city of kingston ordinary council meeting agenda 27 april 2010€¦ · m 54 kp 09/773 – 321–323...

City of Kingston Ordinary Council Meeting

Agenda 27 April 2010 Notice is given that an Ordinary Meeting of Kingston City Council will be held at 7.00pm at the Cheltenham Office, 1230 Nepean Highway, Cheltenham, on Tuesday 27 April 2010. 1. Apologies 2. Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meetings

Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting 22 March 2010. 3. Foreshadowed Declaration by Councillors or Officers of any Conflict of Interest

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

4. Petitions

5. Presentation of Awards

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

8. Question Time 9. Environmental Sustainability Reports M 48 Town Planning Application Decisions – March 2010 Page 6 M 49 KP 09/593 - 9 Bear Street, Mordialloc 3 M 50 KP 09/821 – 31 Argus Street, Cheltenham Page 33 M 51 KP 10/46 - 3/7-9 Naples Road, Mentone Page 57 M 52 KP 10/35 – 67 McLeod Road, Carrum Page 70 M 53 KP 09/710 – 48 Albenca Street, Mentone Page 79 M 54 KP 09/773 – 321–323 Charman Road, Cheltenham Page 94 M 55 KP 09/861 – 1324-1328 Nepean Highway, Cheltenham Page 111 M 56 Mordialloc Creek Masterplan – Concept Design Strategies & Community

Consultation Strategy Page 143 M 57 Moorabbin Major Activity Centre Draft Structure Plan Page 148 M 58 Submission to Coastal Climate Change Issues & Options Paper Page 151 M 59 Planning Scheme Amendment C112 Page 153 M 60 Affordable Housing Taskforce Update Page 157 M 61 Green Wedge Plan Update Page 159 M 62 Community Survey Results - Centre Dandenong Road Proposed Bus Lanes Page 164 10. Community Sustainability Reports M 63 Poseidon Angling Club Page 167 11. Organisational Development & Governance Reports M 64 Hiring Arrangements for Minor Community Halls Page 171 M 65 Use of Office Based Meeting Rooms Policy Page 176 M 66 Review of Councillor Support & Expenditure Policy Page 180 M 67 MAV Protocols for Councillor Candidates in State/Federal Elections Policy Page 182 M 68 2010 ALGA National General Assembly - Motion Page 185 M 69 Expenditure of Ward Funds Schedule Page 187 M 70 City Historian 2010 Annual Report Page 190 M 71 MAV Substitute Representative – 28 May 2010 State Council Meeting Page 192


Agenda 27 April 2010

2

12. Corporate Services Report M 72 Section 223 Committee report on Proposed Discontinuance of Road abutting Stanley Avenue, Cheltenham Page 193 M 73 Investment Policy Report – March 2010 Quarter Page 197 13. Notices of Motion M 74 Cr Brownlees: Controls on Hours of Flying Training at Moorabbin Airport 01 M 75 Cr West: Investigation of alternative Dingley Bypass Route Page 202 M 76 Cr West: Revocation of Green Wedge rezoning requests Page 203 M 77 Cr West: Bay Trail Options Page 204 M 78 Cr West: Stanley Avenue Parkland Page 205 14. Urgent Business 15. Items in Camera M 79 Property Matter Page 206 M 80 Legal Matter Page 211



3

6. Reports from Village Committees

PRESENTATION OF VILLAGE COMMITTEE REPORTS

6(a) Cheltenham Village Committee Chairperson - Joe Astbury

Report of Meeting held on 7 April 2010 Highlight: Steve Perumal’s presentation of the Draft Playground Strategy.

6(b) Mordialloc Village Committee Chairperson - Allan Locke

Report of Meeting held on 7 April 2010 Highlight: The most successful Mordialloc Fine Food and Wine Festival ever.

6(c) Mentone/Parkdale Village Committee Chairperson – Claire Houston

Report of Meeting held on 7 April 2010 MP 09/61 Pedestrian Lights in Balcombe Road.

Village Committee Motion: That Council / officers approach Janice Munt to intercede on behalf of the Community with VicRoads with a view to changing the pedestrian traffic lights system from current to what is known as the Penguin system as used in the Seaview Shopping Centre Bayside. Officer Comment VicRoads have advised that the existing Pedestrian User Friendly Intelligent (PUFFIN) pedestrian crossing is appropriate at this location. This type of crossing has detectors installed to extend the walk and clearance times for slower pedestrians to ensure that the less mobile pedestrians are able to complete their crossing safely. A Pedestrian Light Control (PELICAN) crossing (the village committee referred to this as a PENGUIN crossing) has the potential to confuse motorists especially during the flashing yellow phase. VicRoads will be replacing all existing PELICAN crossings to PUFFIN crossings over the next few years. PUFFIN crossings are deemed safer and more effective in addressing the needs of all pedestrians without causing excessive delays to motorists. Council Officers support VicRoads comments however acknowledge that congestion on Balcombe Road through the Mentone Shopping Centre remains a key issue for the local community. Council Officers have recently written to VicRoads with a suggestion to widen the north side of Balcombe Road, at the Como Parade roundabout, to provide two lanes for east bound traffic. This suggestion may assist with easing congestion by facilitating some right hand turn movements when the boom gates are down, in addition to increasing the general capacity of the intersection. The proposal has been provided to VicRoads for their review and design development if considered viable, at which time Council will work with VicRoads to determine the nature and extent of consultation to be undertaken.



4

Highlight: Murray Orr and the committee thanked Warren Ashdown for his persistence in the proposed changes to the Balcombe Road (Mentone, near railway line) roundabout.

6(d) Clayton South Village Committee

Chairperson – Chris Frangopoulos Report of Meeting held on 7 April 2010

Highlight: Plans for a community safety presentation to made to the committee at the

next meeting

6(e) Patterson Lakes/Carrum Village Committee Chairperson – Pat King

Report of Meeting held on 7 April 2010

Highlight: That the village committee did not receive more detailed and faster information about processes in response to items on the MAS.

6(f) Clarinda / Oakleigh South Village Committee

Chairperson – David Oakley Report of Meeting held on 7 April 2010

Speed Humps: Inverness Street, Clarinda Village Committee Motion: That speed humps to be installed in Inverness St, Clarinda (due to cars not adhering to the 30 speed sign on the crest). Officer Comment Council Officers have reviewed the traffic data and land use in Inverness Street and recommend that the installation of speed humps would be appropriate to manage the speeding problem in this street. A proposal for traffic calming will be prepared and circulated to the residents of Inverness Street for their comments. Signage and Policing Dogs off Leash – Bald Hill Park Village Committee Motion: Motion for the Parks Manager to place larger signs up in the park entrances (saying dogs are not allowed off the lead) and for the parks to be policed with more patrols. Officer Comment The signage will be assessed and addressed where necessary. As part of the regular weekly patrols, signage will be checked. Highlight: The opening of the pedestrian lights in Centre Rd.



5

6(g) Aspendale/Edithvale/Aspendale Gardens/Waterways Village Committee Chairperson – Ken Carney

Report of Meeting held on 8 April 2010 Highlight: Presentation made by Steve Perumal relating to the draft playground

strategy.

6(h) Chelsea/Chelsea Heights/Bonbeach Village Committee Chairperson –Nigel McGillivray

Report of Meeting held on 14 April 2010 Highlight: The display of the Easter Scene at LF Payne Hall. The Chelsea / Chelsea Heights / Bonbeach Village Committee would like

to formally thank Council for the Christmas and Easter banners displayed above the LF Payne Hall. This continued a 22 year tradition of displaying the scenes at this location



6

9. Environmental Sustainability Reports M 48 Town Planning Application Decisions – March 2010 Approved By: Tony Rijs-General Manager, Environmental Sustainability Author: Ian Nice – Manager, Planning Attached for information is the report of Town Planning Decisions for the month of March 2010. A summary of the decisions is as follows:

Type of Decision Number of Decisions Made

Percentage (%)

Planning Permits 86 79 Notice of Decision 8 7 Refusal to Grant a Permit 5 5 Other - Withdrawn (2) - Prohibited (0) - Permit not required (3) - Lapsed (5)

10 9

Total 109 100 (NB: Percentage figures have been rounded) Recommendation That the report be noted.



7

Planning Decisions March 2010 APPL. No.

PROPERTY ADDRESS SUBURB

APPL. DATE

DATE DECIDED

PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION DECISION

KP-530/2008/A 28 Wordsworth Avenue

CLAYTON SOUTH 6/11/2009 1/03/2010

FOUR (4) DWELLINGS Permit Issued

KP-648/2008/A 2 Dixon Street MENTONE 6/11/2009 1/03/2010 TWO (2) DWELLINGS Permit Issued

KP-55/2010 Unit 1 5 Hazel Avenue EDITHVALE 4/02/2010 1/03/2010

TWO (2) LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued

KP-738/2009 350-366 Old Dandenong Road

DINGLEY VILLAGE 11/11/2009 1/03/2010

REFUSE TRANSFER STATION Withdrawn

KP-807/2009 101 Thames Promenade CHELSEA 7/12/2009 1/03/2010

SBO - FRONT FENCE Permit Issued

KP-50/2010 68 Valetta Street CARRUM 2/02/2010 1/03/2010 FOUR (4) LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued

KP-594/2009 31 Rayhur Street CLAYTON SOUTH 4/09/2009 1/03/2010

TWO (2) DWELLINGS Permit Issued

KP-1121/2008 42 Fifth Avenue CHELSEA HEIGHTS 17/12/2008 2/03/2010


KP-575/2009 4-14 Crawford Road CLARINDA 31/08/2009 2/03/2010

INSTALLATION OF FLOODLIGHTS - TENNIS COURT

Notice of Decision

KP-632/2009 7 295 Nepean Highway EDITHVALE 23/09/2009 3/03/2010

EXTENSION TO A DWELLING ON A LOT LESS THAN 300 SQUARE METERS - BALCONY/DECK Permit Issued

KP-682/2009 10 The Parade CLARINDA 15/10/2009 3/03/2010 TWO (2) DWELLINGS Lapsed

KP-677/2009 83 Chute Street MORDIALLOC 13/10/2009 3/03/2010 2 (2) LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued

KP-727/2009 1-9 Balcombe Road MENTONE 5/11/2009 3/03/2010

ADVERTISING SIGNAGE Lapsed

KP-730/2007/A 30 Matilda Road MOORABBIN 29/12/2009 3/03/2010 TWO (2) DWELLINGS Permit Issued

KP-52/2010 25/01/2010 3/03/2010

ADVERTISING SIGNAGE TO BUS SHELTER Permit Issued

KP-305/2009 10 Wright Street CARRUM 13/05/2009 3/03/2010 2 LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued

KP-847/2009 7 Collins Street MENTONE 17/12/2009 3/03/2010 TWO (2) LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued

KP-531/2009 10-12 Pietro Road HEATHERTON 11/08/2009 3/03/2010 DWELLING Permit Issued

KP-728/2007/A 21 White Street PARKDALE 2/09/2009 3/03/2010

CHANGE OF USE / SIGNAGE / CAR PARKING Permit Issued

KP-407/2009/A 16 Milton Avenue CLAYTON SOUTH 3/03/2010 4/03/2010

3 LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued



8

KP-709/2009 7 188-190 Beach Road MORDIALLOC 27/10/2009 4/03/2010

EXTENSION TO EXISTING DWELLING ON A LOT LESS THAN 300 SQUARE METRES Permit Issued

KP-659/2006 Waterside Drive WATERWAYS 11/09/2006 4/03/2010 LIQUOR LICENCE

Notice of Decision

KP-1138/2008 236 Station Street EDITHVALE 22/12/2008 4/03/2010

TWO (2) DWELLINGS

Notice of Decision

KP-859/2009 5 Arco Lane HEATHERTON 29/12/2009 4/03/2010 WAIVING OF CARPARKING Permit Issued

KP-403/2009 3 Embankment Grove CHELSEA 22/06/2009 4/03/2010

ALTERATIONS & ADDITIONS Permit Issued

KP-808/2009 74-80 Keys Road CHELTENHAM 7/12/2009 4/03/2010

BUSINESS IDENTIFIACTION SIGNAGE Permit Issued

KP-894/2007/A 32 Healey Street MOORABBIN 4/03/2010 4/03/2010 TWO (2) DWELLINGS Permit Issued

KP-27/2010 550-551 Nepean Highway BONBEACH 13/01/2010 4/03/2010

SECTION 24A PLAN AND TWO (2) LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued

KP-479/2009 3A Cremona Street MENTONE 21/07/2009 4/03/2010

ALTS & ADDS - 2ND STOREY Permit Issued

KP-89/2010 24 Dawn Street HIGHETT 23/02/2010 4/03/2010 TWO (2) LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued

KP-56/2010 42 Wetland Drive PATTERSON LAKES 5/02/2010 4/03/2010

ONE (1) NEW DWELLING Permit Issued

KP-841/2009 28 Bruthen Street MOORABBIN 21/12/2009 5/03/2010

SBO - SWIMMING POOL

Permit Not Required

KP-34/2010 2 149 Elder Street South CLARINDA 22/01/2010 5/03/2010

NEW FENCE TO DWELLING Withdrawn

KP-237/2009 39 Swanston Street MENTONE 9/04/2009 5/03/2010

ALTS & ADDS - INSTALL 4 NEW FLUES Permit Issued

KP-611/2009 112-114 Keys Road CHELTENHAM 14/09/2009 5/03/2010

CHANGE OF USE - AUTOMATIVE TRAINING CENTRE Permit Issued

KP-380/2009 2 Wallum Road EDITHVALE 15/06/2009 5/03/2010 TWO (2) DWELLINGS Permit Issued

KP-624/2009 367-369 Nepean Highway CHELSEA 21/09/2009 5/03/2010

TEN (10) LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued

KP-209/2006/A 43 Argyle Avenue CHELSEA 11/11/2009 5/03/2010 THREE (3) DWELLINGS Permit Issued

KP-837/2009 16/12/2009 5/03/2010

BUILDINGS & WORKS TO EXISTING BOATSHED Lapsed

KP-507/2009 1 Snipe Close CHELSEA HEIGHTS 31/07/2009 5/03/2010




9

KP-626/2009/A 316-332 Kingston Road CLARINDA 9/03/2010 9/03/2010

CONSTRUCTION OF LIBRARY AND CLASSROOMS Permit Issued

KP-2/2010 1 Egerton Avenue CHELTENHAM 4/01/2010 10/03/2010

THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ON LAND DESIGNATED IN A SBO Permit Issued

KP-799/2009 13 Mallawa Street

CLAYTON SOUTH 1/12/2009 11/03/2010


KP-51/2010 21 Foam Street ASPENDALE 2/02/2010 11/03/2010 TWO (2) LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued

KP-694/2009 21 Thompson Road

PATTERSON LAKES 19/10/2009 12/03/2010

SECTION 24A PLAN Permit Issued

KP-284/2007 93 Wells Road CHELSEA HEIGHTS 30/04/2007 12/03/2010

CHANGE OF USE - CONVERT CARPARK TO OFFICES & 3 LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued

KP-647/2009 1 19 Oakes Avenue

CLAYTON SOUTH 5/10/2009 12/03/2010

FOUR (4) LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued

KP-787/2009 Unit 4 370 Como Parade West PARKDALE 26/11/2009 12/03/2010

CONSTRUCT EXTENSIONS TO DWELLING - VERANDA ON A LOT LESS THAN 300 SQUARE METRES Permit Issued

KP-1038/2008 228 Centre Dandenong Road CHELTENHAM 18/11/2008 12/03/2010

CHANGE OF USE - MOTOR VEHICLE SALES + SIGNAGE Permit Issued

KP-534/2009 7 Vincent Street EDITHVALE 12/08/2009 12/03/2010 THREE (3) DWELLINGS Permit Issued

KP-121/2009 57 Scotch Parade BONBEACH 27/02/2009 12/03/2010

TWO (2) DWELLINGS Refused

KP-122/2009 98 Station Street ASPENDALE 2/03/2009 12/03/2010 THREE (3) DWELLINGS Permit Issued

KP-96/2010 55 Chelsea Road CHELSEA 25/02/2010 12/03/2010 TWO (2) LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued

KP-110/2010 38 Fiddes Street MOORABBIN 3/03/2010 15/03/2010 SBO - CARPORT Permit Not Required

KP-858/2009 2-3 4-10 Jamieson Street CHELTENHAM 23/12/2009 15/03/2010

CHANGE OF USE - MEDICAL SUITE Permit Issued

KP-115/2010 19 St Georges Crescent HEATHERTON 5/03/2010 15/03/2010

VERANDA AND DECKING

Permit Not Required

KP-21/2010 203 Boundary Road MORDIALLOC 15/01/2010 15/03/2010

BUILDINGS & WORKS TO EXISTING BUILDING Permit Issued

KP-94/2010 15 Walsh Avenue MOORABBIN 22/02/2010 16/03/2010 DWELLING - SBO Permit Issued



10

KP-7/2010 59A Fraser Avenue EDITHVALE 7/01/2010 16/03/2010

EXTENSION TO A DWELLING ON A LOT LESS THAN 300 SQUARE METERS Permit Issued

KP-703/2009 3 Egret Drive CHELSEA HEIGHTS 26/10/2009 18/03/2010

BUILDINGS AND WORKS Permit Issued

KP-706/2009 3 Egret Drive CHELSEA HEIGHTS 26/10/2009 18/03/2010

ADVERTISING SIGNAGE Permit Issued

KP-793/2009/A 30 Clay Street MOORABBIN 10/03/2010 22/03/2010 THREE (3) LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued

KP-732/2009 3 4 Mitchell Street MENTONE 9/11/2009 22/03/2010

CONSTRUCT EXTENSIONS TO A DWELLING ON A LOT LESS THAN 300 SQUARE METRES Permit Issued

KP-625/2009 Lot S51 Governor Road WATERWAYS 21/09/2009 22/03/2010

ADVERTISING SIGNAGE Permit Issued

KP-341/2009 11 263-271 Wells Road

CHELSEA HEIGHTS 21/05/2009 23/03/2010

RESTRICTED RECREATION FACILITY Permit Issued

KP-274/2007 34 Sunray Avenue CHELTENHAM 26/04/2007 23/03/2010 3 DWELLINGS Permit Issued

KP-355/2009 78-86 White Street MORDIALLOC 30/05/2009 23/03/2010

SEVENTY ONE (71) DWELLINGS - SBO Permit Issued

KP-789/2009 12 Collocott Street MORDIALLOC 26/11/2009 23/03/2010

FOUR (4) DWELLINGS Permit Issued

KP-651/2009 Shop 3 570 Main Street MORDIALLOC 5/10/2009 23/03/2010

CHANGE OF USE Permit Issued

KP-744/2009 30 Bignell Road MOORABBIN 13/11/2009 23/03/2010

ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING FACTORY / WAREHOUSE Permit Issued

KP-726/2009 6-12 Fairchild Street HEATHERTON 4/11/2009 23/03/2010


KP-796/2009 11 Plane Tree Avenue

DINGLEY VILLAGE 30/11/2009 23/03/2010


KP-653/2009 87 Wilson Street CHELTENHAM 6/10/2009 23/03/2010 TWO (2) DWELLINGS

Notice of Decision

KP-368/2009 11 Northcliffe Road EDITHVALE 9/06/2009 24/03/2010

THREE (3) DWELLINGS Permit Issued

KP-116/2009 36 Mill Street ASPENDALE 25/02/2009 24/03/2010 TWO DWELLINGS

Notice of Decision

KP-778/2009/A 22 Garfield Street CHELTENHAM 25/03/2010 25/03/2010 TEN (10) LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued

KP-78/2010 10 Edsall Street HIGHETT 16/02/2010 25/03/2010 TWO (2) LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued

KP-527/2009 4 Chadwell Grove CHELSEA 11/08/2009 25/03/2010

TWO (2) DWELLINGS

Notice of Decision

KP-843/2009 23 Steedman Street MORDIALLOC 21/12/2009 25/03/2010 DWELLING Permit Issued



11

KP-75/2010 4 Walden Road MENTONE 16/02/2010 25/03/2010 TWO (2) LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued

KP-733/2009 8 Freda Avenue CHELTENHAM 9/11/2009 25/03/2010 TWO (2) DWELLINGS Permit Issued

KP-15/2010 3 Gainsborough Road MENTONE 14/01/2010 25/03/2010 SBO - GARAGE Refused

KP-102/2010 1 56 Oakes Avenue

CLAYTON SOUTH 2/03/2010 25/03/2010


KP-785/2009 2E Sandford Street HIGHETT 25/11/2009 25/03/2010

EXTENSION TO A DWELLING ON A LOT LESS THAN 300 SQUARE METERS - FIRST FLOOR Permit Issued

KP-828/2009

Factory 5 327-337 Warrigal Road CHELTENHAM 15/12/2009 25/03/2010 RETAIL SALES Lapsed

KP-584/2009 38 McMillan Street

CLAYTON SOUTH 1/09/2009 25/03/2010

THREE (3) DWELLINNGS Lapsed

KP-434/2009 61 Berry Avenue EDITHVALE 7/07/2009 25/03/2010 TWO (2) DWELLINGS

Notice of Decision

KP-705/2009 12 136-138 Cochranes Road MOORABBIN 26/10/2009 26/03/2010

CHANGE OF USE Permit Issued

KP-79/2010 610 South Road MOORABBIN 16/02/2010 26/03/2010

CHANGE OF USE (MARTIAL ARTS TRAINING FACILITY) Permit Issued

KP-82/2010 316 Highett Road HIGHETT 18/02/2010 26/03/2010 ADVERTISING SIGNAGE Permit Issued

KP-477/2009 3-5 Alvena Street MENTONE 17/07/2009 29/03/2010 EIGHTEEN (18) DWELLINGS Refused

KP-959/2007 26 Elder Street CLARINDA 3/12/2007 29/03/2010 THREE (3) DWELLINGS Refused

KP-685/2009 530 Main Street MORDIALLOC 19/10/2009 29/03/2010

FOURTY-NINE (49) LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued

KP-18/2010 1161 Nepean Highway HIGHETT 15/01/2010 29/03/2010

THREE (3) LOT SUBDIVISION Permit Issued

KP-32/2010 50 Lochiel Avenue EDITHVALE 21/01/2010 29/03/2010 SBO - DECK Permit Issued

KP-189/2009 25 Park Street MORDIALLOC 26/03/2009 29/03/2010

TWO DWELLINGS / 2 LOT SUB Permit Issued

KP-595/2009 7 First Street PARKDALE 4/09/2009 29/03/2010 DWELLING - SBO Permit Issued

KP-358/2002/A 1 544 Nepean Highway BONBEACH 15/09/2008 29/03/2010

PROPOSED ROOF TOP DECKS UNITS 3 5 & 7 / 544 NEPEAN HIGHWAY BONBEACH Refused

KP-658/2009 19 Central Avenue MOORABBIN 7/10/2009 29/03/2010


KP-648/2009 86 Catherine Avenue CHELSEA 7/10/2009 29/03/2010




12

KP-1019/2008/A 19 John Street MORDIALLOC 21/12/2009 29/03/2010


KP-47/2010 160 Kingston Road HEATHERTON 1/02/2010 30/03/2010

EXTENSION TO EXISTING DWELLING - UGBA Permit Issued

KP-409/2009 Sixth Avenue ASPENDALE 23/06/2009 30/03/2010 BUILDINGS & WORKS Permit Issued

KP-628/2009 179 Beach Road PARKDALE 22/09/2009 31/03/2010 ADVERTISING SIGN Permit Issued

KP-160/2005/A Waterside Drive WATERWAYS 11/09/2006 31/03/2010

ALTERATIONS & ADDITIONS TO FOOD & DRINK PREMISES REDUCED CAR PARKING REQUIREMENTS Permit Issued

KP-659/2006/A Waterside Drive WATERWAYS 2/03/2010 31/03/2010 LIQUOR LICENCE Permit Issued

KP-480/2009 3 Third Street CLAYTON SOUTH 22/07/2009 31/03/2010

TWO (2) DWELLINGS

Notice of Decision

KP-759/2009 17 Randall Avenue EDITHVALE 17/11/2009 31/03/2010


KP-166/2010 1009-1013 Nepean Highway MOORABBIN 26/03/2010 31/03/2010




13

M 49 KP 09/593 – 9 Bear Street, Mordialloc APPLICANT SJB Planning Pty Ltd ADDRESS OF LAND No. 9 (Lot 1 on PS625503N) Bear Street, Mordialloc PROPOSAL Thirty-four (34) dwellings on land designated within a

Heritage Overlay PLANNING OFFICER Sebastian Lorenzo REFERENCE NO. KP-593/2009 RELEVANT STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

Clause 12: Metropolitan Development Clause 14: Settlement Clause 15: Environment Clause 16: Housing Clause 18: Infrastructure Clause 19: Particular Uses & Development

RELEVANT LOCAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

Clause 21.03: Land Use Challenges for The New Millennium Clause 21.04: Vision Clause 21.05: Residential Land Use Clause 22.11: Residential Development Policy Clause 22.14: Mordialloc Activity Centre Policy Clause 22.16: Heritage Policy

ZONE Clause 32.01: Residential 1 Zone OVERLAYS Clause 43.01: Heritage Overlay

Clause 43.02: Design and Development Overlay, Schedule 10 PARTICULAR PROVISIONS

Clause 55: Two or More Dwellings on a Lot & Residential Buildings

GENERAL PROVISIONS Clause 65: Decision Guidelines DECISION DATE BY CONSIDERED PLAN REFERENCES/DATE RECEIVED

TP1.01 Rev B, TP2.01 Rev B, TP3.01 Rev B, TP3.02 Rev B, TP6 Rev B, TP7 Rev B, TP8 Rev B, TP9 Rev B, TP10 Rev B, TP11 Rev B, TP12 Rev B, TP13 Rev B, TP4.01 Rev BTP5.01 Rev B – date stamped 29th October, 2009

1.0 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW AGAINST COUNCIL’S FAILURE TO DETERMINE: 1.1 The applicant has lodged an application with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal

(VCAT) against Council’s failure to determine this application for planning permit within the required statutory time frame.

1.2 As such, Council is unable to formally determine the proposal though it must, however, form a

view on the proposal which must be presented before the VCAT on 4th June, 2010.

1.3 The purpose of this report, therefore, is to outline to Council its Officers views with respect to the appropriateness or otherwise of this proposal, and provide a recommendation to Council with regard to the position Council should take at the hearing.

2.0 KEY ISSUES RELATING TO THIS APPLICTION:

• Traffic Considerations (access and parking); • Urban Design (scale and built form);



14

• Neighbourhood Character; • Amenity Impact (internal and external); • Vegetation / Landscaping Considerations; and • Heritage Considerations.

3.0 SITE DETAILS: 3.1 The subject site comprises a rectangular allotment of 1379 square metres on the north corner of

Bear Street and Albert Street, Mordialloc, and known as Lot 1 on PS625503N. The “parent” site has a frontage of 32.31m to Albert Street and a frontage of 100.58m to Bear Street, resulting in an overall area of approximately 3249m2.

3.2 It should be noted that the site is currently in the process of being subdivided into two (2) lots,

however, new titles have not yet been issued. The lot which is the subject of this application (Lot 1) is located on the north corner of Bear Street and Albert Street, and comprises an area of 1379 square metres. The existing Church (St Nicolas’ Church of England) is located on what will form Lot 2, and is not affected by this proposal.

3.3 The subject land does not contain any significant vegetation. The site has vehicle access to / from

both Bear Street and Albert Street, at the site’s east and west corners. 3.4 The high point of the site is at its northern corner, and it has a gentle fall of between 1.0-2.0

metres towards its Bear Street and Albert Street frontages. 4.0 ADJOINING PROPERTIES & SURROUNDS:

4.1 The aerial photograph provided below provides an illustrative analysis of the Subject Land and

surrounding environs. The proposal only affects the south-west portion of the site illustrated below (corner Bear Street and Albert Street).



15

4.2 The subject site is located within the Mordialloc Activity Centre. The surrounding area comprises a mixture of commercial, recreational and residential land uses, primarily focused around the Main Street shopping precinct. The area has many attributes including its proximity to the foreshore, public transport opportunities and buildings of aesthetic and historical significance.

4.3 In detail, the adjoining and surrounding make-up of the area is described as follows:

North: Adjoining to the north-west is Masonic Lodge, a large two storey brick building that extends along the entire length of the subject site.

East: Adjoining to the north-east is the St Nicolas Church site located on the north-west

corner of Bear Street and Barkly Street. Immediately adjoining the site is a single storey brick dwelling, proposed to be demolished as part of the redevelopment of the Church.

South: Opposite the site, on the south side of Bear Street, is a recent two-storey apartment

style development comprising 17 dwellings. The development was approved by Council under Planning Permit No. KP381/06 on 2nd April 2007.

West: Across Albert Street, opposite the subject site, is the Mordialloc Railway Station car

park. Further south are retail premises of single storey construction. 5.0 TITLE DETAILS: 5.1 The Permit Applicant has completed the application for planning permit form declaring that there

are no encumbrances on Title. An inspection of the site’s current Copy of Title by Council Officers confirms this.

6.0 PROPOSAL: 6.1 It is proposed to demolish the existing brick church hall and construct thirty-four (34) apartment-

style dwellings on this site within a two-storey residential building with a basement car park. The ground floor comprises sixteen (16) dwellings arranged around a central courtyard, and first floor comprises eighteen (18) dwellings. The dwelling mix includes twenty-three (23) one-bedroom dwellings, and eleven (11) two-bedroom dwellings.

6.2 The basement car park is accessed from Albert Street and contains thirty-six (36) car spaces,

storage areas, bicycle parking, refuse area and site services including a water tank. All dwellings are provided with a minimum of one (1) car space. While no visitor parking is nominated on the plans, it is noted that there are two (2) additional car spaces proposed within the basement car park.

6.3 The building is set back a minimum of 1.1 metres from Albert Street, and first floor balconies set

back within 400mm from Bear Street. 6.4 The ground floor dwellings are provided with courtyard areas of private open space, ranging

from 8.3-13.8 square metres. The dwellings at first floor level are provided with balcony areas of between 7.9 to 12.2 square metres.



16

6.5 The building is contemporary in appearance, with a flat parapet roof and using a variety of building materials, colours and textures including extensive glazing and bronze feature wall cladding. The building achieves a wall height of 7.4 metres to the top of the parapet. A centrally located clerestory window projects 0.66 metres beyond this, to illuminate the central courtyard and staircase.

6.6 The proposal has an overall site coverage of approximately eighty-four (84%) percent and a

permeability of approximately twelve (12%) percent. 7.0 PLANNING CONTROLS: 7.1 The Subject Site is located within a Residential 1 Zone. 7.2 The Land is subject to a Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 10, and Heritage Overlay

No.94. 8.0 PLANNING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS: 8.1 Pursuant to Clause 32.01-1 (Residential 1 Zone), a planning permit is not required to use the

site for residential purposes. 8.2 Pursuant to Clause 32.01-4 (Residential 1 Zone), a planning permit is required to construct two

or more dwellings on a lot. 8.3 Pursuant to Clause 43.01 (Heritage Overlay), a planning permit is required to Demolish or

remove a building, and to Construct a building or construct or carry out works. 8.4 Pursuant to Clause 43.02 (Design & Development Overlay – Schedule 10), a new building must

not exceed 2 storeys in height (7.5 metres). 9.0 RELEVANT HISTORY: 9.1 Council records indicate that the following Planning Permits have previously been issued for the

site and are considered of relevance to the application currently before Council:

• Planning Permit No.KP30/09 was issued by Council on 2nd July 2009 for the subdivision of the site into two (2) lots. As mentioned previously, the new titles are yet to be issued by the Titles Office.

• Planning Permit No.KP358/09 was issued by Council on 19th June 2009 for the demolition of

a building within a Heritage Overlay. 10.0 AMENDMENT TO THE APPLICATION BEFORE NOTIFICATION 10.1 Amendments to the application were made by the applicant on 29th October, 2009. The

amendments were largely made in response to Council further information letter dated 15th October, 2009.

10.2 The amendments made to the application were considered satisfactory and Council, therefore,

directed that the application proceed to advertising.



17

11.0 ADVERTISING: 11.1 The proposal was advertised by sending notices to adjoining and opposite property owners and

occupiers and by maintaining a notice on site for fourteen (14) days. Ten (10) objections to the proposal were received. The valid grounds of objection raised are summarised as follows: • Traffic, parking and access concerns; • Urban design; • Overdevelopment; • Impact on surrounding heritage buildings; • Poor internal amenity;

11.2 The following objection raised is not a valid planning consideration:

• Devaluation of property. 12.0 PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE 12.1 A preliminary conference was held on Thursday, 10th December, 2009 with the relevant Planning

Officer, all three (3) Ward Councillors, the Permit Applicant and ten (10) objectors in attendance. The above-mentioned issues were discussed at length.

12.2 The above concerns were unable to be resolved at the preliminary conference. The Permit

Applicant advised all attendees that they would consider the concerns mentioned and would subsequently advise Council as to how they wish to proceed following the meeting.

12.3 While discussions between Council Officers and the applicant were had with regard to potential

amendments to the plans, no such revised plans were submitted. Furthermore, the applicant subsequently lodged an appeal against Council’s failure to make a decision within the statutory time frame. As such, all objections to this application still stand.

13.0 REFERRALS 13.1 The application was referred to the following internal departments within Council (where

appropriate amended applications have been re-referred): • Council’s Development Engineer who advised of no objection, subject to the inclusion of a

number of conditions on any permit issued; • Council’s Vegetation Management Officer who advised of no objection, subject to the

inclusion of a number of conditions on any permit issued; • Council’s Heritage Advisor who advised of no objection, subject to the inclusion of a number

of conditions on any permit issued; • Council’s Waste Management Department who advised of no objection, subject to the

inclusion of a number of conditions on any permit issued; • Council’s Roads and Drains Department who advised of no objection, subject to the inclusion

of a number of conditions on any permit issued; • Council’s Traffic Engineering Department who advised of concerns with regard to visitor car

parking provided for the proposed development. This area of concern is discussed in more detail below in this report; and



18

• Council’s Urban Designers who advised of concerns with regard to light, ventilation, and internal amenity. However, it was advised that subject to a number of modifications to the proposed development through the inclusion of suitable conditions on any permit issued, the application should be supported. These modifications are discussed in more detail throughout this report.

14.0 RELEVANT POLICIES 14.1 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)

Clause 12: Metropolitan Development Clause 14: Settlement Clause 15: Environment Clause 16: Housing Clause 18: Infrastructure Clause 19: Particular Uses and Development

14.2 Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) Clause 21.03: Land Use Challenges for The New Millennium Clause 21.04: Vision Clause 21.05: Residential Land Use Clause 22.11: Residential Development Policy Clause 22.14: Mordialloc Activity Centre Policy

14.3 Zoning

The site is located in the following Zone:

Clause 32.01 (Residential 1 Zone)

14.4 Overlays

The following Overlay Controls apply to this site:

Clause 43.02 (Design and Development Overlay) DDO10 – Mordialloc Activity Centre

14.5 Particular Provisions

Clause 55: Two or More Dwellings on a Lot & Residential Buildings

14.6 General Provisions Clause 65: Decision Guidelines

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



19

The land is located within Area 27of the Neighbourhood Character Guidelines. The proposal is generally in accordance with the applicable character profile. Neighbourhood Character will be discussed in more detail below in this report.

14.8 The Design Contextual Housing Guidelines offer a range of design techniques and suggestions to

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

these guidelines. 15.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 15.1 State and Local Planning Policy Framework

The State Planning Policy Framework sets out the relevant state-wide policies for residential development at Clause 11 (Goals and Principles), Clause 12 (Metropolitan Development), Clause 14 (Settlement), Clause 16 (Housing) and Clause 19 (Design and Built Form). Clause 11 requires Council to integrate the range of policies relevant to the issues to be determined and to balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development. The provisions of Clause 12 override other strategies in the SPPF where there are strategy differences. Clause 12 essentially reproduces the policy directions of Melbourne 2030 and it outlines objectives and strategies under each policy to achieve the goals of Melbourne 2030. Of specific relevance to the consideration of this application, it encourages urban consolidation in appropriate locations and stresses the need to accommodate the projected population increase (i.e. 620,000 households by 2030) in and around activity centres, established residential areas and strategic redevelopment sites. Clause 14 aims to ensure there is a sufficient supply of land available for residential development to facilitate the orderly development of urban areas. Clause 16.01-1 aims to encourage residential development that is cost-effective in infrastructure provision and use, energy efficient, incorporates water-sensitive design principles and encourages public transport use. Clause 19.03 relates to the Design and Built Form of developments and aims to ensure that developments achieve high quality designs that contribute positively to the urban character of the area. It is submitted that the proposed development generally satisfies the aforementioned State strategies and policy direction. Specifically, the subject site is located on a large parcel of land earmarked for Mixed Use purposes, whereby residential development is an ‘as of right’ use under the zoning provisions. The site enjoys convenient and direct access to community facilities, various modes of transportation and everyday essential services.

15.2 Local Planning Policy Framework

The Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) contains Council’s strategic direction, the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS), which is an extension of the direction established by the SPPF, and the local policies that implement the LPPF.



20

Within Clause 21 (MSS) of the Kingston Planning Scheme, the following five (5) clauses are submitted as being the most relevant to the consideration of the proposal: • Clause 21.03: Land Use Challenges for The New Millennium; • Clause 21.04: Vision; • Clause 21.05: Residential Land Use; • Clause 22.11: Residential Development Policy; • Clause 22.14: Mordialloc Activity Centre Policy After reviewing the relevant strategic directions that emerge from the abovementioned Clauses, the following can be summarised: • Clause 21.03: Land Use Challenges for The New Millennium identifies the need for the

Municipality to provide suitable housing stock that meets future housing demands and to sustain an appropriate mix of supporting urban infrastructure. It is further stated that recent pressures for new development, consolidation and medium density housing has resulted in change to the amenity and character of local areas. It is acknowledged that careful management will be required in order to integrate urban consolidation objectives with an understanding of specific character issues applicable to certain neighbourhoods.

• Within Clause 21.04-3: Strategic framework plan (Clause 21.04 Vision), provides for the strategic

direction for future land use planning and development within the City of Kingston. This Policy includes a Strategic Land Use Framework Plan, which identifies the location of where specific land use outcomes are anticipated, supported and promoted. Further, it also illustrates potential ‘development opportunity areas’, where significant land use change might be expected, along with defining areas where land use constraints may restrict future development.

With specific regard to this application, the Strategic Land Use Framework Plan identifies Mordialloc as a “Primary Activity Node” as well as an area for the promotion of “Medium Density Housing.” Furthermore, redevelopment opportunities for sites such as the one before Council rarely come about in the municipality and, therefore, it is important that we take advantage of these sites to cater for our housing projections and to reduce pressures on surrounding residential areas. Accordingly, the major strategic direction identified on the Framework Plan, within Clause 21.04-3, which is of relevance to this application, is as follows: • Locations for promotion of medium to higher density housing opportunities within areas

designated for increased housing diversity and activity centres; • Larger residential opportunity sites where new residential development (including medium

density housing) should be pursued.

• The City of Kingston’s MSS at Clause 21.05 (Residential Land Use) of the Kingston Planning Scheme, seeks to provide guidance to development in residential zoned land, mixed use zoned lands and land within activity centres. The Residential Land Use Framework Plan illustrates the range of housing outcomes sought across the City of Kingston.

