is an important access road connecting the community with a number of key community service facilities in the Mill Park area, i.e. Mill Park Primary School, Mill Park Community Centre, Mill Park Pre-school and Maternal & Child Health Centre.

Traffic Conditions

Results of the most recent traffic surveys conducted in Betula Avenue are summarised in the table below:

Year

Speed Limit
(km/h)

Volume (vehicles per day)

Speed (km/h)

No. vehicles per day (over speed limit)

Maximum Recorded

Average

85th Percentile1

50km/h

60km/h

Speed

(km/h)

2013

60

10,800

55

60

7,128
(66%)

 972
(9%)

>80 km/h2

2014

503

10,820

52

57

4,545
(42%)

1,190
(11%)

N/A4

2017

50

10,500

48

55

 4,000
(38%)

420
(4%)

154 km/h5

            NOTES:

1.   The 85th percentile speed is the speed at which 85 per cent of drivers are travelling at or below, and is a factor used in determining the safe operating speed on a road.

2.     The traffic survey results indicated approximately 110 vehicles above this speed.

3.   The speed limit was lowered from 60 km/h to 50 km/h on 24 June 2013.

4.   This information was not recorded at the time.

5.     This was recorded between 8am-9am on Tuesday 14 March 2017.

 

The results indicate that traffic speeds and volumes have only slightly reduced in recent years.  However, traffic speeds, particularly the number of vehicles per day above the speed limit, remain high. This is likely to be a contributing factor to the casualty crash rate at the intersection of Betula Avenue and Belmont Way and other crashes over the full length of Betula Avenue.

Road Safety

As mentioned above, the Betula Avenue / Belmont Way intersection has a poor safety record with three casualty crashes resulting in four people being injured in recent years (2008, 2015, and 2016).  These crashes all involved vehicles turning right into Belmont Way (from McKimmies Road to the east). One accident involved a vehicle being rear ended while waiting to turn right into Belmont Way, and the other two involved vehicles attempting to turn right into Belmont Way and then colliding with vehicles travelling along Betula Avenue (Attachment 1). Several residents have reported other crashes at this intersection that have not involved injuries (only property damage to vehicles) and therefore are not registered in the VicRoads’ CrashStats database. 

In addition to the safety record at the intersection, Betula Avenue (as a total road length from Childs Road to McKimmies Road) has a very poor road safety record. VicRoads’ CrashStats identify that there have been eight casualty crashes (over the past 5 years) resulting in injuries between 2012 to 2017.

This accident and injury record indicates that road safety must be improved at both the intersection, and over the entire length of Betula Avenue. Given that three roundabouts already exist at other intersections along Betula Avenue (these were installed in response to road safety issues), a roundabout is identified to provide consistency of treatments and maintain the amenity within the street for residents and road users. A roundabout at this location provides the important benefit of effectively improving road safety at the intersection and contributing to the overall safety improvement of the entire road length.

Petitioners concerns

At the Council meeting on 31 October 2017, a petition was received from 601 people requesting Council:

Stop the proposed roundabout at Betula Avenue and Belmont Way – Traffic Management Plan LATM 20 – Mill Park.  As local residents we were presented with an idea for changes to the street – we were also asked to place forward our concerns or comments about the proposed changes.  As the residents affected by this roundabout we responded to the proposed changes, stating our concerns, these included that the roundabout will:

1.   Cause increased congestion at peak times coming down Betula Avenue from McKimmies Road;

2.   Cause loss of all parking out the front of several homes;

3.   Cause a number of serious safety concerns for the residents on the roundabout (hoon related behaviour);

4.   Increase pollution from cars with increased braking and then acceleration; and

5.   Remove an old tree that has been a part of Mill Park since its development.

Construction is expected to start in 2018/2019 and the Council have dismissed our concerns saying it is a minor inconvenience.

We ask for your support to stop the proposed construction of a roundabout at Betula Avenue and Belmont Way.  We all strongly know that having five roundabouts within our streets is too much, and creating a new roundabout will only cause a larger issue and more inconvenience for all residents.  Furthermore, we believe that speed humps would be a more appropriate option for the community.

Of the 601 petitioners, 195 people are residents of the LATM 20 area (Attachment 3), 390 people are residents outside the LATM 20 area and 16 people are non-residents of the City of Whittlesea.

Council resolved to receive the petition and a report be prepared for a future meeting.

petition specific items

The specific concerns raised by the petitioners along with engineering-based technical response are detailed in the table below:

RESIDENT COMMENTS / CONCERNS

TECHNICAL RESPONSE

Increased congestion at peak times coming down Betula Avenue from McKimmies Road

Roundabouts are recognised nationally by Local and State road authorities as an appropriate device to reduce local road intersection congestion.

Site observations indicate traffic congestion sometimes occurs due to vehicles turning right into Belmont Way.

The proposed roundabout will result in a safer, more even distribution of traffic and a more balanced traffic flow, and therefore reduce congestion.

Loss of parking

Six on-street parking spaces would be lost with the roundabout.  However, each property has at least two off-street parking spaces, with some properties having four off-street spaces. 

More parking would be lost, up to twelve spaces, with some of the residents suggested alternative treatments.

Other on-street parking is available within 30m of all affected properties; this accords with the Whittlesea Planning Scheme which indicates that 30m is an appropriate maximum distance for visitor parking (Attachment 4.)

Safety concerns when entering and leaving properties

The roundabout will accommodate the safe entry and exit of cars from abutting properties, for the following reasons:

·      Traffic surveys conducted for Council indicate that over a three day survey period, 40 vehicles were recorded at speeds in excess of 80km/h; and five in excess of 120km/h.

·      The roundabout has been designed to reduce the speeds of the traffic travelling at this location on Betula Way to around 30km/h. It is acknowledged that not all traffic will negotiate the roundabout at the design speed, but only a small percentage could be expected to exceed this design speed and would not be able to reach the dangerous speeds recorded in the recent survey, indicated above.

·      To address resident concerns the roundabout design has been amended to include two concrete hard stand turn-around areas. These will assist in providing forward-direction exit from the properties. This is both safer than, and preferable to, the current situation where drivers need to reverse into the Betula Avenue traffic that is recorded to be travelling at dangerously high speeds.

Other examples of driveways being accessible off roundabouts throughout the municipality are shown in Attachment 5.

Hoon behaviour

The installation of roundabout at this intersection will result in overall speed reduction in the area, and thus decrease the likelihood of “excessive speed” type hoon driving.

There is no evidence that indicates the roundabout will encourage other forms of hoon driving. 

Increased pollution from cars from increased braking and acceleration

Studies by State and National road authorities and research organisations suggest that by roundabouts improving traffic flow, they therefore, reduce vehicle emissions and fuel consumption, thereby create a positive impact on the environment.

Vehicles stopping at traffic signals (a resident alternative) and stop signs (existing control) emit more CO2, as the delay and queuing are greater, when compared to roundabouts more even flow and distribution of traffic.

Removal of the old tree south of 221 Betula Avenue

A Road Safety Audit was conducted on the roundabouts concept design and identified that the tree is a potential risk and suggested that consideration be given to removing it. 

There is some scope to review the decision to remove the tree as part of the detailed design stage and additional road safety audit process.

Intersection flooding issues

The new roundabout design will incorporate drainage improvements close by to this intersection to mitigate any future flooding impacts in the dip adjacent to the intersection on Betula Avenue, as much as practicable.

Furthermore, a holistic solution to the drainage issues will be delivered as part of the subdivision development immediately abutting this intersection.

