minutes of council meeting - 21 november 2016 · web view21 november 2016 a.reading of the...

MINUTES

of the ORDINARY MEETING of the STONNINGTON CITY COUNCIL

held in the COUNCIL CHAMBER, MALVERN TOWN HALL(CORNER GLENFERRIE ROAD & HIGH STREET, MALVERN)

on

21 November 2016

COUNCIL MINUTES

MONDAY 21 NOVEMBER 2016

0

COUNCIL MINUTES


A. READING OF THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT AND PRAYER

B. APOLOGIES

C. ADOPTION AND CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING(S) IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 63 OF THE ACT AND CLAUSE 423 OF GENERAL LOCAL LAW 2008 (NO 1)

1. MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 9 NOVEMBER 2016..................D. DISCLOSURE BY COUNCILLORS OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN ACCORDANCE

WITH SECTION 79 OF THE ACT1

E. QUESTIONS TO COUNCIL FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

F. CORRESPONDENCE – (ONLY IF RELATED TO COUNCIL BUSINESS)

G. QUESTIONS TO COUNCIL OFFICERS FROM COUNCILLORS

H. TABLING OF PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS

I. NOTICES OF MOTION

J. REPORTS OF SPECIAL AND OTHER COMMITTEES

K. REPORTS BY DELEGATES

L. GENERAL BUSINESS

1. PLANNING APPLICATION 1072/14 – 39 EDGAR STREET, GLEN IRIS – CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AND A REDUCTION IN THE CAR PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN A SPECIAL BUILDING OVERLAY ......................................................................................

2. PLANNING APPLICATION 233/16- 42-44 WILLS STREET, GLEN IRIS - CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT IN A GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND ALTERATION OF ACCESS TO A ROAD IN A ROAD ZONE CATEGORY 1.............................................................................

3. PLANNING APPLICATION 361/16 - 4 PARAN PLACE, GLEN IRIS - USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF A BREWERY AND TAVERN AND ASSOCIATED REDUCTION IN CAR PARKING ........................................................................

4. PLANNING APPLICATION 268/16- 222 BURKE ROAD & 1564 MALVERN ROAD, GLEN IRIS - CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT IN A GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE, REDUCTION IN THE CAR PARKING REQUIREMENT AND ALTERATION OF ACCESS TO A ROAD ZONE CATEGORY 1.......................................................................................

5. AMENDMENT C132 HERITAGE POLICY AND HERITAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES..................................................................................................

6. AMENDMENT C238 - PERMANENT HERITAGE PROTECTION FOR 29-31 PHOENIX STREET, SOUTH YARRA - SUBMISSIONS..........................................

7. PROGRESS REPORT ON COUNCIL PLAN 2013-17 (QUARTER 1: JULY TO SEPTEMBER 2016)...................................................................................

1 Note that s.79(1)(a) of the Act requires Councillors to disclose the nature of a conflict of interest immediately before the relevant consideration or discussion.

COUNCIL MINUTES


8. AUDIT COMMITTEE - APPOINTMENT OF TWO COUNCILLOR MEMBERS.............9. FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD JULY 2016 TO SEPTEMBER 2016........

M. OTHER GENERAL BUSINESS

N. URGENT BUSINESS

O. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

COUNCIL MINUTES


PRESENT : CR JAMI KLISARIS, MAYOR

: CR GLEN ATWELL

: CR MARCIA GRIFFIN

: CR JOHN CHANDLER

: CR SALLY DAVIS

: CR JUDY HINDLE

: CR MATTHEW KOCE

: CR MELINA SEHR

: CR STEVE STEFANOPOULOS

COUNCIL OFFICERS PRESENT

: WARREN ROBERTS, CEO

: SIMON THOMAS

: STUART DRAFFIN

: TONY OULTON

: SCOTT MOORE

: FABIENNE THEWLIS

: ANTHONY DE PASQUALE

COUNCIL MINUTES


A. Reading Of The Reconciliation Statement And PrayerFabienne Thewlis, Manager Governance & Corporate Support, read the following reconciliation statement: We acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional land of the Boonwurrung and Wurundjeri people and offer our respects to the elders past and present. We recognise and respect the cultural heritage of this land.

The meeting began with a prayer at 7.03pm.

The Mayor, Cr Klisaris, introduced Councillors and the Chief Executive, Warren Roberts. The Chief Executive introduced Council Officers.

B. Apologies Nil

C. Adoption And Confirmation Of Minutes Of Previous Meeting(S) In Accordance With Section 63 Of The Act And Clause 423 Of General Local Law 2008 (No 1)

1. Council Meeting - 9 November 2016

MOTION: MOVED CR JOHN CHANDLER SECONDED CR SALLY DAVIS That the Council confirms: the Minutes of the Council Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 17 October 2016; and the Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 3 November 2016; & the Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 9 November 2016 as an accurate record of the proceedings.A Division was called by Cr Klisaris:For: Crs John Chandler, Melina Sehr, Jami Klisaris, Matthew Koce, Marcia

Griffin, Sally Davis, Glen Atwell and Steve StefanopoulosAgainst: Cr Judy HindleAbsent: Nil

Carried

D. Disclosure by Councillors of any conflicts of interest in accordance with Section 79 of the ActNil

E. Questions to Council from Members of the PublicThe Mayor, Cr Klisaris, read the following statement:

During Council’s previous Ordinary Meeting no questions to Council were received from members of the public.

For tonight’s Ordinary Meeting of Council no Questions to Council has been received for response.