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

o Promote increased housing diversity in residential areas that are within convenient walking distance of public transport and activity notes (increased housing diversity areas). Such areas will accommodate a variety of medium density housing types and layouts at increased residential densities, responding to the established but evolving neighbourhood character.



21

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

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

o To ensure new residential development respects neighbourhood character and is site responsive, and that medium density dwellings are of the highest design quality. This is to be achieved through promoting new residential development, which is of a high standard, responds to the local context and positively contributes to the character and identity of the local neighbourhood.

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

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

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

o To recognise and response to special housing needs within the community. o Promote new residential development which provides a high standard of amenity and

quality of life for future occupants.

It is considered that the proposed development is generally consistent with the relevant objectives of Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement as outlined above. The proposal creates an adequate standard of amenity for the future occupants of each dwelling, as well as for occupants of existing dwellings in the immediate area.

• Clause 22.11 Residential Development Policy extends upon the provision contained at

Clause 21.05 (Residential Land Use), effectively promoting high-density development around activity centres and locations close to public transport.

In summary, it is considered that the proposal is consistent with Council’s Local Planning Policy Framework. Importantly, the proposal delivers on specific objectives relating to the development of larger opportunity sites which seek to encourage well-designed medium density housing in appropriate locations as well providing diversity in housing choice to assist in meeting the anticipated future population forecasts.

• Clause 22.14 Mordialloc Activity Centre Policy: Although the subject site is located in the heart of Mordialloc and directly opposite the Mordialloc Railway Station, the subject site is not identified in the Mordialloc Activity Centre Precinct Plan and therefore, this policy does not directly apply to the subject site or the proposed development.

However, it is considered that the proposed development is generally in accordance with the general policy directions of the Mordialloc Activity Centre Policy .



22

15.3 Zoning Provisions

Clause 32.01: Residential 1 Zone: The purpose of the Residential 1 zone includes the provision of residential development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings to meet the housing needs of all households. A planning permit is required for the development of 2 or more dwellings.

Schedule The proposal meets the additional requirements listed in the Schedule to the Residential 1 zone.

15.4 Overlays

Design and Development Overlay Schedule 10: Mordialloc Activity Centre: The subject site falls within Precinct 3 of the framework plans under this Clause. Table 1 to Schedule 10 of the Design and development Overlay provides policy direction with regard to maximum building height as well as performance criteria which should be met as part of any development. Precinct A3 requires that new development on the subject site should be a maximum of two (2) storeys (7.5 metres) in height. Furthermore, new development must present a gateway to the commercial core and a continuous edge to the intersection of Bear Street and Albert Street. The proposed development is two (2) storeys in height and has a maximum building height which does not exceed 7.5 metres. Furthermore, the proposal provides a continuous building edge to the intersection within minimal setbacks provided for the purpose of landscaping planter boxes. It is considered that the proposal is in accordance with Schedule 10 of the Design and Development Overlay – Mordialloc Activity Centre of the Kingston Planning Scheme.

15.5 Other – Cultural Heritage Management Plan

The applicant confirmed that the subject site does not fall within an Area of Cultural Significance and therefore, a Cultural Heritage Management plan is not considered to be required as part of this application.

16.0 CLAUSE 55 (RESCODE ASSESSMENT) 16.1 The proposal has been assessed against the objectives and standards of Clause 55 (ResCode) of

the Kingston Planning Scheme (refer to attachment A). It is considered that the development largely satisfies the requirements of ResCode and is a well-designed development. There do appear however, to be the following areas of non-compliance, which are discussed below:

Clause 55.03 - Site Layout and Building Massing: Standard B6 Street Setback – The proposed development is provided with a zero setback along part of the site’s Albert Street property frontage, and includes a 1.1 metre wide landscape setback as the development nears the corner of Albert and Bear Streets, followed by a zero setback along it’s Bear Street frontage increasing to 1.7 metres where the proposed lobby area it to be located. It is also noted that the proposed development will provide a 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre spay at the Bear Street / Albert Street corner of the site to maintain existing pedestrian and vehicle sightlines. Overall, it is considered that, while the proposed setbacks are minimal, the varied setbacks to both Bear Street and Albert Street provide a hard edge in accordance with Schedule



23

10 of the Design and Development Overlay as well as consistency with the adjoining Masonic Hall to the north-west and the development at No.89 Albert Street, directly opposite the subject site. Standard B7 Building Height – While the plans provided show dimensions clearly in accordance with this requirement, it is considered appropriate that a suitable condition stating that the proposed development must not exceed 7.5 metres in height above natural ground level at any point be included on any permit issued. Standard B8 Site Coverage – This Standard requires that the site coverage of any new development should not exceed 60%. The proposed development is provided with a site coverage of 84%, which is clearly in excess of this requirement. However, Council is able to vary this requirement taking into account the decision guidelines of this Standard which amongst other things states that the Responsible Authority must consider; • Any relevant neighbourhood character objective, policy or statement set out in this scheme; • The design response; • The existing site coverage and any constraints imposed by existing development or the

features of the site; • The site coverage of adjacent properties; and • The effect of the visual bulk of the building and whether this is acceptable in the

neighbourhood. The following comments can be made in regard to the above decision guidelines; • Schedule 10 of the Design and Development Overlay requires any new development on the

site to provide a continuous hard edge to the intersection of Bear Street and Albert Street thereby providing a basis for an increase to the overall site cover of a development on this site;

• The site is located adjacent to a Masonic Hall, a church and a school and as a result should have minimal impact on the amenity of these buildings / uses. It is considered that the increased site coverage is a design response to the immediately surrounding properties making use of the limited impact on these properties to increase the net residential gain of the proposed development. Furthermore the proposed development is generally in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Kingston Planning Scheme;

• The proposed site coverage is consistent with higher density developments in the surround area of the subject site, in particular with regard to the development at No.89 Albert Street, Mordialloc, directly opposite the subject site;

Therefore, having considered the decision guidelines above, it is considered that the site coverage requirement for the proposed development should be varied to allow for a medium density residential development to occur on the subject site. Standard B9 Permeability - This Standard requires that any new development should be provided with a permeability of a minimum 20%. The proposal seeks to provide a permeability percentage of 12%. Similarly to the above comments with regard to site coverage, it is considered that a variation to the permeability of the proposed development is required in this instance. It is considered that where possible, landscaping has been provided to provide visual relief from the built form. Furthermore, it is considered appropriate that those dwellings which



24

front both Bear Street and Albert Street be provided with suitably sized planter boxes for landscaping purposes. This again should provide the basis for some visual relief as well as provide privacy to the balconies / terraces of dwellings facing Bear Street and Albert Street. Therefore, it is considered that in this instance, a variation to the minimum permeability of the site is appropriate. Standard B13 Landscaping - Landscape plans were referred to Council’s Vegetation Management Officer who recommended that amended plans be requested via Condition 1 of any permit issued. Standard B16 Parking Provision – The proposed development is provided with thirty-six (36) car parking spaces within a basement garage. Based on the development of thirty-four (34) one and two bedroom dwellings, the proposal generates a car parking requirement of thirty-four (34) resident car parking spaces and six (6) visitor car parking spaces. It is proposed to accommodate all thirty-four (34) resident car parking spaces as well as two (2) of the required six (6) visitor car parking spaces within the basement garage. However, the proposal has a shortfall of four (4) visitor spaces which are required to be provided on street. If reducing the requirement for the provision of on-site visitor car parking council must have regard to the following; • the availability of car parking on site; • the availability of on street car parking directly adjacent the subject site (Bear Street and

Albert Street); • the availability of the car parking within the Mordialloc Railway Station car park located

directly opposite the subject site; • the anticipated time when visitors are likely to go to the subject site; and • the site’s proximity to various public transport options such as the Mordialloc Railway

Station and various major bus routes.

Accordingly, it is considered that a reduction of the on-site visitor car parking requirements is appropriate in this instance and should not cause a detrimental impact on adjoining operation and function of the existing road network. Clause 55.04 - Amenity Impacts: Standard B17 Side and Rear Setbacks – the proposal does not adequately satisfy the setback requirements of this Standard, particularly along the sites north-east (side) property boundary and party along the site’s north-west (side) property boundary. However, having consideration to the adjoining built form and adjoining land uses (north-west – Masonic Hall and north-east – existing St. Nicholas Church) opposite these elevations, it is considered appropriate to vary the minimum side setback requirements and allow a reduced side setback to the site’s north-east and north west property boundaries. Clause 55.05 - On-Site Amenity and Facilities: Standard B26 Dwelling Entry – It is considered important that the dwellings which front Bear Street and Albert Street are provided with direct pedestrian access to the street. It is considered that while this has been provided, the actual steps from the street to the terrace areas of dwellings



25

G3, G4, G5, G6, G7 and G8 can be reconfigured to provide a improved and more useable private open space for each of these dwellings. This can be achieved through the inclusions of suitable conditions on any permit issued. Standard B28 Private Open Space – Each dwelling is provided with a terrace (ground floor dwellings) or balcony (first floor dwellings). There is also a central common courtyard which has been provided as part of the proposed development which can provide a meeting place and could potentially accommodate tables and chairs as an area for rest and relaxation. Dwellings 1-15, located at first floor level, do not satisfy the minimum 8m2 of private open space. It is considered that this should be increased to the minimum 8m2 in accordance with the requirements of this Standard. This can be achieved through the inclusion of suitable conditions on any permit issued. Standard B30 Storage – Each dwelling should be provided with a minimum 6m3 of storage within the basement car park. This should be clearly labelled and can be achieved through the inclusion of suitable conditions on any permit issued.

17.0 RESPONSE AGAINST GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS:

The following provides a response against the main areas of concern raised by objectors as part of the advertising process:

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

neighbourhood character, heritage concerns, drainage concerns etc):

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

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

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

• The site is located within a Major Activity Centre and on land designated as an “Increased Housing Diversity Area” within the Residential Land Use Framework Plan at Clause 21.05 on the Kingston Planning Scheme;

• The proposal does not raise any areas of concern with regard to the existing heritage buildings / features of Mordialloc;

• The site has great access to various forms of transportation including public (Mordialloc Railway Station / various bus routes) and private transport modes and networks; and

• The height, scale and overall built form is considered appropriate and adequately addresses various elements with regards to the character and built form of the Mordialloc Activity Centre. Furthermore, the development is consistent with the height, scale, setbacks and general built form of adjoining properties.

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

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

movements etc):



26


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

residents with regard to the relevant provisions of the Kingston Planning Scheme; • Visitor car parking is anticipated to be accommodated within existing on-street car parking

spaces in the immediate vicinity of the subject site; • It is considered that the existing road network will adequately handle any potential increase

in traffic movements to and from the site and in the immediate vicinity of the subject site as a result of the proposed development; and

• There are various modes of transportation available in the immediate vicinity of the site including public (Mordialloc Railway Station / various bus routes) and private forms of transportation.

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

3. Amenity based concerns (including overshadowing, overlooking, safety concerns, visual

impact concerns and liquor license concerns etc):


• The proposal has been provided with setbacks which are site responsive and which are

consistent with adjoining land uses and the requirements of Schedule 10 of the Design and Development Overlay of the Kingston Planning Scheme;

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

• The overall height of the proposal is in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 10 of the Design and Development Overlay of the Kingston Planning Scheme and has been kept to a maximum two (2) storeys and a maximum height of 7.5 metres; and

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

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

18.0 CONCLUSION: 18.1 For reasons discussed within this report, it is submitted that the proposal be supported subject to

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

18.2 The basis of this recommendation to support the proposed development is evidenced by:



27

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

area; • Suitability of the site for high density residential development having regard to the policy

context and applicable planning provisions; • In general, acceptability of the built form of the proposed development, specifically in regard

to height; • Consideration of any external amenity impacts; • Adequacy of internal amenity; • Consideration of the provision of car parking (to dwellings and visitors) and traffic related

matters; • The proposal generally satisfies the requirements of the Kingston Planning Scheme,

including the State and Local Planning Policy Framework, Residential; 1 Zone, the relevant Particular Provisions and Clause 65 - Decision Guidelines (subject to appropriate conditions).

18.3 On balance and subject to the inclusion of suitable conditions, the proposal is considered

reasonable and warrants support. 19.0 RECOMMENDATION: That Council resolve to support the development of this site for thirty-four (34) dwellings on land designated within a Heritage Overlay, subject to the following conditions: 1. Before the development starts amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority

must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the plans submitted to Council on 29th October, 2010 but modified to show:

a. the provision of a landscape plan in accordance with the submitted development plan and the City of Kingston Landscape Plan Checklist, with such plans to be prepared by a suitably qualified landscape professional and incorporating: i) an associated planting schedule showing the proposed location, species type, mature

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



28

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

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

b. the provision of a notation on the plans stating that the existing vehicle crossing must be removed and reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

c. the provision of a notation on the plans stating that the existing intended parking along the site’s Bear Street property frontage must be extended up to the proposed vehicle crossing for adjoining Place of Worship (St. Nicholas Church) in accordance with the engineering plans top be submitted and approved Council in accordance with Condition 8 of this permit;

d. the provision of a suitable light warning system to be provided within the basement car park which warns exiting vehicles of a vehicle entering the basement car park;

e. the stairwell located in the south-east corner of the basement car park relocated centrally so as to provide direct access to the internal courtyard located on the ground floor level of the proposed development;

f. the street to terrace entrance steps for dwellings G-3, G-4 and G-5 re-orientated in a north-west / south-east direction so as to provide a more useable and larger terrace areas for these dwellings;

g. the street to terrace entrance steps for dwellings G-6, G-7 and G-8 re-orientated in a north-east / south-west direction so as to provide a more useable and larger terrace areas for these dwellings;

h. the terrace areas of dwellings G-1, G-2, G-3,G-4 and G-5 provided with a suitable fixed screen with 25% transparency so as to afford these terrace areas improved privacy with these screens to be constructed to a minimum height of 1.7 metre above the footpath level directly below, be constructed of a different material to the solid wall and allow sufficient light into these terrace areas;

i. the internal courtyard increased in size sufficiently so as to allow Condition 1 j) to occur; j. the bedroom of dwelling G-3 relocated on the north-west side of the bathroom of this

dwelling and provided with a window which faces the internal courtyard which has been increased in size in accordance with condition 1i) of this permit;

k. dwellings G-1 and G-2 located at ground floor level reduced to one (1) bedroom dwellings to allow Condition 1i) and 1j) to occur;

l. the bedroom of dwelling G-15 relocated on the south-west side of the bathroom of this dwelling and provided with a window which faces the internal courtyard which has been increased in size in accordance with condition 1i) of this permit;

m. the entry lobby reduced in size with the access door re-located adjacent to the terrace area of dwelling G-1, with the additional areas used to increase the size of dwelling G-16;

n. dwellings 1-4 and 1-5 located at first floor level reduced to one (1) bedroom dwellings to allow Condition 1i) to occur;

o. the bedrooms for dwellings 1-2, 1-3, 1-6, 1-7, 1-11 and 1-16 located at first floor level provided with a clerestory window / skylight to allow natural light and ventilation in these bedrooms;



29

p. the bathrooms of each dwelling located at first floor level provided with a suitable clerestory windows / skylight to allow natural light / ventilation in these bathrooms;

q. the balcony of dwelling 1-15 located at first floor level increased to a minimum size of 8m2; r. the provision of a suitable window to the north-west facing living / dining room of dwelling

G-11 located as ground floor level; s. the provision of a suitable window to the north-west facing living / dining room of dwelling

1-15 located as first floor level; t. each car space located within the basement car park clearly nominated to a specific dwelling

with a minimum of two (2) car spaces nominated as visitor car parking spaces; u. the provision of a minimum 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre splay provided to the east corner of the

terrace of dwelling G-8 to allow suitable sightlines for vehicles exiting the basement car park; v. the terrace area of each dwelling located as ground floor level and fronting Bear Street and

Albert Street provided with a suitable planter box for the purpose of landscaping; w. the provision of a 6m3 secure storage area nominated for each dwelling located within the

basement car park; and x. the surface material of all driveways / accessways and car parking spaces nominated in all-

weather coloured concrete sealcoat, or similar. 2. The development and as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior

written consent of the Responsible Authority. 3. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, the landscaping works as shown on the

endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

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

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

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

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

pours would be managed e) proposed traffic management signage for McDonald Street and Manikato Avenue (if

required) indicating any inconvenience generated by construction; f) fully detailed plan indicating where construction hoardings would be located and as relevant

the associated approvals required;



30

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

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

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

m) construction times, noise and vibration controls. 6. Before the commencement of any buildings and works on the Land, a Waste Management Plan

(WMP) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed as evidence of its approval and will then form part of the Permit and thereafter be complied with. The WMP must include but is not limited to:

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

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

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

e) The size of the collection vehicle and the frequency, time and point of collection. The WMP must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The WMP must not be modified unless without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. All waste collection for the development in its entirety must occur through a Private Contractor.

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

8. Before the commencement of the development the proposed works within the road reserve as described in Condition 1 c) must be in accordance with engineering plans submitted to and approved by the Council at the developer’s cost. A priced schedule of works within the road reserve and the payment of Council’s engineering fees of 3.25% of the cost of works are required to be submitted prior to approval of engineering plans.

9. Any modifications to Council’s assets must be to the satisfaction and standards of the Responsible Authority, and at the full cost of the permit holder.

10. The ground levels at site boundaries must not be altered, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

11. A clearance between the existing power pole and the proposed car park located in the front nature strip reserve along Bear Street must be approved by the Responsible Authorities, and to be to the satisfaction of such authorities.



31

12. The development of the site must be provided with stormwater treatment works which must incorporate water sensitive urban design principles (including re-use) to improve discharge quality and a detention system for any increase in runoff as a result of the approved development. The system must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Council’s Development Engineer can advise on treatment options.

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

14. Stormwater drainage of the site must be provided so as to prevent overflows onto adjacent properties, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

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

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

18. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, areas set aside for parking vehicles, access lanes and paths as shown on the endorsed plans must be: a. Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

b. Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans. c. Surfaced in accordance with the endorsed plans under this permit or in an all weather

coloured concrete seal-coat, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. d. Drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

19. All external surfaces of the building elevations must be finished in accordance with the schedule on the endorsed plans and maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

21. Finished Floor Levels shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

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



32

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. The proposal fails to satisfy all of the requirements of Clause 55 of the Kingston Planning Scheme (ResCode), in particular: Clause 55.03-1 Street Setback Objective, Clause 55.03-3 Site Coverage Objective, Clause 55.03-4 Permeability Objectives, Clause 55.03-8 Landscaping Objectives, Clause 55.03-11 Parking Provision Objectives, Clause 55.04-1 Side and Rear Setback Objective, Clause 55.05-2 Dwelling Entry Objective, Clause 55.05-4 Private Open Space Objective, and Clause 55.05-6 Storage Objective.



33

M 50 KP 09/821 – 31 Argus Street, Cheltenham APPLICANT Keen Planning Services Pty Ltd ADDRESS OF LAND 31-33 Argus Street, CHELTENHAM VIC 3192 (Lot 6

on PS 061995) PROPOSAL Four (4) Dwellings PLANNING OFFICER Joseph Ackland REFERENCE NO. KP-821/2009 RELEVANT STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

Clause 12: Metropolitan Development Clause 14: Settlement Clause 16: Housing Clause 19: Particular Uses & Development


Clause 21.05: MSS – Residential Land Use Clause 22.11: Residential Development Policy

ZONE Residential 3 Zone OVERLAYS - PARTICULAR PROVISIONS Clause 55: Two or More Dwellings on a Lot GENERAL PROVISIONS Clause 65: Decision Guidelines RESIDENTIAL POLICY AREA

Incremental Housing Change

DECISION DATE BY 4/03/10 STATUTORY DAYS 66 days at 10/03/10 CONSIDERED PLAN REFERENCES/DATE RECEIVED

Ref: TP01- TP09 Rec: 11/12/09

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

• Neighbourhood character • Site layout and building massing • Vegetation/landscaping considerations • On-site amenity and facilities

2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 It is proposed to demolish the existing dwelling and outbuildings on the land and construct

four (4) double-storey dwellings on this site.



34

2.2 Development summary: Dwelling Floor Area

(excluding garage / verandah)

Private Open Space No. of Bedrooms proposed

No. of Car Parking Spaces provided

1 172.4m² 83.6m² (including 38.1m2 of secluded private open space subtracting 6m2 storage)

3 2

2 162.8m² 40.0m² (including 40.0m2 of secluded private open space)

2 1


2 1


3 2

2.3 The proposal has an overall site coverage of 44.5 percent and a permeability percentage of

36.4. 2.4 Development Assessment Table:

Criteria ResCode Requirement Proposed Development Provision Private Open Space

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

Dwelling 1: does not comply (refer to the ResCode discussion section within this report) Dwelling 2: complies (refer to the ResCode discussion section within this report) Dwelling 3: complies (refer to the ResCode discussion section within this report) Dwelling 4: complies (refer to the ResCode discussion section within this report)



35

Car Parking One (1) car parking space for one (1) or two (2) bedroom dwelling Two (2) car parking spaces for each three (3) or more bedroom dwelling, with one (1) space under cover

Dwelling 1: complies (refer to the ResCode discussion section within this report) Dwelling 2: complies (refer to the ResCode discussion section within this report) Dwelling 3: complies (refer to the ResCode discussion section within this report) Dwelling 4: complies (refer to the ResCode discussion section within this report)

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

Dwelling 1: does not meet standard (refer to the ResCode discussion section within this report)

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

Site coverage is 44.5% and therefore complies (refer to the ResCode discussion section within this report)

2.5 The proposed building materials, colours and finishes are summarised in the table below:

Roof: Concrete roof tiles in charcoal colour Walls: Combination of exposed brickwork in London course pattern and rendered finish Garage doors Timber cladding with stained finish Windows: Stained timber window frames Driveways: Patterned paved concrete in grey colour Front fencing: 1.2m high timber fence with two 1.5m high brick sections either side of

accessway Boundary fences: Predominantly 2.1m high timber paling fences

3.0 SITE & SURROUNDS 3.1 The subject site comprises a 1113.5m² allotment on the north side of Argus Street,

Cheltenham. It is rectangular in shape with a frontage to Argus Street of 30.5 metres, a west boundary of 36.2 metres and an east boundary of 36.7 metres. The site currently contains a single storey, brick dwelling, with a pitched tiled roof, and outbuildings, including a garage.

3.2 The site is relatively flat and contains two large trees within the front setback, one of which

is considered significant. The site is encumbered by a 1.83m drainage and sewerage easement along its rear property boundary. No restrictions appear to be listed on the Certificate of Title.

3.3 Vehicle access to the site is currently via a single width crossover located on the west side of

the site’s Argus street frontage, providing access to the existing garage. 3.4 There is a street tree located within close proximity of the proposed crossover along the

site’s Argus Street frontage.



36

3.5 The surrounding area typically comprises of detached, single storey, brick dwellings with pitched roofs. Dwellings are sited with generous side setbacks, creating a regular rhythm to the streetscape. There is no predominant fencing style in the neighbourhood.

4.0 TITLE DETAILS 4.1 The Permit Applicant has completed the planning application form declaring that there is no

restrictive covenant on the title. 5.0 PLANNING CONTROLS 5.1 The subject site is located within a Residential 3 Zone and is not subject to any overlays. 6.0 PLANNING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 6.1 Pursuant to 32.06, a planning permit is required to construct two (2) or more dwellings on a

lot. 7.0 RELEVANT HISTORY 7.1 Planning Permit application KP09/561 for the same proposal as this application was

determined to have lapsed on 5 November, 2009, due to the Applicant failing to provide the requested further information within the statutory time period.

7.2 Council records indicate that there is no other relevant planning history relating to this site.

8.0 ADVERTISING

8.1 As discussed, the proposal was advertised by sending notices to adjoining and opposite property owners and occupiers and by maintaining a notice on site for fourteen (14) days. One (1) objection to the proposal was received. The valid grounds of objection raised are summarised as follows:

• Neighbourhood character • Visual bulk • Loss of privacy • Tree removal

8.2 The following objections raised are not valid planning considerations:

• Loss of views 9.0 PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE 9.1 A preliminary conference was not held as the objector declined the invitation to attend. 9.2 The above-mentioned issues were discussed at length with the objector in a telephone

conversation, and in a follow-up conversation with the Applicant.



37

9.3 The above concerns were unable to be resolved, and the objection still stands. 10.0 REFERRALS 10.1 The following internal referral departments were notified:

• Council’s Development Engineer; • Council’s Vegetation Management Officer; • Council’s Roads and Drains Department; • Council’s Parks Department.

10.2 The above-mentioned referral authorities had no objection to the proposal, subject to

conditions being included on any permit issued. 11.0 RELEVANT POLICIES 11.1 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)

Clause 12 (Metropolitan Development) Clause 14 (Settlement) Clause 16 (Housing) Clause 19 (Particular Uses and Development)

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


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

11.4 General Provisions

Clause 65 (Decision Guidelines)

11.5 Other 11.6 Neighbourhood Character Area Guidelines (Incorporated Document under Clause 21.05 –

Residential Land Use of the LPPF)

The land is located within Area 8 of the Neighbourhood Character Guidelines. The proposal is generally in accordance with the applicable character profile. Any areas of non-compliance are as follows: The typical materials of this area are tiled rooves and brick walls. The proposed walls are part rendered and part brickwork, however it is considered this respects the existing character of the area.



38

Additionally, the typical roof shapes in this area are pitched, whereas the proposed ground floor roof sections are flat. However, it is considered this could be addressed by a condition on any permit issued.

Finally, this area typically comprises low walls or fences and landscape to the front boundary. The proposed fence has a maximum height of 1.5m, however this can be addressed by a permit condition requiring it to be reduced to 1.2m, as discussed in the Rescode Assessment section later.

11.7 Design Contextual Housing Guidelines (April 2003 – reference document within Clause

22.11 – Residential Development Policy) The Design Contextual Housing Guidelines offer a range of design techniques and

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

with these guidelines. 12.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 12.1 State and Local Planning Policy Framework

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

12.2 Clause 21.05 - Residential Land use

The subject land is identified within an Incremental Housing Change Area. The type of housing change anticipated in these areas will take the form of extensions to existing houses, new single dwellings or the equivalent of new two dwelling developments on average sized lots. The existing single dwelling character of these areas is to be retained. The objectives of the Municipal Strategic Statement (as relevant to this application) include: Objective 1: To provide a wide range of housing types across the municipality to

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

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

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

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



39

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

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

Relevant strategies to achieve these objectives (as relevant to this application) include: • Promote lower density housing in established suburban areas that do not have direct

access to activity/transport nodes and “encourage” only incremental change in housing density (incremental housing change areas). Such areas will retain their predominantly single dwelling character and incremental change will occur in the form of single dwellings or the equivalent of dual occupancy developments on average sized lots.

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

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

• Encourage the retention of existing vegetation wherever possible. • Improve landscape character by accommodating appropriate landscaping within new

residential developments. • Ensure that the planning, design, siting and construction of new residential

development responds to best practice environmental design guidelines for energy efficiency, wast and recycling, and stormwater management.

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

• Ensure the siting and design of new residential development sensitively responds to interfaces with environmentally sensitive areas, including the foreshore.

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

• Ensure that the siting and design of new residential development is consistent with Urban Stormwater Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines and that new development contributes to the maintenance and upgrade of local drainage infrastructure as required, where such new development will impact on the capacity of such infrastructure.

• Require the provision of car parking to satisfy the anticipated demand having regard to average car ownership levels in the area, the environmental capacity of the local street network and the proximity of public transport and nearby on and off street car parking.

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

It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the relevant objectives of Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement as outlined above. The proposal creates an adequate standard of amenity for the future occupants of each dwelling, as well as for



40

occupants of existing dwellings in the immediate area. It is considered that the development will have minimal impact on the existing streetscape character, and the broader local neighbourhood character. Further discussion regarding these items will be outlined later within this report.

12.3 Clause 22.11 – Residential Development Policy

As outlined previously, the proposal is considered to generally comply and satisfy the applicable Local Planning Policy Framework, which essentially aim to encourage well-designed medium density housing in appropriate locations. Where a planning permit is required for residential development, where relevant, it is policy under Clause 22.11 to:

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

14.0 In areas where building placement makes a major contribution to neighbourhood character, design new development to reinforce the established rhythm of buildings in the street and retain the existing single dwelling character of the streetscape.

Incremental Housing Change Areas § In areas identified for incremental housing change, ensure that new housing

development is responsive to maintaining the existing and preferred single dwelling/lower density nature of these areas.

Built form, siting and scale of development, it is policy, where relevant, to:

§ Encourage the two storey component of new medium density housing to be located towards the front of a site.

§ Ensure that two storey dwellings are designed to respond to the character of the local neighbourhood. Where the local neighbourhood is characterised by single storey development and this characteristic makes a major or critical contribution to neighbourhood character, new two storey development should incorporate rooms within the roof form of attic style dwellings, and should set the second storey building envelope back from the ground level envelope.

§ Ensure that any upper storey components towards the rear of sites are sensitively designed to avoid unreasonable adverse amenity impacts on neighbours.

§ Encourage well articulated and graduated elevations in order to avoid 'box-like' double storey designs, thus reducing visual bulk.

§ Ensure that the siting of new buildings respects the amenity of adjoining neighbours with regard to rear yards and garden outlooks from habitable living room windows.

§ Ensure that the design and layout of new dwellings incorporate features which minimise overlooking of adjacent properties.

§ Address potential overlooking through site layout planning as well as individual dwelling planning.

Car parking and vehicle access, it is policy, where relevant, to:



41

§ Ensure that adequate on-site car parking is provided to meet the needs of future residents and visitors and sited to reduce its impact on the streetscape.

Performance measures § Locating garages or carports at the rear of dwellings fronting a street wherever possible. § Ensuring that where garages are located in the street elevation, they are set back a

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

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

Stormwater run-off mitigation and quality management, it is policy, where relevant, to:

§ Ensure that new residential development limits the impact of increased stormwater run-off on drainage systems.

Performance measures On-site infiltration should be maximised by: § Wherever possible, using unpaved landscape areas or porous paving. § Where appropriate, constructing on-site stormwater detention with delayed release into

the stormwater drainage system. § Designing to limit the impervious area. § Incorporating on-site water re-cycling systems for stormwater run-off. Clause 22.11 – Residential Development Policy of the Kingston Planning Scheme encourages single dwellings or dual occupancy style developments on ‘average sized lots’ within areas designated for Incremental Housing Change. Council’s Strategic Planning Department undertook a study across the municipality in 2003 to identify any emerging patterns with regard to average lot sizes. As such, six (6) areas were identified within the municipality, each having their own ‘average lot size’ calculation.

The subject site is identified within Area 2 of this study. The average lot size within this area has been calculated to be 306.55m2, which results in a suggested development density of 1 dwelling per 306.55m2. As the site has an overall site area of 1113.5m2 the development density would be calculated at 1 dwelling per 278.4m2. Although the proposal does not meet this strategy, it is considered that the development proposes an appropriate number of dwellings on this site as demonstrated by its overall compliance with ResCode and the Schedule to the Residential 3 Zone requirements. This matter will be further discussed at a later section within this report.

Clause 22.11 Residential Development Policy essentially extends upon the provision contained at Clause 21.05 (Residential Land Use) along with the State Planning Policy Framework provisions found at Clause 14.02-2 – Settlement and Clause 16.02 – Medium Density Housing, effectively promoting lower density development in areas not within convenience walking distance of public transport and activity centres.



42

In summary, the proposal is seen to be consistent with Council’s Local Planning Policy Framework and, importantly, it delivers on some very specific objectives for the type and form of medium density development expected in areas such as this before the Council.


It is considered that the proposed development satisfies the purpose of the zone.

The Schedule to the Residential 3 Zone specifies variations to three standards of Clause 55 (ResCode), namely:

Standard B8 – Site Coverage: The local variation is nominated as a maximum of 50%. The proposed site coverage for the development is 44.5% and is consistent with the Schedule requirements.

Standard B28 – Private Open Space: The local variation requires an area of 40m2, with one part of the private open space to consist of secluded private open space at the side or rear of the dwelling or residential building with a minimum area of 40m2, a minimum dimension of 5 metres and convenient access from a living room. If a dwelling has more than 2 bedrooms an additional ground level private open space area of 20m2 with a minimum width of 3 metres is required to be provided for each additional bedroom, with a maximum of 80m2 of private open space required for the dwelling.

The area and dimensions of private open space to each dwelling are in accordance with the requirements of the Schedule.

Standard B32 – Front Fences: The local variation requires a front fence within 3 metres of a street must not exceed 2 metres in height for streets in a Road Zone – Category 1 or 1.2 metres in height for any other street. The proposed front fence is predominantly 1.2m high which accords with the Schedule requirements. However, the splayed sections of the fence either side of the proposed access way are 1.5m high. It is considered this can be addressed by a permit condition requiring the maximum front fence height to be 1.2m.

15.0 CLAUSE 55 (RESCODE ASSESSMENT) 15.1 The proposal has been assessed against the objectives and

standards of Clause 55 (ResCode) of the Kingston Planning Scheme (refer to attachment A). It is considered that the development largely satisfies the requirements of ResCode and is a well-designed development. There appear to be the following areas of minor non-compliance, which are discussed below:

Clause 55.02 – Neighbourhood Character & Infastructure



43

Standard B1 – Neighbourhood Character

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

It is considered the proposed development of the site with four (4) dwellings respects the existing neighbourhood character and adequately responds to the features of the site.

While it is acknowledged that Argus Street contains mainly single storey dwellings, and the proposal is for four (4) double-storey dwellings, this is considered acceptable in this instance as there are a number of double-storey dwellings within the immediate area.

Also, the site is relatively wide allowing for a large setback between the dwellings giving a detached appearance when viewed from the street.

Further, the proposal has generous first floor setbacks and uses a variety of forms, materials and finishes to reduce the visual bulk, and minimise any amenity impacts on the adjoining properties.

Finally, the proposal is considered to meet Council’s Neighbourhood Character Area Guidelines as discussed previously.

It is, therefore, considered that overall the proposal adequately respects the existing neighbourhood character and meets the objectives and standards of this clause.

Clause 55.03 - Site Layout and Building Massing Standard B6 – Street Setback

In accordance with requirements under this standard, Dwellings 1 and 4, fronting Argus Street, should have a minimum setback of 7.55 metres, based on the average of the adjoining properties front setbacks. The proposed Dwelling 1 front setback of 7.44m is less than the required 7.55m average, however, the proposed setback is considered to be appropriate for the following reasons: § The 0.11m difference is very minor and insignificant; § Predominately the front setbacks of other dwellings within Argus Street are less than

the average required for this development. It is therefore considered that front setback proposed is consistent with the broader streetscape rhythm and will not cause detriment to the neighbourhood character.

§ Although the proposed setback does not meet the technical requirements of this Standard, it is considered that the development provides a reasonable transition between the adjoining properties and meets the overriding objective of this Clause.

§ The setbacks have been designed to be staggered to minimise any perception of building bulk

§ The front setback is large enough to accommodate substantial landscaping including the provision of canopy trees.

Standard B13 – Landscaping



44

Landscape plans were not provided as part of this application; however the submitted plans were referred to Council’s Vegetation Management Officer who recommended that a landscape plan is requested via Condition 1 of any permit issued. It is considered that there would be sufficient unsealed surface areas within the rear and front setbacks of the proposed development to provide adequate landscaping, including trees with spreading canopies.

Council’s Vegetation Management Officer also recommended conditions ensuring that adequate tree protection zones are provided to two (2) trees on/ around the site – one within the front setback and the other a significant tree located on the nature strip. The proposal was also referred to Council’s Parks Department who requested similar conditions ensuring tree protection zones are provided to the nature strip tree, and that the proposed crossover is moved to at least 4 metres from the street tree.

Conditions should be placed on any permit issued requiring a landscape plan with an associated planting schedule as well as adequate tree protection zones that addresses the requirements specified by Council’s Vegetation Management Officer and Parks Department. Standard B14 – Access Modification is required to the design of the proposal to satisfy this standard. The reversing areas for dwelling 2 and dwelling 3 are not fully workable and require modification. These carports need to be set back a further 1 metre into the respective private open space of each dwelling. This impacts on the amount of private open space for these dwellings. Conditions on any permit issued can address this by requiring the dwellings to be redesigned to maintain 40m² (min.) private open space.

Standard B15 – Parking Location This standard requires that shared accessways should be located at least 1.5 metres from the windows of habitable rooms. This setback may be reduced to 1 metre where window sills are at least 1.4 metres above the accessway. The proposed shared accessway is located 0.5 metres from the Dwelling 2 habitable room window and 1.0 metre from Dwelling 3’s habitable room window. Both of these windows have sill heights less than 1.4 metres above the accessway. As such, a condition should be included on any permit issued requiring the sill heights of these windows to be increased to 1.4 metres above the accessway and the accessway to be set back 1.0 metre from these windows. Clause 55.04 – Amenity Impacts

Standard B18 – Walls on Boundaries The standard of Clause 55.04-2 requires that the height of a new wall constructed on or within 150mm of a side or rear boundary or a carport constructed on or within 1m of a side



45

or rear boundary should not exceed an average of 3 metres with no part higher than 3.6 metres. Dwellings 1 and 4 have boundary walls which exceed this standard, with the greatest variation being Dwelling 4 which has a wall height on the boundary averaging approximately 3.4 metres. As such a condition should be included on any permit issued to address this matter.

Clause 55.05 – On-site Amenity & Facilities Standard B26 – Dwelling Entry According to this standard, entries to dwellings should be visible and easily identifiable from streets and other public areas, as well as provide shelter, a sense of personal address and a transitional space around the entry.

The proposed entries to Dwellings 2 and 3 are located to the rear corners of the dwellings rather than the front corners and are considered to be not easily visible from the street. A condition should be placed on any permit issued to improve the visibility of the dwellings when viewed from the street.

Standard B28 – Private Open Space The schedule to the Residential 3 Zone requires dwellings with no more than two (2) bedrooms to have 40 square metres of secluded private open space, with a minimum dimension of 5 metres and convenient access from a living room. Dwelling 1 shows 44.1 square metres of secluded private open space to the rear of the dwelling, however this includes a 6 square metres storage area. The effective secluded private open space is therefore 38.1 square metres, which does not comply with this standard. A condition should be placed on any permit issued requiring the relocation of the storage area to address this issue.

Standard B30 – Storage Further to the above, each dwelling should have convenient access to at least 6m3 of externally accessible, secure storage space that should not be located within the secluded private open space dimensions. As such, a condition should be included on any permit issued to provide adequate storage within an appropriate location for each dwelling.

Standard B32 – Front Fences As previously discussed within this report, the 1.5 metre high splayed sections of the front fence proposed to enclose the front open space area of Dwellings 1 and 4 should be reduced to 1.2 metres and screen planting provided for additional privacy. A condition placed on any permit issued can address this issue.



46

16.0 RESPONSE AGAINST GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS 16.1 Neighbourhood character/ Visual Bulk

Comments were received in response to the double-storey construction throughout the site that it was “out-of-character” with the area. Council officers consider that the nature of the proposed development is generally consistent with existing medium density housing development in the area, and the siting and design of the proposed dwellings is sympathetic to the existing dwelling on the adjoining property to the north (rear). It is therefore considered that having two-storeys to the rear of this site will not have any detrimental impact on the amenity of adjoining properties.