There are too many roundabouts in Betula Avenue

The number of existing and proposed roundabouts, and the distances between them, accords with National, State and Local road safety and transport authority guidelines, and standards which indicate that spacing of 120m to 155m between traffic management devices for collector roads are generally appropriate.

Given the spacing accords with the standards for intersections along Betula Avenue, the spacing of existing and proposed roundabouts is a good fit within these engineering standards and parameters.

A consistent intersection treatment along Butula Avenue through the use of roundabouts supports good road safety and street amenity outcomes. Roundabouts are provided (or proposed) at the following intersections along Butula Ave: McKimmies Road, Mimosa Road, Roycroft Avenue, Garden Grove Drive (proposed) and Belmont Way (proposed). See Attachment 2 for details.

Speed humps are more appropriate option for the community

The issues with the safety and traffic distribution at the intersection (i.e. right hand turning movements into and out of Belmont Way) will not be resolved with speed humps.

Federal and State road authority guidelines and standards indicate that speed humps (or road cushions on Bus routes) are not an appropriate device for high traffic volume roads such as Betula Avenue.

intersection OPTIONS ANALYSIS

A comprehensive Intersection Options Analysis based on the key concerns raised by the community over the past several years and the current petition; including; 1. Road safety, 2. Road network improvements (i.e. improved traffic flow, pedestrian access and parking) and 3. Financial costs and benefits – has been conducted for the following options:

·    Base case option: Maintenance only (no change);

·    Option A: Signage, line marking, median separation treatment and road cushions;

·    Option B: Deviated T-intersection;

·    Option C: Signalised intersection; and

·    Option D: Roundabout.

A summary of the detailed investigation and analysis on each option is presented in the table below, with full details contained in Attachment 6.


 

 

PROJECT OPTIONS

BASE CASE OPTION

OPTION A

OPTION B

OPTION C

OPTION D

EXISTING CONDITIONS

SIGNAGE, LINE MARKING, TRAFFIC ISLAND AND CUSHIONS

DEVIATED INTERSECTION

SIGNALISED INTERSECTION

ROUND

ABOUT

STAGE 1
ROAD SAFETY

ROAD SAFETY

Very Poor
(0% crash reduction)

Very Poor
(10% crash reduction)

Fair
(40% crash reduction)

Fair
(45% crash reduction)

Excellent
(80% crash reduction)

TRAFFIC SPEEDS / VOLUMES

Very Poor

Very Poor

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Very Good

STAGE 2
Road Network

 

 

 

 

 

 

TRAFFIC FLOW

Very Poor

Very Poor

POOR

Very Poor

Very Good

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS

Very Poor

Very Poor

FAIR

VERY GOOD

GOOD

PARKING

0

6 spaces

7 spaces

14 Spaces

6 Spaces

STAGE 3
FINANCIALS

BCR

Not Evaluated

Not Evaluated

-1.69

-4.62

11.91

ESTIMATED COST

Not Evaluated

Not Evaluated

$350,000

$500,000

$350,000

FIRST YEAR COMMUNITY BENEFIT

Not Evaluated

Not Evaluated

-$117,910

-$211,250

$303,082

PROJECT LIFE
COMMUNITY BENEFIT

Not Evaluated

Not Evaluated

-$876,199

-$2,626,496

$3,569,572

PREFERRED OPTION

No

No

No

No

Yes

The analysis identifies and confirms that a roundabout (Option D) is the most appropriate and effective road safety and traffic improvement treatment for the Betula Avenue and Belmont Way intersection.

Proposal

The detailed evaluation of options against the assessment criteria (detailed above, and contained in Attachment 6) has identified Option D: Roundabout, as the most effective treatment option for the Betula Avenue / Belmont Way intersection.


 

Round about

Criterion 1

Road Safety Criteria

Criterion 2

Technical Criterion

Criterion 3

Financial Criteria

Criteria

Road Safety

Traffic Speed and Volumes

Traffic Flow

Pedestrian Access

Parking

Benefit to Cost Ratio

Total Estimated Cost

Option D

Excellent

(80 per cent crash reduction)

Very Good

Very Good

(Provides priority for safe right turn into Belmont Way)

Good

(Provides 3 pedestrian crossing points with safe Refuge islands)

6 spaces

$11.91

(for every $1 invested)

$350,000

The roundabout (Option D) strongly aligns with Council’s strategic goals by increasing road safety, reducing traffic speeds, and localised traffic congestion. 

The project received a Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) of $11.91 to every $1 invested. The BCR demonstrates that the roundabout will enhance safety by reducing serious injury accidents, reducing traffic speeds and improving traffic movements, and will ultimately result in a long term benefit for the community estimated to be $3,569,572 over the roundabout’s design life (a description of the Benefit to Cost Ratio is included in Attachment 6).

Consultation

Due to this intersection being subject to several concerns over many years, a number of consultations seeking the community’s feedback have occurred.

In June 2014, a community consultation process was undertaken involving a letter, response form and a replied post envelope to 165 owners and occupiers seeking feedback on a proposed roundabout at the Betula Avenue and Belmont Way intersection.

The response rate received was 27.3 per cent, with 81.4 per cent of respondents indicating support for a roundabout.

However due to the concerns of immediately adjoining residents, the roundabout proposal was deferred in the 2014/15 New Works Program and the next time the issue of the intersections poor performance was raised was by the LATM 20 community working group members in 2016/17. The community working group decided that the intersection was an important issue and needed to be considered as part of the LATM 20 investigation, consultation and decision-making process.

The LATM 20 consultation process involved two area wide mail-outs (approximately 2,700 owners and occupiers of properties in the LATM area), a response form, a reply paid envelope, a public meeting and a series of LATM Working Group meetings.  The community had opportunities to provide input via the City of Whittlesea website, social media and at public events during the investigation period.

The overall response rate to the mail-out on the Draft LATM20 Traffic Management Plan, which included a proposal for a roundabout at Betula Avenue / Belmont Way intersection, was 21 per cent, with 454 respondents supporting the roundabout (80 per cent of respondents).

The local bus company and emergency services, i.e. Melbourne Fire Brigade, Victoria Police and Ambulance Victoria, were consulted on this matter.  No objections to the roundabout were received from these organisations.

The concerns raised by the directly affected residents together with the engineering based technical response to these matters are covered in the petitioners’ specific concerns table provided above. 

Financial Implications

Funding for detailed design has been allocated in 2017/18 and construction is scheduled to occur in the 2018/19 New Works Program, pending a Council decision on this matter.

The cost of the roundabout installation is estimated at $350,000. This cost includes additional design modifications that aim to address the concerns raised by the directly affected residents, i.e. 2 x hard stand manoeuvring areas, 3 x additional car parking bays, landscaping, etc. Funding is allocated within the Local Area Traffic Management Plan program.

In addition to the above scope of works, residents have raised a localised flooding issue that requires attention. These works are considered to be a separate project scope to the intersection works that was not previously identified. The additional drainage works will be scoped concurrently with the detailed design of the intersection treatment and funded via the Developer Contributions DCP03 – Drainage Reserve Levy fund. The separate works to mitigate the localised drainage issues is anticipated to be $100,000.

Critical Dates

This project is currently scheduled to be delivered in the 2018/19 financial year as part of the staged implementation of the Local Area Traffic Management 20 staging plan. The current progress of the project is on hold by this petition, pending Council’s decision on this matter.