F. Correspondence – (only if related to council business)Cr Davis tabled the following correspondence:

Correspondence in relation to Council’s proposed redevelopment of Gardiner Park: An email (18.11.16) from a resident on behalf of the Gardiner Park Residents Group asking Council to

reverse its decision in relation to Gardiner Park on grounds including: a flawed consultation process;

COUNCIL MINUTES


transparency and accountability issues; loss of green space to a sports oval; high density of surrounding residential area; constant use of the park; historic harmonious sharing of the park with sporting groups; resulting parking issues; problems with use of synthetic grass; and inappropriate siting of the pavilion close to residences.

An email (21.11.16) from a resident of Clarke Street, Glen Iris, asking Council to revisit their decision on the redevelopment of Gardiner Park on grounds including: the dangers of synthetic grass; flood risks; loss of recreational use; and lack of transparency and accountability in the consultancy process.

An email (20.11.16) asking Council to reverse its decision and revisit the concept plan on grounds including: cost; detriment to residents; and impact on current mixed use.

An email (20.11.16) from a resident of Allaville Avenue, Glen Iris, asking that Council review its decision, taking into account: the impact on the local cricket club; the impact on the environment of removal of grass and trees; the lack of consultation with residents; and lack of transparency in the process.

A letter (18.11.16) from a resident of Clarke Street, Glen Iris, asking that Council reverse its decision in relation to Gardiner Park on grounds including: detriment to residents; need for green open space in a heavily populated area; and availability of other options for sporting venues.

An email (20.11.16) from residents of Allaville Avenue, Glen Iris, asking that Council reverse the decision for Gardiner Park on grounds including: problems with synthetic grass; inappropriate relocation of the pavilion; detriment to residents; and a flawed consultation process with lack of transparency.

An email (20.11.16) from two school age residents noting how much they are missing using Gardiners Park and asking that it be restored to its previous condition on grounds including: loss of trees and grass; and problems with synthetic turf.

An email (20.11.16) from a resident of Clarke Street, Glen Iris, urging Council to reconsider its redevelopment plans for Gardiner Park on grounds including: lack of a thorough evaluation of the impact of synthetic turf; the loss of a long-standing community park; negative impacts on the local community; inadequate consultation and a flawed consultation process; failure to acknowledge objections to the plan; lack of transparency; loss of community amenity; overdevelopment; and resulting unreasonable noise levels.

An email (16.11.16) from a resident of Merville Avenue, Malvern East, asking that Council replace the street trees in that road on grounds including: dropping fruit posing a slip hazard and damaging cars; damage to flooring when berries are walked into residences; health issues posed by feeding bats; and the longstanding nature of the issue which was drawn to Council’s attention in 2006.

Correspondence in relation to Item 3 - 4 Paran Place, Glen Iris: An email (20.11.16) from a resident of Paran Place objecting on grounds including: issues relating to the

safety of pedestrians using the lane; exacerbation of existing traffic hazards in the lane; parking and traffic congestion in a narrow laneway; lack of access for MFB emergency vehicles; and severe neighbourhood amenity issues.

An email (21.11.16) from a trader operating from Paran Place objecting on grounds including: increases in existing pedestrian safety issues; increased traffic and safety issues during construction; difficult access for MFB emergency vehicles; increased parking congestion; and vandalism and security issues.

Correspondence in relation to Item 2 - 42-44 Wills Street, Glen Iris: An email (21.11.16) from a resident of Wills Street objecting on grounds including: significant community

opposition; failure to comply with comments made when VCAT refused an earlier proposed development; unreasonable visual bulk; overdevelopment; and neighbourhood character issues. The email lists a number of suggested changes.

An email (20.11.16) from a resident of Wills Street objecting on grounds including: the development’s similarity to a development rejected by VCAT on the grounds of overdevelopment and neighbourhood character issues; impacts on a very narrow rear right-of-way; overshadowing; and neighbourhood amenity issues.

A series of emails (15 & 20.11.16) from Cr Sally Davis to Council Officers in relation to the condition of the Gardiner railway car park area with attached photos, asking questions and making comments on matters including: the state of the rear brick wall; inadequate landscaping; and which authority has responsibility for

COUNCIL MINUTES


maintenance of the area.

Cr Griffin tabled the following correspondence:

Correspondence in relation to Council’s proposed redevelopment of Gardiner Park: Four emails already tabled in relation to this matter. A letter from a long term resident of Allaville Avenue asking Council to reverse its decision in relation to

Gardiner Park on grounds including: detriment to residents; a flawed consultation process; lack of rigour and transparency; use of the area for formal and informal exercise by nearby residents; increased traffic congestion, noise and unruly behaviour; negative impacts of the relocation of the pavilion; and problems associated with synthetic grass.

A letter (21.11.16) asking Council to reconsider the Gardiner Park concept plan on grounds including: the importance of the park for recreation and exercise; proximity of the new pavilion to homes; associated noise and parking issues; problems with synthetic grass; flood issues; lack of consultation with residents; and lack of transparency in the consultative process. The email also asks a number of questions.

A letter (20.11.16) asking Council to reverse its decision in relation to Gardiner Park on grounds including: detriment to local residents; a flawed consultation process; and lack of rigour and transparency.

An email (15.11.16) from the Secretary, Owners Corporation of flats in Barnsbury Road, South Yarra, which includes a letter to the editor (14.9.16) saying that two annual hard waste collections is unacceptable in areas with many flats and suggesting that the City of Stonnington adopt the City of Port Phillip’s on-demand system with up to four collections of four cubic metres per year on a normal rubbish collection day.

An email (18.11.16) from Council Officers to a resident giving an update in relation to the reopening of saunas at the Harold Holt Swim Centre and Prahran Pool, and the proposed dive pool at the Harold Holt Swim Centre.