16.2 Overlooking/ Loss of Privacy

The objector raised concern regarding overlooking from the first floor gallery windows of Dwelling 3 into their private open space at no. 6 Hartwell Place to the north.

Whilst the objector’s concern is acknowledged and these windows are located within a horizontal distance of nine (9) metres from the private open space of No. 6 Hartwell Place, one of these windows is a highlight window that would not allow any overlooking. The other window is located in a stairwell and it is considered a condition should be placed on any permit issued to prevent any overlooking from this window.

16.3 Tree Removal

The objector raised concern that the large trees within the front setback of the site may be removed, however, these trees are shown on the plans as remaining, and as discussed above, conditions on any permit issued should ensure they are protected by adequate tree protection zones.

16.4 Noise

The objector also raised concern with potential noise from four (4) air conditioner units. While these have not been shown on the plans, it is considered a permit condition can ensure they are appropriately located to minimise any amenity impacts. In any case, it is considered that any noise from air conditioner units would be a reasonable noise emanating from a dwelling in a residential area.

17.0 CONCLUSION: 17.1 For reasons discussed within this report, it is submitted that the proposal be supported

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

17.2 The proposed development, as required to be amended, is considered appropriate for the site

as evidenced by: • The design and siting of the proposed development to be compatible with the

surrounding area;



47

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

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


reasonable and warrants support. 19.0 RECOMMENDATION: That Council resolve to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for the development of this site for two (2) dwellings, subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the development starts amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the plans submitted to Council on 11 December 2009, but modified to show:

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

i. an associated planting schedule showing the proposed location, species type, mature

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

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

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

iv. a range of plant types from ground covers to large shrubs and trees; v. adequate planting densities (e.g.: plants with a mature width of 1 metre, planted at 1

metre intervals); vi. the Alnus accuminata (Evergreen Alder) within the front setback is in decline and must

be replaced with a new tree species; vii. the provision of one (1) suitable medium sized (at maturity) canopy tree within the front

setback of the property and one (1) small (at maturity) tree within the private open space area of each dwelling, with species chosen to be approved by the Responsible Authority.

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

ix. all trees provided at a minimum of two (2) metres in height at time of planting; x. medium to large shrubs to be provided at a minimum pot size of 200mm;



48

xi. the provision of notes on the landscape plan regarding site preparation, including the removal of all weeds, proposed mulch, soil types and thickness, subsoil preparation and any specific maintenance requirements;

xii. the provision of a notation of the Tree Protection Details as provided in Conditions 2, 3 and 4 of this permit. This includes all nominated tree protection zones to be drawn to scale on the plans.

b) all ground floor windows of dwellings 1, 2, 3 and 4 (excluding the dining room and stairwell

windows of dwellings 1 and 4, and the stairwell windows of dwellings 2 and 3) to have a minimum sill height of 1.4m above the finished surface level of the driveway directly below;

c) the surface material of all driveways/ accessways and car parking spaces nominated in an all weather coloured concrete seal-coat;

d) the carport for dwelling 2 and dwelling 3 set back a further 1m so as to allow a fully workable vehicle exiting manoeuvre, with there being no reduction in the private open space area of these dwellings, and the dwellings redesigned accordingly;

e) the first floor window of Dwelling 2’s and Dwelling 3’s stairwell fitted with fixed (unopenable) obscure glazing for its entirety;

f) a reduction in driveway width to 2.6 metres where possible, with the exception of the first 7m from the site’s front property boundary which is to be 3m wide, with the additional areas created to be used for landscaping along the east and west sides of the central driveway;

g) The provision of elevation plans showing the height of the walls on boundaries of dwellings 1 and 4 reduced to an average of 3.0 metres above natural ground level with no part higher than 3.6 metres;

h) the relocation of the storage area of Dwelling 1 into its garage;

i) the provision of a clear 6.4m reversing area for garage 4 resulting in a narrower landscape area in front of the lounge of dwelling 1;

j) the first floor master bedroom windows of dwelling 2 and dwelling 3 nominated as being fitting with “fixed obscure glazing” to a height of 1.7m above the first floor finished floor level directly below;

k) the provision of an elevation plan of the front fencing, which provides details of its height, materials and colours, with the splayed sections reduced in height to no more than 1.2 metres;

l) the door of each garage nominated as a panel lift door, or similar;

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

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

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



49

p) the guttering pertaining to the walls on boundary on the site’s east and west property boundaries nominated as being contained wholly within the title property boundaries of the subject land.

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

3. A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) must be observed at a distance of the following:

• Three (3) metres in a radius surrounding the Liquidambar styraciflua (Liquidambar) within the front setback, and,

• Two (2) metres to the east and west of the Lophostemon confertus (Queensland Brush Box) on the nature strip between the edge of the footpath and the kerb and channel.

Prior to the commencement of the development herby permitted a Tree Protection Fence defined by a 1.2 metre (or larger) high temporary fence constructed using steel or timber posts fixed in the ground or to a concrete pad, with the fence’s side panels to be constructed of cyclone mesh wire or similar strong metal mesh or netting, must be erected around the Liquidambar styraciflua (Liquidambar) and the nature strip tree, the Lophostemon confertus (Queensland Brush Box) at the distances specified for the TPZ.

4. The following must be observed within the TPZ area (without the further consent in writing of Council’s Vegetation Management Officer):

a) the existing soil level must not be altered either by fill excavation; b) the soil must not be compacted or the soil’s drainage changed;

c) no fuels, oils, chemicals, poisons, rubbish and other materials harmful to trees are to be stored or dispersed;

d) no storage of equipment, machinery or material is to occur;

e) open trenching to lay underground services e.g.: drainage, water, gas, etc. must not be used;

f) tree roots must not be severed or injured; g) machinery must not be used to remove any existing concrete, bricks or other

materials; 5. All tree pruning work must be in accordance with the Australian Standards AS4373 (2007)

“Pruning of Amenity Trees” and be undertaken by a qualified and experienced Arborist. 6. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, the landscaping works as shown on

the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


8. Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted, a Site Management Plan, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority and when approved shall thereafter be complied with. The Site Management Plan must clearly set out measures to prevent amenity loss to surrounding properties during the construction period. The Plan is to include, but limited to, measures to control the emission of dust/sand, rubbish on site, loading/unloading times, construction times,



50

and parking of builder’s vehicles etc. This plan when endorsed must not be varied without the prior approval of the Responsible Authority. It must also be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

9. Before the commencement of any buildings and works on the Land, a Construction Management Plan (CMP), to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority and when approved shall thereafter be complied with. The CMP must specify and deal with the parking of vehicles during construction, delivery of materials, containment of waste on site and suppression of dust, business operations on the site during construction.

10. Before the commencement of any buildings and works on the Land, a Waste Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. Three copies of the plan must be submitted. The plan must include but is not limited to:

a) The manner in which waste will be stored and collected including: type, size and number of containers.

b) Spatial provision for on-site storage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

14. The existing stormwater pit located at the rear of the property must be modified to Council’s Standards and the pit lid must be replaced with Terra Firma lid.

15. Prior to the occupation of any part of the development approved under this Planning Permit, or prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for the subject site, the applicant / owner of the land must either, construct all footpaths and garden beds located along the Argus Street frontage of the site in accordance with the Design Response Plan to the Responsible



51

Authority's satisfaction and at the developer's cost (including paving), or pay an amount to the Responsible Authority towards the construction of all footpaths and garden beds located along the Argus Street frontage of the site. The amount payable towards this construction is to be determined in consultation with the Responsible Authority.

16. The developer/owner must contact the Responsible Authority and VicRoads and arrange traffic management plans and WORKS ZONE for any works that may affect traffic (both vehicular and pedestrian) or parking in Argus Street or any of the surrounding streets. Works vehicles will not be able to stop in the street fronting the property if they cannot provide at least 3 metres clearance for other vehicles to pass or if parking restrictions already apply. The developer will be responsible for the costs of arranging a WORKS ZONE and reinstatement of parking restriction signs, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


18. Any existing vehicular crossing not in accordance with the endorsed plan must be removed and

the kerb reinstated in a manner satisfactory to the Responsible Authority and any proposed vehicular crossing must be fully constructed to the Responsible Authority’s standard specification.

19. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, all boundary fences must be repaired

and/or replaced as necessary to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, at the cost of the applicant/owner.

20. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, areas set aside for parking vehicles,

access lanes and paths as shown on the endorsed plans must be: e. Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

f. Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans;

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

h. Drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.



22. Construction on the site must be restricted to the following times:

Monday to Friday 7:00am to 7:00pm; Saturday 9:00am to 6:00pm; and Sunday and Public Holidays No construction Permitted. Or otherwise as approved by the Responsible Authority in writing.



52



• The development is not started within two (2) years from the date of permit issue. • The development is not completed within four (4) years from the date of permit issue.

In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within three months afterwards.

Note: It is noted that the development includes two (2) carports to be built over an easement.

Separate consent from Council and the relevant service authority is required to build over the easement and will need to be obtained prior to the issue of a building permit.



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

OR

In the event that Council wishes to oppose the application, it can do so on the following grounds:

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

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

3. The proposal exhibits excessive bulk and mass.

4. The proposal fails to satisfy all of the requirements of Clause 55 of the Kingston Planning Scheme (Rescode), in particular Clause 55.02-1 Neighbourhood Character Objectives, Clause 55.02-2 Residential Policy Objective, Clause 55.03-1 Street Setback Objective, Clause 55.03-8 Landscaping Objectives, Clause 55.03-9 Access Objectives, Clause 55.03-10 Parking Location Objectives, Clause 55.04-2 Walls on Boundaries Objective, Clause 55.05-2 Dwelling Entry Objective, Clause 55.05-4 Private Open Space Objective, Clause 55.06-6 Storage Objective, Clause 55.06-1 Design Detail Objective and Clause 55.06-2 Front Fences Objective.



53

APPENDIX A – RESCODE ASSESSMENT Standard of the Kingston Planning Scheme Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings (Clause 55 and Schedule to the Residential 3 Zone).

Title and Objective Complies with Standard?

Requirement and Proposed

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

Yes See report.

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

Yes See report.

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

N/A

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

Yes See report.

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

Yes See report.

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

No Required: 7.55 metres Proposed: 7.44 metres for Dwelling 1; 7.56 metres for Dwelling 4.



54



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

Yes Maximum: 9 metres Proposed: 7.3 metres maximum. See report.

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

Yes Maximum: 50% Proposed: 44.5% See report.

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

Yes At least: 20% Proposed: 36.4% See report.

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

Yes See report.

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

N/A

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

Yes See report.

B13 Landscaping To provide appropriate landscaping. To encourage: • Development that respects the landscape

character of the neighbourhood.

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

• The retention of mature vegetation on the site.

Yes See report. Can be addressed through permit conditions. Landscape plan required as permit condition.

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

Yes See report.

B15 Parking Location Provide resident and visitor vehicles with convenient parking.

No See report. Can be addressed by permit conditions requiring



55



Avoid parking and traffic difficulties in the development and the neighbourhood. Protect residents from vehicular noise within developments.

increased setback of accessway from habitable room windows.

B16 Parking Provision Ensure car and bicycle parking meets the needs of residents and visitors. Accessways should be practical, attractive and easily maintainable.

Yes Dwellings 1 & 4 Required: Two (2) to each dwelling Proposed: Two (2) to each dwelling Dwellings 2 & 3 Required: One (1) to each dwelling Proposed: One (1) to each dwelling. See report. A permit condition can ensure accessway width is reduced to 2.6m to allow additional areas for landscaping.

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

Yes All Dwellings Required: Ground Floor Satisfied. First Floor Satisfied.

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

No The average wall height of the proposed garage to be constructed along the site’s south property boundary is 3.2 metres, whereas a maximum average of 3.0 metres is required. Can be addressed through permit condition.

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

Yes See report.

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

Yes See report.

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

Yes See report.



56



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

Yes See report. Can be addressed through permit condition.

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

Yes See report.

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

Yes See report.

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

Yes See report.

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

No See report. Can be addressed by permit condition.

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

Yes See report.



57



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

No Dwellings 1 and 4: Required: 60m2 for the proposed dwelling, including 40m2 of secluded POS with a minimum dimension of 5 metres and 20 m2 of POS with a minimum dimension of 3 metres. Proposed: Dwelling 1: Not satisfied. 44m2 of secluded POS includes 6m2 storage area. Can be addressed by permit condition requiring relocation of storage. Dwelling 4: Satisfied. Dwellings 2 and 3: Required: 40m2 of secluded POS with a minimum dimension of 5 metres. Proposed: Satisfied. See report.

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

Yes See report.

B30 Storage Provide adequate storage facilities for each dwelling.

No Can be addressed by permit condition. See report.

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

Yes See report.

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

No Maximum: 1.2m Proposed: 1.5m in part. Can be addressed by permit condition. See report.



58



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

N/A

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

Yes See report.



57

M 51 KP 10/46 – 3/7-9 Naples Road, Mentone APPLICANT Quentin Baxter ADDRESS OF LAND Unit 3, No. 7-9 Naples Road, Mentone (Lot 3 on

PS610139R). PROPOSAL Construct extensions to existing dwelling on a lot less

than 300m2. PLANNING OFFICER Nikki Taylor Author: Sherie Kirby REFERENCE NO. KP46/2010 RELEVANT STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

Clause 12: Metropolitan Development Clause 14: Settlement Clause 16: Housing



ZONE Clause 32.06: Residential 3 Zone OVERLAYS None applicable. PARTICULAR PROVISIONS Clause 54: One Dwelling on a Lot Less than 300m2 GENERAL PROVISIONS Clause 65: Decision Guidelines RESIDENTIAL POLICY AREA


DECISION DATE BY 31 March 2010 STATUTORY DAYS 87 days @ 27/4/10 CONSIDERED PLAN REFERENCES/DATE RECEIVED

29th January, 2010


§ Side and rear setbacks; § Walls on boundaries; and § Front fences.

2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 It is proposed to construct alterations and additions to the existing dwelling on land less than

300m2. The proposed works would comprise a first floor level addition to the existing dwelling including the construction over the existing single car garage.

2.2 An 18m2 first floor level balcony would also be constructed along the southern façade of the

existing dwelling with direct access from the main living area.



58

Development summary: Dwelling Additional

Floor Area (excluding garage / verandah)



Existing 102.2m² 28m² (including 10m2 of secluded private open space)

3 2

2.3 The proposal has an overall site coverage of 37.4 percent and a permeability percentage of

58.6%. This will not alter as a result of the proposed works 2.4 Development Assessment Table:


At least one (1) part of the private open space should have a minimum area of 25m2 with a minimum three (3) metre dimension at the side or rear of the dwelling with convenient access from a living room.

The proposed works include a new first floor level balcony of 18m2 in addition to the small service yard at the rear of the existing dwelling. Further, the front setback area would be enclosed to provide additional private open space.

Car Parking Two (2) car parking spaces for each three (3) or more bedroom dwelling, with one (1) space under cover.

The proposed car parking arrangements for the existing dwelling would satisfy this requirement (refer to the ResCode discussion section within this report).

Front Setback

As the site is on a corner, the front setback of the dwelling should be the same distance as the setback of the front wall of the existing building on the abutting allotment facing the front or 9 metres, whichever is the lesser.

The front setback complies with the minimum requirement (refer to the ResCode discussion section within this report).

Site Coverage

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

Site coverage is 37.4% and therefore complies (refer to the ResCode discussion section within this report).

Front Fencing

A front fence within three (3) metres of the street should not exceed the maximum height specified in the schedule to the zone. If no schedule is specified, the front fence should not exceed two (2) metres if abutting a RDZ1 or 1.5 metres in any other streets.

The proposed front fencing along the site’s Napier Street frontage would be 1.5 metres, which would exceed the maximum suggested under Standard A20. Front fencing along the site’s Naples Road frontage would be a maximum of 1.2 metres.



59

2.5 The proposed building materials, colours and finishes are summarised in the table below: Roof: Colorbond cladding (no colour specified). Walls: Rendered brickwork at ground level and rendered polystyrene at the

first floor level. Weatherboard cladding would also be incorporated into the façade of the first floor level.

Garage doors Panel lift door. Windows: Aluminium powder-coat windows. Driveways: Concrete driveway (no colour specified). Front fencing: A new, 1.5 metre high timber merbau fence with 20mm wide gaps and

1.8 metre high brick piers to be constructed along the site’s Napier Street and Naples Road.

Boundary fences: No change proposed to existing conditions. 3.0 SITE & SURROUNDS 3.1 The subject site comprises a 267.7m2 allotment on the north-east side of Napier Street and

Naples Road, Mentone. It currently contains a single-storey, attached dwelling which fronts Napier Street. At present, the existing dwelling comprises two (2) bedrooms, a living room, an open kitchen/meals area, a bathroom and a laundry. A small service yard is located directly to the north of the existing single car garage.

3.2 The site does not contain any significant vegetation. The site is encumbered by a 6.10 metre

wide easement adjacent to the site’s west (Napier Street) property boundary. A 1.1 metre wide carriageway easement also exists from the site’s south (Naples Road) property boundary to the south-facing façade of the existing dwelling. There appears to be no restrictions listed on the Certificate of Title.

3.3 Vehicle access to the site is currently via a single width crossover located along the site’s

Naples Road street frontage. 3.4 The surrounding area typically comprises of a combination of single-storey and double-

storey dwellings on single allotments and medium density housing developments. The neighbourhood character of the area is varied with older, traditional style housing mixed with more contemporary dwellings.

4.0 TITLE DETAILS 4.1 The Permit Applicant has completed the planning application form declaring that there is no

restrictive covenant on the title. 5.0 PLANNING CONTROLS 5.1 The subject site is located within a Residential 3 Zone and is not subject to any overlay

controls.



60

6.0 PLANNING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 6.1 Pursuant to Clause 32.06 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a planning permit is required to

construct or extend a dwelling on a lot less than 300m2. 7.0 RELEVANT HISTORY 7.1 Planning Permit KP682/07 was issued by the City of Kingston on 22nd October, 2007, to

subdivide the land into six (6) lots.

8.0 ADVERTISING

8.1 The proposal was advertised by sending notices to adjoining and opposite property owners and occupiers and by maintaining two (2) notices on site for fourteen (14) days. The advertising process was satisfactorily completed and two (2) objections were received to the proposal.

8.2 The main grounds of objection can be summarised as:

• Height of front fencing; and • Non-compliance with Council’s Residential Development Policy.

9.0 PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE 9.1 A preliminary conference meeting was held on 13 April 2010, at which the above concerns

were discussed. The objector’s representative acknowledged that the proposed front fence height at 1.5m was in compliance with Standard A20 of Clause 54. The main concern related to the lack of articulation along the Napier Street frontage.

In response the applicant provided an amended Napier Street elevation on 19 April 2010,

which provided more articulation along this frontage. 10.0 REFERRALS 10.1 Pursuant to Clause 66.02 of the Scheme, the application was not required to be referred to any

external referral authority. 11.1 The application was internally referred to Council’s Development Approvals Engineer. No

objection was received to the proposed works subject to the inclusion of suitable permit conditions.

11.0 RELEVANT POLICIES 19.1 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) Clause 12 (Metropolitan Development)

Clause 14 (Settlement) Clause 16 (Housing)



61

19.2 Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF)

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


Clause 32.06: Residential 3 Zone & Schedule to the Zone 19.4 Overlay Provisions

Clause 43.02: Design & Development Overlay (Schedule 1) 19.5 Particular Provisions

Clause 54 (Dwelling on a lot less than 300m2) – Refer to Appendix A for the Planning Officer’s full assessment against this Clause.


Clause 65 (Decision Guidelines) 19.7 Neighbourhood Character Area Guidelines (Incorporated Document under Clause 21.05 –


The land is located within Area No. 19 of the Neighbourhood Character Guidelines. The proposal is generally in accordance with the applicable character profile. Any areas of non-compliance are as follows:

• Type and height of development – most dwellings are 1 or 2 storeys in height and of

detached construction. The proposed development would be of attached construction which is consistent with the existing dwelling on the subject site.

19.8 Design Contextual Housing Guidelines (April 2003 – reference document within Clause 22.11

– Residential Development Policy). The Design Contextual Housing Guidelines offer a range of design techniques and

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




62


20.2 Clause 21.05 - Residential Land use The subject land is identified within an Incremental Housing Change Area. The type of housing change anticipated in these areas will take the form of extensions to

existing houses, new single dwellings or the equivalent of new two dwelling developments on average sized lots. The existing single dwelling character of these areas is to be retained.

The objectives of the Municipal Strategic Statement (as relevant to this application) include:

Objective 1: To provide a wide range of housing types across the municipality to increase housing diversity and cater for the changing needs of current and future populations, taking account of the differential capacity of local areas in Kingston to accommodate different types and rates of housing change.





Objective 6: To ensure residential development does not exceed known physical infrastructure capacities. Relevant strategies to achieve these objectives (as relevant to this application) include:

• Promote lower density housing in established suburban areas that do not have direct

access to activity/transport nodes and “encourage” only incremental change in housing density (incremental housing change areas). Such areas will retain their predominantly single dwelling character and incremental change will occur in the form of single dwellings or the equivalent of dual occupancy developments on average sized lots.



• Encourage the retention of existing vegetation wherever possible. • Improve landscape character by accommodating appropriate landscaping within new

residential developments.



63

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







It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the relevant objectives of Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement as outlined above. The proposal creates an adequate standard of amenity for the future occupants of each dwelling, as well as for occupants of existing dwellings in the immediate area. It is considered that the development will have minimal impact on the existing streetscape character, and the broader local neighbourhood character. Further discussion regarding these items will be outlined later within this report.

20.3 Clause 22.11 – Residential Development Policy As outlined previously, the proposal is considered to generally comply and satisfy the

applicable Local Planning Policy Framework, which essentially aim to encourage well-designed medium density housing in appropriate locations.

Where a planning permit is required for residential development, where relevant, it is policy

under Clause 22.11 to:

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

• In areas where building placement makes a major contribution to neighbourhood character, design new development to reinforce the established rhythm of buildings in the street and retain the existing single dwelling character of the streetscape.

Incremental Housing Change Areas • In areas identified for incremental housing change, ensure that new housing development

is responsive to maintaining the existing and preferred single dwelling/lower density nature of these areas.



64









Car parking and vehicle access, it is policy, where relevant, to:

§ Ensure that adequate on-site car parking is provided to meet the needs of future residents and visitors and sited to reduce its impact on the streetscape.

Performance measures § Locating garages or carports at the rear of dwellings fronting a street wherever possible. § Ensuring that where garages are located in the street elevation, they are set back a

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

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

Stormwater run-off mitigation and quality management, it is policy, where relevant, to:

§ Ensure that new residential development limits the impact of increased stormwater run-off on drainage systems.

Performance measures On-site infiltration should be maximised by: § Wherever possible, using unpaved landscape areas or porous paving. § Where appropriate, constructing on-site stormwater detention with delayed release into

the stormwater drainage system. § Designing to limit the impervious area. § Incorporating on-site water re-cycling systems for stormwater run-off.



65


It is considered that the proposed development satisfies the purpose of the zone. The Schedule to the Residential 3 Zone specifies variations to three standards of Clause 55

(ResCode), namely: Standard A5 – Site Coverage: The local variation is nominated as a maximum of 50%. The

proposed site coverage for the development is 37.4% and is consistent with the Schedule requirements.

20.5 Overlay Provisions

It is considered that the proposed development satisfies the following overlay requirements (where relevant):

• A building must not be greater than 2 storeys in height (which may include a basement car park with a maximum height of 1.2 metres above natural ground level).

21.0 CLAUSE 54 (RESCODE ASSESSMENT) 21.1 The proposal has been assessed against the objectives and standards of Clause 54 (ResCode)

of the Kingston Planning Scheme (refer to attachment A). It is considered that the development largely satisfies the requirements of ResCode and is a well-designed development. There appear to be the following areas of minor non-compliance, which are discussed below:

Clause 54.02 – Neighbourhood Character Standard A2 – Integration with Street One of the key requirements of this Standard is that “high fences are avoided where

practicable”. The proposed front fencing along a section of the site’s Napier Street frontage would be 1.5 metres with 1.8 metre high brick piers.

Council officers consider that this would be appropriate in this instance given that it would be

consistent with other examples of front fencing on the adjoining properties. Further, it would provide the likely occupants with some ground level private open space for their recreation needs.

Accordingly, a variation of this Standard is warranted in this instance. Clause 54.04 – Amenity Impacts Standard A10 – Side and Rear Setbacks

The proposed first floor level setbacks along the site’s east (side) and north (rear) property boundaries do not meet the minimum requirements as set out under this Standard.



66

Specifically, the proposed dwelling addition would be constructed to the respective side property boundaries. Council officers consider that the zero lot boundary setbacks at the first floor level from the site’s north (side) and east (rear) property boundaries should not detrimentally affect the amenity of the adjoining properties given the orientation of the subject site and the layout of the adjoining dwellings.

As such, a variation to this Standard is warranted in this instance. Standard A11 – Walls on Boundaries

The height of the new upper floor level walls to be constructed along the site’s north and east

property boundaries would be 7.0 metres and 5.6 metres respectively. As previously discussed, the location and height of the proposed walls should not detrimentally affect the amenity of the adjoining properties in this instance, as there are no overshadowing impacts or windows pacing the proposed extension.

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

Clause 54.06 – Detailed Design Standard A20 – Front Fences The required under this Standard suggests that the maximum height of front fencing is 1.5 metres unless it directly abuts a Road Zone Category 1. A section of the front fencing along the site’s Napier Street frontage would comprise 1.5 metre high merbau fencing with 1.8 metre high brick piers. Council officers consider that the proposed front fencing along Napier Street is considered reasonable in this instance in order to provide the likely residents with some private open space at ground level. Furthermore, there are numerous examples of high front fencing within the surrounding locality, including at No. 4/7-9 Naples Road and No. 1/7-9 Naples Road. As such, a variation to this Standard is warranted in this instance.

22.0 RESPONSE TO OBJECTORS CONCERNS: 22.1 The objectors have raised the following two (2) concerns in relation to the planning

application:

• Height of the fence on Napier Street; and • Visual bulk associated with the proposed first floor extension

22.2 In relation to the height of the fence on Napier Street, it is considered that there is enough

examples of high fencing in the immediately surrounding area including the adjoining dwelling to the north and the dwelling at No. 1/7-9 Naples Street to justify the proposed height of the fence. The proposed fence at 1.5 metres in height will allow surveillance of the street as well as allowing some privacy to the open space to the side of the existing dwelling. As the existing dwelling is located on a corner with the bulk of the private open space for this



67

dwelling already located to the front/side of the dwelling, it is considered reasonable to allow this area some seclusion by a 1.5m high front fence, which complies with the requirements set down in Standard A20 of Clause 54 of the Kingston Planning Scheme.

22.3 In relation to the visual bulk associated with the proposed first floor extension, it is considered

that this extension is well designed and sited and includes a mix of materials and colours, together with a sensitively designed roof form so as to provide some visual relief to the surrounding properties. It should be noted that the proposed dwelling extension is considerably smaller in area than existing examples within the same development.

Further, the amended elevation submitted on 19 April 2010, demonstrates increased articulation, which should address the concerns raised by the objectors. It should be noted that the objections received only raised concerns in relation to planning scheme compliance and did not directly state how the objectors would be affected by the proposed dwelling extension. The subject site is located within an area dominated by double-storey dwellings and it is considered that the proposed first floor extension responds well to the surrounding area without affecting the amenity of adjoining properties.

23.0 CONCLUSION: 23.1 For reasons discussed within this report, it is submitted that the proposal be supported subject

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

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

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

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

• The proposal generally satisfies the requirements of the Kingston Planning Scheme, including the MSS, Residential Development Policy (inclusive of the Neighbourhood Character Area Guidelines and the Designing Contextual Housing Guidelines), Residential 3 zoning and the Schedule to the zone, Clause 54 – Single dwelling on a lot less than 300m2, and Clause 65 – Decision Guidelines (subject to appropriate conditions).


reasonable and warrants support. 25.0 RECOMMENDATION: A. That Council resolve to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for the construction of

extensions to an existing dwelling on a lot less than 300m2, subject following conditions:

1. Before the development starts amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with



68

dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the plans submitted to Council on 29th January, 2010, but modified to show:

a) the surface material of the proposed driveway and car parking space nominated in all-weather coloured concrete sealcoat, or similar;

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

c) the guttering pertaining to the walls on boundary on the site’s north and east property boundaries nominated as being contained wholly within the title property boundaries of the subject land; and

d) the west (Napier Street) elevation to be in accordance with the amended plan received by Council on 19 April 2010.

2. The development, as shown on the endorsed plans, must not be altered without the prior

written consent of the Responsible Authority. 3. Prior to the occupation of the proposed works hereby permitted, all buildings and works and

the conditions of this permit must be complied with, unless with the further prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

4. Prior to the occupation of the proposed works hereby permitted, all boundary fences must be

repaired and/or replaced as necessary to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, at the cost of the applicant/owner.

5. Construction on the site shall be restricted to the following times: Monday to Friday 7:00am to 7:00pm Saturday 9:00am to 6:00pm Sundays and Public Holidays No construction permitted. Or otherwise as approved by the Responsible Authority in writing. 5. All works on or facing the boundaries of adjoining properties must be finished and surface

cleaned to a standard that is well presented to neighbouring properties in a manner to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6. All new or altered piping and ducting above the ground floor storey of the building must be

concealed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 7. External clothes drying facilities shall be provided for the existing dwelling. 8. Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction of the

Responsible Authority. 9. In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this permit will

expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

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



69

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




OR B. Should Council resolve not to support the application, it be issued on the following grounds:

1. The proposal is not consistent with the Residential Development Policy, Clause 22.11 of the Kingston Planning Scheme.

2. The proposal would have an adverse effect on the amenity of adjoining/nearby properties

through its visual bulk, scale, massing and inappropriate building setbacks. 3. The proposal does not satisfy the provisions of Clause 54: ResCode, of the Kingston Planning

Scheme, in particular; § Standard A10 – Side and rear setback objective

§ Standard A11 – Walls on boundaries objective



70

M 52 KP 10/35 – 67 McLeod Road, Carrum APPLICANT Brian Moxham Surveying Pty Ltd ADDRESS OF LAND No.67 (Lot 1 on PS009794) McLeod Road, Carrum PROPOSAL Two (2) Lot Subdivision and the development PLANNING OFFICER Anna Reddie REFERENCE NO. KP-35/2010 ZONE Residental 3 Zone OVERLAYS Special Builing Overlay DECISION DATE BY 24 March, 2010 STATUTORY DAYS 5 days at 24 March, 2010 CONSIDERED PLAN REFERENCES/DATE RECEIVED

5th March, 2009

1.0 SITE CONDITIONS 1.1 The subject site is located on the south west corner of McLeod Road and Riversdale

Avenue, Carrum. The site has a frontage of 15.02m, a maximum depth of 39.62m and an overall area of 711m2. A 1.2m easement exists at the rear (northern end) of the land.

1.2 The site is currently occupied by a detached dwelling with a rear G.I shed. 2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 It is proposed to subdivide the subject site into two (2) lots. 2.2 Further details regarding the proposed subdivision are displayed in the table below:

Lot Number Area (m2) 1 424m2 2 287m2

3.0 PLANNING CONTROLS 3.1 The subject site is located within a Residential 3 Zone and is subject to Special Building

Overlays. 3.2 A Public Open Space contribution is not required in respect of this application pursuant to

Clause 52.01 of the Kingston Planning Scheme. 4.0 PLANNING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 4.1 A planning permit is required for subdivision pursuant to Clause 32.06 Residential 3 Zone

of the Kingston Planning Scheme.



71

5.0 RELEVANT HISTORY 5.1 Council’s records indicate that there is no planning history of the site. 6.0 ADVERTISING 6.1 The proposal was advertised by sending notices to adjoining and opposite property owners

and occupiers and by maintaining a notice on site for fourteen (14) days. No objections were received.

7.0 REFERRALS 7.1 External referrals were not required pursuant to Clause 66.01-1 of the Kingston Planning

Scheme providing the conditions as contained in Clause 66.02 of the Scheme are included on any Planning Permit issued.

8.0 ASSESSMENT / PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 8.1 Pursuant to Clause 32.06-2 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, an application to subdivide

land, where each lot does not contain an existing dwelling or car parking space, must meet the requirements of Clause 56 (Subdivision) of the Kingston Planning Scheme and:

§ must meet all of the objectives included in the clauses specified in the following table;

and § should meet all of the standard included in the clauses specified in the following table.

CLASS OF SUBDIVISION OBJECTIVES & STANDARD TO BE MET 60 or more lots All except Clause 56.03-5. 16-59 lots All except Clauses 56.03-1 to 56.03-3, 56.03-5, 56.06-1

and 56.06-3. 3-15 lots All except Clauses 56.02-1, 56.03-1 to 56.03-4, 56.05-2,

56.06-1, 56.06-3 and 56.06-6. 2 lots Clauses 56.03-5, 56.04-2, 56.04-3, 56.04-5, 56.06-8 to

56.09-2. 8.2 As Lot 2 does not contain a dwelling, an assessment against the relevant sections of Clause

56 (as prescribed above) is provided as an attachment to this report (refer to Attachment A). 9.0 CLAUSE 52.01 – PUBLIC OPEN SPACE CONTRIBUTION 9.1 A Public Open Space contribution is not required in respect of this application pursuant to

Clause 52.01 of the Kingston Planning Scheme. 10.0 GENERAL COMMENTS: 10.1 To ensure that any future development on Lot 1 or Lot 2 is constructed in accordance with

Clause 54 requirements it is considered appropriate to include a condition on any permit issued to provide a three dimensional building envelope for Lot 2 in accordance with Clause



72

54 of Kingston Planning Scheme demonstrating that a dwelling can be constructed on the lot in accordance with the requirements of Clause 54.

10.2 Subject to appropriate conditions and the inclusion of a three dimensional building envelope

for each lot, together with the conditions required pursuant to Clause 66.01 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, the proposed subdivision is considered reasonable, and should be supported.

11.0 RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 That: A) Council issue a Planning Permit for the subdivision of the land into two (2) lots with common

property in accordance with the attached plans to be issued, subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the plan of subdivision is certified under the Subdivision Act 1988, amended

plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show:

a) the provision of a three dimensional building envelope for Lot 2 , demonstrating

that a dwelling can be constructed on the lot in accordance with the requirements of Clause 54.

2. The subdivision as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the prior

written consent of the Responsible Authority. 3. The owner of the land must enter into agreements with the relevant authorities for the

provision of water supply, drainage, sewerage facilities, electricity, gas and telecommunication services to each lot shown on the endorsed plan in accordance with that authority’s requirements and relevant legislation at the time.

4. All existing and proposed easements and sites for existing or required utility services and roads on the land must be set aside in the plan of subdivision submitted for Certification in favour of the relevant authority for which the easement or site is to be created.

5. The plan of subdivision submitted for certification under the Subdivision Act 1988

must be referred to the relevant authority in accordance with Section 8 of the Act. 6. Reticulated water, sewerage and electricity must be available to each lot shown on

the endorsed plans before any lot can be used or occupied. 7. Once the subdivision has started it must be continued and completed to the

satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.



73

8. In accordance with section 68 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, this permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: • The subdivision is not started before two (2) years from the date of this permit. • The subdivision is not completed within five (5) years of the date of certification. In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within three months afterwards.

Note: Each building or part of a building resulting from this subdivision must comply with

Regulation 503 of the Building Regulations 2006. Note: The starting of the subdivision is defined as the certification of the plan.



74

ATTACHMENT A – Clause 56 Assessment (2 lot subdivision)

Clause 56: Standard. Officers Comments. Clause 56.03-5: Neighbourhood Character Objectives.

Standard C6 states that subdivision should: • Respect the existing neighbourhood character or achieve a

preferred neighbourhood character consistent with any relevant neighbourhood character objective, policy or statement

• Respond to and integrate with the surrounding urban environment.

• Protect significant vegetation and site features.

The proposal is consistent with Standard C6. The lot pattern in this area is generally rectilinear with lot sizes; there is an emerging trend with the development of dual occupancies in the area.

Clause 56.04-2: Lot Area & Building Envelopes Objectives.

Standard C8 states; o that an application to subdivide land that creates lots of less than

300 square metres should be accompanied by information that shows: • That the lots are consistent or contain building envelope that

is consistent with a development approved under this scheme, or

• That a dwelling may be constructed on each lot in accordance with the requirements of this scheme.

2. Lots of between 300 square metres and 500 square metres should: • Contain a building envelope that is consistent with a

development of the lot approved under this scheme, or • If no development of the lot has been approved under this

scheme, contain a building envelope and be able to contain a rectangle measuring 10 metres by 15 metres, or 9 metres by 15 metres if a boundary wall is nominated as part of the building envelope.

3. If lots of between 300 square metres and 500 square metres are proposed to contain dwellings that are built to the boundary, the long axis of the lots should be within 30 degrees east and 20 degrees west of north unless there are significant physical constraints that make this difficult to achieve.

4. Lots greater than 500 square metres should be able to contain a rectangle measuring 10 metres by 15 metres, and may contain a building envelope.

5. A building envelope may specify or incorporate any relevant siting and design requirement. Any requirement should meet the relevant standards of Clause 54, unless: • The objectives of the relevant standards are met, and • The building envelope is shown as a restriction on a plan of

subdivision registered under the Subdivision Act 1988, or is specified as a covenant in an agreement under Section 173 of the Act.

6. Where a lot with a building envelope adjoins a lot that is not on the same plan of subdivision or is not subject to the same agreement relating to the relevant building envelope: • The building envelope must meet Standards A10 and A11 of

Clause 54 in relation to the adjoining lot, and

The proposal is consistent with Standard C8. The proposed lot boundaries of the subdivision are consistent with the area. Solar access, easements and vegetation can comply with Clause 54 of Kingston Planning Scheme.



75

Clause 56: Standard. Officers Comments. • The building envelope must not regulate siting matters

covered by Standards A12 to A15 (inclusive) of Clause 54 in relation to the adjoining lot. This should be specified in the relevant plan of subdivision or agreement.

7. Lot dimensions and building envelopes should protect: • Solar access for future dwellings and support the siting and

design of dwellings that achieve the energy rating requirements of the Building Regulations.

• Existing or proposed easements on lots. • Significant vegetation and site features.

Clause 56.04-3: Solar Orientation of Lots Objectives.

Standard C9 states that unless the site is constrained by topography or other site conditions, at least 70 percent of lots should have appropriate solar orientation. Lots have appropriate solar orientation when: • The long axis of lots are within the range north 20 degrees

west to north 30 degrees east, or east 20 degrees north to east 30 degrees south.

• Lots between 300 square metres and 500 square metres are proposed to contain dwellings that are built to the boundary, the long axis of the lots should be within 30 degrees east and 20 degrees west of north.

• Dimensions of lots are adequate to protect solar access to the lot, taking into account likely dwelling size and the relationship of each lot to the street.

The proposal is consistent with Standard C9.

Clause 56.04-5: Common Area Objectives.

Standard C11 states that an application to subdivide land that creates common land must be accompanied by a plan and a report identifying: • The common area to be owned by the body corporate, including

any streets and open space. • The reasons why the area should be commonly held. • Lots participating in the body corporate. • The proposed management arrangements including maintenance

standards for streets and open spaces to be commonly held.