Policy strategy and legislation

This project addresses outcomes and / or action items presented in the following Council policies and strategies:

·    Road and Public Transport Plan (2017);

·    Road Safety Strategy (2017);

·    Whittlesea Bicycle Plan (2016); and

·    Integrated Transport Strategy (2012)

 

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

Council Priority                    Roads, Access and Public Transport

Future Direction                   Accessibility in, out and around our City

Theme                                   Transport

Strategic Objective              The road network responds to our needs in accessing jobs, services and recreational activities

 

This project addresses the strategic outcomes presented in Shaping Our Future: Council Plan 2017 – 2021:

·    Roads, Access and Public Transport: People can access and use public transport and road networks effectively in accessing jobs, services and recreational activities.

·    Community Safety: Our neighbourhoods and towns are safe and have proactive programs that support and build a safe community.

·    Planning and Infrastructure: Council will ensure sustainable, timely and quality development of our municipality while improving the range of recreational opportunities for residents and visitors.

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 Betula Avenue and Belmont Way intersection and proposed roundabout treatment has for several years been the subject of a number of safety and operational concerns from the community and subsequent objections by directly affected residents. As a result, the roundabout was deferred in 2014/15. Since this time, a further two recorded serious accidents have occurred, resulting in three people injured.

To address the community’s longstanding traffic concerns and the intersections existing road safety issues, it is recommended that Council proceeds with the installation of a roundabout as the most effective treatment, as currently planned in the 2018/19 New Works Program, so that future injuries are avoided at this location.

Declaration of Interest

Prior to the commencement of the meeting Cr Lalios declared an indirect interest by close association in item 6.3.1 Proposed roundabout: Betula Avenue/Belmont Way, Mill Park to the Chief Executive Officer.

 

Prior to the matter being considered or any vote taken in relation to the matter, Cr Lalios left the meeting at 9.03pm and advised the Mayor accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to:

1.       Install a roundabout, as the most appropriate and effective road safety and traffic improvement treatment for the Betula Avenue and Belmont Way intersection in Mill Park.

2.       Proceed with the construction of a roundabout as part of the delivery of the 2018/19 New Works Program, noting that the proposed roundabout design has been amended to respond to petitioners concerns by incorporating:

a)      The provision of two hard stand manoeuvring areas to ensure an improved ease of ingress and egress of the directly affected residents;

b)      The repositioning of the roundabout to minimise parking loss, and maintain nature strip widths and amenity, as much as practicable; and

c)      The investigation of drainage capacity in the surrounding area to mitigate local flooding impacts.

3.       Advise all petitioners and residents in close proximity of Council’s decision on this matter, explaining the road safety improvement reasons for the decision.

 motion

Moved:                       Cr Alessi

Seconded:               Cr Cox

 

THAT Council resolve to adopt the recommendation.

 

Chief Executive Officer Explanatory Note

In accordance with Clause 102 of the Procedural Matters Local Law, the Mayor, Cr Pavlidis called Cr Kelly to order on a number of occasions. Cr Kelly did not comply with the Mayor’s direction.  The Mayor, Cr Pavlidis in accordance with Clause 102 of the Procedural Matters Local Law, ordered Cr Kelly to leave the meeting. 

 

 

Cr Kelly left the meeting at 9.07pm.

 

 

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Cox

Seconded:               Cr Sterjova

THAT Council resolve to close the meeting to members of the public for the purpose of considering details relating to the confidential matters listed in the agenda in accordance with Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989.

Carried

Chief Executive Officer Explanatory Note

Consideration of this item and the remainder of the items in the open section of the agenda was suspended to consider items in the closed section of the agenda. The meeting reopened to the public at 10.40pm and consideration of this item recommenced.

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Alessi

Seconded:               Cr Cox

 

THAT Council resolve to adopt the Recommendation.

Carried

In accordance with Section 69 of the Procedural Matters Local Law, Cr Kirkham and Cr Monteleone requested that their opposition to the resolution be recorded.  


6.3.2    SUPPLY AND DELIVERY OF ONE WATER TANKER – TENDER EVALUATION – CONTRACT 2014-2Z19

File No:                                  1193013

Attachments:                        1        Supply and Delivery of One Water Tanker - Contract 2014-2Z19 - Confidential    

The attachment is presented to Council as a confidential document on the basis that it contains details relating to contractual matters, in accordance with Section 89(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 1989.

Responsible Officer:           Director City Transport & Presentation

Author:                                  Manager City Presentation   

 

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY

It is recommended that contract number 2014-2Z19 for Supply and Delivery of Two Water Tanker Trucks:

·    Is awarded to Hino Motor Sales Australia.

·    For the lump sum price of $206,803.

KEY FACTS AND / OR ISSUES

The tender evaluation panel advises that:

·    Four tenders were received.

·    The recommended tender was the highest ranked and is considered best value.

·    This was a collaborative tender with Moreland City Council via the National Procurement Network (NPN) aggregated purchasing truck supply panel contract.


 

Report

Background

The purpose of this contract is the Supply and Deliver Two Water Tanker Trucks in partnership with Moreland City Council.

Tenders for the contract closed on 15 November 2017.  The tendered prices and a summary of the evaluation are detailed in the confidential attachment.

MAV VendorPanel is the portal upon which preferred suppliers access the National Procurement Network (NPN) Truck Supply panel contract which provides additional value to Council through aggregated purchasing.

Whittlesea City Council and Moreland City Council partnered to work together on the preparation of this inter-council collaboration joint procurement for the purpose of providing better outcomes for the community.  Whittlesea City Council acted as the lead tenderer, and as such, posted the tender request on behalf of both Councils. The responses were shared with the partner council and the assessments. Each council undertook a separate tender evaluation process based on the common information provided within the tender responses.  

This evaluation report relates to the Supply and Delivery of One Water Tanker Truck for the Whittlesea City Council only.  The water tanker operates predominantly within the rural areas of the municipality and is used for water cartage, road reconstruction works, road collision/spills clean up and dust suppression.

The current tanker is 12 years old and has reached the end of its acceptable service life due to factors such as cost, maintainability, reliability and condition.

EVALUATION

No member of the Tender Evaluation Panel declared any conflict of interest in relation to this tender evaluation.

A Tender Probity & Evaluation Plan was designed specifically for this tender process and it was authorised prior to this tender being advertised.  All tenders received were evaluated in accordance with that plan.  The evaluation involved scoring of conforming and competitive tenders according to these pre-determined criteria and weightings:

Criteria

Weighting

Price

50%

Capability

35%

Capacity

10%

Impact

5%

The weightings reflect the relative importance of each element to this particular contract.  They were determined as being most appropriate after considering factors including (but not restricted to) the time, quality, risk and contract management requirements which were likely to have the most impact on the achievement of best value.

Only tenders that were conforming and competitive were fully scored.  Tender submissions that were evaluated as non-conforming or not sufficiently competitive were set aside from further evaluation.  In cases where this occurred the reasons for that outcome are detailed in the confidential attachment.


 

The evaluation outcome was as follows:

TENDERER

CONFORMING

COMPETITIVE

SCORE

RANK

Tenderer A Hino Motor Sales Australia – CMI Hino Melbourne

Yes

Yes

89.0

1

Tenderer B

Yes

Yes

82.8

2

Tenderer C

Yes

Yes

74.2

3

Tenderer D

Yes

Yes

62.5

4

Refer to the confidential attachment for further details of the evaluation of all tenders.