An email (18.11.16) from a resident of Lansell Road, Toorak, expressing concern about access to the building site at 581 Toorak Road which was limited to Toorak Road in the planning permit for that development. The email asks Council Officers to investigate recent Council approval for construction vehicle to access the site via Lansell Road and Dalriada Street for five days.

An email already tabled in relation to Item 2 - 42-44 Wills Street, Glen Iris.

Cr Chandler tabled the following correspondence:

A letter from a resident of Simmons Street, South Yarra, drawing Council’s attention to footpath trip hazards along the south side of Malvern Road between the Prahran Police Station and Surrey Road, and asking that it be restored to a safe condition.

An email (15.11.16) from a resident concerned about the state of the grounds around the Malvern Library, including: uncleared rubbish; neglect of gardens; and storage of rubbish bins at the front of the building.

An email (29.10.16) expressing concern about potholes in Wilson and Garden Lanes, and asking a question about payment of rates.

An email already tabled in relation to Item 2 - 42-44 Wills Street, Glen Iris.

Cr Koce tabled the following correspondence:

A letter (21.11.16) from a resident of Burnie Street, Toorak, expressing concern about illegal parking on the Como Park hillside above the oval and in Como Park North on Sunday 21 November.

A letter from a resident of Burnie Street, Toorak, asking that bins at all off-leash dog parks in Stonnington be emptied and cleaned every Monday morning as they are usually full and very smelly after the weekend.

A letter (21.11.16) with attached photos from a resident of Burnie Street, Toorak, asking that Council Officers

COUNCIL MINUTES


address the issue of rubbish dumped in and around the bin at the Toorak Village car park. There have been reports of rats in the area. Cr Chandler said that Council was planning to install a compactor, but this would not be in place until 2017. He noted that smell and hygiene were major concerns and asked that Council Officers use the CCTV camera to rigorously enforce local law.

An email (16.11.16) from a resident of Iona Avenue objecting to the proposed development at 2 Nola Court Concern on grounds including: exacerbation of the impact of a number of previous developments on street trees, landscaping and other vegetation in Nola Court; the prolonging of negative neighbourhood amenity impacts on nearby residents; and increased noise, disruption and disturbance.

A letter (10.11.16) from the Chief Executive, Cabrini, and a copy of the Cabrini Annual Health Service and Community Benefit Report 2015-16.

Cr Atwell tabled the following correspondence:

A series of emails between a resident of Osborne Avenue, Glen Iris, Cr Atwell and Council Officers in relation to damage to and inadequate repair of a fence in Osborne Avenue, by Council contractors. Cr Atwell thanked Council’s Assets and Services Team for its assistance.

G. Questions to Council Officers from Councillors

A KELLY O'DWYER, THE MEMBER FOR HIGGINS

Cr Melina Sehr noted that Kelly O'Dwyer, the Member for Higgins, was expecting her second child. She asked that Council write a letter of congratulations.

The CEO, Warren Roberts, took the question on notice.

B CURRENT STATUS OF THE ADOPTION OF CHAPEL REVISION AND THE ACTIVITY CENTRE REZONING

Cr Melina Sehr asked for an update on the current status of the adoption of Chapel Revision and the activity centre rezoning in that area.

The General Manager, Planning and Amenity, Stuart Draffin, said Council Officers had received correspondence from the Department in relation to modification of the current work. Council Officers have asked for further details. He is anticipating that a report will come to Council in early 2017.

C 10 MINUTE PARKING RESTRICTION IN MURRAY STREET, ARMADALE

Cr Melina Sehr commented on the 10 minute parking restriction in Murray Street, Armadale, between 3.00pm and 4.00pm. Parents picking children up from Lauriston park in that area. Many students leave at that time period and parents who arrive at 3.00pm are receiving parking infringements. She asked Council Officers to review the situation to see what other arrangements could be made and to discuss with Lauriston the possibility of staggered leaving times.

The General Manager Assets and Services, Simon Thomas, took the question on notice.

D MULBERRY TREES IN MERVILLE AVENUE, MALVERN EAST

Cr Sally Davis said she had received a petition and photos from 22 residents in relation to 16 Mulberry trees in Merville Avenue, Malvern East. Fruit from the trees is generating a

COUNCIL MINUTES


large population of bats and the results are most unpleasant. In 2006 residents sent Council a petition requesting removal of the trees but were told to wait until current drought conditions had ended and an aborist’s report could be obtained. Nothing much has happened since then. Cr Davis asked: how many streets in Stonnington have rows of Mulberry trees; and if Council Officers would interact with residents to resolve this issue.

The General Manager Assets and Services, Simon Thomas, said he did not know the answer at this time to the number of streets with Mulberry trees, but that the petition would result in a report coming to Council. Council Officers will survey residents to find the majority view and then bring a course of action back to Council for consideration.

E COMPLAINTS FROM RESIDENTS IN RELATION TO POSSUMS STRIPPING TREES

Cr Matthew Koce said he had received a number of complaints from residents in relation to possums stripping trees. He asked if the Department of Sustainability and Environment had monitored possum populations across Melbourne and developed a strategy to control them. He noted that this was a State rather than a Council issue, but asked that Council Officers liaise with the State Government.

The General Manager Assets and Services, Simon Thomas, noted that possums are protected by legislation and that this was a widespread problem.

F RATIONALE BEHIND 40KM SPEED ZONES, ESPECIALLY IN SMALL DEAD END STREETS AND CLOSES

Cr Marcia Griffin said she had received numerous questions about the rationale behind 40km speed zones, especially in small dead end streets and closes.