Is not applicable to this application.

Clause 56.06-8: Lot Access Objectives.

Standard C21 states that 1. Vehicle access to lots abutting arterial roads should be provided

from service roads, side or rear access lanes, access places or access streets where appropriate and in accordance with the access management requirements of the relevant roads authority.

1. Vehicle access to lots of 300 square metres or less in area and lots with a frontage of 7.5 metres or less should be provided via rear or side access lanes, places or streets.

2. The design and construction of a crossover should meet the requirements of the relevant road authority.

The proposal is consistent with Standard C21. Vehicle access to the site is via Riversdale Street (Residential Street). It is proposed to use the existing crossover for access to Lot 1 and a new accessway off Riversdlae Street.

Clause 56.07-1: Drinking Water Supply Objectives.

Standard C22 states that the supply of drinking water must be: • Designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements

and to the satisfaction of the relevant water authority. • Provided to the boundary of all lots in the subdivision to the

satisfaction of the relevant water authority.

The proposal is consistent with Standard C22. It is an established area which could be connected to water supplies



76

Clause 56: Standard. Officers Comments. Clause 56.07-2: Reused and Recycled Water Objectives.

Standard C23 states that reused and recycled water supply systems must be: • Designed, constructed and managed in accordance with the

requirements and to the satisfaction of the relevant water authority, Environment Protection Authority and Department of Human Services.

• Provided to the boundary of all lots in the subdivision where required by the relevant water authority.

The proposal is consistent with Standard C23. Water recycling and reuse.

Clause 56.07-3: Waste Water Management Objectives.

Standard C23 states that waste water systems must be: • Designed, constructed and managed in accordance with the

requirements and to the satisfaction of the relevant water authority and the Environment Protection Authority.

• Consistent with any relevant approved domestic waste water management plan.

Reticulated waste water systems must be provided to the boundary of all lots in the subdivision where required by the relevant water authority.


Clause 56.07-4: Urban Run-off Management Objectives.

Standard C25 states that; 1. The urban stormwater management system must be:

• Designed and managed in accordance with the requirements and to the satisfaction of the relevant drainage authority.

• Designed and managed in accordance with the requirements and to the satisfaction of the water authority where reuse of urban run-off is proposed.

• Designed to meet the current best practice performance objectives for stormwater quality as contained in the Urban Stormwater – Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines (Victorian Stormwater Committee 1999) as amended.

• Designed to ensure that flows downstream of the subdivision site are restricted to predevelopment levels unless increased flows are approved by the relevant drainage authority and there are no detrimental downstream impacts.

1. The stormwater management system should be integrated with the overall development plan including the street and public open space networks and landscape design.

2. For all storm events up to and including the 20% Average Exceedence Probability (AEP) standard: • Stormwater flows should be contained within the drainage

system to the requirements of the relevant authority. • Ponding on roads should not occur for longer than 1 hour

after the cessation of rainfall. 3. For storm events greater than 20% AEP and up to and including

1% AEP standard: • Provision must be made for the safe and effective passage of

stormwater flows. • All new lots should be free from inundation or to a lesser

standard of flood protection where agreed by the relevant

The proposal is consistent with Standard C25. Storm water management, including the retention, reuse and disposal of storm water runoff



77

Clause 56: Standard. Officers Comments. floodplain management authority.

• Ensure that streets, footpaths and cycle paths that are subject to flooding meet the safety criteria da Vave < 0.35 m2/s (where, da = average depth in metres and Vave = average velocity in metres per second).

4. The design of the local drainage network should: • Ensure run-off is retarded to a standard required by the

responsible drainage authority. • Ensure every lot is provided with drainage to a standard

acceptable to the relevant drainage authority. Wherever possible, run-off should be directed to the front of the lot and discharged into the street drainage system or legal point of discharge.

• Ensure that inlet and outlet structures take into account the effects of obstructions and debris build up. Any surcharge drainage pit should discharge into an overland flow in a safe and predetermined manner.

• Include water sensitive urban design features to manage run-off in streets and public open space. Where such features are provided, an application must describe maintenance responsibilities, requirements and costs.

5. Any flood mitigation works must be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of the relevant floodplain management authority.

Clause 56.08-1: Site Management Objectives.

Standard C26 states that a subdivision application must describe how the site will be managed prior to and during the construction period and may set out requirements for managing: • Erosion and sediment. • Dust. • Run-off. • Litter, concrete and other construction wastes. • Chemical contamination. • Vegetation and natural features planned for retention. • Recycled material should be used for the construction of streets,

shared paths and other infrastructure where practicable.

The proposal is consistent with Standard C26. Construction of the development has commenced.

Clause 56.09-1: Shared Trenching Objectives.

Standard C27 states that reticulated services for water, gas, electricity and telecommunications should be provided in shared trenching to minimise construction costs and land allocation for underground services.


56.09-2 Electricity, telecommunications and gas objectives

Standard C28 states that; 1. The electricity supply system must be designed in accordance

with the requirements of the relevant electricity supply agency and be provided to the boundary of all lots in the subdivision to the satisfaction of the relevant electricity authority.

2. Arrangements that support the generation or use of renewable energy at a lot or neighbourhood level are encouraged.

3. The telecommunication system must be designed in accordance with the requirements of the relevant telecommunications




78

Clause 56: Standard. Officers Comments. servicing agency and should be consistent with any approved strategy, policy or plan for the provision of advanced telecommunications infrastructure, including fibre optic technology. The telecommunications system must be provided to the boundary of all lots in the subdivision to the satisfaction of the relevant telecommunications servicing authority.

4. Where available, the reticulated gas supply system must be designed in accordance with the requirements of the relevant gas supply agency and be provided to the boundary of all lots in the subdivision to the satisfaction of the relevant gas supply agency.



79

M 53 KP 10/09 – 48 Albenca Street, Mentone APPLICANT Cultured Building Designs ADDRESS OF LAND No. 48 (Lot 4 on PS 017410) Albenca Street, Mentone PROPOSAL Two (2) Dwellings PLANNING OFFICER Girija Shrestha REFERENCE NO. KP710/2009 RELEVANT STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

Clause 12: Metropolitan Development Clause 14: Settlement Clause 16: Housing



ZONE Clause 32.06: Residential 3 Zone OVERLAYS None PARTICULAR PROVISIONS Clause 55: Two or More Dwellings on a Lot &

Residential Buildings GENERAL PROVISIONS Clause 65: Decision Guidelines RESIDENTIAL POLICY AREA


DECISION DATE BY 18th March, 2010 STATUTORY DAYS 71 days at 29th March 2010 CONSIDERED PLAN REFERENCES/DATE RECEIVED

30th December, 2009


• Rear double storey (attic style) dwelling • Front fence • Amenity impact (internal and external) • Vegetation/landscaping considerations

2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 It is proposed to demolish the existing dwelling and outbuildings on the land and

construct two (2) double storey dwellings on this site.

2.2 Development summary: Dwelling Floor Area

(excluding garage / verandah)



1 207.1m² 81m² (including 50m2 of secluded private open space)

3 bedrooms and 1 study

2



80

2 124.2m² 68.48m² (including68.48 m2 of secluded private open space)

3 bedrooms 2

2.3 The proposal has an overall site coverage of 49 percent and a permeability percentage

of 28.8. 2.4 Development Assessment Table:


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

Dwelling 1: complies Dwelling 2: complies

Car Parking Two (2) car parking spaces for each three (3) or more bedroom dwelling, with one (1) space under cover

Dwelling 1: complies Dwelling 2: does not comply – only one space provided.

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

Dwelling 1 requires – 7.41m It is set back between 7.36m and 7.495m. Dwelling 1: partly does not meet standard (refer to the ResCode discussion section within this report) Dwelling 2: not applicable

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

Site coverage is 49% and therefore complies

2.5 The proposed building materials, colours and finishes are summarised in the table

below:

Roof: Tiles (Slate tone) Walls: Brick face – brown tone, rendered lightweight - warm neutral/arava,

weatherboards – stained timber

Garage doors Roller door

Windows: Material not nominated – colour - beige

Driveways: Asphalt driveways – dark grey

Front fencing: Existing 2.1high brick piered fence with timber infills keeping existing brick piers at the existing height with new timber horizontal slats replaces existing timber or paint in a neutral colour (brown tone/beige)

Boundary fences: Pailing fence



81

3.0 SITE & SURROUNDS 3.1 The subject site comprises a 638m2 allotment on the east side of Albenca Street,

Mentone. It currently contains a single storey, weatherboard dwelling. The site contains a significant tree at the front of the site. The site is encumbered by an easement along its eastern (rear) property boundary. There appears to be no restrictions listed on the Certificate of Title.

3.2 Vehicle access to the site is currently via a single width crossover located on the north

side of the site’s Albenca street frontage. 3.3 The surrounding area typically comprises of predominantly of detached, single and

double storey, brick and weatherboard dwellings, with pitched roofs. There is no predominant fencing style in the neighbourhood.

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

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

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

dwellings on a lot. 7.0 RELEVANT HISTORY

7.1 Council records indicate that there is no relevant planning history relating to this site.

8.0 ADVERTISING 25.1 The proposal was advertised by sending notices to adjoining and opposite property

owners and occupiers and by maintaining a notice on site for fourteen (14) days. Two (2) objections to the proposal were received. The valid grounds of objection raised are summarised as follows:

• Requirement of new fence • Overlooking • Double storey dwelling • Overshadowing • Tree

Both objections were conditionally withdrawn prior to the preliminary conference. Both objections expressed concern about the existing tree located in the front of the proposed development. One objector requested that the tree be removed, as it is considered dangerous by him. The other objector requested the tree be retained as it is



82

an asset to the streetscape. This issue will be discussed later in the landscaping section of this report.

9.0 REFERRALS 9.1 The following internal and/or external referral departments were notified:

• Council’s Development Engineer • Council’s Vegetation Management Officer


conditions being included on any permit issued. 10.0 RELEVANT POLICIES 10.1 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)

Clause 12 (Metropolitan Development) Clause 14 (Settlement) Clause 16 (Housing) Clause 19 (Particular Uses and Development)

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


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



10.5 Other 10.6 Neighbourhood Character Area Guidelines (Incorporated Document under Clause 21.05 –


The land is located within Area 14 of the Neighbourhood Character Guidelines. The proposal is generally in accordance with the applicable character profile.

11.7 Design Contextual Housing Guidelines (April 2003 – reference document within Clause 22.11 – Residential Development Policy)

The Design Contextual Housing Guidelines offer a range of design techniques and suggestions

to assist with residential design, which is responsive to local character.



83

It is considered that the proposed development does not raise any issues of non-compliance



11.2 Clause 21.05 - Residential Land use

The subject land is identified within an Incremental Housing Change Area. The type of housing change anticipated in these areas will take the form of extensions to existing houses, new single dwellings or the equivalent of new two dwelling developments on average sized lots. The existing single dwelling character of these areas is to be retained. The objectives of the Municipal Strategic Statement (as relevant to this application) include: Objective 1: To provide a wide range of housing types across the

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





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

Relevant strategies to achieve these objectives (as relevant to this application) include: • Promote lower density housing in established suburban areas that do not have

direct access to activity/transport nodes and “encourage” only incremental change in housing density (incremental housing change areas). Such areas will retain their predominantly single dwelling character and incremental change will occur in the form of single dwellings or the equivalent of dual occupancy developments on average sized lots.



84



• Encourage the retention of existing vegetation wherever possible. • Improve landscape character by accommodating appropriate landscaping within

new residential developments. • Ensure that the planning, design, siting and construction of new residential

development responds to best practice environmental design guidelines for energy efficiency, wast and recycling, and stormwater management.







It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with the relevant objectives of Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement as outlined above. The proposal is considered to create an adequate standard of amenity for the future occupants of each dwelling, as well as for occupants of existing dwellings in the immediate area. It is considered that the development will have minimal impact on the existing streetscape character, and the broader local neighbourhood character.

11.3 Clause 22.11 – Residential Development Policy

As outlined previously, the proposal is considered to generally comply and satisfy the applicable Local Planning Policy Framework, which essentially aim to encourage well-designed medium density housing in appropriate locations. Where a planning permit is required for residential development, where relevant, it is policy under Clause 22.11 to:



85

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

• In areas where building placement makes a major contribution to neighbourhood character, design new development to reinforce the established rhythm of buildings in the street and retain the existing single dwelling character of the streetscape.

• In areas identified for incremental housing change, ensure that new housing development is responsive to maintaining the existing and preferred single dwelling/lower density nature of these areas.

It is considered that this application clearly meets these objectives.









It is acknowledged that a double storey dwelling is proposed at the rear of the site; however the design of the upper floor is within the attic style roof area. It is considered that the proposed development would satisfy the above policies under Clause 22.11 of the Kingston Planning Scheme.

Clause 22.11 – Residential Development Policy of the Kingston Planning Scheme encourages single dwellings or dual occupancy style developments on ‘average sized lots’ within areas designated for Incremental Housing Change. Council’s Strategic Planning Department undertook a study across the municipality in 2003 to identify any emerging patterns with regard to average lot sizes. As such, six (6) areas were identified within the municipality, each having their own ‘average lot size’ calculation.



86

The subject site is identified within Area 2 of this study. The average lot size within this area has been calculated to be 613.1m2, which results in a suggested development density of 1 dwelling per 306.55m2. It is therefore considered that this proposal would meet this strategy as the subject site has an area of 638m2.

Clause 22.11 Residential Development Policy essentially extends upon the provision contained at Clause 21.05 (Residential Land Use) along with the State Planning Policy Framework provisions found at Clause 14.02-2 – Settlement and Clause 16.02 – Medium Density Housing, effectively promoting high-density development around activity centres and locations close to public transport.

In summary, the proposal is seen to be strongly consistent with Council’s Local Planning Policy Framework and, importantly, it delivers on some very specific objectives for the type and form of medium density development expected in areas such as this before the Council.


It is considered that the proposed development satisfies the purpose of the zone.

The Schedule to the Residential 3 Zone specifies variations to three standards of Clause 55 (ResCode), namely:

Standard B8 – Site Coverage: The local variation is nominated as a maximum of 50%. The proposed site coverage for the development is 49% and is consistent with the Schedule requirements. Standard B28 – Private Open Space: The local variation requires an area of 40m2, with one part of the private open space to consist of secluded private open space at the side or rear of the dwelling or residential building with a minimum area of 40m2, a minimum dimension of 5 metres and convenient access from a living room. If a dwelling has more than 2 bedrooms an additional ground level private open space area of 20m2 with a minimum width of 3 metres is required to be provided for each additional bedroom, with a maximum of 80m2 of private open space required for the dwelling. Dwelling 1 has provided 81 sqm and dwelling 2 has provided 60 sqm, which meet the schedule to zone 3 of private open space requirements. Standard B32 – Front Fences: The local variation requires a front fence within 3 metres of a street must not exceed 2 metres in height for streets in a Road Zone – Category 1 or 1.2 metres in height for any other street. The existing front fence is a 2.1m high brick pier fence with timber infills. The applicant proposes to keep the existing 2.1m high fence at the existing height, with new timber horizontal slats replacing the existing timber infills. The schedule requirements of the front fence are not met at this instance; however, this can be achieved via a condition on any permit issued.



87

12.0 CLAUSE 55 (RESCODE ASSESSMENT) 12.1 The proposal has been assessed against the objectives and standards of Clause 55

(ResCode) of the Kingston Planning Scheme (refer to attachment A). It is considered that the development largely satisfies the requirements of ResCode and is a well-designed development. There appear to be the following areas of minor non-compliance, which are discussed below:

Clause 55.03 - Site Layout and Building Massing

Standard B6 – Street Setback

In accordance with requirements under this standard, Dwellings 1 fronting Albenca Street, should have a minimum setback of 7.41 metres, based on the average of the adjoining properties front setbacks. The proposed front setback of 7.36m is less than the required 0.05m average, however, the proposed setback is considered to be appropriate for the following reasons: § Although the proposed setback does not meet the technical requirements of

this Standard by 5cm, it is considered that the development provides a reasonable transition between the adjoining properties and meets the overriding objective of this Clause. The variation is only by 5 cm, which is very minimal in this context.

§ Predominately the front setback of other dwellings within Albenca Street are lesser than the average required for this development. It is, therefore, considered that front setback proposed is consistent with the broader streetscape rhythm and will not cause detriment to the neighbourhood character.

It is suggested that dwelling 1 could actually be located a further 1m forward, towards

the front of the site in its entirety to provide façade articulation between it and its garage. This change would also help address the car parking issues associated with dwelling 2. This will be discussed further under B14 and B15 below.

Standard B13 – Landscaping Landscape plans were referred to Council’s Vegetation Management Officer who recommended that amended plans be requested via Condition 1 of any approval. A large Angophora costata (Smooth Bark Apple Myrtle) is located within the site’s front setback. As discussed in the advertising section of this report, one of the objectors requested that the tree be removed whilst another objector requested the tree be retained as it is a healthy and beautiful tree. The applicant is happy to abide with any decision made by Council, which will be that the tree be retained. Council’s Vegetation Management Officer has recommended the tree be retained and protected throughout and after the site development process. This can be addressed by conditions on any permit issued. In addition to this, the tree should be pruned and maintained by a qualified arborist to address the concerns raised by the objector at No. 50 Albenca Street.



88

It is considered that there should be sufficient unsealed surface areas within the rear and front setbacks of the proposed development to provide adequate landscaping, including trees with spreading canopies. A condition should be included on any permit issued requiring a Landscape Plan with an associated planting schedule that addresses the requirements specified by Council’s Vegetation Management Officer. A tandem car space for dwelling 2 needs to be provided, together with a fully workable turning area. To achieve this, dwelling 1 in its entirety, should be moved 1m west, the garage for dwelling 2 set back to the site’s existing rear easement and the tandem space provided in front of this garage. Conditions on any permit issued can require this. Standard B20 – North Facing Windows The objective of this standard is to allow adequate solar access to existing north-facing habitable room windows. It requires if a north-facing habitable room window of an existing dwelling is within 3 metres of a boundary on an abutting lot, a building should be set back from the boundary 1 metre. The proposed development does not meet this standard, especially in terms of north facing existing habitable window of dwelling 2 of No. 46 Albenca Street. However, this room has two other windows, which are facing to the east rear private open space of this property. Further, the existing paling fence has the height of 2.6m and the proposed wall height of the garage is 2.995m. It is considered that the proposed development should not further overshadow the north facing window of No. 2/46 Albenca Street to a much greater extent than the existing fence already does. Clause 55.06 – Detailed Design Standard B32 – Front Fences As discussed previously, the height of front fence does not meet this standard, however, this can be achieved via a condition on any permit issued.

13.0 CONCLUSION: 13.1 For reasons discussed within this report, it is submitted that the proposal as required to

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

13.2 The proposed development, as required to be amended, is considered appropriate for

the site as evidenced by: • The design and siting of the proposed development to be compatible with the

surrounding area; • The proposal should not have a detrimental impact on surrounding properties

(subject to appropriate conditions); and, • The proposal generally satisfies the requirements of the Kingston Planning

Scheme, including the MSS, Residential Development Policy (inclusive of the Neighbourhood Character Area Guidelines and the Designing Contextual Housing



89

Guidelines), Residential 3 zoning and the Schedule to the zone, Clause 55 – Two or more dwellings on a lot and Residential Buildings, and Clause 65 – Decision Guidelines (subject to appropriate conditions).

14.0 On balance and subject to the inclusion of suitable conditions, the proposal is

considered reasonable and warrants support. 15.0 RECOMMENDATION: That Council resolve to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for the development of this site for two (2) dwellings, subject following conditions:

1. Before the development starts amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the plans submitted to Council on 30th December, 2009, but modified to show:

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

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

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

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

iv. a range of plant types from ground covers to large shrubs and trees; v. adequate planting densities (e.g.: plants with a mature width of 1 metre,

planted at 1 metre intervals); vi. the provision of one (1) small (at maturity) tree within the private open

space area of each dwelling, with species chosen to be approved by the Responsible Authority.

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

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

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

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



90

xi. the provision of a notation of the Tree Protection Details as provided in Conditions 3, 4 and 5 of this permit. This includes all nominated tree protection zones to be drawn to scale on the plans; and

xii. the nomination of the retention of the existing Angophora costata (Smooth Bark Apple) at the front of the site.

b. dwelling 1, in its entirety relocated 1m west, towards the front of the site (not its

garage) so as to provide additional articulation to the front of dwelling 1 and to facilitate a workable turning area for vehicles associated with dwelling 2;

c. the garage for dwelling 2 relocated east to abut the existing rear easement on the land;

d. the provision of a tandem car space in front of the garage for dwelling 2;

e. the provision of a fully workable turning area for vehicles associated with dwelling 2, with dwelling 1 reconfigured accordingly;

f. the provision of suitable fixed (unopenable) screening device fitted to the south facing windows of bedroom 3 of Dwelling 1 to a minimum height of 1.7 metres above the first floor finished floor level directly below, in accordance with Clause 55.04-6 (Standard B22) of the Kingston Planning Scheme;

g. the provision of porous pavers on existing grade for the driveway for Dwelling 1 (concrete or asphalt must not be used);

h. a reduction in the height of the front fence to 1.2m high and continuation of this 1.2m high front fence at 90 degrees to the site frontage and continued east until it meets the south-west corner of lounge room of dwelling 1, with a suitable gate(s) provided so as to enclose the front open space area, of dwelling 1;

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

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

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

l. the provision of a water tank clearly nominated for each dwelling;

m. the provision of “a new 2 metre high timber paling fence along the site’s north (side) property boundary at the cost of the applicant/owner,”

n. the provision of a notation stating “the existing Angophera tree to be pruned and maintained at good condition all the time so that the tree is not dangerous to No. 50 Albenca Street.”

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

p. the guttering pertaining to the garages / walls on boundary on the site’s north and south property boundaries nominated as being contained wholly within the title property boundaries of the subject land;

q. the provision of the proposed vehicle crossover for dwelling 2 clearly nominated, dimensioned and properly aligned with the proposed driveway; and



91

r. the west facing first floor master bedroom window of dwelling 2 fitted with a suitable fixed screening device to a height of 1.7m above the first floor finished floor level of the dwelling directly below.


3. A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) must be observed at a distance of the following:

• Four (4) metres radius surrounding the Angophora costata (Smooth Bark Apple) within the front setback of the property,

Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted a Tree Protection Fence defined by a 1.2 metre (or larger) high temporary fence constructed using steel or timber posts fixed in the ground or to a concrete pad, with the fence’s side panels to be constructed of cyclone mesh wire or similar strong metal mesh or netting, must be erected around the Angophora costata (Smooth Bark Apple) at the distances specified for the TPZ.

4. The following must be observed within the TPZ area (without the further consent in writing of Council’s Vegetation Management Officer):

a. the existing soil level must not be altered either by fill excavation; b. the soil must not be compacted or the soil’s drainage changed;

c. no fuels, oils, chemicals, poisons, rubbish and other materials harmful to trees are to be stored or dispersed;

d. no storage of equipment, machinery or material is to occur; e. open trenching to lay underground services e.g.: drainage, water, gas, etc. must

not be used; f. tree roots must not be severed or injured;

g. machinery must not be used to remove any existing concrete, bricks or other materials;

5. All tree pruning work must be in accordance with the Australian Standards AS4373 (2007) “Pruning of Amenity Trees” and be undertaken by a qualified and experienced Arborist.

6. During demolition and construction, bridging planks are to be laid over the existing driveway area within 5 metres of the tree. This is to stop point loads on the root system.

7. Before occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted the new fence required under Condition 1 m. of this permit must be constructed to council satisfaction at the full cost of the owner / developer of the site.

8. The driveway for Dwelling 1 must be constructed with porous pavers on existing grade with no concrete or asphalt to be used, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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



92


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




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

16. Construction on the site shall be restricted to the following times: Monday to Friday 7:00am to 7:00pm; and, Saturday 9:00am to 6:00pm Sunday and Public Holidays No construction permitted Or otherwise as approved by the Responsible Authority in writing. 17. All piping and ducting above the ground floor storey of the development (other than

rainwater guttering and downpipes) must be concealed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

18. All external surfaces of the building elevations must be finished in accordance with

the schedule on the endorsed plans and maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

19. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, all boundary fences must be

repaired and/or replaced as necessary to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, at the cost of the applicant/owner.



93

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

i. Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

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

l. Drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.





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

• The development is not completed within one (1) year from the commencement of works..







94

M 54 KP 09/773 – 321-323 Charman Road, Cheltenham Applicant: Ikos Planning and Design Location: No. 321 & 323(Lots 1and 2 on PS435947H and Lot 1 on TP842160S)

Charman Road, Cheltenham 3192 Melways Ref: 86H1 86J1 Proposal: To construct buildings and works comprising a five-storey building

(containing five (5) offices, thirty-five (35) apartment-style dwellings, and basement car parking), to use the site for dwellings, to vary the height restriction in the Table to Schedule 16 of Clause 43.02, and a reduction in the car parking requirements pursuant to Clause 52.06 of the Kingston Planning Scheme.

File Number: KP733/09 Planning Officer: Nikki Taylor Objections: Fourteen (14) Zoning: Business 2, Residential 1 Kingston Planning Clause 14.01: Planning for Urban Settlement Scheme Ordinance Clause 16.02: Medium Density Housing Controls: Clause 17.01: Activity Centres Clause 17.02: Business Clause 18.01: Declared Highways, Railways & Tramways Clause 18.02: Car Parking & Public Transport Access to

Development Clause 19.03: Design & Built Form Clause 21.03: Land Use Challenges for the New Millennium Clause 21.04: Strategic Framework Plan Clause 21.06: Retail and Commercial Land Use Clause 22.01: Cheltenham Business Centre Policy Clause 32.01: Residential 1 Zone Clause 34.02: Business 2 Zone Clause 43.02: Design & Development Overlay (Schedule 16) Clause 52.06: Car Parking Clause 52.29: Land Adjacent to a Road Zone (Category 1) Clause 52.34: Bicycle Facilities Clause 52.35: Urban Context Report and Design Response for

Residential Development of Four or More Storeys Clause 65: Decision Guidelines Clause 66: Referrals Residential Policy Area *Not Applicable

Background This is the third application for the above site, the first application, KP836/05, was refused under delegation on 4 April 2006. This decision was appealed to VCAT and Council’s decision was reaffirmed by the Tribunal. In its written decision, the Tribunal outlined a number of recommendations that should be met prior to a further proposal for the site being lodged and approved. A second application for this site incorporating 2,712 square metres of office floor space over four (4) levels with an overall building height of 16 metres was heard before Council in June



95

2007, with the Council resolving to refuse a permit for the development. Following an appeal by the permit applicant against Council’s decision, Council was directed by the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal to issue a permit (Planning Permit No.KP89/07) on 20th February, 2008. This permit is current.

Development Summary:

SITE AREA 1385.088m²

FRONTAGE/S 38.4m to Charman Road

39.12m to Barker Street

DEPTH 39.12m

SITE COVERAGE 90% (approx)

NO. OF DWELLINGS 31

NO. OF STOREYS 5

NO. OF BASEMENT LEVELS 2

FRONT SETBACK 0-0.6 metres to Charman Road - East 0-0.6 metres to Barker Street - North

MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK To the south: 0 metres To the west: 3.5 metres

REAR SETBACK 3.5 metres to rear (west) property boundary

Existing Conditions: The subject site comprises two (2) allotments with a combined area of 1,385 square metres, and has direct road abuttal to both Charman Road to the west and Barker Street to the north. To Charman Road, the land has a frontage width of 38.4 metres, and to Barker Street, a frontage width of 39.12 metres. The topography of the land is relatively flat and void of any significant vegetation. A 3.05 metre wide drainage, sewerage and telecommunications easement extends parallel with the site’s west (rear) property boundary. At present, the land is developed with two (2) buildings – at the site’s Barker Street (north) frontage is a single storey building used for offices. At the southern portion of the site is a large, single storey public hall, used by the Cheltenham Senior Citizens. Vehicle access to the site is available from two (2) access points located at the site’s Charman Road and Barker Street frontages. The subject site is located at the intersection of Charman Road and Barker Street, within close proximity to the intersection of Nepean Highway and Chesterville Road. Surrounding land is used for a combination of commercial and residential uses. Adjoining to the west at No.24



96

Barker Street is a single storey dwelling – its driveway and garage adjoins the subject site. To the south-west (rear corner of the site), at No.17 Maude Street, is a single storey single storey dwelling, set back 7.5 metres from the shared property boundary. To the south is the Telstra Telephone Exchange which contains a number of buildings and paved areas for parking and access. To the north, across Barker Street, is the Salvation Army Family Store, which has frontage to Nepean Highway, Barker Street and Charman Road. To the east of the site, on the opposite side of Charman Road, are a range of community buildings with limited setback to Charman Road. The subject site is located within the Cheltenham Activity Centre which is identified as a Major Activity Centre in the Kingston Planning Scheme. The land is situated within close proximity to all forms of physical and social infrastructure, namely the Cheltenham Railway Station to the south, local shops and services within the Cheltenham Business Centre and Southland Shopping Centre to the north-west. The subject site and the land directly to the south is predominantly zoned Business 2, with the exception of a 1.7 metre wide strip of land to the west, which is zoned Residential 1. All adjoining land to the west is zoned Residential 1, land to the north is zoned Business 4, and land across Charman Road to the east is also zoned Business 2. Charman Road is zoned Road Zone Category 2, and Nepean Highway zoned Road Zone Category 1. Site History: Planning Permit No. KP89/07 was issued by the City of Kingston at the direction of the VCAT on 20 February 2008, for the “construction of buildings and works (clause 34.02), and a reduction in the number of car spaces (clause 52.06)”. As mentioned previously, this development comprised 2,712 square metres of office floor space over four (4) levels with an overall building height of 16 metres. A previous application for a five storey office building on the site, KP836/05, was refused under delegation on 4 April 2006. This decision was appealed to VCAT and Council’s decision was reaffirmed by the Tribunal. Proposal: It is proposed to develop and use the land for a five storey building comprising five (5) offices with a total of 458 square metres at ground floor level, thirty-five (35) dwellings at ground through to fourth floor level, and two levels of basement car parking. The proposal also seeks approval to vary the height restriction in the Table to Schedule 16 of Clause 43.02 and for a reduction in the car parking requirements of the Kingston Planning Scheme. A total of 72 car parking spaces (including one space to be used as a loading bay and one to be used as a disabled car space) would be provided on-site within the two basement car parking levels, with vehicle access to be provided along the site’s Charman Road frontage. The basement would also provide bicycle storage for 18 bicycles, rainwater tanks, rubbish and general storage, an electrical substation and stair and lift access to the levels above. The thirty-five (35) dwellings comprise of the following mix: • Five (5) one-bedroom



97

• Twenty-nine (29) two-bedroom • One (1) three-bedroom The floor areas of the dwellings range from between 55 to 130 square metres. The five dwellings located at ground level are provided with courtyards of between 25 to 47 square metres in total area. The upper level dwellings are each provided with balcony/terraces with direct access from living rooms, ranging from between 9 to 46 square metres in area. The floor areas of the five offices range from 75 square metres to 103 square metres, comprising a total of 458 square metres. The elevations have been well articulated via a ‘nesting’ of the upper levels within the building footprint of the floor below. The building would have a maximum height of 16.8 metres. External building materials would include a combination of different finishes and colours which are contemporary in style and form. Landscaping is provided within beds along the Charman Road and Barker Street frontages, and along the site’s west property boundary. Planning Controls: Pursuant to Clause 34.02 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a planning permit is required for a number of purposes, being:

• A permit is required for the use of the land for the purpose of a dwelling. • A permit is required for the construction of a building and to carry out works.

A planning permit is not required for the use of the land for the purposes of “office”, which is a Section 1 use within the zone. Pursuant to Clause 43.01 of the Scheme (Design and Development Overlay Schedule 16 – Cheltenham Activity Centre), a planning permit is required to:

• Vary the maximum overall building height set out in the Table to Schedule 16 i.e. 3 storeys, 11 metres.

It should be noted that this Schedule was introduced into the planning scheme on 21 January 2010, subsequent to the application being lodged with Council on 23 November 2009. In accordance with Clause 52.06 of the Scheme, the following car parking rates should be applied for the proposed land uses:

• Dwelling – 2 car spaces for each dwelling. • Office – 3.5 car spaces for each 100m2 of net floor area.



98

Based on the above rates, a total of 86 on-site car parking spaces should be provided as a part of the proposed development. However, a total of 72 car parking spaces are proposed to be provided within the two (2) basement car parking levels. As such, a planning permit is required for a reduced car parking rate under this clause of the Scheme. A number of the policies contained within the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) and Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF), including Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) are considered relevant in the consideration of this proposal, namely:

Clause 14.01: Planning for Urban Settlement Clause 16.02: Medium Density Housing Clause 17.01: Activity Centres Clause 17.02: Business Clause 18.01: Declared Highways, Railways & Tramways Clause 18.02: Car Parking & Public Transport Access to Development Clause 19.03: Design & Built Form Clause 21.03: Land Use Challenges for the New Millennium Clause 21.04: Strategic Framework Plan Clause 21.06: Retail and Commercial Land Use Clause 22.01: Cheltenham Business Centre Policy Clause 34.02: Business 2 Zone Clause 43.02: Design & Development Overlay (Schedule 16 – Cheltenham

Activity Centre) Clause 52.06: Car Parking Clause 52.34: Bicycle Facilities Clause 52.35: Urban Context Report and Design Response for Residential

Development of Four or More Storeys Clause 65: Decision Guidelines Clause 66: Referrals

Referrals: The application did not require referral to any external authority, pursuant to Clause 66.02 of the Scheme. The application was referred to the following internal/external Council departments for comment:

• Development Engineer • Vegetation Management Officer • Council’s Urban Designer • Environment Department • Council’s Traffic Engineering Department • Roads and Drains • Waste Management • VicRoads

Not all referral responses have been received at this stage. These departments are in italics.



99

Advertising: The application was advertised by letters to all adjoining and surrounding property owners and/or occupiers, including objectors to the previous applications and two (2) notices placed on the site for fourteen (14) days. The notification process was satisfactorily completed and fourteen (14) objections were received. The main grounds of objection can be summarised under the following headings: • Overdevelopment • Neighbourhood character • Building Bulk • Compliance with DDO requirements • Amenity Impacts Upon Adjoining Properties through overlooking, overshadowing, noise,

lightspill • Car Parking Provision/Traffic Concerns A preliminary conference is scheduled to be held on 15 April 2010.

Planning Assessment: The following section will consider the application against the relevant sections of the State Planning Policy Framework, Local Planning Policy Framework (including the MSS), zoning objectives and Particular Provisions of the Kingston Planning Scheme. State Planning Policy Framework Clause 12.01: A More Compact City The objective of this Clause is “to facilitate sustainable development that takes full advantage of existing settlement patterns, and investment in transport and communication, water and sewerage and social facilities”. It is considered that the proposal satisfies the intent of this objective. The location of a mix of uses in a Major Activity Centre, within close proximity to Kingston’s Principal Activity Centre is something that is encouraged by this policy. Further, the proximity of the subject site to the Cheltenham Railway Station and various bus services will encourage future residents and employees within the businesses, to utilise the public transport services available. The proposal includes various ESD elements including the retention and reuse on the site of rainwater runoff which will make the development more sustainable which is further in keeping with this policy. However, it is considered appropriate to require the applicant to submit an environmental management plan as a condition of any permit issued, clearly detailing ESD initiatives and provisions including waste, stormwater, heating and cooling management.



100

Clause 12.05: A Great Place to Be The objective of this Clause is “to create urban environments that are of better quality, safe and more functional, provide more open space and an easily recognisable sense of place and cultural identity”. A number of strategies are outlined under this Clause that are considered relevant with respect to the consideration of this application, namely under the heading of “urban design”. Suggested strategies for urban design outcomes include (amongst other things):

• Requiring development to respond to its context in terms of urban character, cultural heritage, natural features, surrounding landscape and climate.

The subject site is located along Charman Road, within the Cheltenham Activity Centre. The proposed building will abut residential development to its rear (west) and as such, should be designed so that this interface is well articulated through the use of varied building materials, design elements and setbacks. This should include significant vegetation, both as a screening measure and as a link to the vegetated nature of the nearby residential properties. This has been incorporated into the design of the development. Clause 14.01 – Planning for Urban Settlement The key objectives under Clause 14.01 of the Scheme aims “to ensure a sufficient supply of land is available for residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, institutional and other public uses” and “to facilitate the orderly development of urban areas”. Residential land is currently at a premium within Melbourne and Victoria and the proposed development is considered to be consistent with this objective as it will provide for a number of well-located future households as well as businesses within a Major Activity Centre. Clause 17.01 – Activity Centres The key policy objectives for Activity Centres under Clause 17.01 of the Scheme includes an aim “to encourage the concentration of major retail, commercial, administrative, entertainment and cultural developments into activity centres (including strip shopping centres) which provide a variety of land uses and are highly accessible to the community”. Ways of achieving this objective include: • Incorporate and integrate a variety of land uses, including retail, office, education,

human services, community facilities, recreation, entertainment and residential uses where appropriate.

• Provide good accessibility by all available modes of transport (particularly public transport) and safe pedestrian and cycling routes, and to encourage multi-purpose trip-making to such centres.

• Minimise the effects of commercial development on the amenity of residential and parkland areas, for example as a result of traffic congestion, noise or overshadowing.



101

It is considered that the proposed development is consistent with Activity Centre objectives and strategies by providing a mix of uses within the one development, located close to shops and services and within convenient walking distance of public transport options. Clause 19.03 – Design and Built Form The key objectives under this section are considered to be “to achieve high quality urban design and architecture that: § reflects the particular characteristics, aspirations and cultural identity of the

community; § enhances liveability, diversity, amenity and safety of the public realm; and § promotes attractiveness of towns and cities within broader strategic contexts”.

It is considered that the proposal generally meets these objectives, subject to the inclusion of conditions discussed later in this report. Local Planning Policy Framework (including the MSS) Clause 21.06 – Retail and Commercial Land Use Cheltenham is identified as being a Major Activity Centre under Council’s Retail and Commercial Land Use Framework Plan. The MSS suggests that the primary role of Cheltenham as a Major Activity Centre is as a sizeable employment base, providing for many local convenience needs. Specifically, the broader strategic direction for this area is to provide diversity in the mix of uses particularly on the centre’s periphery and to reinforce the role of restricted retailing along Nepean Highway. Two (2) key objectives are relevant in the consideration of this proposal, being: Objective 2 aims “To reinforce the existing role of the Southland Principal Activity Centre complemented by the adjacent Cheltenham Major Activity Centre as the predominant regional focus for retail activity and for entertainment, community, professional services and business services.”. Objective 3 aims “To reinforce the different built form character and function of activity centres consistent with their position in the activity centre hierarchy.” It is considered that the proposal is generally consistent with these objectives. Further guidance on design outcomes within the Cheltenham Major Activity Centre are included in structure planning work carried out for Cheltenham. The subject site is identified as a key development site within Council’s Draft Cheltenham Structure Plan, which is currently on advertising. Compliance with the Draft Structure Plan will be discussed below.