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

FUTURE DIRECTION          Good Governance

Theme                                   Growth and Change

Strategic Objective              Services and infrastructure keep pace with population growth

 

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 tender received from Hino Motor Sales Australia Pty Ltd – CMI Hino Melbourne is considered to offer the best value to Council based on the price, operational suitability and service capacity.

It is considered that the company can perform the contract to the standards required. 

 

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to:

1.         Accept the tender submitted by Hino Motor Sales Australia – CMI Hino Melbourne for the sum of $206,803 (excluding GST) for the following contract:

Number:    2014-2Z19

Title:          Supply and Deliver One Water Tanker Truck

Term:         Delivery by 30 June 2019

2.         Approve the funding arrangements detailed in the confidential attachment.

3.         Sign and seal the Contract documents.

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Joseph

Seconded:               Cr Kozmevski

 

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

Carried

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                               Tuesday 6 February 2018

 

6.3.3    Contract No. 2017-144  - Maintenance of Growling Frog Golf Course

File No:                                  2017-144

Attachments:                        1        Contract 2017-144  Maintenance of Growling Frog Golf Course - Confidential    

The attachment is presented to Council as a confidential document on the basis that it contains details relating to contractual matters, in accordance with Section 89(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 1989.

Responsible Officer:           Manager Major Facilities

Author:                                  Growling Frog Golf Course Coordinator   

 

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY

It is recommended that contract number 2017-144 for Maintenance of Growling Frog Golf Course:

·    is awarded to Densal Pty Ltd as Trustee to the Densal Unit Trust.

·    for the lump sum price of $706,800.

·    for a term from 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019 with monthly extension options to 31 March 2022.

KEY FACTS AND / OR ISSUES

The tender evaluation panel advises that:

·    3 tenders were received.

·    the recommended tender was the highest ranked and is considered best value.

Report

Background

The purpose of this contract is providing maintenance of the Growling Frog Golf Course.

Tenders for the contract closed on 18 October 2017.  The tendered prices and a summary of the evaluation are detailed in the confidential attachment.

EVALUATION

No member of the Tender Evaluation Panel declared any conflict of interest in relation to this tender evaluation.

A Tender Probity & Evaluation Plan was designed specifically for this tender process and it was authorised prior to this tender being advertised.  All tenders received were evaluated in accordance with that plan.  The evaluation involved scoring of conforming and competitive tenders according to these pre-determined criteria and weightings:

 

Criteria

Weighting

Price

55 %

Capability

20 %

Capacity

20 %

Impact

5 %

The weightings reflect the relative importance of each element to this particular contract.  They were determined as being most appropriate after considering numerous factors including (but not restricted to) the time, quality, risk and contract management requirements which were likely to have the most impact on the achievement of best value.

Only tenders that were conforming and competitive were fully scored.  Tender submissions that were evaluated as non-conforming or not sufficiently competitive were set aside from further evaluation.  In cases where this occurred the reasons for that outcome are detailed in the confidential attachment.

The evaluation outcome was as follows:

 

TENDERER

CONFORMING

COMPETITIVE

SCORE

RANK

Tenderer A

(Densal Pty Ltd as Trustee to the Densal Unit Trust )

Yes

Yes

81.50

1

Tenderer B

Yes

Yes

71.00

2

Tenderer C

Yes

Yes

64.50

3

Refer to the confidential attachment for further details of the evaluation of all tenders.

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

Council Priority                    Organisational Sustainability

Future Direction                   Good Governance

Theme                                   Continuous Improvement

Strategic Objective              Council explores and adopts best practice models

The procurement approach for this tender facilitates recommendations from Council’s Service Planning Review for the Growling Frog Golf Course, and achieves best value in price, contractor management, service delivery and efficiency.

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 tender from Densal Pty Ltd as Trustee to the Densal Unit Trust was determined to be best value and it is considered that this company can perform the contract to the required standards. 

 

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to:

1.         Accept the tender submitted by Densal Pty Ltd as Trustee to the Densal Unit Trust for the sum of $706,800.00 (excluding GST) for the following contract:

Number:  2017-144  

Title:        Maintenance of Growling Frog Golf Course

Term:      1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019

Options: Monthly extensions up to a combined maximum duration of 3 years (only to be exercised if separately approved by Council)

subject to the following conditions:

a)    Tenderer to provide proof of currency of insurance cover as required in the tender documents.

b)    Price variations to be in accordance with the provisions as set out in the tender documents.

2.         Approve the funding arrangements detailed in the confidential attachment.

3.         Sign and seal the contract documents.

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Cox

Seconded:               Cr Joseph

 

THAT Council resolve to adopt the Recommendation.

Carried

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                               Tuesday 6 February 2018

 

6.3.4    Contract Number 2017-75B - Recyclables and Acceptance Sorting Services:  - Tender Evaluation and Due Diligence Findings

File No:                                  2017-75

Attachments:                        1        Tender Evaluation Summary - Confidential  

2        Due Diligence Assessment - Confidential  

3        MRA Report - Receipt of Recyclables: A Review of Risk Related Issues Associated with Pending SKM Contract - Confidential    

Responsible Officer:           Director City Transport & Presentation

Author:                                  Manager City Presentation    

 

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY

·    Accept the tender submitted by SKM Recycling Pty Ltd for the estimated rebate payable of $7,929,097 for Contract No 2017-75B for Provision of Recyclables Acceptance and Sorting Services subject to agreement of additional contract clauses to reduce risk to Council, as detailed within the report titled ‘Receipt of Recyclables: A Review of Risk Related Issues Associated with Pending SKM Contract’.

·    Negotiate with another processor seeking an agreement to provide alternative recycling acceptance and sorting services should these be required in the future to mitigate contract risks.

KEY FACTS AND / OR ISSUES

·    Council considered this matter on 31 October 2017 and resolved to defer the award of the contract pending a further high level due diligence assessment. 

·    MRA Consulting Group identified that there are global changes within the recycling processing sector which pose a range of risks for council. These risks apply to all the tenderers.

·    The report also identified risks associated particularly with SKM Recycling Pty Ltd and made recommendations to change contract clauses to mitigate these risks.

·    The tender from SKM Recycling Pty Ltd represents best value.


 

Report

Background

Council’s recycling material is processed via contract CR070814 – Part B, currently with Visy Recycling. This contract arrangement concludes on 30 June 2018.

Tenders were advertised in The Age on 27 May 2017 and closed on 12 July 2017 for the ongoing provision of Councils waste and recycling services. Tenderers were invited to submit prices for either or both of two Separable Portions:

·        Separable Portion A - Kerbside Garbage, Recycling and Green Waste Collection Services; and

·        Separable Portion B - Acceptance & Sorting of Recyclable Materials.

A tender assessment report was presented to Council at its meeting of 31 October 2017 recommending award of Separable Portion A to JJ Richards and award of Separable Portion B to SKM Recycling Pty Ltd.

Council resolved to award Separable Portion A to JJ Richards. In relation to Separable Portion B, Council resolved to defer the awarding of contract pending a further high level due diligence assessment of the short and longer term risks of proceeding with SKM.

In conducting that due diligence assessment officers engaged MRA Consulting Group to provide a report detailing an assessment of the risks.  The report and other outcomes of the due diligence assessment are provided in the confidential attachments.

EVALUATION

No member of the Tender Evaluation Panel declared any conflict of interest in relation to this tender evaluation.  

The following information relates to the evaluation of Separable Portion B (2017-75B).