The General Manager Assets and Services, Simon Thomas, gave background information about this matter. He noted that there has been an anomaly between residential streets with statutory speed limits of 50km and abutting arterial roads with a speed limit of 40km. Abutting residential roads are being given speed limits of 40km after review by VicRoads. This is introduced on a precinct-wide basis, implementing that on an area-wide basis. This means the 40km limit applies to smaller streets, even when it is not possible or safe to drive at 40km. Council Officers have been discussing the matter with VicRoads, asking that certain roads be exempt so that Council does not need to install speed signs in them. Council Officers are endeavouring to resolve these issues which are causing concern to residents in streets where 40km is an inappropriate speed, but signs are encouraging motorists to travel at 40km. Council will continue to follow up on this matter.

G STONNINGTON INDOOR STADIUM PROPOSAL BEING CONSIDERED UNDER CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

Cr Judy Hindle asked why the Stonnington Indoor Stadium proposal was being considered under Confidential Business. She asked if the matter was commercial in confidence.

The CEO, Warren Roberts, said that confidential items are matters that are relevant for Council to consider in camera, particularly when they would have an impact on stakeholders, residents and sporting groups. It was important for Council to form a view on whether matters of interest had merit, prior to Council Officers engaging with stakeholders. It would be an inappropriate way for Council to deal with the community if public reports that would impact a community group were released before Council could talk to the public. The most respectful way is for Council to form a view before commencing public engagement or speaking with those concerned. It would be inappropriate to put information out about a matter that Council may decide not to proceed with. This could potentially cause unnecessary distress and agitation. In relation to the matter of transparency, 90% of

COUNCIL MINUTES


matters considered by Council were not considered under Confidential Business. Confidential Business dealt with contractual matters, property purchases and issues to do with facilities.

Cr Hindle asked when residents would be able to access the report about a decision made in camera under Confidential Business. She asked if residents would need to use freedom of information channels to access this information.

The CEO, Warren Roberts, said that the Confidential Report was not available to members of the public in any format. Once the Council has formed a position, a report would go into the public domain outlining what Council intended to do. This was an appropriate way to disseminate information.

H VICTORIA TERRACE, SOUTH YARRA, BEING MADE ONE-WAY

Cr John Chandler said that at a previous Council meeting he had tabled correspondence about Victoria Terrace, South Yarra, being made one-way. He asked if there had been any progress in this matter.

The General Manager Assets and Services, Simon Thomas, took the question on notice. He said he believed that some traffic survey information had been provided.

I DEVELOPMENT IN VICTORIA CRESCENT - HEALTH ISSUES IN RELATION TO AN APARTMENT APPARENTLY UNOCCUPIED FOR 8 YEARS

Cr John Chandler said that at a development in Victoria Crescent there was apparently an apartment which had been unoccupied for 8 years. He said that residents had expressed concern that this apartment was a health issue and had mould issues. He asked that Council Health Officer investigate the matter.

The CEO, Warren Roberts, took the question on notice, saying that he would follow up with Cr Chandler.

J PARKING CHAOS IN REPTON ROAD, MALVERN EAST

Cr Sally Davis said that in the Council Minutes of 17 October 2016, Cr McMorrow had raised the issue of parking chaos in Repton Road, Malvern East. The General Manager Assets and Services, Simon Thomas, took the question on notice. She asked if there had been any advance in dealing with this matter.

The General Manager Assets and Services, Simon Thomas, took the question on notice.

Cr Davis said that a yellow no parking line was constantly being flouted.

The General Manager Assets and Services, Simon Thomas, said that yellow lines were permitted in a statutory sense to prevent parking against the kerb, but were not understood by most people. Council Officers plan to mark a red line on top of the kerb and install red cats eyes on the pavement to reinforce that vehicles should not be parked there. The area was between driveways where there was no room to park. This information has been sent to the complainant.

H. Tabling of Petitions and Joint LettersCr Davis tabled a petition from 22 people requesting the removal and replacement of existing Mulberry street trees in Merville Avenue, Malvern East.

COUNCIL MINUTES


PROCEDURAL MOTION: MOVED CR JOHN CHANDLER SECONDED CR STEVE STEFANOPOULOS

That the petition be received.Carried

I. Notices of MotionNil

J. Reports of Special and Other CommitteesThe Chief Executive, Warren Roberts, tabled the following Assembly of Councillors Records: Councillor Induction held on 5 & 6 November 2016

Governance Training held on 7 November 2016 Informal meeting regarding the Mayoral Election held on 7 November 2016

Councillor Briefing held on 14 November 2016

K. Reports of DelegatesCr Davis reminded Councillors that she had applied to be part of the Stakeholder Liaison Group for the Level Crossing Authority as she is very concerned about that area being not far from her own property. At last week’s meeting the CEO of the Royal Botanic Gardens spoke. He heads up a Community Open Space Expert Panel which is currently liaising with members of local communities, Bicycle Victoria and Victoria Police. At the meeting Cr Davis noted that most people are concerned about possible anti-social behaviour. She also raised the matter of Gardiner Station, expressing her concern that it had been left in an inappropriate state for residents. A wall has not been properly painted and landscaping is inadequate as has been the response. She said that the General Manager Assets and Services, Simon Thomas, had given her permission to pursue this matter and she hoped to get something done soon.

The Mayor, Cr Klisaris, informed those present that the City of Stonnington was runner up in The Graffiti Removal Program from Corrections Victoria for the 2016 Community Work Partnership Awards under the category Initiatives with Local Councils, Shires, or Utilities.Cr Chandler thanked the General Manager Assets and Services, Simon Thomas, and his team for their work in graffiti removal.

White Ribbon Day – Statement by the Mayor

The Mayor, Cr Klisaris, made the following statement in relation to White Ribbon Day:The City of Stonnington recognises and respects that everyone has the same human rights entitlement to allow them to participate in, and contribute to, society and our community.