102

Clause 22.01 – Cheltenham Business Centre Policy The subject site is located within an area designated for “mixed use (office and community services precinct)” under Council’s Cheltenham Business Centre Policy. Under the Draft Cheltenham Activity Centre Structure Plan, this policy would be superceded. It is therefore considered in appropriate to assess the application against these guidelines. Zoning Provisions Clause 34.02 – Business 2 Zone One of the key objectives of the Business 2 Zone is “to encourage the development of offices and associated commercial uses”. It is clear that the proposed use would be consistent with the intent of the above objective through the provision of 458m2 of net leaseable office space within the Cheltenham Business Centre. Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 16 This Schedule was introduced in order to facilitate the structure planning work that is being carried out for Cheltenham. Under these interim provisions, the subject site is identified in Precinct F. In the table to Schedule 16, the maximum building height should not exceed 3 storeys or 11 metres. However, a permit may be granted to exceed these requirements where it can be demonstrated that the design standards and design objectives can be satisfied. The design objectives, as relevant to this application include: • To reinforce the urban form, character, streetscape of the Cheltenham Activity Centre.

• To achieve responsive and sensitively designed development that is of a high quality architectural and urban design standard.

• To achieve appropriately designed development that is consistent with the built form outcomes and heights envisaged by this Overlay.

• To ensure development has proper regard for the established, streetscape and development pattern in terms of building design, height, scale, and siting.

• To preserve solar access to adjoining residential zones, dwellings, public and private open space and pedestrian paths.

• To protect and enhance key views, vistas and landmarks.

• Respect residential interfaces to ensure sunlight is maintained and overshadowing of private open space is minimised.

• Encourage new development to be of a high architectural quality and contemporary in form and material detailing.

• Encourage high quality landscapes along street frontages to maintain an open street setting.



103

• Ensure gradual scale transitions between upper levels along side streets and rear of properties.

• Encourage generous balcony space for sites with a northerly aspect within all precincts.

• Encourage site consolidation to avoid underdevelopment of land in precincts where higher built form outcomes are envisaged in accordance with the table to this Schedule.

It is considered that the proposal is generally consistent with these objectives and subject to the changes outlined below, should provide a positive gateway into the Cheltenham Activity Centre. Particular Provisions Clause 52.06 – Car Parking Based on the car parking requirements under Clause 52.06-5 of the Scheme, a total of 86 on-site car parking spaces are required as a part of the proposed development. However, a total of 72 car parking spaces are proposed to be provided within the two (2) basement car parking levels. Given that the subject site is located within the Cheltenham Major Activity Centre, within close proximity to rail and bus services, as well as shops, services and restaurants, together with Southland within easy walking distance from the site, it is considered that future dwelling residents will have little reliance upon regular car usage. As such, it is considered reasonable in this instance to allow a reduction in the car parking requirements pursuant to Clause 52.06 of the Kingston Planning Scheme. Clause 52.34 – Bicycle Facilities Pursuant to Clause 52.34-2 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, a planning permit is required to vary, waive or reduce the requirement for bicycle and associated facilities. Under Table 1 of this Clause, a ratio of one (1) bicycle parking space is to be provided for each 300m2 of net floor area if the net floor area exceeds 1000m2. As such, no bicycle spaces are required for the office component of the development. Seven (7) spaces would be required for the dwellings. Eighteen (18) spaces have been proposed within the basement, therefore it is considered that the proposal exceeds the requirements of this Clause. Cheltenham Activity Centre Structure Plan – Draft March 2010 In this plan, the subject site is located within Precinct B – Mixed Use. Urban design outcomes for this area include: • Encourage secondary retail and commercial uses at ground floor with residential uses in

upper storeys. • Maximum 4 storeys north of railway line stepping down to 3 storeys adjoining residential

areas. • Maximum 3 storeys south of the railway line. • Provide a robust 3 storey hard edge to Nepean Highway. • Extend the 2 storey commercial hard edge established in Precinct A throughout this

precinct ensuring that levels above are setback 5 metre setbacks to Charman/Park Road and 3 metre setbacks to laneways.



104

• Vehicle access is encouraged from side streets and rear laneways. • Encourage contemporary architectural responses. It should be noted that the proposal was designed without the benefit of this policy guidance. However, the proposal exhibits a consistency with these guidelines in that it has commercial uses at ground floor level, with residential uses above. It also exhibits a contemporary architectural response. The proposal was referred to Council’s Urban Designer and Strategic Planning Department who have advised that the proposal should be reduced to four (4) storeys in order to be consistent with the Draft Structure Plan. Further, the setbacks proposed from the residential properties along Barker Street is satisfactory and complies with the relevant ResCode requirement. The offices on the ground floor should be built to the title boundary without any landscaping in front which will be more consistent with the character of Charman Road. The building should provide a two storey edge to Charman Road with the upper storeys set back 5 metres to be consistent with the Draft Structure Plan. It is considered that these should be required as a condition of any permit issued. These changes would also necessitate the reduction in the overall numbers of apartments and the overall height of the built form, thereby going some way to addressing the concerns raised by objectors, including visual bulk and overlooking. As the setbacks from the residential properties are consistent with those previously approved by the Tribunal, it is considered reasonable to support these, particularly given the comments of Council’s Urban Designer. Vehicle access, under the above Draft Structure Plan should be provided from Barker Street, rather than Charman Road. It is considered that this could be accommodated within the proposal. The benefits of this would be to control ingress and egress via a recognised intersection. Further, opposite the site on Barker Street is an existing commercial facility, which is the Salvation Army second hand shop so the vehicle movements should have limited impact upon the amenity of this property. Whilst this would result in greater traffic in and out of Barker Street, it is considered that this traffic could be controlled in a safer, more efficient way. Council’s Traffic Engineers have also stated that the vehicle access should be via Barker Street and given its proximity to Nepean Highway, it is considered that this is the safest, most efficient option. Therefore, it is considered appropriate to require this as a condition of any permit issued. Response to Objector/s Concerns: The following responses are offered in relation to the main grounds of objection to the application: Overdevelopment The intensity of the development, given the combination of residential and commercial land uses, is considered to be consistent with State Planning Policy, Local Planning Policy and the Draft Cheltenham Structure Plan. With the changes discussed above, it is considered that the proposal is not an overdevelopment of a large, consolidated site, within a Major Activity Centre.



105

Car Parking and Traffic Issues With the reduced office floor space, compared to the previous proposal, together with the site’s location close to public transport facilities and services, it is considered that the proposed car parking and traffic movements are not unreasonable for the site. The relocation of the access to Barker Street is also consistent with Council’s Draft Structure Plan, which has been developed in conjunction with independent Traffic Engineers. Further, Council’s own Traffic Engineers have suggested that the Barker Street access is the safest and most appropriate location. Out-Of-Character A number of concerns raised were in relation to the impact of the proposed development on the neighbourhood character of this section of Cheltenham. Conventional assessment of neighbourhood character is that where there is no preferred neighbourhood character, the existing character is that which is to be considered. It is considered that the Draft Structure Plan clearly identifies a preferred character for this part of Cheltenham, and whilst the existing character is one that the objector’s are wishing to maintain, Council policy clearly states that this character is encouraged to change. Further, the site’s location on a main road within a recognised business centre, means that the commercial character to Charman Road is the prevailing character. It is considered that the residential character has been protected through appropriate setbacks and landscaping, together with the reduced height specified above. Amenity Concerns (Overshadowing, Visual Bulk, Noise, etc.). Concerns regarding the possible loss of amenity were raised by residents to the west of the subject site. As this area is abutting an existing commercial precinct, the same level of amenity cannot be expected as if the residential area were located within an established residential area. The visual impact of the development when viewed from these properties should not be excessive given the proposed setbacks, screening, vegetation and reduced height. The provision of a Environmental Management Plan should provide for issues of noise management and further address these concerns.

General Comment: The proposed development is considered appropriate for the site as evidenced by: • The proposed mixed use development is consistent with the zoning provisions and the

preferred development outcome for the Cheltenham Major Activity Centre; • The design and siting of the proposed development is considered to be compatible with the

surrounding area; • The proposal should not have a detrimental impact on surrounding properties (subject to

appropriate conditions); and • The proposal satisfies the requirements of the Kingston Planning Scheme, including the

MSS, Retail and Commercial Land Use, Cheltenham Business Centre Policy, Business 2 zoning, the Design & Development Overlay (Schedule 16 – Cheltenham Activity Centre) and the Draft Cheltenham Structure Plan.



106

On balance and subject to the inclusion of suitable conditions, discussed above the proposal is considered reasonable and warrants support. Recommendation That Council resolve to issue a planning permit for the construction of buildings and works on this site, within a four (4) storey building and to use for offices and to facilitate dwellings over four levels, a variation to the height controls of Schedule 16 of the Design and Development Overlay, Clause 43.02 and a reduced car parking rate pursuant to Clause 52.06 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, in accordance with the following conditions:

1. Before the development and/or use starts, amended plans to the satisfaction of the

Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show:

a) an amended landscape plan reflecting the changes required in this permit; b) a reduction in overall height of the building to a maximum of four (4) storeys, with

the dwellings and offices to be reconfigured accordingly; c) the entry/exit driveway of the basement car park relocated to Barker Street and the

basement and access arrangements reconfigured accordingly; d) the Barker Street crossover to be 6 metres in width with no splays provided; e) a revised section plan showing the basement ramp gradients/transitions; f) car parking facilities designed in accordance with Australian Standard AS2890.1; g) the Charman Road façade to be redesigned to provide a two (2) storey hard edge to

Charman Road; h) the third and fourth storeys of the building set back a minimum of 5 metres from the

site’s Charman Road frontage with the proposed setbacks to the west (rear) of the site maintained; and

i) nomination that all balconies facing the adjoining residential properties are screened in accordance with Standard B22 of Clause 55 of the Kingston Planning Scheme.

2. The development and/or as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the

prior written consent of the Responsible Authority. 3. Any redesign of the building must not result in reduced setbacks to the west (rear) of the

subject site; 4. Prior to the occupation of any part of the development hereby permitted, a Traffic

Management Plan must be submitted to, and approved by Council, with such plans to be prepared by a suitably qualified traffic consultant/engineer, with all costs, including the construction of any required works, to be wholly borne by the applicant/permit holder.

5. Before the commencement of any building or works on the land a Construction

Management Plan (CMP) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority and when approved shall thereafter be complied with. The CMP must deal with the parking of vehicles during



107

construction, delivery of materials, containment of waste on site and suppression of dust, existing business operations on the site during construction, arrangement for car parking for the existing businesses during construction, construction over the public domain.

6. Before the commencement of any building or works on the land a Environmental

Management Plan (EMP) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority and when approved shall thereafter be complied with. The EMP must deal with issues relating to energy management, heating, cooling, hot water, glazing, rainwater collection and re-use, WSUD and waste management.

7. The dwellings hereby permitted must not be occupied until all buildings and works and

the conditions of this permit have been complied with, unless with the prior written consent of the responsible authority.

8. Before the occupation of any dwelling commences and before the use allowed by this

permit starts, landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

9. The development of the site must be provided with stormwater treatment works which

will entail the use of water sensitive urban design principles (including re-use) to reduce stormwater run-off quantity and improve discharge quality. Discussion with Councils Development Engineer on treatment options is advised prior to a design being submitted. The system must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

10. Before the development hereby permitted commences, a drainage plan showing the

method of treatment and discharge to the nominated point must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The plan must be prepared by a qualified person and show all details of the proposed drainage works, including all existing and proposed features that may have impact on the drainage (e.g. trees to be retained, crossings, services, fences, abutting buildings, existing boundary surface levels, etc.).

11. Stormwater drainage of the site must be provided so as to prevent overflows onto adjacent

properties and be in accordance with the approved drainage plan. 12. Before the use or occupation of the development starts, the areas set aside for the parking

of vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be:

a) fully constructed; b) properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the plans; c) surfaced with an all-weather-seal coat; d) drained; e) line marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes.

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



108

13. Any alterations required to be carried out at the Barker Street/Charman Road intersection must be carried out at the developer’s cost, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

14. A security intercom must be provided in a convenient location adjacent to where vehicles

stop on site, to allow visitors access to the visitor parking provided on site. 15. Any existing vehicular crossing not in accordance with the endorsed plan must be

removed and the kerb reinstated in a manner satisfactory to the Responsible Authority and any proposed vehicular crossing must be fully constructed to the Responsible Authority’s standard specification.

16. Access to the site must be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the

Responsible Authority. 17. The Council footpath/property boundary levels are not to be altered. 18. The loading and unloading of goods to and from vehicles must only be carried out on the

land. 19. The area designated on the endorsed plan for the purpose of loading and unloading of

goods from vehicles shall be made available for such use and shall not be used for any other purpose.

20. No goods or packaging materials must be stored or left exposed outside the building so as

to be visible to the public from a road or other public place. 21. The development and/or use of the site must not cause nuisance or be detrimental to the

amenity of the neighbourhood by the emission of noise. In this regard the emission of noise must comply with the provisions of the Environment Protection Authority.

22. An acoustic screen fence of a minimum of 2 metres in height must be erected and

maintained along the site’s west (rear) property boundary to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority in accordance with a design and specifications prepared by a suitably qualified acoustic engineer to be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority prior to the construction of the fence.

23. Construction on the site must be restricted to the following times:

Monday to Friday 7:00am to 7:00pm; and, Saturday 9:00am to 6:00pm Sundays and Public Holidays No construction allowed

Or otherwise as approved by the Responsible Authority in writing.

24. Exterior lights must be installed in such positions to effectively illuminate all pathways,

car parks and other public areas to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent any adverse effect on neighbouring land.



109

25. The location of external fans, air-conditioning apparatus and the like must be to Council approval and installed to prevent loss of amenity to the area by its appearance, noise, emission or otherwise.

26. No equipment, services and architectural features other than those shown on the endorsed

plans shall be permitted above the roof level of the building unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Responsible Authority.

27. The maintenance of the buildings, service areas and the surrounds within the site shall be

the responsibility of the Body Corporate, owner or agent and must be serviced at such frequency as will render the service areas and the surrounds to be neat, tidy and clean at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

28. Council’s Waste Management Department must be consulted regarding the location of

rubbish bins and the options for collecting waste from the site. 29. All works on or facing the boundaries of adjoining properties must be finished and

surface cleaned to a standard that is well presented to neighbouring properties in a manner to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

30. All piping and ducting (other than stormwater downpipes) above the ground floor storey

of the development must be concealed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority. 31. No external equipment (including, but not limited to: ducting and piping, air-conditioning

units, heating units, satellite dishes etc), services and architectural features, other than those shown on the endorsed plan, shall be permitted unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority

32. All external surfaces of the building elevations must be finished in accordance with the

schedule on the endorsed plans and maintained in good condition to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

33. Finished floor levels shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered or modified

without the prior written consent of the responsible authority. 34. Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the satisfaction

of the responsible authority. 35. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: • The development is not commenced before (two (2) years from date of issue). • The development is not completed before (four (4) years from date of issue). The Responsible Authority may extend these times if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or within three months afterwards. OR



110

B. Should Council resolve not to support the application, it be issued on the following grounds:

4. The proposal is contrary to the orderly and proper planning of the area. 5. The proposal constitutes an overdevelopment of the site. 6. The proposes inconsistent with the relevant policies under Clause 19.03 (Design and Built

Form) of the Kingston Planning Scheme. 7. The proposes inconsistent with the relevant policies under Clause 21.01 (Cheltenham

Business Centre Policy) of the Kingston Planning Scheme. 8. The proposes inconsistent with the requirements of Clause 43.02, Design and

Development Overlay – Schedule 16 of the Kingston Planning Scheme. 9. The proposal would have an adverse effect on the amenity of adjoining/nearby properties

through its visual bulk, scale, massing and inappropriate building setbacks. 10. The traffic generated by the proposal would create traffic problems in the locality and

would cause wider traffic problems in the surrounding road network.



111

M 55 KP 09/861 – 1324-1328 Nepean Highway, Cheltenham APPLICANT SJB Planning Pty Ltd ADDRESS OF LAND No. 1322-1328 Nepean Highway, Cheltenham 3192 (Land in

Plan of Consolidation 109997) PROPOSAL Thirty (30) Dwellings within a Three (3) Storey Building on

Land Designated within a Special Building Overlay PLANNING OFFICER Jennifer Pippo REFERENCE NO. KP-861/2009 RELEVANT STATE PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

Clause 12: Metropolitan Development Clause 14: Settlement Clause 15: Environment Clause 16: Housing Clause 18: Infrastructure Clause 19: Particular Uses & Development


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

ZONE Clause 32.01: Residential 1 Zone OVERLAYS Clause 44.05: Special Building Overlay PARTICULAR PROVISIONS

Clause 52.29: Land Adjacent to a Road Zone Clause 55: Two or More Dwellings on a Lot & Residential Buildings

GENERAL PROVISIONS Clause 65: Decision Guidelines RESIDENTIAL POLICY AREA

Increased Housing Diversity

CONSIDERED PLAN REFERENCES/DATE RECEIVED

TP01 to TP09 (produced June 2009) – date stamped by Council 5 February 2010

1.0 KEY ISSUES RELATING TO THIS APPLICTION

§ Traffic considerations § Urban design (scale and built form) § Neighbourhood character § Amenity impacts (internal and external) § Vegetation/landscaping considerations

2.0 PROPOSAL (AS AMENDED PRIOR TO ADVERTISING – 05.02.10) 2.1 It is proposed to demolish the existing single storey nursing home (brick construction)

and associated outbuildings on the land and construct thirty (30) dwellings comprising a three (3) storey building with a shared basement car park, on this site.

2.2 Analysing each level of the development, the following summarises the proposal:



112

Basement: § Access to the site is proposed from LaTrobe Street, near the site’s west

common boundary, via a ramp to the basement car park. § A timber panel clad tilt door is proposed at the bottom of the ramp for security

purposes. § The basement car parking area includes:

o Thirty-five (35) car parking spaces; o Twenty-nine (29) individual storage compartments; o Eighteen (18) wall mounted bicycle racks; o A waste storage area; and o A lift and two (2) stairwells providing access to the levels above.

Ground Level: § Fourteen (14) apartments are located on this level. Ten (10) of which are

single level and comprise of two (2) bedrooms. The remaining four (4) apartments are double storey, two (2) bedroom apartments, which are located towards the site’s west property boundary. These apartments include an open plan living arrangement at ground floor level with the bedrooms located above, on the first floor level.

§ A large entrance and lobby area is located towards the southern end of the site’s Nepean Highway frontage. A ramp that caters for disabled access is also provided at the main entrance to the building.

§ To activate the street frontages at ground level, those dwellings that present to Nepean Highway and LaTrobe Street include direct access via a pathway/gate.

§ Provision for landscaping has also been incorporated into the design, essentially around the perimeter of the site.

First Floor Level: § Ten (10), single level apartments are located on this level, which all comprise

of two (2) bedrooms and include a similar layout to those single level apartments located on the ground floor level.

§ As described earlier, the first floor level also includes the upper storey component of the four (4) apartments that are designed over two (2) levels.

§ Balconies are proposed for the ten (10) single level apartments on this level, which generally face out towards their respective street frontages.

§ The four (4) apartments that are spread over two (2) levels include ground floor private open space only, with no first floor balconies.

Second Floor Level: § Six (6), two (2) bedroom apartments are located on this level. The third storey

is essentially positioned towards the site’s Nepean Highway and LaTrobe Street frontages, with generous setbacks adopted from the site’s common property boundaries (i.e. the north and west property boundaries).

§ Balconies are proposed for these apartments, which face out towards their respective street frontages.

2.3 The proposed development has an overall height of approximately 11.38 metres.



113

2.4 Habitable room windows that have an outlook towards adjoining residential private open space areas or habitable room windows have been screened accordingly.

2.5 Street setbacks are varied and are summarised as follows:

Nepean Highway: § Dwellings 1 and 11 to 14, which front Nepean Highway on the ground floor

level, are set back in the range of 3.335 metres (near the site’s corner) to 3.8 metres towards the site’s north property boundary.

§ At first floor level, setbacks from the site’s Nepean Highway property boundary range between 3.8 metres (minimum) to 4.93 metres (maximum).

§ At second floor level, setbacks from the site’s Nepean Highway property boundary range between 6.29 metres (minimum) to 9.0 metres (maximum).

LaTrobe Street: § Dwellings 1 to 5, which front LaTrobe Street on the ground floor level, are set

back in the range of 1.9 metres (near the site’s corner) to 5.0 metres towards the site’s west property boundary.

§ At first floor level, setbacks from the site’s LaTrobe Street (south) property boundary ranges between 2.25 metres (minimum) to 4.5 metres (maximum).

§ The second floor level is essentially set back 6.0 metres from the site’s LaTrobe Street (south) property boundary.

2.6 Access to the site is proposed from LaTrobe Street only. Therefore, no access from

the site’s Nepean Highway frontage is proposed by way of this application. 2.7 It should be noted that the address of the ‘subject site’ includes No. 1322 Nepean

Highway, Cheltenham, as part of the private open space area of some of the dwellings encroaches onto this land, which is in the same ownership as No. 1324-1328 Nepean Highway, Cheltenham. Given this encroachment and for completeness reasons, No. 1322 Nepean Highway has been incorporated into the address reference for the ‘subject site’; however the proposed development essentially is contained on land at No.1324-1328 Nepean Highway, Cheltenham.

2.8 Varying external materials, finishes and colours are proposed, including austral bricks

terracotta wall cladding, zinc finish wall cladding, rendered concrete walls, acrylic finished concrete walls, feature concrete walls, dulux door and window frames etc. Please refer to the external finishes legend on the considered plans for further details regarding the cosmetic treatment to all external facades.

2.9 The proposal has an overall site coverage of approximately 55.29 percent and a

permeability percentage of approximately 17.7. 3 SITE PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 An application under Section 79 (failure to grant a permit within the prescribed time)

of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 was lodged with the Victorian Civil and



114

Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) in July 2008 for the proposed construction of a carwash on the subject Land.

3.2 The proceedings to the abovementioned matter were heard on 31 October 2008 and 14

November 2008, with an order issued by the Tribunal on 28 November 2008 directing that no permit be granted.

3.3 Although the proposed use and development of the Land, as sought under the previous

application, differs entirely to that which is now before Council, it is important to recognise the basis of Member John Quirk’s decision, the key items that were considered during this hearing by the Member along with the argument put forth by Council.

3.4 With reference to paragraph 17 of the Order, it was argued by Council that ‘there

would be a net loss to the community of group residential accommodation of the present nature on the site if it is removed and the car wash allowed….the strategic policies for residential zones support high density development in the area and consequently it [the proposal] is against the orderly and proper planning in the area because it will prejudice future residential development of the area’.

3.5 Member Quirk highlighted in paragraph 26 of the Order that ‘my major concerns here

[with the proposal] are traffic and amenity considerations’. With regard to the former matter, it can be summarised that the traffic concern relates namely to the Latrobe Street intersection and the build up of vehicles, essentially during peak times, that occurs at this intersection. Member Quirk, in short, concluded that ‘I do not think that it is acceptable to increase traffic problems at this intersection by even what Mr Fairlie considers to be a small amount of traffic over the period of operation’.

3.6 With regard to the later issue of amenity concerns, although Member Quirk noted that

the site abuts an arterial road, the Nepean Highway is separated by a service road that caters for slower (lower speed) moving traffic, which in effect acts as a residential street. Member Quirk found that it would be unreasonable to inflict additional noise on the residents who live adjacent to the subject Land along Latrobe Street. Further, the need for an acoustic barrier along a street frontage further indicated that the site was inappropriate for the proposal.

3.7 The above information presents the key matters that were considered by the Tribunal

for the previous application on the subject site. 4 SITE & SURROUNDS 4.1 The subject site is a large parcel of land (2098.92m2) that is irregular in shape and

abuts two (2) separate street frontages (i.e. Nepean Highway service road and Latrobe Street).

4.2 The site enjoys a 58.2 metre frontage to Nepean Highway, a 51.5 metre frontage to

Latrobe Street and a rear boundary of 37.19 metres.



115

4.3 The site currently contains a single storey building used as a nursing home and

associated outbuildings. Importantly, the existing building on the site is set back approximately 1.8 metres from the site’s Latrobe Street property boundary and 7.5 metres from the site’s Nepean Highway property boundary.

4.4 The Land does not contain any significant vegetation. The typography of the Land

can be described as predominately flat, with a slight fall of approximately 620mm from the south-west corner to the south-east corner of the site. The site is encumbered by a 1.83 metre wide drainage and sewerage easement, which extends along part of the site’s western property boundary.

4.5 Vehicle access to the site is currently from its Latrobe Street frontage, near the site’s

west property boundary. 5 ADJOINING PROPERTIES & SURROUNDS 5.1 The aerial photograph provided below provides you with an illustrative analysis of the

Subject Land and surrounding environs, which is quite varied given the zoning of land in the immediate area.

5.2 In detail, the adjoining and surrounding make-up of the area is described as follows:



116

North & West: Essentially, land located directly to the north and west of the site is zoned (R1Z) and used for residential purposes. A vacant parcel of land directly abuts the subject site to the north. It is understood that this parcel of land is in the same ownership as the subject site and has recently received a planning permit to develop the land for four (4) dwellings within a double storey building with a basement car park. The subject site abuts two (2) residential properties to its west side, which contain single storey dwellings. Residential development found within Latrobe Street is generally of a single storey nature with an increasing amount of in-fill unit development occurring in the vicinity. East: Located on the opposite side of Nepean Highway is land that is zoned Business 4 and contains a Bunnings store and associated car parking. South: To the south of the site, on the opposite side of LaTrobe Street, is a small commercial strip of shops that front Nepean Highway and are zoned Business 3. The commercial building located on the corner of Latrobe Street and Nepean Highway is currently vacant and single storey in construction. A takeaway food premises is located opposite the subject site along Latrobe Street, to the south. Moving further down Latrobe Street (south-west) of the Business 3 area, the zoning transitions into residential. As such, a single storey brick dwelling is located next to the takeaway food premises.

6 TITLE DETAILS 6.1 The Permit Applicant has completed the planning application form declaring that there

is no restrictive covenant or other encumbrances on the title. 7 PLANNING CONTROLS 7.1 The subject site is located within a Residential 1 Zone (R1Z). 7.2 The Land is subject to a Special Building Overlay (SBO). 7.3 Nepean Highway is identified in a Road Zone Category 1. 8 PLANNING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 8.1 Pursuant to Clause 32.01-4 (Residential 1 Zone), a planning permit is not required to

use the site for residential purposes.



117

8.2 Pursuant to Clause 32.01-4 (Residential 1 Zone), a planning permit is required to construct two (2) or more dwellings on a lot.

8.3 Pursuant to Clause 44.05 (Special Building Overlay), a planning permit is required to

construct a building or construct and carry out works. 8.4 Pursuant to Clause 52.29 (Land Adjacent to a Road Zone, Category 1), a planning

permit is required to construct or alter an access to a Road Zone Category 1. However, as no access alterations are proposed along the site’s Nepean Highway frontage, the application does not trigger a permit requirement, in this instance.

9 ADVERTISING 9.1 Prior to advertising, the Permit Applicant submitted revised plans on 5 February 2010

that essentially addressed the initial concerns outlined within the Planning Officer’s further information letter. It is these revised plans that formed part of the advertising documentation and are now those that are under consideration by Council.

9.2 As discussed, the proposal was advertised by sending notices to adjoining and

opposite property owners and occupiers and by maintaining a notice on site for fourteen (14) days. Seven (7) formal objections to the proposal were received. The valid grounds of objection raised are summarised as follows:

• Traffic, parking and access concerns; • Overdevelopment; • Overlooking/loss of privacy; • Noise disturbance; and • Neighbourhood character.

10 PRELIMINARY CONFERENCE 10.1 A preliminary conference was held on 24 March 2010 with the relevant Planning

Officer, the three (3) Ward Councillors, the Permit Applicant and seven (7) community representatives (objectors) in attendance. The above-mentioned issues were discussed at length.

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

objections still stand. 11 REFERRALS 11.1 The following internal and/or external referral departments were notified:

• Melbourne Water • VicRoads • Council’s Development Engineer • Council’s Vegetation Management Officer • Council’s Strategic Planning Department (Urban Designer) • Council’s Traffic Department



118

• Council’s Environmental Planning Officer • Council’s Waste Management Officer


conditions being included on any permit issued. The ‘Planning Consideration’ section of this report will further elaborate on comments received from both internal and external referral authorities, where necessary.

12 RELEVANT POLICIES 12.1 State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF)

Clause 12: Metropolitan Development Clause 14: Settlement Clause 15: Environment Clause 16: Housing Clause 18: Infrastructure Clause 19: Particular Uses and Development

12.2 Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) Clause 21.03: Land Use Challenges for The New Millennium Clause 21.04: Vision Clause 21.05: Residential Land Use Clause 22.11: Residential Development Policy


Clause 52.29: Land Adjacent to a Road Zone Clause 55: Two or More Dwellings on a Lot & Residential Buildings



12.5 Neighbourhood Character Area Guidelines (Incorporated Document under Clause

21.05 – Residential Land Use of the LPPF)

The land is located within Area 11 of the Neighbourhood Character Guidelines. The proposal is generally in accordance with the applicable character profile. Further, it is noted that study Area 11 does not identify any major or critical elements that contribute to the existing neighbourhood character.

12.6 Design Contextual Housing Guidelines (April 2003 – reference document within

Clause 22.11 – Residential Development Policy) The Design Contextual Housing Guidelines offer a range of design techniques and

suggestions to assist with residential design, which is responsive to local character.



119

It is considered that the proposed development does not raise any issues of non-compliance with these guidelines.

13 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 13.1 State and Local Planning Policy Framework

The State Planning Policy Framework sets out the relevant state-wide policies for residential development at Clause 11 (Goals and Principles), Clause 12 (Metropolitan Development), Clause 14 (Settlement), Clause 16 (Housing) and Clause 19 (Design and Built Form). Clause 11 requires Council to integrate the range of policies relevant to the issues to be determined and to balance conflicting objectives in favour of net community benefit and sustainable development. The provisions of Clause 12 override other strategies in the SPPF where there are strategy differences. Clause 12 essentially reproduces the policy directions of Melbourne 2030 and it outlines objectives and strategies under each policy to achieve the goals of Melbourne 2030. Of specific relevance to the consideration of this application, it encourages urban consolidation in appropriate locations and stresses the need to accommodate the projected population increase (i.e. 620,000 households by 2030) in and around activity centres, established residential areas and strategic redevelopment sites. Clause 14 aims to ensure there is a sufficient supply of land available for residential development to facilitate the orderly development of urban areas. Clause 16.01-1 aims to encourage residential development that is cost-effective in infrastructure provision and use, energy efficient, incorporates water-sensitive design principles and encourages public transport use. Clause 19.03 relates to the Design and Built Form of developments and aims to ensure that developments achieve high quality designs that contribute positively to the urban character of the area. It is submitted that the proposed development satisfies the aforementioned State strategies and policy direction. Specifically, the subject site is located on a large parcel of land earmarked for residential purposes, whereby residential development is an ‘as of right’ use under the zoning provisions. The site enjoys convenient and direct access to community facilities and the like, including convenient proximity to public transport nodes.

13.2 Local Planning Policy Framework

The Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) contains Council’s strategic direction, the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS), which is an extension of the direction established by the SPPF, and the local policies that implement the LPPF. Within Clause 21 (MSS) of the Kingston Planning Scheme, the following six (6) attributes are submitted as being the most relevant to the consideration of the proposal:



120

§ Clause 21.03: Land Use Challenges for The New Millennium § Clause 21.04: Vision § Clause 21.05: Residential Land Use § Clause 22.11: Residential Development Policy After reviewing the relevant strategic directions that emerge from the abovementioned Clauses, the following can be summarised: § Clause 21.03: Land Use Challenges for The New Millennium identifies the need for the

Municipality to provide suitable housing stock that meets future housing demands and to sustain an appropriate mix of supporting urban infrastructure. It is further stated that recent pressures for new development, consolidation and medium density housing has resulted in change to the amenity and character of local areas. It is acknowledged that careful management will be required in order to integrate urban consolidation objectives with an understanding of specific character issues applicable to certain neighbourhoods.

§ Within Clause 21.04-3: Strategic framework plan (Clause 21.04 Vision), provides for

the strategic direction for future land use planning and development within the City of Kingston. This Policy includes a Strategic Land Use Framework Plan, which identifies the location of where specific land use outcomes are anticipated, supported and promoted.

§ The major strategic directions identified on the overall Framework Plan include:

o Locations for promotion of medium and higher density housing opportunities

i.e. areas designated for increased density housing opportunities and activity centres.

§ The City of Kingston’s MSS at Clause 21.05 (Residential Land Use) of the Kingston

Planning Scheme, seeks to provide guidance to development in residential zoned land, mixed use zoned lands and land within activity centres. The Residential Land Use Framework Plan illustrates the range of housing outcomes sought across the City of Kingston.

§ Pertinent to the consideration of this application, the policy goes on to state that “The

vision for Kingston’s residential areas outlined in the Kingston Residential Strategy - September 2000 is: to promote and facilitate both increased local housing diversity to meet the changing housing needs of the community and increased liveability within an integrated planning framework. The MSS seeks to promote medium density housing in locations better suited to accommodating housing change and to moderate the rate and type of housing change in other locations”.

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

o To provide a range of housing types across the municipality to increase housing diversity and cater for the changing housing needs of current and future populations, taking account of the capacity of local areas in Kingston to accommodate different types and rates of housing change. This is to be achieved



121

through encouraging residential development within activity centres via mixed-use development, and on transitional sites at the periphery of activity centres.

o To ensure new residential development respects neighbourhood character and is site responsive, and that medium density dwellings are of the highest design quality. This is to be achieved through promoting new residential development, which is of a high standard, responds to the local context and positively contributes to the character and identity of the local neighbourhood.

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

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

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

o To recognise and response to special housing needs within the community. Once again in much the same vein as Clause 12.06 in the State Planning Policy, which reinforced the need to encourage urban consolidation in appropriate locations and stresses the need to accommodate the projected population increase, Council’s Local Planning Policy at Clause 21.05 seeks to do likewise.

§ Clause 22.11 Residential Development Policy extends upon the provision

contained at Clause 21.05 (Residential Land Use), effectively promoting high-density development around activity centres and locations close to public transport.

In summary, the proposal is considered to be consistent with Council’s Local Planning Policy Framework. Importantly, the proposal delivers on specific objectives relating to the development of larger opportunity sites, which seek to encourage well-designed medium density housing in appropriate locations as well providing diversity in housing choice to assist in meeting the anticipated future population forecasts.


§ Clause 52.29: Land Adjacent to a Road Zone

The primary purpose of this Clause is ‘to ensure appropriate access to identified roads’. As highlighted earlier in this report, as this application does not propose to alter any accessway to Nepean Highway, a planning permit is not required under this Clause. However, in light of the above and with the understanding that there is no statutory obligation, Council’s Planning Officer sought the views of VicRoads (the relevant road authority) on this application. VicRoads formally advised in their correspondence to Council that they do not object to the proposal.

§ Clause 55: Two or More Dwellings on a Lot & Residential Buildings



122

It is acknowledged that the provisions of Clause 55 (ResCode) of the Kingston Planning Scheme apply in this instance. Accordingly, the proposal has been assessed against the objectives and standards of this Clause and it is considered that the development largely satisfies the requirements of ResCode and, in general, is site responsive. It is important to note that a development must meet all of the objectives of this Clause, and should meet all of the standards of this Clause. There are some minor variations sought to a few of the standards found within Clause 55, these namely relate to the following: § Clause 55.03-1: Street Setback § Clause 55.03-2: Building Height § Clause 55.03-4: Permeability § Clause 55.03-5 Solar Access § Clause 55.03-11: Parking Provision § Clause 55.04-1: Side and Rear Setbacks

The ‘Planning Consideration’ section of this report will further elaborate on the above items where concessions are being sought.

14 PLANNING CONSIDERATION & ASSESSMENT OF KEY ISSUES:

Prior to delving into the planning consideration and focal topics presented below, it should be recognised that the subject Land is suitable for development and both the State and Local Planning Policy Framework supports this notion with the site being earmarked as an ‘increased housing diversity’ area. It is Council’s position to determine whether the proposal would achieve an “acceptable” outcome having regard to the applicable policies, decision guidelines and the provisions of the Kingston Planning Scheme. The following is a detailed response to the imperative matters associated with this planning application. It has been decided to address each of these matters in turn, in no particular order, however grouping them under their corresponding theme.

14.1 Proposed Use and Development of the Site for Seventy (70) Dwellings

The subject land is located within a Residential 1 Zone. The proposed use of the site, as sought by this application, is of a residential nature for the development of the land for thirty (30) dwellings. As presented in Section 8.0 of this report and pursuant to the zoning provisions, a planning permit is not required to use the site for residential development. As the site is located in a Residential 1 Zone, the proposal is a Section 1 Use i.e. ‘as of right’, where approval is not required and, therefore, assessment of this application relates solely to the development, the layout and built form proposed. Accordingly,



123

the following sections of this report will now focus on the fundamental merits of this proposal, these being: residential amenity and general layout, neighbourhood character, traffic, access and car parking, urban design, environmental matters including drainage and landscaping matters. Each of these items shall be addressed in turn.

14.2 Residential Amenity & General Layout

With regard to the proposed site layout and internal floor layout of each dwelling, by and large, it is noted that the application achieves a high level of compliance with the ResCode provisions, with only minor variations sought for some dwellings. Only six (6) of the thirty-four (34) ResCode standards are sought to be varied, with the remaining twenty-eight (28) standards satisfied by the proposal. Looking at each of these areas of concession in turn, the following assessment is provided:

14.2.1 STREET SETBACK With regard to Clause 55.03-1 – Street Setback, the overriding objective of ResCode is ‘to ensure setbacks of buildings from the street respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and make efficient use of the site’. NEPEAN HIGHWAY FRONT SETBACK In accordance with the requirements under this standard, if the site is on a corner then the minimum setback from the front street (i.e. Nepean Highway), if there is no building on the abutting allotment facing the front street (as in the case of this application), should be 6 metres for a street in a Road Zone, Category 1, and 4 metres for other streets. As such, Dwellings 1 and 11 to 14 should technically have a minimum setback of 6 metres, based on the vacant site conditions of the property at No. 1322 Nepean Highway, Cheltenham. The dwellings fronting Nepean Highway at ground floor level include front setbacks that vary from 3.355 metres (at minimum) from the site’s Latrobe Street corner to 5.1 metres as the development meets the adjoining property at No. 1322 Nepean Highway to its north. However, given the alignment of the front boundary and the staggered front building footprint of these dwellings, on average, they would achieve a front setback in the order of approximately 4.0 metres. LATROBE STREET FRONT SETBACK With regard to the technical requirements pursuant to ResCode requirements, the development’s setback from its Latrobe Street frontage should achieve the same distance as the setback of the front wall of any existing building on the abutting allotment facing the side street or 3 metres, whichever is the lesser. Accordingly, in the case of the proposal, Dwellings 2 to 5, which front Latrobe Street, should achieve a 3 metre minimum setback from the site’s Latrobe Street property



124

boundary and the side wall of Dwelling 1 should achieve a 2 metre minimum setback from this boundary. Firstly, it is noted that the proposed dwellings that front Latrobe Street (i.e. Dwellings 2 to 5) comply with the ResCode provisions. Dwellings 2 to 5 include a 3.05 metre front setback, which meets this requirement. With regard to Dwelling 1, which is located on the corner of Latrobe Street and Nepean Highway, a side setback distance of 1.9 metres from Latrobe Street is proposed. Technically, the 1.9 metre setback from Latrobe Street is 0.1 metres shy of meeting the 2 metre minimum setback requirement and, therefore, a concession is sought, in this instance. The variations sought for the front and side setbacks, in this instance, are considered to be appropriate for the following reasons: § varying setbacks are achieved along both frontages, which provides

articulation in the design and an appropriate transition between the site’s immediate abuttals;

§ the development will appropriately address the prominent corner, whilst

providing considerable landscape opportunities at this corner as well as along both street frontages to assist in softening the development; and

§ There is no prevailing setback rhythm along Nepean Highway, given that the

site which it adjoins to the north is currently vacant and the site that is located on the opposite side of Latrobe Street, fronting Nepean Highway, is a commercial premises with a zero (0) lot frontage.