A Tender Probity & Evaluation Plan was designed specifically for this tender process and it was authorised prior to this tender being advertised.  All tenders received were evaluated in accordance with that plan.  The evaluation involved scoring of conforming and competitive tenders according to these pre-determined criteria and weightings:

Criteria

Weighting

Price

75%

Capability

10%

Capacity

10%

Impact

5%

The weightings reflect the relative importance of each element to this particular contract.  They were determined as being most appropriate after considering factors including (but not restricted to) the time, quality, risk and contract management requirements which were likely to have the most impact on the achievement of best value.

Only tenders that were conforming and competitive were fully scored.  Tender submissions that were evaluated as non-conforming or not sufficiently competitive were set aside from further evaluation.  In cases where this occurred the reasons for that outcome are detailed in the confidential attachment.


 

The evaluation outcome was as follows:

TENDERER

CONFORMING

COMPETITIVE

SCORE

RANK

Tenderer A
SKM Recycling Pty Ltd

Yes

Yes

97

1

Tenderer B

Yes

Yes

88.4

2

Tenderer C

No

No

N/A

N/A

Refer to the confidential attachment for further details of the evaluation of all tenders.

FUNDING

The services detailed within this report will be funded from Council’s 2018/19 waste services operational budget.

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

Council Priority                    Organisational Sustainability

Future Direction                   Good Governance

Theme                                   Continuous Improvement

Strategic Objective              Council explores and adopts best practice models

The provision of recycling processing services impacts the social, environmental and financial performance of Council.

 

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 tender from SKM Recycling for 2017-75B offers the most competitive rebate to Council. The due diligence report commissioned by Council offers a range of mechanisms for mitigating risk. While there are still inherent risks in proceeding with either tenderer it is considered that SKM can perform the contract to the standards required.

 

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to:

1.         Accept the tender submitted by SKM Recycling Pty Ltd for the estimated rebate payable of $7,929,097 (based on the attached schedule of rates) for Contract No 2017-75B for Provision of Recyclables Acceptance and Sorting Services commencing 2 July 2018 for a period of 7 years with the option of up to 3 years further extension, subject to the following conditions:

a)    Contractor to provide proof of currency of insurance cover as required in the tender documentation;

b)    Provision of contract security valued at $50,000; and

c)    Agreement of additional contract clauses to reduce risk to Council, as detailed within the report titled ‘Receipt of Recyclables: A Review of Risk Related Issues Associated with Pending SKM Contract’.

2.         Confirm that price variations will be in accordance with the provisions as set out in the tender documents.

3.         Sign and seal the Contract documents.

4.         Negotiate with another processor seeking an agreement to provide alternative recycling acceptance and sorting services should these be required in the future, to mitigate contract risks detailed within the report titled ‘Receipt of Recyclables: A Review of Risk Related Issues Associated with Pending SKM Contract’.

  motion

Moved:                       Cr Alessi

Seconded:               Cr Kozmevski

 

THAT Council resolve to move item 6.3.4 to the closed section of the meeting.

MOTION

Moved:                       Cr Lalios

Seconded:               Cr Kelly

 

THAT Council resolve to defer item 6.3.4 until the end of the meeting

LOST

Division

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

 

For

Cr Kirkham

Cr Kelly

Cr Lalios

Cr Monteleone

Cr Desiato

Against

Cr Pavlidis

Cr Kozmevski

Cr Alessi

Cr Cox

Cr Sterjova

Cr Joseph

Abstained

Nil

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

lost

 

The Motion was then put and carried and became the Substantive Motion. 

 

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

Moved:                       Cr Alessi

Seconded:               Cr Kozmevski

 

THAT Council resolve to move Item 6.3.4 to the closed section of the meeting.

Carried

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                               Tuesday 6 February 2018

 

6.4       Corporate Services

6.4.1    Part 49 Sackville Street, Mernda - Road Discontinuance

File No:                                  190731

Attachments:                        1        Site Plan

2        Advertising Plan

3        Subdivision Plan   

Responsible Officer:           Director Corporate Services

Author:                                  Senior Property Officer   

 

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY

To invite public submissions on the proposed discontinuance of one section of road (being 11m2 in total) for the purposes of constructing and widening Sackville, William and Regent Streets, Mernda, required under planning permit 716913.  The land will be discontinued and transferred to the adjoining landowner at 49 Sackville Street, in exchange for one section of land that is currently owned by the owner of 49 Sackville Street (approximately 15m2 in total).

KEY FACTS AND / OR ISSUES

·        The discontinuance will allow Council to transfer the section of road reserve to the adjoining landowner at 49 Sackville Street, Mernda, in exchange for one section of land that is currently owned by the owner of 49 Sackville Street.

·        The proposal removes the inconsistencies in the width of existing road reservations that prohibit the desired 20.6m road width from being achieved under the Mernda West Development Plan.

·        This proposal has no financial impact to Council as it is in effect an exchange of land only.  All additional costs associated with the transfer, i.e. surveying, advertising and transfer, will be borne by the Applicant under planning permit 716913.

 

·        Council must seek public submissions on the proposed discontinuance under Section 206 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989. 

Report

Background

Beveridge Williams & Co, a development and environment consultancy firm acting on behalf of the owners of 49 Sackville Street Mernda, has approached Council officers, seeking an agreement to discontinue a section of road reserve adjoining their land.

The discontinuance will allow Council to transfer the section of road reserve (being 11m2 in total) to the adjoining landowner at 49 Sackville Street, Mernda, in exchange for one section of land that is currently owned by the owner of 49 Sackville Street.

The proposal removes the inconsistencies in the width of existing road reservations that prohibit the desired 20.6m road width from being achieved under the Mernda West Development Plan.

The land acquired by Council will be registered upon certification of the proposed subdivision permit.

the subject site

The land, located at 49 Sackville Street, Mernda, is approximately 400m south of the intersection of Bridge Inn Road and Sackville Street, Mernda, is currently zoned General Residential Zone and has a total land area of 1.25ha.  The land retains a residential dwelling (187m2 plus garage 40m2), outbuildings and is in close proximity to numerous Council reserves including that occupied by the Findon Pony Club (65 Regent Street, Mernda) and Quarry Hills residential premises (45 Regent Street Mernda)

 

The land is bordered by Gilson’s College to the north and a large acre block to the west (presently undergoing residential development). 

 

Beveridge Williams & Co has been engaged by the landowner, have submitted a planning permit application (716913) for a 26 lot subdivision (with an average lot size of 414m2) and associated works at 49 Sackville Street, Mernda.

Consultation

Consultation has been held between Council officers, Beveridge Williams, all relevant statutory authorities and the affected landowner, to ensure that the land is no longer required for its original purpose and that all existing and proposed easements are noted within the advertising plan. 

public submissions

Council officers will invite public submissions on the proposed discontinuance under Section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989.  An advertisement will be placed in the Whittlesea Leader newspaper and Council’s website (public notices) on Tuesday 13 February 2018, requesting that public submissions be received by 12 noon on Wednesday 14 March 2018.

The proposed road discontinuance was referred onto the relevant statutory authorities to confirm that there are no assets currently located within the subject area.

Financial Implications

This proposal has no financial impact to Council as it is in effect an exchange of land only. 

All additional costs associated with the transfer, i.e. surveying, advertising and transfer, will be borne by the Applicant.