During my Mayoral term, I am committed to advocating for and supporting programs that tackle domestic violence and raising community awareness about this important issue to give a voice to those who may not yet have the strength to use their own.

White Ribbon is the world’s largest movement of men and boys working to end men’s violence against women and girls. The campaign promotes gender equality, healthy relationships and a new vision of masculinity.

The City of Stonnington recognises that violence against women and their children is one of the most pervasive and damaging issues in our society. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, one in three Australian women experiences violence in her lifetime. These women are our mothers, girlfriends, wives, daughters, colleagues and friends. We also acknowledge a growing trend in our wider society in elder abuse. Lastly, we also recognise that violence occurs across all walks of life, and domestic violence impacts everybody.

Family violence is a community issue. We are all responsible for ending family violence because its impacts are incredibly damaging and wide reaching.

COUNCIL MINUTES


White Ribbon Day is held on 25 November. It is Australia’s only national, male-led campaign to end violence against women and the City of Stonnington is proud to support this very important cause.

In our Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan Council has made a commitment to ‘Provide community leadership to prevent violence against women’.

As a Council, we pledge to end family violence by ‘standing up’ and working towards a community culture where all women and children are protected from violence.

L. General Business

1 PLANNING APPLICATION 1072/14 – 39 EDGAR STREET, GLEN IRIS – CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AND A REDUCTION IN THE CAR PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN A SPECIAL BUILDING OVERLAY

MOTION: MOVED CR SALLY DAVIS SECONDED CR STEVE STEFANOPOULOS

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 1072/14 for the land located at 39 Edgar Street, Glen Iris be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for the construction of a multi-dwelling development in a General Residential Zone and Special Building Overlay and a reduction to the car parking requirement subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development, one electronic copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the application plans Council date stamped 24 October 2016 but modified to show:

a) Confirmation that all overlooking screens are in accordance with Standard B22 Clause 55.04-6 of the Stonnington Planning to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

b) The second floor north facing window of Bedroom 4 to Dwelling 5 to be screened in accordance with Standard B22 Clause 55.04-6 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme or demonstration that this window will not result in any unreasonable overlooking to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

c) A schedule of materials to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. d) A sight triangle to the south of the proposed access, including dimensions

and annotations that no buildings, fences or vegetation above 900mm in height can be placed within the sight triangle.

e) A convex mirror or similar mechanism to be detailed within the property boundary to assist in the visibility of pedestrians to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

f) External storage to be provided to Dwellings 2-5 in accordance with Standard B30 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

g) Details of the proposed crossover in accordance with Council’s Vehicle Crossing Policy or to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

h) A longitudinal section of the proposed ramp and existing laneway detailing

COUNCIL MINUTES


all gradients and lengths in accordance with the Planning Scheme requirements and/or Australian Standards. Vehicle scraping must not occur from the laneway to the ramp at the property boundary to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

i) The car park floor gradients in accordance with the Planning Scheme and/or Australian Standards to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

j) Any change to the built form (without further increase in the building envelope) as required by the Tree Management Plan in accordance with condition 6 so as to retain the existing Grevillea Robusta (Silky Oak) along the northern boundary.

k) Any change as required by conditions 3 (WSUD), 5 (landscape plan), 7 (SDA) and 8 (WMP).

2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason (unless the Stonnington Planning Scheme specifies that a permit is not required) without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, the applicant must provide a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response addressing the Application Requirements of the Water Sensitive Urban Design Policy to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All proposed treatments included within the Water Sensitive Urban Design Response must also be indicated on the plans.

4. The project must incorporate the Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives detailed in the endorsed site plan and/or stormwater management report.

5. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a landscape plan to be prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be generally in accordance with the landscape plan Council date stamped 4 April 2016, but modified to reflect the revised application plans.

Before the occupation of the development, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.

6. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Tree Management Plan (TMP) prepared by a suitably qualified arborist must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the TMP will form part of this permit and all works must be done in accordance with the TMP.

The Tree Management Plan must detail measures to protect and ensure the viability of the Grevillea Robusta (silky oak) tree within the site and the Meli azedarach (White Cedar) street tree.

Without limiting the generality of the Tree Management Plan it must have at least three sections as follows:

a) Pre-construction – details to include a tree protection zone, height of

COUNCIL MINUTES


barrier around the tree protection zone, amount and type of mulch to be placed above the tree protection zone and method of cutting any roots or branches which extend beyond the tree protection zone.

b) During-construction – details to include watering regime during construction and method of protection of exposed roots.

c) Post-construction – details to include watering regime and time of final inspection when barrier can be removed and protection works and regime can cease.

Pre-construction works and any root cutting must be inspected and approved by the Parks Unit. Removal of protection works and cessation of the tree management plan must be authorised by Council’s Parks Unit.

7. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) Report must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon approval the SDA will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development must incorporate the sustainable design initiatives outlined in the SDA to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The SDA must include:

a) Demonstrate how Best Practice measures from each of the 10 key Sustainable Design Categories of Stonnington Council’s Sustainable Design Assessment in the Planning Process (SDAPP) have been addressed.

b) Identify relevant statutory obligations, strategic or other documented sustainability targets or performance standards.

c) Document the means by which the appropriate target or performance is to be achieved.

d) Identify responsibilities and a schedule for implementation, and ongoing management, maintenance and monitoring.

e) Demonstrate that the design elements, technologies and operational practices that comprise the SMP can be maintained over time.

f) Demonstrates how the policy objectives of Clause 22.18 are achieved, including details on plans of how each impervious area is treated, and that all toilets and the irrigation system are connected to the water tank.