14.2.2 AMENITY OF NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES In terms of external amenity impacts, firstly it must be recognised that the only sensitive abuttal to the Subject Land is the residential land/development located to the west side of the site, which comprises of two (2) individual parcels of land. As such, any potential external amenity impacts associated with the proposal are confined to this portion of the Land alone. After careful review of the proposed development or any development of the like, the main potential external amenity impacts associated with this proposal can be summarised as follows: § Overlooking; § Overshadowing; § Visual Bulk; and § Noise.

Looking at each of the above items in turn, the following information and response is provided:



125

14.2.3 OVERLOOKING

In accordance with the provision of Clause 55.04-6 (Overlooking objective) a habitable room window, balcony, terrace, deck or patio should be located and designed to avoid direct views into secluded private open space of an existing dwelling within a horizontal distance of 9 metres. Where it is determined that a development will result in unreasonable overlooking, appropriate screening devices or measures should be incorporated into the design (e.g. obscure screening or highlight windows to a height of 1.7 metres above the respective finished floor level), in accordance with Standard B22 of Clause 55.04-6. It is noted that no balconies are proposed along the site’s most sensitive interface, that being the residential abuttals to the west. The floor plans indicate that those windows provided on the first floor level of the development that face westwards will include raised window sill heights to 1.7 metres above their respective finished floor level to prevent any unreasonable overlooking from occurring. With respect to the third level, which is set back in the order of 8.7 metres from the site’s west property boundary, it is noted that the only windows that face towards the west are hallway windows. The permit applicant submitted in the preliminary conference meeting that given the setback of this level from the west common boundary and given the projection of the first and ground floor components below, any downwards views into the adjoining residential properties to the west, from the third level hallway windows, would be screened by the roofs of the levels below and, therefore, only distant views from the hallway windows would be achieved. As such, it is considered that appropriate screening and design measures have been incorporated into the development, to ensure that no unreasonable overlooking will occur. Notwithstanding this comment and for clarification purposes, it is recommended that should a permit issue a condition be included requiring all windows to be designed in accordance with Standard B22 of Clause 55.04-6 of the Kingston Planning Scheme, with all screening measures to be clearly nominated on the elevation plans. 14.2.4 OVERSHADOWING With regard to overshadowing and after reviewing the shadow diagrams that accompanied the application, it is noted that the proposal clearly complies with Standard B21 (Overshadowing Open Space Objective) of ResCode and, therefore, addresses the relevant objective to this Standard. Accordingly, the proposal will not result in any unreasonable overshadowing to neighbouring properties.

14.2.5 VISUAL BULK (INCLUDING: BUILDING HEIGHT / SIDE & REAR

SETBACKS & URBAN DESIGN) One of the questions of concern relates to whether the three (3) storey building is appropriate for the site, especially in the context of its surrounding environs.



126

Importantly, both Cheltenham and Mentone are defined as Major Activity Centres within the Kingston Planning Scheme. As such, it is expected that this area is likely to experience further development / intensification given the policy thrust at both the State and Local Planning Policy Framework, including Melbourne 2030, which strives to see activity centres as the primary focal points for urban consolidation. Council Officers and the nearby residents should recognise the development potential of this site. Further to this point, the zoning of the land, its location, size, lack of restrictive built form overlays and enabling planning policy all substantiate the potential for a larger structure or a taller building to be accommodated on this site. It has been established that the site is earmarked for higher density development, given its zoning of Residential 1 and its Policy identification within an Increased Housing Diversity Area. There are no height requirements that affect the subject site or its immediate area. Given the site’s arterial road address, the general area, as detailed in the photographs below, is characterised by an expansive variety of commercial buildings along with your more conventional housing stock to the north and west of the subject site.

South of Subject Land, along Nepean Highway

Opposite Subject Land, on the east side of Nepean

Highway

1000m (approx.) north of Subject Land on Nepean

East side of Nepean Highway, north of the

Subject Land & surrounding environs



127

The photographs define the eclectic development forms and uses found in the area. Given the diversity that surrounds the site, it is considered that the three (3) storey proposal will sit comfortably on the site and within its immediate surroundings along Nepean Highway. With regard to the site’s immediate residential abuttals, the Latrobe streetscape elevation plan provided by the Permit Applicant demonstrates the gradual transition in height that the development provides from its respective neighbouring single storey dwelling at No. 83 Latrobe Street. More specifically, the entrance to the basement level is located near the site’s west property boundary (offset 0.92 metres), which in elevation view from the front of the site, in essence, presents as a single storey form to the neighbouring property at No. 83 Latrobe Street. With this said, the first floor level may still be visible from this neighbouring property, however it is notably set back from the common boundary, along the front of the site, in the order of 7.505 metres. The third storey component is further setback from this boundary, providing almost a 20 metre setback from the site’s west property boundary along its Latrobe Street frontage. This gradual transition in built form provides not only visual relief to the neighbouring single storey residential properties, but also provides an appropriate transition in height to ensure that the three (3) storey development sits comfortably in its surrounding environs and does not tower over its immediate abuttals. Although the development is three (3) stories in height, essentially the third level has been orientated towards the site’s Nepean Highway and Latrobe Street frontages, providing generous setbacks in the way of 8.7 metres (at minimum) from the site’s west property boundary. The main bulk of the building has been appropriately sited away from the site’s most sensitive residential interfaces in order to ensure a transition in height from the lower scale development along Latrobe Street to the more varied built form found along this portion of Nepean Highway is achieved in an appropriate manner. With the exception of Dwelling 24, those dwellings that are located adjacent to the adjoining residential development (i.e. Dwellings 6-9) on the abutting land to the west are two (2) stories in height (similar to a townhouse arrangement) with their living areas located on the ground floor level and bedrooms on the first floor component. In consideration for the amenity of the adjoining dwellings, the windows on the first floor level of all of these dwellings that face westwards include raised window sill heights to 1.7 metres above their respective finished floor level, to ensure that no unreasonable overlooking can occur. Additionally, these dwellings are set back in excess of ResCode requirements with their ground floor level set back in the order of 3.65 to 5.0 metres from the site’s west property boundary and the first floor level offset in the way of 4.5 to 4.97 metres. The internal layout of these dwellings, with the bedrooms residing on the first floor level, further ensures that the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings are protected via the main living and entertaining areas residing on the ground floor level with the provision of suitable screening measures proposed for those first floor bedroom windows.



128

Accordingly, it is submitted that the development has been sensitively designed to ensure that a good level or articulation and visual relief (via suitable setbacks) has been achieved from the site’s western interface. Granted this application for a three (3) storey residential building is the first of its kind along this strip of Nepean Highway. However, based on the surrounding built form, the land size and the above discussion, it is submitted that the proposed development is an appropriate design response for the site and compliments its non-sensitive and sensitive abuttals. 14.2.6 NOISE Any noise generated from the Subject Land would be of a residential nature. It is noted that residential use is an ‘as of right’ use (i.e. no permit required) as specified in the Residential 1 Zone provisions. Therefore, it is submitted that any noise that will be generated from the site, should a permit issue, will be of a residential nature, which is expected and permitted given the zoning provisions. Furthermore, should the development be approved and a permit issue, the Applicant will be required to seek building approval, which will assess the appropriateness of all materials / construction methods to ensure that the dwellings are structurally sound and in accordance with the Australian Building Standards with relation to sound grading measures etc. 14.2.7 PERMEABILITY It is noted that the Standard to Clause 55.03-4 of the Kingston Planning Scheme suggests that at least twenty (20) percent of the site should not be covered in impervious surfaces. The permeability surface area for the said development is 17.7%, therefore seeking a variation to this Standard. Council’s Development Engineer along with Council’s Vegetation Management Officer have assessed the proposal and advised that they do not object to the development, subject to suitable conditions included on any permit issued. As such, it is considered that this minor variation to the site permeability percentage is reasonable and appropriate, in this instance, as suitable means will be incorporated into the development to ensure that stormwater runoff is appropriately managed as well the development catering for on-site stormwater retention. 14.2.8 SOLAR ACCESS Council’s Planning Officer acknowledges that given the orientation of the site not all dwellings can be provided with north facing private open space areas. Should the formula provisions of Standard B29 of ResCode be applied to the private open space areas of those dwellings that front Latrobe Street it would suggest that a setback in the order of 5 metres should be achieved. However, taking into consideration the orientation of the allotment, it is understood that not all dwellings will receive exceptional amenity opportunities, particularly when dealing with a development of this magnitude.



129

This point was raised to the Permit Applicant in Council’s Planning Officer’s initial further information letter, whereby it was suggested that the ground floor dwelling’s private open space areas should be substantially (or where possible) clear to the sky, to improve the internal amenity afforded to these dwellings. The Permit Applicant responded to this matter, by reducing the first floor level along the Latrobe Street frontage, in part. Although the proposal does not meet the technical setback requirements for solar access for a limited number of the dwellings, this variation is considered to be appropriate, in this instance, given the scale of the development and given that from a design perspective not all dwellings can be provided with exceptional amenity outcomes. In the case of this development, the majority of apartments will achieve a high standard of internal amenity / solar access. Those few dwellings in question with regard to this provision, although they may receive a higher level of shadow cast by the development to their private open space areas, in turn, these dwellings, unlike others, will enjoy and benefit from an active street frontage and individual access points.

14.3 Neighbourhood Character

With regard to the subject site, its prominent location on the corner of Nepean Highway and Latrobe Street and taking into consideration the various land uses and zoning found in the immediate area, it is appropriate to suggest that the subject land is one of a ‘transitional’ site, which includes unique attributes. With respect to the existing and evolving residential ‘make-up’ of the surrounding area and pertinent to the consideration of this application, it is acknowledged that a range of densities exist from the standard detached / semi-detached medium density developments of one (1) or two (2) stories found within immediate proximity to the site or emerging (soon to be built) more intense forms of development such as the recently approved one-hundred and nineteen (119) double storey, townhouse style, dwellings on the former Nylex Site (corner of Oak Avenue and Warrigal Road, Mentone) or the multi-storey apartment style (mixed-use) development, identified as the Le Gym site, located on the corner of Balcombe Road and Swanston Street, Mentone. Given that Section 5 of this report discusses, in detail, the surrounding environs to that of the subject site; it is not considered necessary to reiterate this information. However, the following conclusions can be made from the details provided within Section 5 of this report, these being: § The placement and density of dwellings found within the immediate area vary,

with no dominant characteristics evident; § The height, scale and form of development found within the immediate area

also varies substantially, with the presence of single, double (detached, semi-detached and attached forms) all within proximity to the subject land;

§ Street setbacks are also varied within the surrounding area, which range from

approximately 0 metres to 9 metres; and



130

§ The site itself does not contain any significant vegetation and the vegetation

found in the immediate area does not play a significant role in terms of defining neighbourhood character.

One of the most contentious aspects of the application with respect to the objector’s concerns relates to whether the proposed development density is appropriate for the site, especially in the context of its surrounding environment. It is clear that the site has enormous development potential which is supported by its individual site attributes, as well as by Council Policy. The zoning of the land, its location, size, limited sensitive interfaces, absence of restrictive built form overlays and enabling planning policy all provide opportunities for a denser, compact form of development to be accommodated on this site. Further, it is apparent that the broad strategic thrust of both the State and Local Planning Policy Framework is to see site’s such as the one before Council to be utilised in a way to assist and cater for the anticipated housing need and increase in population. From the discussion had above, there is no particular or strong neighbourhood characteristics found within the immediate area that should be drawn upon or incorporated within this proposal. The surrounding area is evolving and, thus, experiencing a “transitional” period of change. Built form, dwelling styles, size and scale are all becoming increasingly diverse and, therefore, there is no one element that can be identified as a prevailing characteristic. It is for these reasons along with the proposal’s general compliance and consistency with other relevant aspects of the Planning Scheme, that it is submitted that the proposal will sit comfortably within the context of the site, its immediate abuttals and surrounding environment.

14.4 Traffic, Parking and Access Concerns

Clause 52.06 Car Parking of the Kingston Planning Scheme outlines the parking requirements for a variety of uses. The overriding purpose of this Clause is to ensure that car parking facilities are provided in accordance with the State and Local Planning Policy Framework.

Notwithstanding the requirements of Clause 52.06, the car parking rate applicable to this application is provided under Clause 55, Standard B16, of the Kingston Planning Scheme. Accordingly, a prescribed rate of one (1) car parking space to each one (1) or two (2) bedroom dwellings is required. For dwellings that include three (3) or more bedrooms, a rate of two (2) car parking spaces is required.

Further to the above requirements, Standard B16 specifies that for developments of five (5) or more dwellings, a rate of one (1) visitor car parking space should be provided for every five (5) dwellings.

In response to the above provisions, the proposal generates a statutory car parking requirements for thirty (30) resident car parking spaces and six (6) visitor car parking spaces.



131

As part of the proposal, the development includes a thirty-five (35) car space basement car park via a modified crossover arrangement from Latrobe Street. As such, each dwelling is provided with a car parking space with the remaining five (5) on-site car parking spaces nominated for visitor use within the basement car park. Accordingly, the development has a shortfall of one (1) visitor car parking space.

Prior to discussing the relevant traffic considerations, the following information is raised as context to the conditions which presently apply to the subject land.

§ The subject site is bound by two (2) roadways, these being: Nepean Highway

and Latrobe Street. § Nepean Highway is identified as a Road Zone Category 1, is a divided

primary arterial road and falls under the jurisdiction of VicRoads. § A service road to Nepean Highway abuts the subject land to the east, which is

approximately seven (7) metres wide and provides for kerb side parking along the west side of this road.

§ Latrobe Street is identified as local collector road and falls under the

jurisdiction of Kingston City Council.

§ Latrobe Street has an approximate nine (9) metre wide carriageway with one (1) trafficable lane in each direction, provides a direct link between Nepean Highway and Charman Road with parallel parking on both sides of the street.

§ No parking restrictions apply to Latrobe Street or the Nepean Highway service

road. As outlined earlier within this report, access to the site is proposed from Latrobe Street only via a modified crossover arrangement. Therefore, no vehicular access is proposed from Nepean Highway. The Permit Applicant relies on a Traffic Impact Report; prepared by Ratio Consultants, to demonstrate that the proposed road network, access layout and car parking provisions for the development are effective and appropriate. Taking the information provided within this report, including surveys and findings, into consideration, Ratio Consultants make the following conclusions: § The site is well suited for the proposed apartment development as it has

convenient access to the surrounding arterial road network (Nepean Highway, Warrigal Road, Centre Dandenong Road and Balcombe Road) and shopping and community facilities. It also has good public transport facilities within walking distance to the site.

§ The proposed provision of 30 resident spaces and 5 visitor spaces located

within a suitably designed basement car park will adequately cater for the resident and visitor parking demand generated by the proposed development.



132

§ Any overflow resident or visitor can be accommodated within the available on-street parking in the vicinity of the site.

§ The design of the basement car park and vehicular access arrangements is

satisfactory and is generally in accordance with the Kingston Planning Scheme and AS/NZS 2890.1:2004.

§ The development is expected to generate up to about 180 vehicle trips per day,

with about 18 trips per hour during peak hours. This traffic will be dispersed into Nepean Highway, Latrobe Street, Oak Avenue and to the surrounding arterial road network.

§ It is therefore concluded that the proposed development will not produce

adverse traffic and parking impacts in the precinct.

Furthermore, the application has been referred to Council’s Traffic Department for review, assessment and comments. Council’s Traffic Department also sought external advice from their service provider, O’Brien Traffic. The advice received from Council’s Traffic Engineer covered a number of items, including, but not limited to: § The existing site conditions; § Planning Scheme parking requirements; § Adequacy of parking provisions; § The proposed car parking access; § The proposed car parking layout; § Pedestrian issues; § Bicycle facilities; § Waste collection; and § Traffic Impact.

In summary, Council’s Traffic Engineer advised that they had no ‘in-principle’ objection to the proposed development, however, there are various matters (relevant to the items outlined above) that require further attention and should be addressed via way of suitable conditions being included on any permit issued. One of the fundamental concerns raised by objectors related to the existing road network and the safety implications associated with the Latrobe Street and Nepean Highway intersection. With regard to the traffic impact, Council’s Traffic Engineer advised that they concurred with Ratio that the proposed development would generate around 180 vehicle trips per day of which approximately 18 trips would occur during each of the peak hours. Further, Council’s Traffic Engineer advised that ‘the current configuration of the intersections of Nepean Highway with Latrobe Street and Eden Street is less than ideal however that it is not the responsibility of the applicant and the additional vehicle trips generated by the proposed development would not have any significant adverse impact on the surrounding road network’. Importantly, the application was also formally referred to VicRoads for comments, who have advised that they do not object to the proposed development.



133

Following the preliminary conference meeting that was held at Council whereby all parties attended, Council’s Planning Officer had subsequent conversations with both Council’s Traffic Engineer and VicRoads regarding the preferred location for access to the development (i.e. is access best to be located along Latrobe Street or the site’s Nepean Highway service road?). Both, VicRoads and Council’s Traffic Engineer continue to advise that they have no ‘in-principle’ objection to the access being provided along Latrobe Street or the site’s Nepean Highway service road interface. Merit could be seen with the access provided at either location. Following the contentious question regarding to the preferred location for the accessway (i.e. along Latrobe Street or the service road) to the development site, Council’s Traffic Engineer has re-reviewed the proposal and has consequently provided the following response:

• The site is currently occupied by a nursing home with vehicle access via Latrobe Street in about the same location as the proposed ramp.

• The previous proposal for the site was a car wash and cafe/take away food outlets with access in part via the existing crossover on Latrobe St. The current proposal for a medium density residential development of 30 x two-bedroom units would result in a much lower level of traffic generation.

• Current volumes on Latrobe St are modest for a collector road (around 2,100 vpd) and the proposed development would not significantly alter that situation.

• The relocation of the access to the Nepean Highway would require the approval of VicRoads. Given there is a service road it is unlikely this would be vetoed but as a general rule, VicRoads advocate access from the side road (e.g. Latrobe St) where possible.

• The Nepean Highway frontage of the site is subject to a Special Building Overlay. Were the access relocated to the highway service road the strong likelihood is that Melbourne Water would require the provision of a bund at the top of the ramp which would have the effect of increasing the length of the ramp (and possibly the height of the building) or alternatively some sort of pumping system in the basement.

• The relocation of the access would necessitate a substantial redesign of the building. The site is not particularly deep (from the highway frontage) and is irregular in shape. The best location for the ramp in terms of maximising car park yield is the current location.

• Relocating the access to the service road would not eliminate the traffic impact on Latrobe St. Motorists returning to the site from the west would still do so via Latrobe St.

• Access via the service road would require residents to perform more u-turns on the highway to head south from the site or to return to the site from the north.

Council’s Traffic Engineer, O’Brien Traffic (Council’s external service provider) nor VicRoads have raised concern with regard to the expected increase of vehicle movements to and from the site. Further to this, the traffic report prepared by Ratio



134

Consultants suggests that the proposed development would likely generate in the order of 180 vehicle movements per day, which Council’s Traffic Engineer agrees with these calculations. Whilst it is understood through traffic studies that the intersection at Latrobe Street and Nepean Highway currently experiences a high volume of traffic, particularly during peak periods, it is considered that the additional traffic movements generated by the subject development can be satisfactorily accommodated within the surrounding road network. In conclusion on the matters of traffic, access and car parking it is submitted that: § The development is expected to generate around 180 additional vehicle

movements per day which can be absorbed by the surrounding road network via the proposed accessway onto Latrobe Street.

§ The provision of on-site car parking and visitor car parking is deemed

satisfactory.

§ Where appropriate, the comments and recommendations provided by Council’s Traffic Engineer are adopted via the inclusion of appropriate conditions on any permit issued.

§ As the plans before Council propose access to Latrobe Street only, it is this

arrangement that Council must assess and determine whether it is appropriate. Taking into consideration the mixed opinions from objectors regarding where the access to the site should be located, it is concluded from the advice sought from Council’s Traffic Engineer and VicRoads that the proposed location along Latrobe Street is best located to allow for two-way vehicle movement and, therefore, allows for the most efficient and safest movement of vehicles from the development.

14.5 Drainage Matters

The application was referred to Melbourne Water and Council’s Development Engineer to obtain formal comments with regard to the proposed development, as it is subject to a Special Building Overlay. Both Melbourne Water and Council’s Development Engineer have advised that they do not object to the proposal, subject to suitable conditions to be included within any permit issued.

14.7 Landscaping Matters

As highlighted earlier within this report, there is no significant vegetation located on the subject site. A concept landscape plan accompanied the application, which was referred to Council’s Vegetation Management Officer for assessment and comment.

Council’s Vegetation Management Officer advised that they do not object to the proposal and that the revised landscape plan submitted is deemed appropriate.

15 RESPONSE AGAINST GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS



135

15.1 Traffic, Parking and Access Concerns

It is submitted that extensive discussion and justification has been provided in section 14.4, under the Planning Consideration Section of this report, which demonstrates support for the proposed development, subject to a number of recommended permit conditions and modifications to the design by Council’s Traffic Department. Within the objections received and the views presented at the preliminary conference meeting, concern has been raised with regard to a number of traffic related matters. Specifically, these relate to the following: § Increase in traffic volumes along the local road network (Latrobe Street); § Safety concerns regarding the intersection of Latrobe Street and Nepean

Highway; and § Safety concerns regarding vehicles entering and existing the site.

Addressing each of the above matters in turn, the following is submitted: § Neither VicRoads or Council’s Traffic Engineer have raised concern with

regard to the likely increase of vehicular movements to and from the site as a result of the proposed development. It is considered that the proposed development will result in a negligible increase in traffic volume to that which is currently experienced in the immediate area. As such, it is submitted that the additional traffic volume likely to be generated by the proposal can satisfactorily be accommodated in the surrounding road network.

§ Although the objectors have raised concern with regard to the safety of

vehicles and the build up traffic at the intersection of Latrobe Street and Nepean Highway, given the high volume of traffic both of these roads tend to experience during peaks periods, it is important to note that VicRoads have raised no objection to the application, nor have they raised any safety concerns with the projected increase of vehicular movement to and from the site to which the development will generate. Additionally, Council’s Traffic Engineer has clearly stated that the current configuration of this intersection is less than ideal, however, it is an existing circumstance and one in which the proposal would have a negligible impact upon.

§ It has been seen in other applications, where there is a significant increase in

the volume of traffic generated by a proposal, that conditions are generally imposed by VicRoads to see that their road / intersection is altered to facilitate this increase (e.g. designated turn lanes, signalised intersections). As VicRoads have not required any modifications to the intersection at Latrobe Street and Nepean Highway this demonstrates that they are comfortable that the existing road networks can accommodate the likely traffic generated by the proposal.



136

15.2 Overdevelopment

As already confirmed the site is subject to a Residential 1 Zone, adjoins one (1) sensitive interface (i.e. the residential properties to the west of the Site), is surrounded by a mix of uses of a residential and non-residential nature and two (2) of the four (4) property boundaries adjoin roadways. Furthermore, the plethora of policy within the Kingston Planning Scheme seeks to channelise more intense development within ‘increased diversity areas’ and large prospect sites such as this, and, therefore, an intense form of development can be expected, such as the one currently before Council. For reasons that have been thoroughly outlined and assessed in earlier sections of this report, and subject to condition recommendations, the following is noted:

1. The reduction in visitor car parking (i.e. 1 space) is negligible in this instance and it is acknowledged that there is on-street car parking opportunities along both Latrobe Street and the service road along Nepean Highway;

2. All dwellings are provided with the required amount of on-site car parking, in accordance with ResCode requirements;

3. All dwellings are provided with a suitable amount of private open space area, in accordance with ResCode requirements;

4. An appropriate level of amenity is provided to each dwelling proposed; 5. The proposal does not result in an unreasonable loss of amenity for

abutting properties; 6. The maximum site coverage proposed is 55.29%, which is well within the

applicable ResCode standard (60%); and 7. In general, the cosmetic treatment and urban design elements of the

building are considered appropriate and fitting given the site’s prominent location.

Based on the above dot points, it is submitted that the proposal does not result in an overdevelopment of the site and with the inclusion of suitable conditions incorporated within any permit issued, the proposal is deemed acceptable.

15.3 Overlooking / Loss of Privacy

Noise Disturbance Neighbourhood Character

With regard to these concerns and to avoid repetition, extensive discussion has been provided within Section 14.2.3, 14.2.6 and 14.3, under the Planning Consideration Section of this report.

16 CONCLUSION: 16.1 For reasons discussed within this report, it is submitted that the proposal be supported

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



137

16.2 The basis of this recommendation to support the proposed development is evidenced by:

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

surrounding area; • Suitability of the site for high density residential development having regard to the

policy context and applicable planning provisions; • In general, acceptability of the built form of the proposed development,

specifically in regard to height; • Consideration of any external amenity impacts; • Adequacy of internal amenity; • Consideration of the provision of car parking (to dwellings and visitors) and traffic

related matters; • The proposal generally satisfies the requirements of the Kingston Planning

Scheme, including the State and Local Planning Policy Framework, Residential 1 Zone, Special Building Overlay, the relevant Particular Provisions and Clause 65 - Decision Guidelines (subject to appropriate conditions).

16.3 On balance and subject to the inclusion of suitable conditions, the proposal is

considered reasonable and warrants support. 17 RECOMMENDATION: That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit for the development of this site for thirty (30) Dwellings on land designated within a Special Building Overlay be issued, subject following conditions:

2. Before the development starts amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be substantially in accordance with the plans submitted to Council on 5 February 2010, but modified to show:

a. the provision of an improved landscape plan (prepared by John Patrick – dated: October 2009) and associated planting schedule for the site showing the species Hymenosporum flavum (Native Frangipani) changed to Ulmus parvifolia (Chinese Elm) or Zelkova serrata (Zelkova) or similar;

b. all requirements of Melbourne Water, in accordance with Condition 3 of this permit.

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

d. a pedestrian sight triangle of 2.5 metres (along the proposed driveway) × 2.0 metres (along the site boundary) be provided on the exit (eastern) side of the proposed driveway in accordance with AS2890.1 with the sight triangle area to be clear of any objects or vegetation greater than 900mm in height;



138

e. the location of the building closest to the bend in the ramp to correspond on all plans;

f. the ramp designed so that the inner and outer radii is designed in accordance with AS2890.1;

g. the provision of 300mm wide kerbs located on both sides of the ramp rather than 150mm, in accordance with AS2890.1;

h. the provision of a detailed longitudinal section of the ramp showing levels at all changes of grade with grades computed along the inside of the bend and the long section to demonstrate the 2.46 metre headroom clearance at the entrance to the basement (measured as per Fig 5.3 of AS2890.1);

i. the provision of a fully dimensioned security door nominated for the basement car park, including operational details;

j. all car parking spaces within the basement clearly dimensioned, including width, length and aisle measurements;

k. car parking space 9 widened to at least 4.1 metres to ensure that convenient vehicle access can be achieved;

l. all columns nominated at least 0.4 metres clear of 4.9 metre long car parking spaces and not more than 1.4 metres from the entry end of the car parking spaces;

m. at least five (5) visitor car parking spaces clearly nominated within the basement car park;

n. the door to the bin storage area relocated away from the access driveway;

o. all west facing first and second floor windows and balcony areas screened in accordance with Clause 55.04-6 (Standard B22) of the Kingston Planning Scheme;

p. the provision of rainwater tank(s) with water re-use for toilet flushing;

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

r. the surface material of the driveway / accessway leading to the basement car park nominated in all-weather coloured concrete sealcoat, or similar;

s. a notation on the ground floor plan stating that ‘the levels at the site boundaries must not be altered’;

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

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


4. Conditions required by Melbourne Water

a) No polluted and / or sediment laden runoff is to be discharged directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water’s drains or waterways.



139

b) Finished residential floor levels must be to a minimum of 300mm above the applicable flood level.

c) The entry / exit driveway of the basement car park must incorporate a flood proof

apex of a minimum of 300mm above the applicable flood level.

d) All doors, windows, vents and openings to the basement car park must be a minimum of 300mm above the applicable flood level.

e) Prior to the commencement of works, a separate application, direct to Melbourne

Water, must be made for any new or modified storm water connection to Melbourne Water’s drains and watercourses. Contact Asset Services on telephone 9235 1414 for Melbourne Water’s connection requirements, including payment of appropriate fees.

5. Prior to the occupation of the residential development hereby permitted, the

landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

7. Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted, a Site Management Plan, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority and when approved shall thereafter be complied with. The Site Management Plan must clearly set out measures to prevent amenity loss to surrounding properties during the construction period. The Plan is to include, but limited to, measures to control the emission of dust/sand, rubbish on site, loading/unloading times, construction times, and parking of builder’s vehicles etc. This plan when endorsed must not be varied without the prior approval of the Responsible Authority. It must also be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

8. Before the commencement of any buildings and works on the Land, a Construction

Management Plan (CMP), to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority and when approved shall thereafter be complied with. The CMP must specify and deal with the parking of vehicles during construction, delivery of materials, containment of waste on site and suppression of dust, business operations on the site during construction.

9. Before the commencement of any buildings and works on the Land, a Waste

Management Plan (WMP) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. Three (3) copies of the plan must be submitted. The WMP must include but is not limited to: a) The manner in which waste will be stored and collected including: type, size and

number of containers.

b) Spatial provision for on-site storage.



140

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

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

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

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

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



14. The levels at the site boundaries must not be altered.

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

16. Any existing vehicular crossing not in accordance with the endorsed plan must be

removed and the kerb reinstated in a manner satisfactory to the Responsible Authority and any proposed vehicular crossing must be fully constructed to the Responsible Authority’s standard specification.

17. Prior to the occupation of the residential development hereby permitted, all boundary

fences must be repaired and/or replaced as necessary to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, at the cost of the applicant/owner.



141

18. Prior to the occupation of the residential development hereby permitted, areas set aside for parking vehicles, access lanes and paths as shown on the endorsed plans must be: a. Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

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

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





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

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




Note: If further information is required in relation to Melbourne Water’s permit conditions shown above, please contact Melbourne Water on telephone 9235 2517, quoting Melbourne Water’s reference 169600.

Note: The flood line for the property grades from 23.82 metres to Australian Height Datum (AHD) at the northern boundary down to 23.02 metres to AHD at the south-eastern corner.


Note: Residents and visitors to this development are unlikely to be eligible for on-street parking permits.



142

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

1. The proposal would prevent the orderly and proper planning of the zone.

2. The proposal would have an adverse effect on the amenity of area.

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

4. The proposal would detract from the visual amenity of the locality and the streetscape.

5. The proposal is inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the Kingston Planning

Scheme.



143

M 56 Mordialloc Creek Masterplan – Concept Design Scenarios

and Community Consultation Strategy Approved by: Tony Rijs, General Manager Environmental Sustainability Author: Jonathan Guttmann – Manager Strategic Planning and Building Munir Vahanvati – Urban Designer

1. Purpose The purpose of this report is to brief Council on the preliminary concept design work undertaken for the Mordialloc Creek Masterplan project and outline the consultation strategy proposed for Mordialloc Creek Masterplan. The consultation strategy seeks as part of its first stage to obtain community feedback on ‘ideas’ and concept designs with a subsequent stage to involve the development of a draft Mordialloc Creek Masterplan which would be the subject of further community consultation. 2. Background Council received $250,000 in funding from the Department of Sustainability and Environment last year to provide for the preparation of Masterplan for the public spaces around Mordialloc Creek and for the implementation of landscape improvement works. Council subsequently engaged a landscape based consultancy Taylor Cullity Lethlean (TCL) to prepare the masterplan for areas which include Peter Scullin Reserve, Hazel Pearce Reserve, Pompei’s Landing, Attenborough Park, George Woods Reserve, Lambert’s Island and Sailing Club site. The basis for developing the masterplan is to create an integrated open space network and provide clarity on the different roles of each of the precincts. The masterplan will become the pivotal document in guiding key expenditure in the study area over the next 20 to 30 years. Importantly the masterplan process also requires that the key challenges associated with the need for responses to climate change on the public land areas proximate to the mouth of Mordialloc Creek are incorporated into the plans recommendations. The consultants have finished the background work and have prepared concept design scenarios for the entire site. 3. Issues As part of the background work the consultants accompanied by Council Officers conducted a series of preliminary key stakeholder meetings to develop a base level of understanding of the main issues associated with diverse activities conducted within the study area. A list of the key stakeholders consulted as part of this initial consultation is enclosed in Attachment A Some of the main issues raised during these meetings include –

• Improved bike and pedestrian linkages • Impact of change on natural flora and fauna



144

• Opportunities for improvement to Attenborough Park with better bike and pedestrian connection and enhancing of the indigenous garden

• The need to provide for improved facilities and slipways for various boating and sailing clubs

• Potential for additional water related events in and around the creek • The lack of lighting and passive surveillance • The future use and connectivity to Lambert’s Island • Lack of car parking on weekends and alternate solutions to managing parking

areas • Matters associated with the water quality of the creek and need for dredging

Considering that the project is predominantly a landscape design project that will deal with the open spaces around Mordialloc Creek some of the above issues are being managed as part of other Council initiatives. For example the issue of the need for dredging works is a matter presently being examined by Council’s Infrastructure Department in collaboration with relevant Government Agencies. Opportunities for enhancements to car parking supply in the Mordialloc Activity Centre were also identified as part of the Mordialloc ‘Pride of the Bay’, Structure Plan. 4. Scenario and detailed ideas work As a basis for the initial phase of consultation the consultants have developed various design ideas and 3 different scenarios in relation to the changes envisaged for the study area over the extended 20 to 30 year planning horizon. The ‘ideas’ which have been worked up by the consultants for this phase of the community consultation include: 1. Choreograph movement along the creek safe connection on both sides. 2. Establish strong vegetation themes to unite the open spaces. 3. Consolidate Pompei’s Landing as an important historic precinct and working hub. 4. Provide a unified suite of furnishings to maximise comfort, enjoyment and information. 5. Explore greater public access to Lambert’s Island, upgrade infrastructure and create a

modest community venue. 6. Enhance the existing indigenous garden in Attenborough Park. 7. Improve the space around Tour de Café with a separate toilet facility. 8. Create a district playground and picnic area in George Woods Reserve. 9. Retain Pompei’s as an engaging museum that speaks of Mordialloc’s rich boat building

and settlement history. 10. Strengthen the promenade by relocating and expanding the café cycling hub. 11. Create a ‘loop’ between the north and south banks of the creek. 12. Relocate foreshore parking and create a major regional event space and civic centre in

Peter Scullin Reserve. 13. Relocate the car park in Attenborough Park closer to Nepean Highway 14. Provide traffic lights at the intersection of Nepean Highway and Beach Road.



145

15. Traffic calming (speed reduction) on Beach Road between Centreway and Nepean Highway

16. Provide greater public access to Sailing Club and upgrade facilities. 17. Provide additional more outdoor dining facilities at existing venues.

The consultants have developed 3 scenarios based on the above mentioned ideas. These scenarios are not presented as different options but just an example of how these ideas can come together to create a preferred concept design. Importantly the initial stage of consultation will be focussed on engaging with the community on the ‘ideas’ developed by the consultants as a means of understanding how the different change scenarios could be worked up. The three scenarios presented are -

1. Scenario 1 – Minimal Work This scenario is focussed around tidying up the areas around Mordialloc Creek and improving some of the infrastructure.

• A unified landscape theme and suite of furnishing is provided to unify the various open space around the creek.

• A new district playground is proposed in George Woods Reserve and a limited scale working timber wharf is proposed at Pompei’s Landing along with new slipways and repaired timber jetties.

Please refer Attachment – B for this scenario and more information.

2. Scenario 2 – Moderate Work This scenario looks at further improving the spaces around the creek in addition to what is proposed in Scenario 1.

• Attenborough Park has been reconfigured with a new and enhanced indigenous garden with car parking relocated closer to Nepean Highway and away from the creek edge.

• Space around the Tour de Café is enhanced with a new toilet block and landscaping.

• Lambert’s Island will have greater public access with the existing building upgraded into a shared community facility

Please refer Attachment – C for this scenario and more information.

3. Scenario 3 – Maximum Work This scenario is based around a complete rethink of how the spaces around the creek are currently used. Some of the main features are –

• Relocating the car park near Peter Scullin Reserve closer to Beach Road to create a more defined shared public gathering and event space. Importantly this response would also contribute substantially to creating a natural (landscaped) response to aid in ameliorating the effects of sea level rise through sculpting the topography

• A new bridge between Peter Scullin Reserve and Sailing Club will provide for a loop or a circuit walk on both sides of the creek opening up access to North Aspendale beach and the south side of the creek.



146

• The history of Pompei’s work shed is retained with the building transformed to incorporate a maritime and boatbuilding museum

Please refer Attachment – D for this scenario and more information.

5. Consultation As mentioned as part of the initial background work and site analysis the consultants have already met with a series of key stakeholders within the precinct. In addition panels highlighting the background work were also exhibited at the Mordialloc Fine Food and Wine Festival to create awareness about the project and receive feedback. An important part of the upcoming phase of consultation will be to consult with State Government Departments and Agencies including the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE), Parks Victoria, Melbourne Water, VicTrack and VicRoads. The following approach identifies a range of tools to assist in raising awareness of the project and obtaining community feedback: • A newsletter/flyer delivered to all the key stakeholders involved in the initial

stakeholder session listed in Attachment A. • Information and copies of the scenarios and ideas posted on the Council website

including a feedback form. • Community information session and walk-in workshop. • Presentations to Government Service Providers / Agencies as identified above • Information posters displayed at a number of locations in the Mordialloc Activity centre

to raise awareness of the project • Targetted one-on-one meetings with key stakeholders as required. Staging of Community Consultation The first phase of community consultation process has been divided into two stages. The first stage of community consultation will happen at the scenario stage where the concept design scenarios detailing the ‘ideas’ will be exhibited for a period of four weeks to seek community feedback. A community workshop will be organised sometime in mid to late May. It is proposed that this meeting be held in the early evening and that Council officers and representatives of the consultant are available for the community to drop in and talk about the plan in more detail. Community will be able to provide feedback on a feedback form at the workshop or send a submission letter. The scenarios and proposed ‘ideas’ will also be available on the website where community members can explore in detail the landscape concepts developed by the consultant and provide online feedback. Draft Masterplan Exhibition After the first phase of community consultation the consultant together with the project steering committee will prepare a draft masterplan report incorporating the comments received from the community. It is proposed that the draft masterplan will go on exhibition for a period of 4 weeks in early July. During this 4 week period any interested party will once again will be able to provide feedback on the draft masterplan.