Policy strategy and legislation

Council must seek public submissions on the proposed discontinuance under Section 206 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989.  Submissions will be invited for a period no less than 28 days and referred on to an appointed 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

Council Priority                    Planning and Infrastructure

Future Direction                   Accessibility in, out and around our City

Theme                                   Built environment

Strategic Objective              Our neighbourhoods are designed to be well-connected and create cohesive communities

 

The proposal seeks to facilitate the discontinuance and sale of one section of road for the purposes of constructing and widening Sackville, William and Regent Streets, Mernda.

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 proposed discontinuance and exchange of land will ensure that the construction and widening of Sackville, William and Regent Streets (approximately 1,700m2 overall) are delivered in accordance with the Mernda West Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to:

1.       Invite public submissions in accordance with Section 206 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989, relating to its intentions to commence procedures to discontinue one section of road, marked in Attachment 2 – Advertising Plan, (being 11m2 in total) for the purposes of constructing and widening Sackville, William and Regent Streets, Mernda

2.       Establish an Advisory Committee of 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 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 discontinuance following the close of the submission period.

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Sterjova

Seconded:               Cr Joseph

 

THAT Council resolve to:

1.       Invite public submissions in accordance with Section 206 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989, relating to its intentions to commence procedures to discontinue one section of road, marked in Attachment 2 – Advertising Plan, (being 11m2 in total) for the purposes of constructing and widening Sackville, William and Regent Streets, Mernda

2.       Establish an Advisory Committee of Cr Sterjova, Cr Joseph and Cr Kirkham, to consider any written submissions received on the proposal and make recommendations to Council on any such submissions.

3.       Authorise the 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 discontinuance following the close of the submission period.

Carried


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                               Tuesday 6 February 2018

 

6.4.2    Contract Variation for Employee Assistance Program

File No:                                  2015-191

Attachments:                        1        Employment Assistance Program Financial Summary - Confidential    

The attachment is presented to Council as a confidential document on the basis that it contains details relating to contractual matters, in accordance with Section 89(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 1989.

Responsible Officer:           Director Corporate Services

Author:                                  Team Leader Human Resources    

 

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY

This report seeks approval to vary and extend contract number 2015-191 for the provision of counselling and mediation services to staff via the Employee Assistance Program. 

A variation of $90,000 will bring the contract sum to $224,500.  Approval is also sought to extend the contract end date to 31 March 2020. 

It is recommended that Council:

1.   Approve a variation of $90,000 (excluding GST) making a revised contract sum of $224,500 (excluding GST).

2.   Note the funding arrangements detailed in the confidential attachment.

3.   Approve extension of the contract end date to 31 March 2020.

KEY FACTS AND / OR ISSUES

The contract has been performed satisfactorily, however a variation of $90,000 is now required to extend the contract for a further two years. 

The contractor’s prices have been checked and are considered competitive so it is proposed to extend the contract term to 31 March 2020.


 

Report

Background

This contract was awarded to Caraniche Pty Ltd.  A summary of the financial performance of the contract is provided in the confidential attachment.

The contract commenced on 1 April 2016 and the current approved end date is 31 March 2018.  Options exist to extend the contract up to 31 March 2021.

VARIATION AND EXTENSION

The contract has performed satisfactorily, however a variation of $90,000 is now required to extend the contract for a further two years.  Further details of the requested variation are provided in the confidential attachment.

The contractor’s prices have been checked and are considered competitive so it is proposed to extend the contract term to 31 March 2020.

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

Council Priority                    Organisational Sustainability

Future Direction                   Good Governance

Theme                                   Continuous Improvement

Strategic Objective              Council explores and adopts best practice models

The provision of an Employee Assistance Program is a commitment to the health and safety of employees and their immediate 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

Variation and extension of the contract is sought in accordance with the contract’s terms and conditions and Council’s applicable policy and procedures.

 

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve, in relation to Contract No. 2015-191 for Caraniche Pty Ltd to:

1.       Approve a variation of $90,000 (excluding GST) making a revised contract sum of $224,500 (excluding GST).

2.       Note the funding arrangements detailed in the confidential attachment.

3.       Approve extension of the contract end date to 31 March 2020.

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Joseph

Seconded:               Cr Kozmevski

 

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

Carried

  

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                               Tuesday 6 February 2018

 

6.5       Partnerships & Engagement

6.5.1    Contract for Provision of Online Demographic Tools; Contract No. 2017-26

File No:                                  .

Attachments:                        1        Tender Evaluation Summary: Contract 2017-26 - Confidential    

The attachment is presented to Council as a confidential document on the basis that it contains details relating to contractual matters, in accordance with Section 89(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 1989.

Responsible Officer:           Director Partnerships & Engagement  

Author:                                  Senior Research Officer   

 

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY

It is recommended that contract number 2017-26 for Provision of Online Demographic Tools:

·    is awarded to ID Consulting Pty Ltd.

·    for the tendered schedule of rates with total expenditure limited to $195,900.

·    for a term from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2020 with extension options to 31 December 2022.

KEY FACTS AND / OR ISSUES

The tender evaluation panel advises that:

·    four tenders were received.

·    the recommended tender was the highest ranked and is considered best value.

·    this was a collaborative tender with other councils and MAV Procurement.


 

Report

Background

The purpose of this contract is to provide Council with online demographic and economic profiling, modelling and forecasting tools. These online tools are used by Council staff (and are accessible to the general public) to access the latest demographic statistics about our local community in terms of our demographic and socio-economic characteristics and projected population growth. The contract also covers access to consultancy services provided by these suppliers.

On 21 October 2017, the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) issued the Request for Tender (RFT) on behalf of Victorian Councils with the aim being to:

·    Appoint a preferred (i.e. not mandated) panel of suppliers to provide Councils with up-to-date and relevant demographic resources and consultancy services.

·    Facilitate a contract that will deliver value for money through a combined expenditure arrangement for Councils for the duration of the contract.

Tenders for the contract closed on 10 November 2017.  The tendered prices and a summary of the evaluation are detailed in the confidential attachment.

The evaluation was completed by an independent Tender Evaluation Panel consisting of staff from the MAV and representatives from five Victorian Councils (including a staff member from the City of Whittlesea). The evaluation completed by the MAV was supplied to Victorian Councils recommending a panel of three providers. A review of the recommendations paper provided by the MAV confirms that:

·    The process was conducted thoroughly and with due probity.

·    MAV’s recommended panel of suppliers represent best value.

EVALUATION

The MAV evaluation outcome was as follows:

TENDERER

CONFORMING

COMPETITIVE

SCORE

RANK

Tenderer A (ID Consulting Pty Ltd)

Yes

Yes

79.02%

1

Tenderer B

Yes

Yes

76.40%

2

Tenderer C

Yes

Yes

75.21%

3

Tenderer D

No

No

N/A

N/A

Appointed suppliers have been approved based on agreement and acceptance of non-compliance items as detailed in the MAV Recommendation paper. Refer to the confidential attachment for further details of the evaluation of all tenders.

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

Council Priority                    Organisational Sustainability

Future Direction                   Good Governance

Theme                                   Continuous Improvement

Strategic Objective              Council explores and adopts best practice models

In many respects, this contract helps to address all Council priority areas presented in the Shaping Our Future: Council Plan 2017 – 2021, but particularly:

·    Council works sharper and smarter to ensure value for money and continually improves to support our growing and changing municipality.

The online statistical tools to be provided via this contract are also relevant in the context of Council’s mission statements that “we use evidence to decide our community direction” and “we use this evidence to advocate to Council and external parties”.

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 tender from ID Consulting was determined to be best value and it is considered that this company can perform the contract to the required standards. 