All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Sustainability Design Assessment Report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the Sustainability Design Assessment Report may occur without written consent of the Responsible Authority.

8. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must include:

a) Dimensions of waste areas.b) The number of bins to be provided.c) Method of waste and recyclables collection.d) Hours of waste and recyclables collection. e) Method of presentation of bins for waste collection.f) Strategies for how the generation of waste and recyclables from the

development will be minimised.

When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. Waste collection from the development must be in accordance with the plan, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

COUNCIL MINUTES


Start of Melbourne Water Conditions

9. Pollution and sediment laden runoff shall not be discharged directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water's drains or waterways.

10. Finished floor levels of the dwellings must be constructed no lower than 21.3 metres to Australian Height Datum (AHD).

11. Finished floor levels of the carport must be maintained at natural surface levels and must be constructed with two or more sides open to allow for the conveyance of overland flow. No garage door is permitted to the structure.

12. Imported fill must be kept to a minimum on the property and must only be used for the sub floor areas of the building.

13. The open space areas within the property including landscaping must be constructed at natural surface levels and no fill or retaining walls should be used in the development of this land.

14. Any new internal or external fencing must be open style (50%) of construction or timber paling to allow for the conveyance of overland flow.

15. Prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit, a certified survey plan, showing finished floor levels (as constructed) reduced to the Australian Height Datum, must be submitted to Melbourne Water to demonstrate that the floor levels have been constructed in accordance with Melbourne Water's requirements.

End of Melbourne Water Conditions

16. A report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in accordance with that report prior to a building permit being issued. The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer’s design.

17. The applicant must at their cost provide a stormwater detention system to

restrict runoff from the development to no greater than the existing runoff based on a 1 in 10 A.R.I. to the satisfaction of Council’s Infrastructure Unit. Alternatively, in lieu of the stand alone detention system, the owner may provide stormwater collection tanks that are in total 4,000 litres greater than those tanks required to satisfy WSUD requirements for the development. Those tanks must be connected to all toilets as well as used for irrigation.

18. The level of the footpath must not be lowered or altered in any way to facilitate access to the site.

19. Any poles, service pits or other structures/features on the footpath required to be relocated to facilitate the development must be done so at the cost of the applicant and subject to the relevant authority’s consent.

20. All utility services to the subject land and buildings approved as part of this permit must be provided underground to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority by completion of the development.

21. Prior to the occupation of the building, privacy screens designed to limit

COUNCIL MINUTES


overlooking as required in accordance with the endorsed plans must be installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority thereafter for the life of the building.

22. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit. b) The development is not completed within four years of the date of this

permit.

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a request may be submitted to the Responsible Authority within the prescribed timeframes for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

NOTES:

i. The applicable flood level is 21 metres to Australian Height Datum (AHD).

ii. If further information is required in relation to Melbourne Water's permit conditions shown above, please contact Melbourne Water on 9679 7517, quoting Melbourne Water's reference 256064.

iii. This permit does not constitute any authority to carry out any building works or occupy the building or part of the building unless all relevant building permits are obtained.

iv. Nothing in this permit hereby issued shall be construed to allow the removal of, damage to or pruning of a significant tree (including the roots) without the further written approval of Council.

“Significant tree” means a tree:

a) with a trunk circumference of 180 centimetres or greater measured at its base; or

b) with a trunk circumference of 140 centimetres or greater measured at 1.5 metres above its base; or

c) listed on the Significant Tree Register.

Please contact the Council Arborists on 8290 1333 to ascertain if permission is required for tree removal or pruning or for further information and protection of trees during construction works.

iv. Nothing in the permit hereby issued may be construed to allow the removal of, damage to or pruning of any street tree without the further written consent of the Stonnington City Council. Contact the Council Arborists on 8290 1333 for further information.

v. The owners and occupiers of the dwelling/s hereby approved are not eligible to receive “Resident Parking Permits”.

vi. At the permit issue date, Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 stated that the Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing within the following timeframes:

a) Before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date, where the

COUNCIL MINUTES


development allowed by the permit has not yet started; and b) Within 12 months after the permit expiry date, where the development

allowed by the permit has lawfully started before the permit expires.Carried

2 PLANNING APPLICATION 233/16- 42-44 WILLS STREET, GLEN IRIS - CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-DWELLING DEVELOPMENT IN A GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND ALTERATION OF ACCESS TO A ROAD IN A ROAD ZONE CATEGORY 1

MOTION: MOVED CR JOHN CHANDLER SECONDED CR GLEN ATWELL

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 233/16 for the land located at 42 – 44 Wills Street Glen Iris be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for construction of a multi-dwelling development in a General Residential Zone and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1 subject to the following conditions:1. Before the commencement of the development, 1 electronic copy of plans

drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans advertised July 2016 but modified to show:

a) Plan notations indicating the provision of fixed screening (minimum 1.7m above the finished floor level and 25% maximum transparency) to all sides of the balconies of dwellings 2.02 and 2.03.

b) Plan notations indicating that all plant equipment to be located within the basement level.

c) Elevations to show colours and materials and where they will be applied on the buildings.

d) Dimensioned of the clearance height within the basement to be no less than 2.2 metres.

e) The type of door to the basement car park.

f) Dimensions of the clearance height at the access point to the basement with the vehicle door in an open position.

g) Convex mirrors to ensure lines of sight between vehicles on the ramp and the vehicles accessing car parking spaces 1 to 4.

h) Sufficient clearance between the doors to waste holding areas and the lifts to demonstrate adequate pedestrian access.

i) An intercom at the entrance to the car park.