147

6. Summary and Conclusion The report identifies that a series of scenarios that bring together a series of preliminary ideas have been developed to assist in the first phase of the consultation process in the development of a Mordialloc Creek Masterplan. The report identifies that following this first phase of community consultation a subsequent phase will be conducted which seeks community feedback on a draft masterplan. The first stage of consultation (concept design) is proposed in mid to late May. 7. Recommendation That Council resolve to commence the first phase of the consultation on the Mordialloc Creek Masterplan project in mid to late May. Attachments: Attachment A – List of Key Preliminary Stakeholders Attachment B – Scenario 1 – Minimal Work Attachment C – Scenario 2 – Moderate Work Attachment D – Scenario 3 – Maximum Work



148

M 57 Moorabbin Major Activity Centre Draft Structure Plan Approved by: Tony Rijs, General Manager Environmental Sustainability Author: Rosa Zouzoulas, Team Leader Strategic Planning

1. Purpose The purpose of this report is to formally begin the consultation period for the draft Moorabbin Structure Plan.

2. Background The City of Kingston has prepared a draft Structure Plan for the Moorabbin Major Activity Centre in order to provide an integrated response to the change envisaged through this centre over the coming two decades. Released in 2002 by the State Government, Melbourne 2030 is the Metropolitan Strategy for Melbourne. Melbourne 2030 seeks to encourage safer, more vibrant and accessible communities across Melbourne, through its activity centre policy. While the activity centre’s policy sets out the basic principles for the future development, there is no 'one size fits all' solution. Accordingly, local governments have been encouraged to work with their communities to determine how their activity centres should grow taking into account regional population trends and economic growth. The aim of structure planning for activity centres is to give effect to the policies and objectives set out for activity centres in Melbourne 2030: Planning for Sustainable Growth and its update and to provide effectively for changing community needs. Structure plans will provide the foundation for activity centre change by defining the preferred direction of future growth and articulating how this change will be managed. Structure plans will guide the major changes to land use, built form and public spaces that together can achieve economic, social and environmental objectives for the centre under investigation. To encourage development within centres, Melbourne 2030 encourages local governments to review the purpose and function of individual centres and to revise local planning policies through a program of structure planning for each of their Principal and Major Activity Centres and Central Activities Districts. The development of this draft Moorabbin Structure Plan follows on from work undertaken by Council through the PLAN project. This earlier project identified the broad parameters for growth in key Activity Centres in Kingston, and has provided a platform for the manner in which future development is managed through the individual structure plans. The draft Structure Plan provides specific details on where, Council working in partnership with the development sector, can provide the necessary direction for improved traffic movement, economic growth, increased housing diversity opportunities, new public spaces and better links to public transport and recreational reserves.



149

3. Summary and Conclusion This report has identified the reason for preparing the draft Structure Plan and the process proposed for consultation with the community during the coming six (6) weeks. Accordingly, it recommends that Council release the attached draft Moorabbin Structure Plan for the purpose of discussion with the community and key stakeholders, as outlined in Section 4 of this report, and to obtain critical feedback in order to refine the draft Structure Plan for Moorabbin prior to its completion.

4. Consultation A broad consultation program is proposed for the coming six (6) weeks that seeks to discuss the outcomes of the draft Moorabbin Structure Plan and to obtain feedback from key stakeholders and the wider community. The study area is based around the Railway station and retail and commercial areas of Station and Taylor Streets and Central Avenue. The boundary of the study area is predominantly limited to within a walking distance of 400 metres from the railway station as this is region where the greatest opportunities are envisaged but includes areas south of the railway station along Nepean Highway and extends east to include major land parcels on the edge of the centre. Key Stakeholders for the draft Moorabbin Structure Plan are all the agencies including VicRoads, VicTrack, the Department of Transport, bus companies, key landowners, traders, village committees, residents, and occupiers within the abovementioned study area. It is proposed that the following methods will be used to inform the community and key stakeholders of the draft Moorabbin Structure Plan and its outcomes: • Direct mailout to all owners and occupiers • Discussions with identified key landowners where major projects are envisaged • Discussions with all agencies including VicRoads, VicTrack, Department of Transport • Information on the City of Kingston website • Information session • An information stand in the shopping centre on a Saturday morning • Articles in the Kingston Your City newspaper, and Leader newspapers • Information stands at local libraries and customer service centres Submissions will be sought from 28th April, 2010 to 18th June, 2010. Copies of the Draft Moorabbin Structure Plan will be available to view at the Cheltenham and Mentone customer service centres, the Moorabbin and Highett libraries and Council’s website at www.kingston.vic.gov.au/link/moorabbinstructureplan

5. Issues The draft Moorabbin Structure Plan envisages a number of key projects for the centre over the next 20 years. These projects have been identified to relieve existing pressures on the centre and its road hierarchy and to provide for the centre’s beautification, and increased permeability and useability. Such projects include: • The development of the railway airspace to provide for the critical connections between

land uses on either side. This would include the creation of a contemporary station

http://www.kingston.vic.gov.au/link/moorabbinstructureplan



150

entry, enhanced public transport connections and the creation of a key community focal point with improved access to the station from surrounding streets.

• The development of the Avenue Place and Avenue Place Plaza in Central Avenue to accommodate a vibrant mixed use outcome and an improved public space that is pleasant and safe to use.

• Create a better connection to key recreational spaces by linking Central Avenue to Moorabbin Reserve

• The development of an improved road network to better manage the tension between the needs of vehicular traffic passing through the centre and those wishing to visit and use the centre. This would involve closing the median at South Road/Taylor Street intersection to stop the existing rat run from Taylor Street, changing Station Street to one way north bound and Central Avenue one way east bound between Station St and Redholme St, undertaking traffic calming works in Redholme St and providing for direct access to the supermarket from the intersection of Jasper Road and South Road.

These projects are envisaged to improve the centre into the future recognising they may not be realised immediately and will require further detailed planning and discussions with key stakeholders.

6 Triple Bottom Line Checklist • Environmental – The vision and key projects identified for Moorabbin through the

draft Moorabbin Structure Plan seek to encourage the development of alternate transport travel modes, and architectural and environmental excellence through building design and layout.

• Social – The vision for Moorabbin will improve the liveability of the area, increase opportunities for social interaction and improve transport choice.

• Financial – The Moorabbin Structure Plan identifies the direction of the centre which in turn will improve the competitiveness of the centre by stimulating business and employment opportunities and consolidating retailing within the centre.

7. Recommendation That: a. Council release the Draft Moorabbin Structure Plan for period of public consultation

between the 28 April 2010 and 18 June 2010. b. A report be prepared for Council consideration upon completion of the consultation

period summarising community feedback and suggesting any modifications to the Draft Moorabbin Structure Plan.

Attachments: Draft Moorabbin Structure Plan



151

M 58 Submission to Coastal Climate Change Issues & Options Paper Approved by: Tony Rijs, General Manager Environmental Sustainability Author: Stacey Rees, Strategic Planner Jonathan Guttmann, Manager Strategic Planning and Building

1. Purpose The purpose of this report is to bring to Council’s attention a draft response to the Victorian Coastal Climate Change Issues and Options Paper, on behalf of Kingston City Council, in accordance with the attached draft.

2. Background The Coastal Climate Change Issues and Options Paper has been prepared by the Coastal Climate Change Advisory Committee (CCCAC) which has been established under Section 151 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The Committee will advise the Minister for Planning on how Victoria’s land-use planning and development controls can best support the Victorian Government’s policy for managing the coastal impacts of climate change. The CCAC is currently inviting public submissions on the Issues and Options Paper. Council was informed that submissions are now due to be submitted by the 10th May, 2010.

3. Issues The Issues and Options Paper (and Kingston’s submission) is limited to the Advisory Committee’s terms of reference. The terms of reference seek to focus on land use planning and development control responses that could be applied through the planning or building systems as a means of making property owners aware of relevant considerations based on living proximate to the coast. The terms of reference seek explore how the Victorian planning system may best be able to respond to challenges such as (but not limited to): erosion, shore line retreat, ocean based inundation and sea level rise. Officers believe that considering land use planning and development controls is only part of a broader suite of solutions that will need to be developed to mitigate climate change. Other important considerations include whether in established urban areas engineering responses are possible as an alternate to ‘retreat’ policies found in remote coastal communities where they may present as economically or environmentally cost prohibitive. It is understood that the Issues and Options Paper in which the attached response has been prepared is a preliminary phase of the process and opportunity for further key stakeholder and community engagement would occur prior to the Minister for Planning formulating any new planning tools to respond to this issue from a planning perspective.



152

4. Recommendation That Council resolve to make a submission to the Coastal Climate Change Issues and Options Paper on behalf of Kingston City Council, in accordance with the attached draft document. Attachments: Draft submission – Coastal Climate Change Issues and Options Paper



153

M 59 Planning Scheme Amendment C112 - Removal of an Environmental Audit Overlay from part Main Street, Albert Street and McDonald Street, Mordialloc and Clyve Avenue, Mentone.

Approved by: Tony Rijs, General Manager Environmental Sustainability Author: Stacey Rees, Strategic Planner

1. Purpose The purpose of this report is to seek a fast-track Planning Scheme Amendment to the Kingston Planning Scheme for:

• the removal of an Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) from a number of sites in Main Street, Albert Street and McDonald Street, Mordialloc;

• the removal of redundant EAO’s from a number of properties in Clyve Avenue, Mentone; and

• the replacement of the Industrial Framework Plan at Clause 21.07 with a clearer version.

2. Background Council recently received an enquiry from the land owner at 459 Main Street, Mordialloc, querying the origins of an Environmental Audit Overlay that affects the subject land. The origins of this overlay were not immediately apparent to officers, and further investigation revealed that the Environmental Audit Overlay actually affects a cluster of neighbouring properties, all of which are zoned Mixed Use (subject properties shown in red below).

463 Main Street, Mordialloc 459 Main Street, Mordialloc 1 McDonald Street, Mordialloc 455-457 Main Street, Mordialloc 459A Main Street, Mordialloc 47 Albert Street, Mordialloc 5 McDonald Street, Mordialloc 45 Albert Street, Mordialloc 43 Albert Street, Mordialloc 49-51 Albert Street, Mordialloc REAR 43-47 Albert Street, Mordialloc 53A Albert Street, Mordialloc 53B Albert Street, Mordialloc

3. Summary and Conclusion Given the history of this particular precinct in Mordialloc, and the remediation of the only known potentially contaminating use (as defined by the Ministerial Practice Note 1), it is considered reasonable that Council seek the consent of the Minister for Planning to remove the EAO from all the affected properties in the precinct. It is also proposed that a number of other minor issues be addressed concurrently through Amendment C112, as outlined in section 5 of this report.



154

4. Consultation Consultation with the Department of Planning and Community Development identified that the EAO appeared to have been applied at the time that the land was rezoned from a Restricted Business Zone to a Mixed Use Zone with the implementation of the new format planning scheme in 1999. In fact it appears that an EAO was applied to all land that was rezoned from a business / industrial use to the Mixed Use Zone at this time as a precautionary principle. Preliminary discussions with the Department of Planning and Community Development indicate that it is appropriate to seek a fast-track amendment process to remove the EAO from the affected properties.

5. Issues Fast track amendment process The protocol for fast tracking an amendment has been released by the Minister for Planning as part of the ‘cutting red tape in planning’ initiative in order to speed up the processing of amendments which remove redundant provisions or perform corrections to Planning Schemes. Given officers intentions to seek a fast track amendment to address the matter identified above in Mordialloc it was considered prudent to also address any other known anomalies, errors or redundant provisions concurrently. The proposed components of the amendment are identified below: Part Main, McDonald and Albert Street Mordialloc Environmental Audit Overlay Removal Council officers conducted a thorough investigation into the origins of why the Environmental Audit Overlay had been placed upon the subject sites. The investigation included searching Council records and reports for the affected properties, studying historical aerial photography of the land and a search of the Sands & McDougall’s Directory of Victoria (a series of historical record books detailing property ownership and land use since the 1900’s). It was discovered that the property at 5 McDonald Street, Mordialloc was formerly occupied by a service station (in the 1970’s). However Council records show that the site was remediated to the satisfaction of the EPA prior to the approval being granted for the development of the site for a 44 bed institutional home through Amendment L4 which was gazetted in 1996. As such it is considered that the current application of the EAO is not directly associated with the former use of the property at 5 McDonald Street, Mordialloc. There was no other evidence located indicating a potentially contaminating use on any of the affected sites. Industrial Land Use Framework Plan update The Local Planning Policy section of the Kingston Planning Scheme now has a number of its maps prepared in colour. Officers believe that the legibility of the Industrial Land Use Framework Plan at Clause 21.07 could be improved through colour enhancements.



155

Clyve Avenue, Mentone Environmental Audit Overlay Removal The subject sites (see plan below) are zoned Residential 3 and are presently affected by an Environmental Audit Overlay. The overlay was placed on several properties in the street due to the historical commercial / industrial use of the properties. It is noted that the street now consists mainly of new residential dwellings and there is only one commercial/industrial use (billiard table business) remaining on the eastern side of the street. An environmental audit, finding the land to be suitable for residential purposes, has been undertaken for each of the properties identified below. The subject sites have all been subsequently developed for residential purposes.

1A Clyve Avenue, Mentone 2A & 2B Clyve Avenue, Mentone 1/3, 2/3 & 3/3 Clyve Avenue, Mentone 6, & 6A Clyve Avenue, Mentone 7D & 7E Clyve Avenue, Mentone

Given that the EAO requirements have been satisfied in each of the above cases, it is considered appropriate to seek to remove these now redundant provisions. 8. Proposed Action That a request be made to the Minister for Planning to: 1. Authorise the preparation of the amendment under Section 9 (2) of the Planning and

Environment Act 1987 to: a. Remove the Environmental Audit Overlay from the following properties: ● 455-457, 459, 459A, 463 Main Street, 1 & 5 McDonald Street, 43, 45, 47,

49-51, 53A, 53B & Rear 43-47 Albert Street, Mordialloc; and ● 1A, 2A, 2B, 1/3, 2/3, 3/3, 6, 6A, 7D & 7E Clyve Avenue, Mentone. b. Replace the Industrial Framework Plan at Clause 21.07 of the Kingston Planning

Scheme with a more legible version of the plan. 2. Exempt Planning Scheme Amendment C112 from the notice provisions of Section

20(2) and/or 20(4) (as applicable) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. 3. That, subject to Authorisation being granted in accordance with Recommendation 1 of

this report, Council also seek the consent of the Minister under Section 11 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to approve the amendment once it is certified by the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Community Development under Section 35A. of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.



156

Attachments: Revised Industrial Framework Plan (to be distributed separately)



157

M 60 Affordable Housing Taskforce Update Approved by: Tony Rijs, General Manager Environmental Sustainability Author: Jonathan Guttmann, Manager Strategic Planning and Building 1. Purpose The purpose of this report is to provide an update to Councillors on the Affordable Housing Taskforce and seek a resolution from Council to continue the work of the Taskforce. 2. Background Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting on 27 July 2009, Council resolved to establish an Affordable Housing Taskforce. The Council resolution was as follows:

‘That Council forms an Affordable Housing Taskforce that includes relevant stakeholders to provide input to Council into formulation of an achievable affordable and social/pubic housing strategy which is consistent with good planning for the City of Kingston and is complimentary to other Kingston strategies; and 1. That officers develop suitable terms of reference and composition for the

taskforce, including one councillor from each ward, by the next Ordinary Council Meeting.

2. That the Taskforce reports within three months on possible suitable locations for

the location of affordable housing including social housing and key worker housing; and

3. That by April 2010, the Taskforce report on the best way to achieve increased

stock of affordable housing including social housing, the most effective way of delivering social housing for the community and for occupants of social housing and the most suitable locations/areas for affordable and social housing in the municipality.’

3. Issues The Affordable Housing Taskforce which comprises Councillors Athanasopoulos, West, Shewan and Peulich and Council officers from the Community Engagement Team and Property occasions. During these meetings the taskforce has been involved in the following activities: 1. Defining the areas which Councillors wish to further explore. 2. Understanding through a recent documentary the national challenges associated with

those unable to readily find accommodation.



158

3. Hearing from guest speakers in the following areas: o Demographics and the key parts of the Kingston population exposed to Housing

Stress o The experience of other Local Government Council Officers and Councillors with

well established policies in the area of Housing affordability. In addition it is planned that subsequent speakers will include: 1. A representative from the development sector to explain the costs associated with

supplying housing through the private market. 2. A design professional to explain the manner in which contemporary community housing

is being provided. Council officers believe that the above background will be most useful for the taskforce participants prior to a further report being presented to Council with some recommendations from the Taskforce which accord with above mentioned earlier resolution of Council. For this reason it is considered that Council recognise the need to provide some additional time to allow the work of the taskforce to continue. 4. Recommendation That: a. The activities of the Affordable Housing Taskforce to this time be noted by Council;

and b. A report be prepared by Council officers later in the year which summarises the

activities of the Affordable Housing Taskforce and makes recommendations to Council on addressing the outcomes sought in its resolution of the 27 July 2009 Ordinary Council Meeting.



159

M 61 Green Wedge Plan Update Approved by: Tony Rijs – General Manager Environmental Sustainability Author: Jonathan Guttmann – Manager Strategic Planning and Building

1. Purpose The purpose of this report is to seek direction from Council on a number of activities Council has recently been involved in relating to strategic planning initiatives in Kingston’s Green Wedge Area. The report seeks direction from Council on:

1) A draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with relevant State Government Departments / Agencies and key stakeholders to work together to explore land management and planning solutions for Kingston’s Green Wedge Area (see Attachment 1).

2) A draft project brief which has been prepared to provide for the development of a

Kingston Green Wedge Plan (see Attachment 2).

2. Background At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 23 November 2009, Council passed the following resolution. That Council confirm that we have requested Dr Trevor Budge to:-

• undertake a review of the NNUAFP and of associated documents including the Sandbelt Open Space Project, Green Wedge Land Capability Study & Review of Water provision:

• conduct a green wedge planning workshop for councillors in February 2010 or earlier.

Since the above resolution of Council, the following has occurred: State Government Green Wedge Taskforce The State Government has established a Kingston Green Wedge Taskforce which Councillors Arthur Athanasopoulos and Rosemary West have attended as the representatives of the City of Kingston. Representatives from the following bodies are also included on the Taskforce:

• State Government Department of Planning and Community Development • State Government Department of Sustainability and Environment • State Government Department of Primary Industries



160

• Environment Protection Authority • Parks Victoria • Melbourne Water • Metropolitan Waste Management Group • Moorabbin Airport Corporation

A draft Memorandum of Understanding has been prepared between the above mentioned agencies and is provided as Attachment 1 to this report. The aim of the draft MOU ‘is to establish a shared basis for the development of a Green Wedge Management Plan for the South East Green Wedge, with particular regard to the green wedge land within the City of Kingsotn. This Memorandum of Understanding is intended to assist in resolving land use and management issues in the Kingston City Council portion of the South East Green Wedge’. Engagement of Consultants A sub committee of Council made up of all Councillors have met on a couple of occasions. The sub committee has been facilitated by consultants who have been retained by Council to further assist it in the project management component of the Green Wedge Plan Brief discussed in this report. A key outcome from the sub committee was that Councillors requested that Mr. Budge prepare a draft project brief to develop a Green Wedge Plan for Kingston (see Attachment 2).

3. Issues Draft Memorandum of Understanding It is apparent that the draft MOU has been prepared as an instrument to bring together a number of key stakeholders to collaborate with the City of Kingston to assist it in developing a Kingston Green Wedge Plan. As drafted the MOU ‘will lapse on the adoption of a Green Wedge Management Plan by Kingston City Council, or at the expiry of two years from the date of signing of the Memorandum, which ever occurs first’. An opportunity to extend this term is provided for with the agreement of the parties. This reports raises with Council the draft MOU and seeks a recommendation which provides for the Council representatives on the taskforce to finalise the draft MOU. Upon finalisation a subsequent report would be provided to Council seeking its resolution to execute the Memorandum of Understanding. Green Wedge Plan The preparation of the Green Wedge Plan would be a task completed by a multidisciplinary team of consultants engaged to provide a strategy for managing the area located outside the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) [the study area]. The small area located on the eastern side



161

of the Mornington Peninsula Freeway adjacent to Thompson Road and Learmonth Road is excluded from this work given its detachment from the broader study area. The brief as drafted requires the selected consultants to carry out the following tasks:

• Undertaking a detailed literature review to understand the work previously completed in the study area.

• Conducting a current analysis of land use activity undertaken in the study area. • Undertaking comprehensive survey work of existing land owners within and

residents adjacent to the study area. • Discussions with key State Government Departments and Agencies regarding the

future planning of the area. • Preparation of a draft and final Report with detailed recommendations regarding

the future planning for the study area. At this time it is envisaged that a draft report could be finalised by the end of the calendar year for further consideration by Council provided the process of engaging a consultant can occur within the timelines outlined below. Selection of consultant Council has previously appointed a panel of consultants to assist Council with Strategic and Statutory Planning initiatives. The consultants included on the Panel to provide Strategic Planning Services have experience in responding to briefs such as the one attached. Therefore the following process is recommended in relation to the engagement of consultant services to assist Council in developing a Green Wedge Plan: Step 1 Project Brief Inception Peter Soding and/or Trevor Budge to invite all members of Council’s Panel selected to provide assistance to Council for Strategic Planning Studies to a meeting to introduce the project brief and respond to any questions. Week of 3rd to 7th May, 2010 Step 2 Preliminary Briefing All consultants included on Council’s Panel would be formally invited to prepare a detailed response to the Project Brief. It is considered that the Panel would require a minimum 2-3 weeks to prepare a sufficiently detailed response based on the level of sub consultancy assistance potentially required. Submissions close by 28th May, 2010



162

Step 3 Evaluation Given the scale of work envisaged it will be necessary that the evaluation criteria are sufficient to determine the most appropriate submission. The brief outlines that the submissions will be assessed against the following criteria:

§ Proven ability in the development of similar or related studies and the level of knowledge and expertise relevant to the demands of this task

§ Proven ability to engage with Government and landowner stakeholders; § Innovation in the approach to developing strategies to respond to the project’s

objectives; § Ability to provide implementable recommendations which are anchored in a clear

understanding of land economics; § Proposed research methodology; § Capacity to conduct effective and productive community consultation programs; § Ability to objectively assess the feasibility of relevant land uses in the study area;

and § Price to undertake the project.

It is considered that the above evaluation criteria together with any necessary referee checks would be undertaken by the following Panel:

• Peter Soding and/or Trevor Budge • Chief Executive Officer or delegate

Administrative support would be provided by the Strategic Planning and Building Department. It is considered that the evaluation process would be completed by the 11th June, 2010 Step 4 Appointment of consultant A report would then be prepared for the June Ordinary Council Meeting on the 28th June, 2010 seeking the consent of Council to appoint a consultant and immediately commence the project. Green Wedge Plan – Councillor Representation The brief as drafted (see attachment 2) seeks to have three (3) Councillors in addition to the Mayor on the project steering committee to oversee the development of the Green Wedge Plan. These Councillors would work directly with the consultant team, Mr. Soding and Mr. Budge and the CEO or delegate to administer the preparation of the Green Wedge Plan in accordance with the project brief. It is likely that the steering committee would meet on a minimum of five (5) occasions over the period of the study. This report seeks direction from Council as to who the nominated three (3) Councillors are, to participate on the steering committee.



163

4. Conclusion This report has been prepared at the direction of the Council Green Wedge Sub-Committee regarding the preparation of a Green Wedge Plan for the area within Kingston located outside the Urban Growth Boundary. The report also updates Council on the development of a draft Memorandum of Understanding in relation to the State Government appointed Kingston Green Wedge Taskforce. 5. Recommendation 1. That Council adopt the attached Project Brief which will guide the development of a

Green Wedge Plan. 2. That Council invite submissions from the panel of consultants appointed to assist

Council in developing Strategic Planning Studies, to respond specifically to a project brief to prepare a Kingston Green Wedge Plan;

3. That a report be presented to the 28 June 2010 Ordinary Council Meeting with a

recommendation in relation to the appointment of a consultant to undertake a Green Wedge Plan.

d. That Council nominate three (3) Councillors in addition to the Mayor to be included on

the Steering Committee for the Green Wedge Plan. e. That Councillors representing Kingston on the State Government Green Wedge Task

Force continue to negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in accordance with the draft MoU attached to this report and that the final MoU be presented at a future Ordinary Council Meeting for adoption.

Attachments: Draft Kingston Green Wedge - Memorandum of Understanding Draft Project brief



164

M 62 Community Survey Results - Centre Dandenong Road Proposed Bus Lanes Approved by: Tony Rijs – General Manager Environmental Sustainability Author: Shirlene Yee Yet – Team Leader Traffic and Transport

1. Purpose To report on the outcome of the community survey and public meeting relating to VicRoads’ proposal to install bus lanes, typically on both sides of Centre Dandenong Road between Howard Road and Lower Dandenong Road in Dingley Village.

2. Background Centre Dandenong Road is a State road under the control and management of VicRoads, and is part of the principal bus network. The implementation of the full time bus lanes was part of the Victorian Government’s Keep Melbourne Moving plan. The community expressed objections and concerns about this project along with the inappropriate public consultation undertaken by VicRoads. At its February Ordinary Council Meeting, Council resolved to conduct a survey of Dingley Village residents and hold a public meeting in relation to the proposal by VicRoads to install bus lanes in Centre Dandenong Road. The public meeting/information session to discuss the proposal was held on Friday 5 March 2010 at the Kingswood Primary School, Plaza Crescent, Dingley Village. Approximately 200 residents attended this meeting. VicRoads officers provided a presentation on the operation of the bus lanes and the impact on Centre Dandenong Road. Residents in Dingley were mailed out a survey form which closed on 10 March 2010.

3. Summary and Conclusion 2,850 letters were sent out, with 685 respondents to the survey. 92 % did not support the bus lanes versus 8 % in favour. At the community meeting there were approximately 200 residents and the overall feeling of the meeting was that the project should not proceed.

The Government has deferred the project until the section of the Dingley Arterial between Perry Road and Springvale Road is completed, which is expected to be in 2012. A copy of advice from the Minister for Roads and Ports is attached. In consideration of the low level of community consultation, it is suggested that VicRoads be requested to fully engage with Council and the local community on any future pursuit of this project.



165

4. Community Survey Results The community survey was undertaken over the period 26 February to 10 March 2010. A total of 2,865 survey forms were delivered to the residents and businesses of Dingley Village. Responses were received from 685 residents – a 24% response rate which is high for such surveys. A copy of the survey letter to residents, survey form and supporting information is appended to this report. A summary of the survey results are as follows, along with an overview of the individual comments received: Total No Posted 2,865 Total No Received 683 23.9% Yes 55 8.03% No 630 91.97%

Opposed

No. % Increased traffic congestion/delays 182 28.89% Delays 2 0.32% Increased traffic/Accidents 17 2.70% Reduced roadway capacity 6 0.95% Restricted local access 59 9.37% Not warranted 92 14.60% Lack of Study Results? 9 1.43% Delay until Dingley Arterial complete 20 3.17% Insufficient Road Width 11 1.75% Pedestrian crossing safety 4 0.63% Other 26 4.13% Blank (No comment) 202 32.06% Total 630 100.00%

In Favour No. %

Blank (No comment) 41 74.55% Improve public transport 3 5.45% Improve Pedestrian/vehicle safety 1 1.82% Delay until Dingley By-Pass complete 5 9.09% Other 5 9.09% Total 55 100.00%

“Increased traffic congestion/delays” (29%) was given as the major reason for opposing the proposal followed by “Not Warranted/ Lack of Study Results (justification)” (16%), “Restricted Local Access” (9%), “Increased traffic/Accidents” (3%), “Delay until Dingley Arterial complete” (3%), “Reduced Roadway/ Insufficient Road Width (3%).



166

“Improvements to public transport” (5%) was was given as the major reason for supporting the proposal followed by “Improve Pedestrian/vehicle safety” (1%). A number (9%) of respondents indicated their support of the proposal subject to prior completion of the Dingley By-Pass.

6. Community Meeting Outcome The requested community meeting was held on Friday, 5 March 2010, at the Kingswood Primary School. The meeting was attended by approximately 200 residents, many councillors and local MPs. Comments from the meeting align with the outcome of the community survey. Notes from the meeting are attached for Councillors information. There was a strong feeling from the meeting that the project should not proceed.

7. Triple Bottom Line Checklist

• Environmental – N/A • Social - N/A • Financial - N/A

8. Recommendation That Council resolve to: 1. Request that VicRoads fully engage with Council and the local community if they

pursue the project in the future, mindful of the strong community concern with the proposed bus lanes along Centre Dandenong Road.

2. Forward to VicRoads for their information and follow up on relevant items, the outcome of Council’s survey and notes from the public meeting appended to this report.

3. Advise respondents to the survey of Council’s deliberations on this matter in writing and this report and attachments be made available on Council’s website

Attachments 1. Resident survey correspondence 2. Resident survey plan of distribution area 3. Notes from public meeting 4. Letter from Minister for Roads and Ports



167

10. Community Sustainability Reports M 63 Poseidon Angling Club

Approved by: Mauro Bolin – General Manager - Community Sustainability Author: Nigel Brown – Team Leader Sport and Recreation 1. Purpose This report presents potential future tenancy options for the Poseidon Angling Club. It seeks endorsement of the recommendation to communicate Council’s position to Poseidon Angling Club regarding access to community facilities within Kingston. 2. Background Kingston City Council is committed to providing “Quality community facilities that are accessible, safe and well utilised.” (Outcome 1.3 Council Plan 2009-2013). The Poseidon Angling Club has occupied a community facility in Carrum Roy Dore Reserve, for the past ten years via a Council lease. The current lease expires on 30 June 2010. This building formerly served as a shooting range and as such has not been designed to meet the needs of a community recreation group for meeting space. Following routine building condition investigations of the club’s facilities in 2009, the current facility was deemed unacceptable for occupation. With some minor “make safe” amendments and restricted operating conditions, the club have been allowed to occupy the facility until the end of their current lease. Given the extent of structural and general building condition concerns expressed by the Municipal Building Surveyor and the Community Buildings department, it is not considered appropriate to re-lease this facility to any community group in the future. In communicating these findings to the club, Council officers made an offer to provide their best efforts to assist the club in finding an alternative venue for their activities. The Poseidon Angling Club provides recreational fishing opportunities for a wide catchment within the Melbourne metropolitan area and is active in the community through their fundraising efforts. 3. Summary and Conclusion The Poseidon Angling Club’s current facilities at Carrum Roy Dore Reserve are beyond feasible repair and need to be decommissioned in the short term. Provision of a new stand alone facility on existing open space is not proposed to be financially feasible. The best opportunity for alternative facilities within Kingston, which meets the clubs stated requirements, is a co-location with existing tenants at La Baracca on Heatherton Recreation Reserve. Issues 4. Consultation Council officers have been involved in numerous discussions with club members and have facilitated a number of site visits to view prospective alternative facilities. There have also



168

been informal discussions with the Victorian Multi-cultural Commission about potential funding assistance connected with an alternative facility. 5. Issues 5.1 Kingston community benefit Poseidon Angling Club has a large membership base of between 300-500 members, of which about 100-150 are active members participating in regular club activities. Their usual activities consist of a monthly club meeting, and weekend competitions during the recreational fishing season. The membership is drawn from persons of predominately Greek background, who are scattered throughout metropolitan Melbourne. Based on membership details provided by the club the proportion of members residing in Kingston is approximately 18%, followed by Monash 13.8%; Manningham 8.0%; Darebin 7.8%; Glen Eira 7.5%. There is also significant membership numbers drawn from Greater Dandenong, Whittlesea, Whitehorse and Moreland (combined 19.4%), with smaller membership numbers from a further 20 Melbourne metropolitan Council areas. Other than the historical occupation of the building at Roy Dore Reserve, the club have no particular affinity with the Kingston area. The club are involved with local fundraising activities connected to their major competition, the Port Phillip Bay Snapper Challenge held annually in November. Once again these activities are not dependent or linked specifically to the Kingston community. 5.2 Current Facilities The Poseidon Angling Club currently occupies a facility at Carrum Roy Dore Reserve. The facility sits independently from the other sports related infrastructure at the reserve close to its northern boundary. Originally occupied by a sports shooting club, it was occupied by Poseidon Angling Club who have adapted the building to meet their own needs. The facility has a very poor external appearance and is not appropriately located within the reserve. The absence of appropriate parking options, results in the reserves open space area being used to accommodate parking requirements for the club. In early 2009, building condition reports indicated that a minimum of $229,000 was required to address immediate safety standards. This did not include any scope for upgrades, cosmetic or functional improvements. Officers are of the opinion that given the building condition and associated cost of repairs, that the building should not be occupied long term and should be decommissioned. It is already operating under restricted access to address the safety issues raised. Given the history of the buildings use, the demolition of the site may need to take account of specific environmental considerations and could cost up to $40,000 to demolish. 5.3 Alternative Facilities The club have indicated that any alternative facility would need to be able to accommodate meeting / dining space for 100 persons, have access to reasonable cooking facilities and include storage for tables and chairs. Car parking for around 50 cars close to the facility was requested. Club identity is important to the group and they would like a place where they can display their own memorabilia in a permanent fashion.



169

Council officers facilitated tours of a number of existing Council facilities and discussed opportunities to develop a new facility on existing open space. The offer of co-locating with other groups at existing facilities was initially rejected by the club due to concerns over storage and sharing facilities with other groups. Of these shared facility alternatives, La Baracca offered the best fit with the clubs expressed needs. A review of existing open space parcels in Council control identified significant issues with a number of potential sites, particularly in relation to former landfill uses. Under current building regulations, a stand alone facility would need to meet the requirements of a Class 9b building to ensure that the facility can be occupied and used in the manner needed by the club. This requires a specific engineering design for the building, insulation, access to toilet facilities, disability access, exit doors and lighting. These requirements would contribute significant costs to establishing a new facility and have ongoing maintenance implications for Council. The cost of establishing a new facility has been estimated at minimum $275,000 (for a relocatable type facility) with a more significant structure costing around $550,000. The land site used for this type of facility would also need to be suitable from a technical perspective i.e. ground stability and from a land use perspective. The Victorian Multi-Cultural Commission has indicated its support for the club in accessing up to $20,000 in grant funds to address any storage deficiencies identified at an existing Council facility. 6. Options 1. Council not renew the current lease and advise Poseidon Angling Club that they must vacate the building as at 30 June 2010. Council communicate that no additional alternative options are available within Kingston. 2. Council not renew the current lease and advise Poseidon Angling Club that they must vacate the building as at 30 June 2010. Council communicate that the only additional alternative option available within Kingston is to undertake a shared usage arrangement at La Baracca Club (Heatherton Recreation Reserve). 3. Poseidon Angling Club submits a proposal for an alternative stand alone facility that is fully funded by the club and not subject to financial support from Council. Approval for any alternative site would be required by Council and subject to the suitability of the site for the club’s activities. 7. Triple Bottom Line Checklist

• Environmental – The existing clubrooms at Carrum Roy Dore Reserve are visually unappealing and structurally flawed. Removal of these buildings will improve the overall amenity of the reserve and will facilitate the introduction of an indigenous vegetation corridor in the north of the reserve, contributing to the overall health and quality of the vegetation on the reserve.

• Social – Poseidon Angling Club provide recreational fishing opportunities for a wide

catchment. Their activities are not directly linked to their current location within



170

Kingston. Relocation of the club to more suitable facilities whether within Kingston or not is unlikely to impact on their membership or the activities they provide.

• Financial – Establishment of a new facility, that meet the needs of the club, on

existing open space is likely to cost at least $275,000, providing a suitable site could be found. Development of a new facility would require an ongoing financial commitment from Council to maintain the facility in some capacity as part of its overall provision of a community building network. Co-location of the club with another tenant in an existing community facility would require minimal financial outlay and there is a strong likelihood of external funding support to facilitate this outcome.

8. Recommendation That Council resolve: 1. To decommission the existing Poseidon Angling Club facilities at the end of the club’s

current lease on 30 June 2010; 2. To offer Poseidon Angling Club the opportunity to co-locate their activities with La

Baracca at Heatherton Recreation Reserve and that Council officers work with the clubs to facilitate this outcome, including formally approaching the Victorian Multi-Cultural Commission in support of the club accessing up to $20,000 in grant funds to address any storage deficiencies identified at an existing Council facility; and

3. That any alternative re-location option will be subject to full funding by Poseidon Angling Club, suitability of the suggested site and Council approval.

Attachments: Building Condition Audits Municipal Building Surveyor Correspondence (restrictions)



171

11. Organisational Development & Governance Reports M 64 Hiring Arrangements for Minor Community Halls Approved by: Elaine Sowerby, General Manager Organisational Development

& Governance Author: Glenn Stewart, Team Leader Customer Service 1. Purpose This report responds to Councillors’ direction following a CIS report on 7 December 2009 to: • Consult with six “out of policy” user groups; and • Revise the existing Concessional Use Policy to include a clause about community

benefit and “for profit” status. 2. Background Council’s relevant policies have been inconsistently applied resulting in six users obtaining discounts to their hall hire rates which are significantly below the amount allowed by the policy and which are, in two cases, not applied to similar businesses. Two reports have been provided to Councillors in addition to prior group and individual meetings with Ward Councillors, CEO and some users. Options to address this issue, which have been discussed, include maintaining the status quo for existing hirers, implementing incremental price increases, fully implementing the relevant Council policies and developing a new policy with differential pricing. At discussions, none of these options was agreed and Councillors directed that a new clause about community benefits and “for profit” status be included in the current policy. A revised leasing policy which applies to other halls, pavilions and Council properties will be presented to Council in 2010. While the policies are separate, and relate to different buildings this policy and the leasing policy are not inconsistent. 3. Issues A number of issues have been previously raised and discussed with Councillors and these are not repeated here. New issues are: 3.1 Consultation with Users

The following seven users have been consulted – Oasis Independent Church, Paw Behaviour, Blood Bank, Baygroup (Blind Vision Group), Open Door Christian Church, Robert Z Kung Fu, Kingston U3A (new request).

Five of the users have provided a written submission. All of the users have explained the community benefit of their operation and their reliance on the discount to continue



172

their operation. Only one of the users believes that they could sustain a price increase - Paw Behaviour has suggested a 50% price increase ($50 per month) and has confirmed that existing use is limited to 4.5 hours per week and any additional hours will be an extra charge at the policy rate.

In addition, U3A have requested that they receive an additional discount to the 40% community discount which they currently receive.

A summary is included in attachment 1.

3.2 Community Benefit relating to “For Profit” Businesses

Any definition of community benefit will lack precision and have different meanings for different people. The clauses drafted in the attached policy (clauses 2, 3 & 4) attempt to mitigate this as much as possible while maintaining Councillors’ intent. In the interests of competitive neutrality and avoiding bias/conflict of interest once one type of business is assessed as having a secondary community benefit under clause 2.3 of the policy then all other businesses of the same “type” will be given the same discount, when seeking to hire one of the community halls.

3.3 Transitional Arrangements for Current Users Under the proposed policy:

• All users except for Robert Z Kung Fu who is not eligible for any discount would obtain a 40% discount. Paw Behaviour would obtain a 40% discount under clause 2.3 as long as Council considers that dog training has a secondary community benefit. This is acceptable given that dog control is a major documented priority of Council and as long as all other dog training businesses who wish to hire any of the halls are given the 40% discount.