Recommendation

THAT Council resolve to:

1.         Accept the tender submitted by ID Consulting for the schedule of rates detailed in the confidential attachment for the following contract:

Number:    2017-26

Title:          Online Demographic Tools

Term:         1 January 2018 to 31 December 2020

Options:    Term extensions up to 31 December 2022 (only to be exercised if separately approved by Council)

Value:        Total expenditure is limited to a maximum of $195,900 (excluding GST) unless otherwise approved by Council

subject to the following conditions:

a)    Price variations to be in accordance with the provisions as set out in the tender documents.

2.         Approve the funding arrangements detailed in the confidential attachment.

3.         Sign and seal the Contract documents.

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Joseph

Seconded:               Cr Kozmevski

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

Carried

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                               Tuesday 6 February 2018

 

6.5.2    Assemblies of Councillors Report 6 February 2018

File No:                                  1881989   

Responsible Officer:           Director Partnerships & Engagement 

Author:                                  Governance Officer   

 

recommendation summary

That Council note the record of the Assemblies of Councillors meetings for the period 30 November to 5 December 2017, as set out in the table in the report.

key facts and/or issues

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


 

Report

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

30 November 2017

Cr Pavlidis (Mayor)

Cr Sterjova (Deputy Mayor)

Cr Alessi

Cr Joseph

Cr Kelly

Cr Monteleone

CEO

1.     Confidential Item – Chief Executive Officer (CEO) 100 Day Report to Councillors

Nil disclosures

Arts Cultural & Sporting Grants for Young People

1 December 2017

Cr Pavlidis (Mayor)

Cr Sterjova (Deputy Mayor)

Cr Alessi

Cr Kozmevski

Cr Monteleone

 

CDGO

MCBP TLCI

 

The advisory committee made a recommendation to the delegate regarding the following application via a virtual meeting:

1.     Johnathon Bouya – Sporting Grant – Overseas – Successful

2.     Claudia Fruscalzo – Sporting Grant – Overseas – Successful

Nil disclosures

Council Forum

5 December 2017

Cr Sterjova (Deputy Mayor)

Cr Cox

Cr Desiato

Cr Kozmevski

Cr Monteleone

CEO

DCS

DCRS

DCTP

DPE

DPMP

IPE

JCIO

MCDT-A

MMF

SSP

TLST

ULIP

1.     Transport For Victoria – Commuter Parking at the South Morang Train Station

2.     Draft IT & Digital Strategy 2018-2021

3.     Asset Management Planning – Roads

4.     Confidential Item - Growling Frog Golf Course Business Strategy

Nil disclosures


 

The table below represents an Index of Officer titles:

Initials

Title of Officer

Initials

Title of Officer

CEO

Chief Executive Officer – Simon Overland

JCIO

Joint Chief Information Officer – Hans Wolf

CDGO

Community Development Grants Officer – Caitlin Armstrong

MCBP

Manager Community Building and Planning – Belgin Besim

DCS

Director Community Services – Russell Hopkins

MCDT-A

Acting Manager City Design and Transport – Matthew Varcoe

DCRS

Director Corporate Services – Helen Sui

MMF

Manager Major Facilities – Carl Partridge

DCTP

Director City Transport and Presentation– Nick Mann

SSP

Senior Strategic Planner – Liam Wilkinson

DPE

Director Partnerships and Engagement – Liana Thompson

TLCI

Team Leader Community Inclusion – Kelisha Nikitas

DPMP

Director Planning & Major Projects – Steve O’Brien

TLST

Team Leader Strategic Transport – Louie D’Amore

IPE

Infrastructure Planning Engineer – Michael Butler

ULIP

Unit Leader Infrastructure Projects – Anthony Kyrkou

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

Council Priority          Organisational Sustainability

Future Direction         Good Governance

Theme                          Continuous improvement

Strategic Objective     Our Council monitors and evaluates all of its operations

The provision of this report is in line with the Council Priority 5 – Organisational Sustainability - Good Governance of Council’s Council Plan by ensuring Council monitors and evaluates all of its operations.

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 for the period 30 November to 5 December 2017, as set out in the table in the report.

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Joseph

Seconded:               Cr Kozmevski

 

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

Carried

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                               Tuesday 6 February 2018

 

6.5.3    Appointment of Councillor Representation on Organisations and Committees

File No:                                  140748

Attachments:                        1        Organisations and Committees   

Responsible Officer:           Director Partnerships & Engagement  

Author:                                  Governance Officer   

 

recommendation Summary

To appoint replacement Councillor delegates to internal committees and an external organisation created as a consequence of Deputy Mayor Cr Emilia Lisa Sterjova not being able to attend meetings of these groups.  Appointments to the vacant positions will commence immediately and be effective to 13 November 2018.

key facts and/or issues

Councillor delegates are sought to replace Deputy Mayor Cr Sterjova on the following committees:

·    City of Whittlesea Arts Cultural and Sporting Grants Program for Young People (Internal Advisory Committee)

The Advisory Committee meets monthly as a ‘virtual’ Committee as required.

·    Whittlesea Community Futures Partnership (Internal Advisory Committee)

Meeting dates 12 February, 14 May, 20 August and 26 November 2018, 9.30am-12.30pm.

·    Whittlesea YMCA (External)

Meets on the last Wednesday of the month at 7.00pm at Mill Park Leisure Centre.

For further information regarding each committee please refer to Attachment 1.


 

Report

Background

Councillor appointments to external groups are made for a number of reasons.  These appointments demonstrate Council’s interest and involvement in the organisation and allow Council to be involved in developing the organisation’s strategic direction.  In some instances, the constitution of external organisations provide for Councillor membership. 

Proposal

Nominations from interested Councillors are sought for representation on the organisations listed in Attachment 1. 

critical dates

The next meeting of the Whittlesea YMCA and Whittlesea Community Futures Partnership is 24 January 2018 and 12 February 2018 respectively.

financial implications

The cost of Councillors attending meetings of internal committees and external bodies is included within relevant budgets.

Policy strategy and legislation

At the Council meeting held on 11 December 2012, Council resolved to make appointment to Committees and external organisations at the first Council meeting following the Statutory Council Meeting to elect the Mayor. 

At the Council meeting on 18 December 2017 Council resolved that the appointments would be for the period until the first Council meeting following the election of the Mayor scheduled for 13 November 2018.

 

Links to the CoUNCIL Plan

COUNCIL PRIORITY           Organisational Sustainability

Future Direction                   Inclusive and engaged community

Theme                                   Community voice

Strategic Objective              Our voice is reflected through inclusive Council decision making processes 

 

The appointment of Councillor representative on community organisations and committees provides an opportunity for Council to have a voice within 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 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 representation on the organisations listed in Attachment 1.

 

RECOMMENDATION

THAT Council resolve to appoint Councillor Representatives to the organisations and committees listed in Attachment 1 commencing immediately and ending on 13 November 2018.

  Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Cox

Seconded:               Cr Kozmevski

 

THAT Council resolve to replace Deputy Mayor Cr Sterjova with Cr Cox as the Councillor Representative to the organisations and committees listed in Attachment 1 commencing immediately and ending on 13 November 2018.  