j) The vehicle ramp to the basement to have a grade of 1 in 10 for the first 5 metres, 1 in 5 for the next 1.5 metres and a grade of 1 in 8 for the last 2 metres at the base of the ramp.

k) A minimum grade of 1 in 200 (0.5%) across parking areas in accordance with Australian Standards.

l) Details and dimensions of bicycle parking.

m) Dimensions of the accessway width to bicycle parking areas to comply

COUNCIL MINUTES


with Australian Standards.

n) A sight distance splay to the right of way at the north-east corner of the property in accordance with Clause 52.06-8.

o) Whether and how windows and doors can be opened.

p) Locations and details of drying rack and clothes lines.

q) A notation on the basement plan to confirm the rainwater tank will be connected to all toilets and irrigation.

r) A notation on the roof plan to show roof areas to be connected to rainwater tanks.

s) The balconies at ground floor level and first floor level on the north-east (rear) elevation screened to restrict overlooking in accordance with Standard B22 of Clause 55.04-6.

t) The waste storage areas relocated to a corner of the basement. The car parking provision must not be reduced and the size of the basement must not be increased to accommodate this change.

u) Details of mailboxes, booster cupboards and any other services.

v) Landscape plan in accordance with Condition 3.

w) A sustainability management plan in accordance with Condition 5.

x) A WMP in accordance with Condition 7.

All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


3. Concurrent with endorsement of plans, a landscape plan to be prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The landscape plan must be in accordance with the landscape concept plan dated 4 March 2016, prepared by Memla Pty Ltd but modified to show:

a) Any plan changes as required under Condition 1.b) A notation to confirm that irrigation is to be fed from rainwater tanks.

4. Before the occupation of the development, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.

5. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans pursuant to Condition 1 a

COUNCIL MINUTES


Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon approval the SMP will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development must incorporate the sustainable design initiatives outlined in the SMP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The SMP must be generally in accordance with the SMP prepared by GIW Environment Solutions dated 17 March 2016 but modified to show the plan changes required under Condition 1.

6. All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Sustainability Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the Sustainable Management Plan may occur without written consent of the Responsible Authority.

7. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must include:

a) Dimensions of waste areas.b) The number of bins to be provided.c) Method of waste and recyclables collection.d) Hours of waste and recyclables collection.e) Method of presentation of bins for waste collection.f) Strategies for how the generation of waste and recyclables from the

development will be minimised.g) Details of waste collection in accordance with Condition 8.


8. Bins must not be placed out for collection before 3pm on the day prior to collection or remain out after the day of collection.

9. The collection of wastes and recyclables from the premises (other than normal Stonnington City Council collection) must be in accordance with Council's General Local Laws.

10. Prior to the occupation of the development approved under this permit, a report from the author of the Sustainability Management Plan, approved pursuant to this permit, or similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The report must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must confirm that all measures specified in the Sustainability Management Plan have been implemented in accordance with the approved plan.

11. The project must incorporate the Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives detailed in the endorsed site plan and/or stormwater management report.

12. Prior to the occupation of the building, fixed privacy screens (not adhesive film) designed to limit overlooking as required by Standard B22 of Clause

COUNCIL MINUTES


55.04-6 in accordance with the endorsed plans must be installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority thereafter for the life of the building.


14. The existing levels of the right-of-way must not be lowered or altered in any way at the property line (to facilitate the basement ramp). This is required to ensure that normal overland flow from the R.O.W. is not able to enter the basement due to any lowering of the footpath at the property line.

15. The redundant vehicular crossings must be removed and the footpath, naturestrip and kerb reinstated at the owner’s cost to the satisfaction of Council.


17. All utility services to the subject land and buildings approved as part of this permit must be provided underground to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority by completion of the development.


The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a request may be submitted to the Responsible Authority within the prescribed timeframes for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.NOTES:

i. This permit does not constitute any authority to carry out any building works or occupy the building or part of the building unless all relevant building permits are obtained.

ii. Nothing in this permit hereby issued shall be construed to allow the removal of, damage to or pruning of a significant tree (including the roots) without the further written approval of Council.

“Significant tree” means a tree:a) with a trunk circumference of 180 centimetres or greater measured at its

base; or b) with a trunk circumference of 140 centimetres or greater measured at 1.5

metres above its base; orc) listed on the Significant Tree Register.

Please contact the Council Arborists on 8290 1333 to ascertain if permission is

COUNCIL MINUTES


required for tree removal or pruning or for further information and protection of trees during construction works.

iii. Nothing in the permit hereby issued may be construed to allow the removal of, damage to or pruning of any street tree without the further written consent of the Stonnington City Council. Contact the Council Arborists on 8290 1333 for further information.

iv. The crossover must be constructed to Council’s Standard Vehicle Crossover Guidelines unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority. Separate consent for crossovers is required from Council’s Building and Local Law Unit.

v. The owners and occupiers of the dwelling/s hereby approved are not eligible to receive “Resident Parking Permits”.

vi. At the permit issue date, Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 stated that the Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing within the following timeframes:

i. Before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has not yet started; and

ii. Within 12 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully started before the permit expires.

Carried

3 PLANNING APPLICATION 361/16 - 4 PARAN PLACE, GLEN IRIS - USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF A BREWERY AND TAVERN AND ASSOCIATED REDUCTION IN CAR PARKING

MOTION: MOVED CR SALLY DAVIS SECONDED CR MARCIA GRIFFIN

That a Notice of Refusal to Grant Planning Permit No 361/16 for the land located at 4 Paran Place, Glen Iris be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for the use of the land for industry (Brewery) and a tavern, associated wine and beer producers liquor licence, buildings and works in an Industrial 3 zone and associated reduction in car parking subject to the following grounds:

1. The proposal will result in an unreasonable level of conflict in Paran Place between vehicles, pedestrians and customers queuing at the venue.