• Blood Bank and Baygroup are eligible for Council to consider further discounts

which could maintain their current arrangements under clauses 3.1 and 3.2 respectively.

• All of the other users would still have a significant short-fall between their current

arrangement and that possible under the discount mechanism in the policy. Council still has the option however to offer “once-off” exemptions to these users and Robert Z Kung Fu. The policy base for this would be to maintain their ‘current use arrangement’.

The following table shows the gap between the current discount and that under the proposed policy; and possible transitional arrangements so that the existing arrangements continue but on a “policy basis”.



173

Existing User Current Discount

Arrangements Under New Policy Transitional Arrangement & Mechanism

Policy Status (Clause No) and

Discount

Gap ($) Per

Month

Oasis Independent Church 89% 2.1

40%

$704 The gap cannot be eliminated under the policy so eliminate it by a “one off” exemption or require to pay gap amount if they want to continue using the hall.

Paw Behaviour 88% 2.3

40%

$714 The gap cannot be eliminated under the policy so eliminate it by a “one off” exemption or require to pay gap amount if they want to continue using the hall.

Blood Bank 100% 2.2 3.1 40%

$118.80 Eliminate gap by offering a further discount under clause 3.1of the proposed policy which will bring them to their current level.

Baygroup (Blind Vision Group) 69% 2.1 3.2 40%

$118.80 Eliminate gap by offering a further discount under clause 3.2of the proposed policy which will bring them to their current level.

Open Door Christian Church 59% 2.1

40%

$849.20 The gap cannot be eliminated under the policy so eliminate it by a “one off” exemption or require to pay gap amount if they wants to continue using the hall.

Robert Z Kung Fu 72% 4.1

Nil

$1073.60 The gap cannot be eliminated under the policy so eliminate it by a “one off” exemption or require to pay gap amount if they want to continue using the hall.

Kingston U3A (new request) 40% 2.1 3.2

80% for 12 months

N/A 40% discount under 2.1 and a further 40% discount under 3.2.

3.4 Separate U3A Request at AT Neiman Hall

The U3A programs are offered at AT Neiman Hall in support of the Chelsea Renewal Program. Discussions with the Project Manager, Chelsea Community Renewal Program have indicated that the U3A programs are targeted to disadvantaged individuals on low incomes and, as such, a further discount could be possible under clause 3.2 of the proposed policy. The project manager has suggested that a further discount apply for 12 months and be tied to U3A being flexible about their upfront membership payments from participants. An 80% discount is proposed for 12 months



174

from 31 May 2010 subject to U3A allowing progressive payment of their upfront membership fees for participants attending courses at AT Neiman Hall.

3.5 Alignment with Leasing Policy

The proposed policy aligns the hire of the community halls to the leasing policy by requiring use to be documented by a lease, licence or casual hiring agreement. This means that those users who are on “annual hiring” will move to licences and be regulated by the conditions of that licence, subject to the fee discounts under this policy.

4. Consultation Consultation with all directly affected hirers occurred in January and February 2010. The result of the consultation with the hirers is outlined in 5.1 below.

5. Options The options here relate only to the transitional arrangements for existing users:

5.1 Apply the new policy and ask relevant groups to fund the gap between the policy and

their current discount. Gaps apply to Oasis Independent Church, Paw Behaviour and Open Door Christian Church.

5.2 Make all of the existing users “exemptions” to the policy. Council would approve the

individual current arrangements as a separate recommendation in the Council Report which proposes approval of the new policy. The exception could be for a limited number of years or for as long as the user continues using the hall.

6 Triple Bottom Line Checklist • Environmental

Not applicable.

• Social While the halls are not major operational facilities they provide the community with low cost accommodation for a range of community activities and social opportunities.

• Financial

Any option which requires existing users to pay the gap would increase income by $45,566 assuming all users elect to do this. If all users find alternative venues the income loss would be $29,690 unless new hirers can be found to offset this shortfall.

The proposed recommendation will result in a $2,288 loss of income as a result of U3A’s increased discount. In addition moving existing users to licence agreements will maintain income consistently through the year as users will not be able to cancel sessions assuming they elect this arrangement.

7. Summary and Conclusion This report facilitates Councillors’ direction by proposing that:



175

1. Council approves a revised policy which introduces a 40% discount to

commercial business activities which have a community benefit and will apply to all users from 31 May 2010;

2. Council approves further discounts and exemptions for existing users to maintain their current fees. Two of these further discounts will be “in policy” where all of the others will be specific exemptions to the policy.

8. Recommendation That Council resolve to: 1. Approve the attached Community Hall Use policy for all existing and new users from

31 May 2010. 2. Approve further discounts under the Community Hall Use Policy for the following

groups which maintains their existing use and financial arrangements: Blood Bank 100% discount Baygroup 69% discount 3. Approve the following exemptions for the time that the users wish to continue hiring the

hall: Paw Behaviour 88% Discount

Oasis Independent Church 89% Discount Open Door Christian Church 59% Discount Robert Z Kung Fu 72% Discount

Any additional hours that these groups wish to hire the halls will be at the policy rate not their discounted rate.

4. The discount applying to U3A for the use of AT Neiman Hall be increased from 40% to

80%, for a period of 12 months from 31 May 2010 provided the users at AT Neiman Hall can pay their membership progressively.

Attachments: Attachment 1: Summary of Discussions with Hirers Attachment 2: Community Hall Use Policy



176

M 65 Use of Office Based Meeting Rooms Policy Approved by: Elaine Sowerby, General Manager Organisational Development

& Governance Author: Jason Stubbs, Manager Governance and Performance Planning

1 Purpose The purpose of the report is to adopt a policy for the use of Office Based Meeting Rooms.

2 Background 2.1 Types of Use There are 3 categories of use which have been defined in relation to use of meeting rooms. 2.1.1 Council and Organisational Use - related to the Functioning of Council

2.2.1.1. Civic events funded and run by Council such as Australia Day, School Principal breakfast – i.e. an officer in attendance supporting the event.

2.2.1.2. Council and organisational business meetings such as CIS, MP breakfast, consultation meetings/forums, organisational forums and training.

2.1.2 Community Use - Community Events and Meetings 2.2.1.3. Run by a social not for profit group providing a community service. The

purpose of the meeting is for the group to undertake their usual activities or service. E.g. Rotary/Lions club meetings, Community Groups AGM’s.

2.1.3 Private Use 2.2.1.4. Individual Private Event for example parties, MP/Councillor/Employees

holding a private function 2.2.1.5. Business Category for commercial users running paid services or activities.

May have a spin off/Secondary community benefit but the main activity is making a profit.

2.2 Private Use As previously discussed, free private use by councillors, or employees would breach the Local Government Act sections 76BA and 76D, and is also likely be seen as inappropriate by the community and media. The attached policy does not provide for such use even at full cost recovery. 2.3 Resourcing At present Council is not resourced to support opening Council Office Based Meeting rooms to general access. The logistics to book meetings, security and duty manager would need to be reviewed if a decision to allow access was made. Indicative costs would be around $70 for weekdays and $105 weekends to be added to any venue hire costs for labour components. Security is required to be paid in a minimum block of 4 hours. 2.4 Benchmarking Other municipalities were contacted to determine how they handle access to meeting rooms located within their municipal/civic offices. Of the eight councils who responded only two allowed access to their office based meeting rooms and these were separated from the main offices. They both had a minimum 3 hour hire with some form of direct duty officer support.



177

The majority of those responding did not allow any form of community use of their civic centre/main office meeting rooms, referring the community to other facilities or venues. 2.5 Legal Issues The current use permitted for the building is Offices. Permission has not been granted to change use of 1230 to permit access outside Council and organisational use. Legal advice is that under the Occupational Health and Safety Act Council must be concerned with all users not just employees. A detailed risk assessment of the venues would be required if access to private and community users was granted to ensure that as far as ‘reasonably practicable’ risks are eliminated or controlled and fines in the vicinity of $1 million mitigated. It is likely that external groups would be required to have their own public liability insurance in place to protect Council. 2.6 Cheltenham and Mentone Offices It is not proposed to offer broad access to 1230 Nepean Highway or Brindisi Street Mentone at this stage. The meeting rooms are co-mingled with office areas which would require access to multiple floors within the building. The meeting rooms are generally required for organisational use during the week and there is a risk of damage or issues occurring on the weekend through other use which would impact operational use. Permitted use is currently restricted in the lease to Offices.

3. Summary and Conclusion This report recommends adoption of a policy to limit access to meeting rooms in office based locations (Nepean Highway and Brindisi Street) to Council and Organisational Use. This clarifies and documents the general current practice. Broad access to the public for rooms is seen as a potential risk to daily operations, and there are a number of other facilities that community and private use can be directed toward. It is proposed that Council approve the Policy including any further amendments required.

4. Consultation Consultation has been undertaken with Councillors, Customer Service Team Leader, General Manager Corporate Services, Manager Leisure and Culture, Manager Property Services and Civic Facilities Officer. Property Services have also consulted ING about changes to the lease.

5. Issues

5.1 Impact on Current Users Only two groups are currently allowed access and these use the venue free of charge and provide no insurances or agreements. These groups will be directed towards other Council venues which have been set up to cater for community access. Having a consistent policy approach will mitigate future pressure to allow one off groups access to Council Office Based Meeting rooms.



178

5.2 Alternative Venues There are alternative Council venues/facilities which groups could be directed to if they wish to hold low cost meetings that do not have the same restrictions on security and staffing as office based meeting rooms. Alternative venues include Library Meeting Rooms, Clarinda Community Centre and Minor Halls. Venue hire across these venues is from $5.50 to $35 per hour during the day depending on the space required. Further discounts to these groups is available via Concessional Use policy or by Council decision.

6. Options For access to meeting rooms in Council offices there are several possible options to guide policy development: 6.1 Adopt the policy as provided and allow only Council and organisational use as defined

in section 2.1.1. There would be no need for additional terms and conditions of hire or additional labour costs as this would equate to the current functioning of Council and organisational use. This would be the least cost administratively to manage and would generally support the status quo apart from a few isolated ‘private’ or community uses in the past. Those impacted would be redirected to other Council facilities for their annual meetings. This option is generally the existing practice.

6.2. Allow use by community groups as defined in 2.1.2 on the basis of full or subsidised

cost recovery subject to no interference in Council activities. This option would allow for the recovery of additional costs associated with security and duty manager for community group meetings/functions. This would likely limit any community or private uptake in room use due to cost. The booking process may also limit some Council activities such as special Council meetings which are called at limited notice where a community group has booked the space during weekdays. This option does not include private use.

6.3. Allow use as outlined in option 6.2 plus allow full use including private functions. This

would require security staff and duty manager roles to be employed. This option would be the most high risk use of office based meeting rooms as private functions would be more likely to have alcohol being served. Officers have strong reservations about allowing this type of use. It is the least preferred and highest risk option.

7 Triple Bottom Line Checklist • Environmental – outside normal hours use would utilise a small amount of additional

energy and water. • Social –. OHS and Public Liability issues would need to be addressed. Currently lack of

site control and no formal usage agreement in place for meetings where no officers present. Risk issues associated with insurance, permission from the owners, potential alcohol and access to the balcony, need to be mitigated. Cost recovery of labour and security components will make the venue prohibitive to hirers, and potentially not cost competitive. Access to alternative venues exists for community hirers

• Financial - potential additional costs for security, cleaning and outgoing costs not able to be recovered from users. Costs for administering a casual Duty Manager pool to



179

supplement the Council Facilities Officer. Potential impacts on Council Business should a venue be damaged during a function making it unavailable on a Monday (or other day) for operational uses. If full cost recovery was supported, a minor revenue stream would be generated for the hire cost of the venue.

8. Recommendation That Council: 1 Adopt the Use of Office Based Meeting Room Policy. 2 Provide approval for the two groups that currently use Nepean Highway to be given

access to other locations at a 100% discount under the Concessional Use Policy to maintain their current use arrangement.

Attachment: Use of Office Based Meeting Room Policy



180

M 66 Review of Councillor Support and Expenditure Policy Approved by: Elaine Sowerby, General Manager Organisational Development

& Governance Author: Michael Fry, Team Leader Council Business

1. Purpose The purpose of the report is to adopt the revised Councillor Support and Expenditure Policy (“the Revised Policy”).

2. Background The Councillor Support and Expenditure Policy was adopted by Council on 25 May 2009, with a review date set for May 2010. Since its adoption, Councillors have informally agreed to: • incorporate the formalisation of the Council’s current practice and processes with

respect to the Mayoral Gift; • the publication of Councillors’ expenses on Council’s website on a quarterly basis.

A benchmarking exercise undertaken with various other councils has identified that publication of Councillors’ expenses on the Council’s website and in its Annual Report is sector best practice.

3. Summary and Conclusion It is proposed that Council approve the Revised Policy incorporating the amendments previously identified.

4. Consultation Councillors have been consulted in relation to this matter and it was agreed:

“To formalise the Council’s current practice of contributing up to $500 to the provision of a gift to the outgoing Mayor, as part of the May review of the Councillor Support and Expenditure Policy. To put in place the necessary procedures to enable Councillor expenses to be published quarterly on the Council’s website.”

5. Issues The Revised Policy includes the following additions: • Mayoral Gift section (refer to clause 9.3.4); and • Publication section (refer to end of Clause 9 ‘Procedures’). With regard to the publication of Councillor Expenditure on the Council’s website on a quarterly basis and annually in the Annual Report, it is proposed that this be broken down into specific categories as follows:



181

• Councillor and Mayoral Allowance • Training, Conferences and Education • Travel Intrastate • Overseas and Interstate Travel • Communications • Other Expenses The publication of Councillor Expenses, while not required under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1989, is considered to be best practice across the local government sector. It is also an issue regularly identified by the Ombudsman Victoria in reports to Parliament, and which Council has been periodically requested to provide by external organisations. The Council’s current approach to recording Councillor Expenditure is fragmented and not easily drawn together. Irrespective of the proposed policy amendment, processes to record Councillor expenditure centrally will be put in place for the new financial year.

6. Options There are two options. 1 Not review the policy, however Councillors have previously agreed to undertake this

review and to publish expenses. 2 Review the policy as previously agreed by Council. The Revised Policy, as drafted,

includes the Mayoral Gift and publication of Councillor expenses.

7 Triple Bottom Line Checklist • Environmental – Not applicable. • Social – The publication of Councillor expenditure will ensure openness and

transparency and be in accordance with sector best practice. • Financial – The system of recording Councillor Expenditures across the Organisation is

being undertaken.

8. Recommendation That Council: 1. adopt the revised Councillor Support and Expenditure Policy, which includes reference

to the Mayoral Gift and Publication of Councillor Expenses; and 2. approve the proposed categories for Councillor Expenses and their publication on

Council’s website on a quarterly basis and annually in the Annual Report as from the first quarter of 2010/2011.

Attachment: Draft Review of Councillor Support and Expenditure Policy (TRIM: 10/29935)



182

M 67 Protocols for Councillor Candidates in State/Federal Elections Policy

Approved by: Elaine Sowerby, General Manager Organisational Development

& Governance Author: Jason Stubbs, Manager Governance and Performance Planning

1. Purpose The purpose of the report is to seek Council adoption of the MAV protocols for Councillor Candidates in State and Federal Elections as Council Policy.

2. Background The MAV have developed protocols for Councillor Candidates in State and Federal Elections for use across the sector due to the timing of both State and Federal elections due in 2010. These protocols provide support to Councils, and Councillors that are candidates in State or Federal elections to ensure the perception of politicisation of local government is minimised. The MAV recommends that Councils, at a minimum, adopt their guidelines as part of the Code of Conduct or to supplement the Code.

3. Summary and Conclusion It is proposed that Council adopt the MAV guidelines for Councillor Candidates in State and Federal Elections as attached and amended to reflect a supplement to Councils Code of Conduct as recommended by the MAV.

4. Consultation Councillors and Senior Officers have been consulted in relation to the MAV protocols.

5. Issues There is no legal requirement to adopt any guidelines however it is considered to represent an appropriate goverance response.

The following issues for the guidelines were raised by the MAV:

The perception of the politicisation of local government resulting from councillors running for office in state or federal parliament is a contentious issue in Victoria.

Councillors are elected to perform their duties in a lawful manner and must comply with relevant provisions of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act) including the rules of conduct that require councillors to act honestly and to exercise reasonable care and diligence in performing the role of a councillor. The rules also provide that it is an offence if a councillor makes improper use of his/her position or of information acquired because of his/her position to, inter alia, gain or attempt to gain, directly or indirectly, an advantage for him/herself or for any other person.



183

6. Options There are two options. 1 Not adopt the MAV protocols. 2 Adopt the MAV protocols as Council Policy.

7. Triple Bottom Line Checklist • Environmental – Not applicable. • Social – adoption of the protocols will ensure openness and transparency. • Financial – Not applicable.

8. Recommendation That Council adopt a supplement to the Code of Conduct as attached providing guidelines for Councillor Candidates in State and Federal Elections. Attachment: Supplement to Code of Conduct - Guidelines for Councillor Candidates in State and Federal Elections



184

Supplement to Code of Conduct – Guidelines for Councillor Candidates in State and Federal Elections Guidelines

1. When a councillor becomes an endorsed candidate for a state or federal election

he/she should advise the CEO, in writing, as soon as practicable.

2. Any councillor who is a candidate for state or federal election should declare this at a

meeting of the council as soon as practicable after the nomination date.

3. Any councillor / staff relationship protocol should apply from the nomination date, with

additional provisions if necessary e.g. council information requested by a councillor

candidate should be directed to the CEO; all contact with council officers should be

through the CEO or his/her nominee/s.

4. Media protocols should be enforced: councillor speaking on council issues as a

candidate in an election should clearly identify this fact; where a councillor

misrepresents the council position in election commentary, the mayor or CEO should

make a public comment clarifying the position of the council.

5. The councillor must not use council resources, including council equipment and

facilities in relation to his/her candidacy.



185

M 68 2010 ALGA National General Assembly - Motion Approved by: Elaine Sowerby, General Manager Organisational Development

& Governance Author: Michael Fry, Team Leader Council Business

1. Purpose The purpose of the report is to adopt a proposed motion for submission to and consideration by the ALGA for its 2010 National General Assembly of Local Government and agree Council’s representation at the Assembly.

2. Background The ALGA’s National General Assembly will be held at the National Convention Centre in Canberra from 14 to 17 June 2010. The ALGA has advised that the deadline for the lodging of motions is 5.00pm on Friday, 30 April, 2010. Council’s are invited to lodge motions only in relation to three identified themes being Population, Productivity and Participation – the three themes identified in the recently released Intergenerational Report (IGR3). It should be noted that the next Plenary meeting of the Australian Council of Local Government (the Mayors from across the country meeting with the Prime Minister and ministers) will immediately follow the NGA in Canberra on 17 and 18 June 2010.

3. Summary and Conclusion It is proposed that Council submit a motion to the National General Assembly and approve the attendance of the Mayor, up to two Councillors and the Chief Executive Officer.

4. Consultation Councillors have been consulted in relation to any proposed motions.

5. Issues 5.1 Motions Discussion and debate at the NGA will focus around the three themes of productivity, population and participation “the 3 Ps” and Councils are invited to submit motions for consideration at the NGA. The Council is proposing to submit one motion in relation to the ‘population’ theme. A copy of the proposed motion will be circulated to all Councillors prior to the meeting. The Board of the ALGA is not bound by any resolutions arising out of the National General Assembly.



186

5.2 Timeline and Process for Submission The ALGA has advised that its deadline for the submission of motions is 5.00pm on Friday, 30 April 2009. The ALGA has advised that to be eligible for inclusion in the National General Assembly Business Papers, motions must: 1. fall under one of the three identified themes; 2. be relevant to the work of local government nationally; 3. complement or build on the policy objectives of state or territory association; and 4. have the endorsement of either full council and/or the Mayor/Chairman, where

appropriate powers are delegated. 5.3 Kingston’s Representatives With respect to attendance at the National General Assembly, Council’s practice is that the incumbent Mayor, accompanied by either the CEO or the relevant General Manager attend. In the past other Councillors have also attended the Assembly. The practice of Mayor attending the NGA is further supported by the conduct of the Plenary meeting of the Australian Council of Local Government (the Mayors from across the country meeting with the Prime Minister and ministers) immediately following the NGA in Canberra on 17 and 18 June 2010.

7 Triple Bottom Line Checklist • Environmental – Not applicable. • Social - Not applicable. • Financial - Not applicable.

8. Recommendation That Council: 1. adopt the motion around the theme of population for submission to the ALGA’s 2010

National General Assembly of Local Government; 2. approve the attendance of the Mayor (Cr Staikos) and Councillor/s ______________ to

the ALGA’s 2010 National General Assembly of Local Government, to be held in Canberra from 14 to 17 June 2010;

3. approve the Mayor’s attendance at the Plenary meeting of the Australian Council of Local Government which will immediately follow the NGA in Canberra on 17 and 18 June 2010.



187

M 69 Expenditure of Ward Funds Schedule Approved by: Elaine Sowerby, General Manager Organisational Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It should be noted that the policy also enables a Ward Councillor to propose that his / her ward funds be expended outside of the Councillor’s specific ward, provided that the ward funds are expended for the benefit of the Kingston community, and that one or more of the criteria set out above are met. The table below lists the Councillor requests for the expenditure of ward funds received since the last Ordinary Council Meeting.



188

Table of Councillor requests:

Councillor Ward Initiative Request Date

Amount $

Mayor

Cr Staikos

North Kingston Multicultural Senior Citizens Group Operating Costs - Public Liability Insurance

06/04/2010 769.89

Mayor

Cr Staikos

North Micaela Butland Support for Kenya Trip

6/04/2010 * 50

Cr Athanasopoulos

North Micaela Butland Support for Kenya Trip

6/04/2010 * 50

Cr Bauer South Micaela Butland Support for Kenya Trip

6/04/2010 * 50

Cr Shewan South Micaela Butland Support for Kenya Trip

6/04/2010 * 50

Cr West Central Micaela Butland Support for Kenya Trip

6/04/2010 * 100

Cr West Central Cheltenham RSL Provision of Community Bus for ANZAC Day (transport cadets)

3/04/2010 140

Cr Brownlees Central Southern United Hockey Club Inc Operating Expenses

19/04/2010 300

Cr Bauer South Aspendale Seniors Club Operating costs and prizes – Seniors Talent Quest

19/04/2010 300

Cr Bauer South Chelsea RSL ANZAC Day / Welfare Fund

19/04/2010 200

Cr Bauer South Aspendale Edithvale RSL ANZAC Day / Welfare Fund

19/04/2010 200



189

[Note: * Pledge payable upon notification and confirmation that the Kenya Trip is funded and proceeding.] Recommendation That Council approve the expenditure of ward funds in accordance with the table of Councillor requests.



190

M 70 City Historian 2010 Annual Report Approved by: Elaine Sowerby, General Manager Organisational Development

and Governance Author: Jason Stubbs, Manager Governance and Performance Planning

1. Purpose The purpose of this report is to present the 2010 Annual Report of the City of Kingston’s City Historian, Dr Graham J Whitehead, and inform Council on progress in documenting, preserving and providing access to our City’s history. 2. Background Since his appointment in January 1998 the City Historian has continued to fulfil the goals established by the Council, to: • Maintain and extend an historical website; • Research local history; • Develop historical databases; • Work with the historical societies and assist others undertake their own research into

aspects of Kingston’s historical past; and • Make the City of Kingston’s history more accessible to groups and individuals. 3. Issues The website now contains 479 articles dealing with the land and environment, historical features, events in the past and people who have contributed to how we are today. Twenty six new articles were added during the year, the titles of each being listed in the Annual Report, together with the names of their authors. In total fifty eight individual authors have contributed articles to the website. The report details the people who have made valuable contributions to the work of researching and recording our history and of council officers who play a vital part in the facilitation of the operation. Without the contribution of all these people progress would have been less significant. Of particular note is the large number of websites which link back to the Kingston Historical Website or cite articles posted there. These include sites in Japan, Romania, Netherlands, England and the USA. The two major photographic databases continue to grow, with the Leader Collection now containing 17,923 images and the Kingston Collection has reached 4,874 images. The City Historian continues to work with the three historical societies within the City of Kingston and chair the Historical Societies Network which meets regularly, in order to facilitate the sharing of ideas and notices of coming events. The City Historian also undertakes several speaking engagements throughout the year to talk about Kingston’s rich and diverse history.



191

4. Triple Bottom Line Not applicable. 5. Recommendation That: 1. the City’s voluntary historian, Dr Graham J Whitehead, be thanked for his report and his

on-going contribution to the community; and 2. the report be noted. Attachment: 1. Annual Report of City Historian to Council 2010.



192

M 71 MAV Substitute Representative - 28 May 2010 State Council Meeting Approved by: Elaine Sowerby, General Manager Organisational Development

and Governance Author: Michael Fry, Team Leader Council Business

1. Purpose The purpose of this report is to propose that a substitute MAV representative be appointed for the upcoming MAV State Council meeting on 28 May 2010. 2. Background The MAV State Council meeting will take place on Friday, 28 May 2010 at which time Councillor representatives from all members Councils will vote on a range of motions put forward to that meeting. The MAV Rules specify that only the Council appointed representative (or the substitute representative) is able to vote at meetings of the State Council. The Council on 14 December 2009, appointed Cr Athanasopoulos as the Council’s appointed MAV representative, with Cr West as the substitute representative. 3. Issues Neither of Council’s appointed representatives is attending the meeting of the MAV State Council on 28 May 2010. Officers have confirmed with the MAV that, in accordance with the MAV Rules, if a substitute Councillor to Kingston’s existing Council appointed representatives is to be able to vote at the MAV State Council meeting, a resolution of Ordinary Council appointing that Councillor as the Council’s substitute representative will be required. Accordingly, it is proposed that the Council appoint the Mayor, Cr Staikos, as its substitute MAV representative to enable the Mayor to vote on motions at the MAV’s State Council meeting on 28 May 2010. 4. Triple Bottom Line Not applicable. 5. Recommendation That the Council resolve to appoint the Mayor, Cr Staikos, as its substitute representative to the MAV for the State Council meeting to he held on Friday 28 May 2010.



193

12. Corporate Services Reports M 72 Section 223 Committee report on Proposed Discontinuance

of Road abutting Stanley Avenue, Cheltenham Approved by: Paul Franklin, General Manager Corporate Services Author: Newton Gatoff, Acting Manager Property Services

1. Purpose To present to Council the report of a Committee of Council established pursuant to section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 (“the Act”), to consider one submission (attachment 1) in relation to the proposed discontinuance of the road abutting 2-10 Stanley Avenue and 1 – 11 Elman Road, Cheltenham for incorporation into the Stanley Avenue Reserve.

2. Background An investigation into the possible discontinuance and closure of the road abutting 2 to 18 Stanley Avenue and 1 to 19 Elman Road, Cheltenham, or at least the portion adjoining Council’s property at 6 to 8 Stanley Avenue for incorporation into the reserve, was first undertaken by Council in 1998. Having received objections from adjoining property owners at both ends of the subject road, the discontinuation process was abandoned. Discontinuation of the whole road was also considered during 2003 when Council received requests from adjoining owners of 2/2 Stanley Avenue and 4 Stanley Avenue to purchase the land within the subject road abutting their blocks. Officers commenced the process but the process was abandoned for the following reasons:- • Access required by 1/2 Stanley Ave • 5 Elman Road would have had to use the Council Car Park for access • Reports that pedestrians use the subject road section between Stanley Avenue Car Park

and Hoffman Street for access The possibility of discontinuation was raised during a public meeting to discuss the playground proposal at Stanley Avenue Reserve in July 2009 and a number of residents expressed their support for such a proposal. In October 2009 Officers received a request from Councillor West to re-examine the possibility of discontinuing the subject road. Council resolved at its Ordinary Council Meeting 23 November 2009 as follows: That Council:-



194

1. Commences the formal consultation with the various stakeholders and adjoining owners in relation to the proposal to discontinue: • a section of road at the rear of the Stanley Avenue Reserve • the southern section of that road that links the section marked in red with

Hoffman Avenue for the purposes of that section being incorporated into the Stanley Avenue Reserve.

2. Directs that a public notice be given of the above proposal in accordance with section

223(1) of the Local Government Act 1989. 3. Authorises the Acting Manager Property Services to carry out administrative

procedures necessary to enable Council to carry out its functions under section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989.

4. Appoint Cr West, Paul Franklin, General Manager Corporate Services and Newton

Gatoff, Acting Manager Property Services as the S223 Committee to consider any submissions and report back to Council.

Section A Proposed discontinuance with land to be retained and incorporated into the reserve

Section B Proposed discontinuance with land to be closed with bollards at Hoffman Street enabling pedestrian access only OR Land to remain as a road



195

The Committee has considered a submission from Mr Noseda from an adjoining property. Mr Noseda objected to any discontinuance of the road on the grounds that he enters the road from the north to access his property from the rear and exits from the southern end as he is unable to make a right hand turn from his property due to the presence of the library’s emergency exit ramp. Mr Noseda suggested that the existing ramp be demolished and built elsewhere which would remove his objection. Steve Perumal, Coordinator Parks Projects & Design, advised that the Landscape Concept Plan for Stanley Avenue Reserve includes a timber deck to be located at the southern end of the library. It would be possible to incorporate an emergency ramp with the deck. The proposed ramp from the timber deck which will provide a disabled emergency, exit will be required to meet legislative requirements. Council’s Traffic and Transport Department conducted tests using auto turn software and reported that the removal of the existing ramp would enable Mr Noseda to make a right hand turn and exit from the north. Mr Noseda has tested this himself and is confident that the removal of the existing ramp will solve the problem of his access.

3. Consultation Public Notice was given of the proposal to discontinue the road (attachment 2) in Leader newspapers, on Council/’s website and on site from the week beginning 1 February 2010. A week earlier 29 letters were sent to all abutting properties enclosing a survey form and a map (attachment 3). Section A refers to the land abutting Stanley Avenue Reserve and Section B to the land south of the reserve through to Hoffman Street. 11 responses were received; 7 supporting the discontinuance of both Sections A & B, 3 supporting the discontinuance of Section A only and one (the section 223 submitter) against any discontinuance. The submitter and the 3 respondents for the discontinuance of Section A only were invited to attend the s223 meeting which was held on 16 March 2010 (attachment 4). Mr Noseda attended the meeting to speak in support of his submission and Mr Roberts, also of an adjoining property, attended to express his concern about undesirable activity in Section B and his wish to purchase part or all of this section.

4. Issues • Removal of existing emergency access ramp from the eastern side of the library

building to allow Mr Noseda to exit his property from the northern end and the incorporation of a new ramp into the deck at the southern end of the building. The cost of this work will be approximately $20,000 - $25,000.

5. Conclusion The Committee has considered all submissions and has determined that following community feedback that Section A should be discontinued, the land retained and incorporated into the reserve while Section B should remain open.

6. Triple Bottom Line Checklist • Environmental – Stanley Avenue Reserve will be further enhanced by the addition of

Section A of the road. • Social – Incorporation of Section A into the Reserve will improve safety for park users.



196

• Financial – Costs for the demolition of the existing ramp and the construction of a new one.

7. Recommendation That Council resolves: 1. To discontinue and close Section A of the road in accordance with section 206 of the

Local Government Act 1989. Upon discontinuance Section A will be incorporated into Stanley Avenue Reserve.

2. To place a notice of the discontinuance in the Victoria Government Gazette. 3. To keep the road open to vehicular traffic until completion of the new deck and

emergency ramp at the southern end of the library is constructed and the existing ramp is demolished.

4. Section B not be discontinued. Attachments x 4: 1. Submission 2. Public Notice 3. Survey and Plan 4. Minutes of 223 meeting



197

M 73 Investment Policy Report – March 2010 Quarter Approved by: Paul Franklin, General Manager Corporate Services Author: Bernard Byrden, Manager Finance

1. Purpose In accordance with Council’s adopted Investment Policy, the purpose of this report is to advise Council where Kingston’s working capital is currently invested. Kingston’s funds that are not immediately required for operating purposes are invested in accordance with the relevant legislative requirements and policy requirements, with consideration of risk and at the most favourable rate of interest available to it at the time, for that investment type, while ensuring that our liquidity requirements are being met.

2. Background Council’s Investment Policy that was adopted by Council in October 2008 requires Council to be regularly updated on our investment portfolio. The Investment Policy guides how Council manages its working capital and amounts held on behalf of other parties (eg Hostel Bonds held in Trust; employee Long Service Leave entitlements) or held for restricted purposes (eg Open Space Reserve, Hostel Renewal Reserve). This report compares our investments as at 31st March 2010 compared to the overall portfolio limits specified in the Investment Policy.

3. Summary and Conclusion At the 31st March 2010 Council had a total of $45.6 million held in Cash and Investments. These funds were held in the following categories: March 2010 March 2009 Category Amount ($’000) Amount ($’000) Unrestricted Cash 20,520 20,544 Restricted Assets – Asset Development Reserve 5,004 3,379 Restricted Assets – Long Service Leave 6,500 5,500 Restricted Assets – Trust Funds and Deposits 13,599 10,333 Total 45,623 39,756

4. Discussion Cash has been invested in the following ways: March 2010 March 2009 Type of Investment Amount ($’000) Amount ($’000) Cash at Bank 1,523 4,606 Cash At Call 9,500 4,500 Funds Invested (Fixed term investments) 34,600 30,650 Total 45,623 39,756



198

Council’s had funds of $34.6 million invested as at 31st March 2010 with $20.5 million held in shorter term investments up to 3 months. The interest rates achieved as at 31st March 2010 were largely in the range of 4.95% to 6.00% p.a. The higher than normal cash held at call ($9.5 million) was due to the high at call rate we were able to get with Rabobank (AAA rated) – 4.50%p.a. The attached Investment Schedule details our investments by credit rating, by bank and by maturity and demonstrates compliance with the Investment Policy. It should be noted that the four major Australian Banks credit ratings are now AA rated and therefore we do not have 75% of our portfolio invested in AAA investments however, as stated in the policy, this is subject to availability. The schedule shows that 94% of funds are invested in AA or AAA rated investments compared to the prescribed minimum of 75%. The majority of funds are invested as follows: Westpac 29%; National Australia Bank 26%; Commonwealth Bank 22% and Bank West 17%. All are below the 60% maximum required by the Investment Policy. 100% of funds are invested for less than 1 year.

5. Portfolio Performance

AVERAGE INTEREST RATE

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

July

Augus

t

September

Octobe

r

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

Janu

ary

February

March

April

MayJu

ne

AVERAGE YTD

MONTH

INTE

RES

T R

ATE

Avg Interest Rate City of Kingston

90 Day Bank Bill Rate + 20pts

The average interest rate for the year to 31st March 2010 is 4.26% which is 40pts ahead of the average 90 Day Bank Bill Rate of 3.86% and 24pts ahead of the investment policy target of the average 90 Day Bank Bill Rate plus 20pts (4.02%).



199

INTEREST INCOME 2009/10

$-

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

July

August

Septe

mber

Octobe

r

November

December

January

Februar

y

March AprilMay

June

YTD Total

AMOUNT

MO

NTH

Actual Interest Received onInvestmentsBudgeted Interest Received onInvestments

Interest Income received on investments at 31st March 2010 totals $966k that is $411k favourable to the budget of $555k due to the higher cash holdings held and the higher than anticipated interest rates achieved on our investments.

Average Weighted Interest Rate by Institution (Fixed Term Deposits)

5.50% 5.30% 5.31% 5.52% 5.83%

3.75%

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

Bank ofCyprus

Bank West BendigoBank

NationalAustralia

Bank

Westpac CBA

As at 31st March 2010 the average weighted interest rate per institution ranges from 5.83% to 3.75%



200

5. Recommendation That Council note that funds at 31st March 2010 are being invested in line with the risk management profile prescribed in Council’s Investment policy. Attachment: Investment schedule



201

13. Notices of Motion M 74 Cr Brownlees: Controls on Hours of Flying Training at

Moorabbin Airport That Council seek the support of the Moorabbin Airport Corporation, the Federal Member for Isaacs, Mark Dreyfus MHR, the Federal Member for Hotham, Simon Crean MHR, Minister for Trade, State Member for Mordialloc, Janice Munt MP, and the State Member for Sandringham, Murray Thompson MP, in submission to the Minister for Transport, Hon. Anthony Albanese, requesting that AirServices Australia impose controls on the hours of flying training at Moorabbin Airport that requires training flights to conclude by 9.00pm during daylight saving hours and 8.00pm during winter months on weekdays. Further, that Council also requests that legislation be developed that requires the imposition of financial penalties on operators for events that occur outside these hours. Signed Cr Ron Brownlees



202

M 75 Cr West: Investigation of alternative Dingley Bypass Route 1. Considering that: • Council resolved in August 2009 to advocate for the completion of the Kingston sections of

the Dingley Bypass; • VicRoads is currently planning for (and is constructing east of Springvale Road) an arterial

road with two lanes each way through the Kingston section; • The current road reservation covers some prime agricultural and environmental assets

including market gardens, nurseries and six hectares of regionally significant natural bushland and two smaller locally significant native vegetation patches;

I move that Council; 1. Investigates whether an alternative feasible route might provide equivalent road access while

• avoiding the destruction of the market gardens, nurseries and/or bushland, and • making better use of the existing road infrastructure.

2. That this investigation considers the road reservation in two distinct parts: • north of where the Bypass reservation meets Heatherton Road and • south or east of this intersection; as indicated in the attached plans.

3. That this investigation includes consultation with agricultural landowners whose land is covered by the current Bypass reserve (by consultants engaged to develop the proposed Green Wedge Plan); and that

4. VicRoads be informed that Council is undertaking this investigation, and 5. Council determines the optimal bypass route for which to advocate on the basis of evidence

provided by the above investigation. Signed Cr Rosemary West



203

M 76 Cr West: Revocation of Green Wedge rezoning requests In the light of: • Letters written by officers under delegation during previous Council terms asking the

Planning Minister to authorise planning scheme amendments to rezone parcels of Green Wedge land (including the Din San and Inghams properties in Dingley) for residential or other urban development;

• Council’s decision to undertake a Green Wedge Plan; I move that Council; Write to the Planning Minister asking him not act on these or any other requests to rezone Green Wedge land for urban purposes pending Council’s development of a Green Wedge Plan and informing him that Council wishes to revoke these requests. Signed Cr Rosemary West



204

M 77 Cr West: Bay Trail Options In the light of: • State Government’s request to Council to provide two options for the location of a proposed

Bay Trail route for Government assessment; • Many months spent by Councillors and officers on consideration several different routes; • opportunities for Council to obtain funding pledges in the lead-up to the imminent State

election; I move that Council; Promptly provide State Government for consideration with two options favoured by councillors as soon as possible including: • one largely back-of kerb option, and • one clifftop or promenade (or a combination of both) option. Signed Cr Rosemary West



205

M 78 Cr West: Stanley Avenue Parkland I move that Council takes steps to rezone the Stanley Avenue parkland and adjacent laneway (if and when it is discontinued) as Public Park and Recreation. Signed Cr Rosemary West

city of kingston ordinary council meeting agenda 27 april 2010€¦ · m 54 kp 09/773 – 321–323...

Documents