Carried

 

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                               Tuesday 6 February 2018

 

6.6       Executive Services

Nil Reports 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                               Tuesday 6 February 2018

 

7.         Notices of Motion

7.1       NOTICE OF MOTION NO 846 -  RESCISSION OF COUNCIL RESOLUTION ITEM 7.9 NOTICE OF MOTION 845 – RECONSIDERATION OF PROJECTS FUNDED IN 2017/18 BUDGET

File No:                                   NOM846   

Author:                                  Cr Mary Lalios

 

Cr Lalios of South East 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 6 February 2018 at 6:00pm:

 

MOtion

THAT Council resolve to rescind the resolution made at the adjourned Council meeting held on 18 December 2017 in relation to item 7.9 Notice of Motion 845 Reconsideration of projects funded in 2017/18 budget which reads:

That Council resolve to:

1.        Not proceed with the following projects funded in the 2017/2018 Budget:

a.    A portable pavilion/change room and portable toilet and 20 space car park, and booking system for the courts at Shield Street Epping; and

b.    Indented parking in Josef Street Bundoora.

2.        Reallocate funds to the following project;

a.    The provision of capital works surrounding the Epping Views Primary School as part of the safety plan developed by Council officers and the clear need shown; and

b.    The steps needed to plan similar safety works surrounding Mill Park Heights Primary and the Hazleglen School precinct for inclusion in the 2018/19 Budget.

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Monteleone

Seconded:               Cr Kirkham

 

THAT Council resolve to adopt the Recommendation.

lost

 Division

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

 

For

Cr Kirkham

Cr Monteleone

Against

Cr Pavlidis

Cr Kozmevski

Cr Alessi

Cr Cox

Cr Sterjova

Cr Joseph

Abstained

Nil

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

lost

extension of meeting time

Moved:                       Cr Kozmevski

Seconded:               Cr Alessi

 

THAT Council resolve to extend the meeting time from 11.00pm to 11.30pm.

Carried

 

In accordance with Section 69 of the Procedural Matters Local Law, Cr Kirkham requested that his opposition to the resolution be recorded.  

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                               Tuesday 6 February 2018

 

7.2       NOTICE OF MOTION NO 847 - RECONSIDERATION OF PROJECTS FUNDED IN 2017/18 BUDGET

File No:                                   NOM847   

Author:                                  Cr Mary Lalios

 

Councillor Mary Lalios of South East 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 6 February 2018 at 6:30pm:

 

MOtion

THAT Council resolve to:

1.      Proceed with the following projects funded in the 2017/2018 Budget:

a.      A portable pavilion/change room and portable toilet and 20 space car park, and booking system for the courts at Shield Street Epping; and

b.      Indented parking in Josef Street Bundoora.

2.      Fund as many of the following projects, from savings made in the budget through the additional Growing Suburbs Fund announcements made in December 2017 and/or any other savings that can be achieved in the 2017/18 budget:

a.      The provision of capital works surrounding the Epping Views Primary School, Epping; Mill Park Heights Primary School, Mill Park; Hazel Glen College, Doreen; Laurimar Primary School, Doreen; St Peters Primary School, Epping as per the result of the investigations undertaken by officers that identified the five schools above, that were shortlisted and developed as the highest priorities for the City of Whittlesea.

3.      That a report be prepared to identify the steps needed to plan for the school traffic projects from 2 (a) above, that cannot be funded from the 2017/18 budget, for inclusion in the 2018/19 Budget

 

Chief Executive Officer Explanatory Note

The Notice of Motion lapsed for want of a mover.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                               Tuesday 6 February 2018

 

7.3       NOTICE OF MOTION NO 850 - DEMOLITION OF HERITAGE BUILDINGS

File No:                                   NOM850   

Author:                                  Cr Tom Joseph

 

Councillor Tom Joseph of North Ward has given notice that it is his intention to move the following Motion at the Ordinary Meeting of Council to be held on Tuesday 6 February 2018 at 6:30pm:

 

MOtion

THAT Council resolve to amend the Conditions and Limitations at Clause 61(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 within the Instrument of Delegation from Council to Members of Council Staff to include that… ‘Applications involving the complete or partial demolition of buildings within a Heritage Overlay that are not subject to the VicSmart pathway must be reported to Council for a decision’

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Joseph

Seconded:               Cr Alessi

 

THAT Council resolve to adopt the Recommendation.

Carried

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                               Tuesday 6 February 2018

 

7.4       NOTICE OF MOTION NO 851 - WHITTLESEA PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT C204 - PLENTY VALLEY TOWN CENTRE STRUCTURE PLAN

File No:                                   NOM851   

Author:                                  Cr Lawrie Cox

 

Councillor Lawrie Cox of South West Ward has given notice that it is his intention to move the following Motion at the Ordinary Meeting of Council to be held on Tuesday 6 February 2018 at 6:30pm:

 

MOtion

THAT Council resolve to:

1.       Request the Minister for Planning appoint an independent Planning Panel to consider unresolved submissions made in relation to proposed Amendment C204 to the Whittlesea Planning Scheme.

2.       Authorise officers to continue discussions to seek resolution of unresolved submissions prior to an independent Planning Panel Hearing, consistent with the strategic intent of the Structure Plan and officer recommendations contained within Item 6.1.5 of 21 November 2017 Council Minutes.

3.       Make changes to the Amendment documentation to reflect the specific officer recommendations contained within Item 6.1.5 of 21 November 2017 Council Minutes and present the amended Amendment documentation as the preferred form of the Amendment to the purposes of the Panel hearing.

4.       Continue to engage with the community regarding the proposed connections to Civic Drive identified in the Structure Plan with the intent to resolve community concerns prior to an independent Planning Panel Hearing.

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Cox

Seconded:               Cr Kozmevski

 

THAT Council resolve to adopt the Recommendation.

Carried

   

8.         Questions to Officers

NIL 

9.         Urgent Business

NIL 

10.       Reports from Delegates Appointed to Council by Other Bodies

NIL 

11.       Questions to Councillors

CONSIDERED AT ITEM 5.1.

 


Ordinary Council Minutes                                                               Tuesday 6 February 2018

 

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  waste collection

12.4     Corporate Services

12.4.1  Inhouse Valuations Services Review

12.5     Partnerships & Engagement

Nil Reports

12.6     Executive Services

12.6.1  MEETINGS OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 13 November 2017 to 19 January 2018 

13.       Confidential notices of motion

13.1     NOTICE OF MOTION NO 848 - RESCISSION OF ITEM 61.1 - MILL PARK LEISURE CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT STAGING PLAN

13.2     NOTICE OF MOTION NO 849 - MILL PARK LEISURE CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

 

Council Resolution

Moved:                       Cr Cox

Seconded:               Cr Sterjova

 

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  waste collection

Confidential in accordance with Section 89(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 1989.

12.4.1  Inhouse Valuations Services Review

Confidential in accordance with Section 89(2)(h) of the Local Government Act 1989.

12.6.1  MEETINGS OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 13 November 2017 to 19 January 2018

Confidential in accordance with Section 89(2)(h) of the Local Government Act 1989.

13.1     NOTICE OF MOTION NO 848 - RESCISSION OF ITEM 61.1 - MILL PARK LEISURE CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT STAGING PLAN

Confidential in accordance with Section 89(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 1989.

13.2     NOTICE OF MOTION NO 849 - MILL PARK LEISURE CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT OPTIONS

Confidential in accordance with Section 89(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 1989.

Carried

 

ACCORDINGLY, THE MEETING WAS CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC AT 9.07 PM.

THE MEETING WAS RE-OPENED TO THE PUBLIC AT 10.40PM.

14.       Closure

THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS THE MAYOR DECLARED THE MEETING CLOSED AT 11.23PM.

 

CONFIRMED THIS 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2018.

 

 

CR KRIS PAVLIDIS

MAYOR