2. The proposed number of car parking spaces is insufficient to meet the likely parking requirements for the staff and customers of the proposed brewery and tavern uses.

3. The proposed hours of operation and patrons numbers will result in unreasonable amenity impacts to the surrounding area.

4. The proposal does not provide an adequate level of security for patrons leaving the premises along Paran Place and to Glen Iris Station.

5. Insufficient information has been submitted in relation to preventing the

COUNCIL MINUTES


discharge of offensive odours beyond the boundaries of the premises.

6. The provision of patron seating is inadequate and will result in the encouragement of ‘vertical drinking’ and anti-social behaviour.

7. Insufficient information has been submitted relating to the location of air conditioning units, exhaust fans, security alarms and CCTV.

A Division was called by Cr Hindle:For: Crs John Chandler, Jami Klisaris, Marcia Griffin, Sally Davis and Judy

HindleAgainst: Crs Melina Sehr, Matthew Koce, Glen Atwell and Steve StefanopoulosAbsent: Nil

Carried

4 PLANNING APPLICATION 268/16- 222 BURKE ROAD & 1564 MALVERN ROAD, GLEN IRIS - CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT IN A GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE, REDUCTION IN THE CAR PARKING REQUIREMENT AND ALTERATION OF ACCESS TO A ROAD ZONE CATEGORY 1

MOTION: MOVED CR JAMI KLISARIS SECONDED CR SALLY DAVIS

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 268/16 for the land located at 222 Burke Road & 1564 Malvern Road, Glen Iris be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for construction of a multi dwelling development in a General Residential Zone, reduction in the car parking requirement and creation of access to a Road Zone Category subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development, 1 copy of electronic plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted to Council on 18 October 2016 but modified to show:

a) Changes shown on plans for discussion Council date stamped 27 October 2016.

b) A notation of the roof plan to confirm drainage areas connected to the rainwater tank.

c) Location of mailboxes.d) Operable external shading to east and west facing glazing.e) Development summary corrected to show the basement area and site

coverage.f) A functional layout plan in accordance with Condition 12.g) Any Changes required by the landscape plan in accordance with

Condition 3.h) Any changes required by the Tree Management Plan in accordance with

Condition 5.i) Any changes required by the revised Sustainable Management Plan in

accordance with Condition 6.j) Any changes required by the revised water sensitive urban design

response in accordance with Condition 9.

COUNCIL MINUTES


k) Any changes required by the revised Waste Management Plan in accordance with Condition 10.

l) Changes required by VicRoads Conditions 11(a), (b) and (c).

All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


3. Before the development starts, a landscape plan to be prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The landscape plan must be generally in accordance with the landscape concept plan dated 26 September 2016 prepared by John Patrick Landscape Architects, and must show:

a) Changes as brought about by discussion plans Council date stamped 27 October 2016

b) A survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be retained and/or removed

c) Buildings and trees (including botanical names) on neighbouring properties within three metres of the boundary

d) Details of surface finishes of pathways and drivewayse) A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers,

including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant

f) Landscaping and planting within all open areas of the siteg) Two (2) canopy trees within the Burke Road street setback canopy trees

(minimum 2.5 metres tall when planted).h) Two canopy trees within the north-west corner of the site with a mature

height of 6-7 metres tall at maturity (minimum 2 metres tall when planted).i) The extent of any cut, fill, embankments or retaining walls associated

with the landscape treatment of the sitej) Details of all proposed hard surface materials including pathways, patio

or decked areas.4. Before the occupation of the development, the landscaping works as shown on

the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.

5. Concurrent with the endorsement of development plans a tree management plan prepared by a suitably qualified arborist must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the tree management plan will form part of this permit and all works must be done in accordance with the tree management plan.

The tree management plan must detail measures to protect and ensure the

COUNCIL MINUTES


viability of Corymbia maculata (Spotted Gum) located in the north-west corner of the site.Without limiting the generality of the tree management plan it must have at least three sections as follows:a) Pre-construction – details to include a tree protection zone, height barrier

around the tree protection zone, amount and type of mulch to be placed above the tree protection zone and method of cutting any roots or branches which extend beyond the tree protection zone.

b) During-construction – details to include watering regime during construction and method of protection of exposed roots.

c) Post-construction – details to include watering regime and time of final inspection when barrier can be removed and protection works and regime can cease.

Pre-construction works and any root cutting must be inspected and approved by the Parks Unit. Removal of protection works and cessation of the tree management plan must be authorised by the Parks Unit.

6. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans pursuant to Condition 1 a Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon approval the SMP will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development must incorporate the sustainable design initiatives outlined in the SMP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Amendments to the SMP must be incorporated into plan changes required under Condition 1. The SMP must be generally in accordance with the SMP prepared by Low Impact Development Consulting dated 15 Jun 2016 but modified to show:

a) Changes as brought about by discussion plans Council date stamped 27 October 2016.

b) The amended development shown on revised plans prepared by Megowan Architectural and dated 10 August 2016.

c) Details of operable external shading to east and west facing glazing.

7. Prior to the occupation of the development approved under this permit, a report from the author of the Sustainability Management Plan, approved pursuant to this permit, or similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The report must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must confirm that all measures specified in the Sustainability Management Plan have been implemented in accordance with the approved plan.

8. All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Sustainability Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the Sustainable Management Plan may occur without written consent of the Responsible Authority.

k) Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, the applicant must provide a revised Water Sensitive Urban Design Response addressing the Application Requirements of the Water Sensitive Urban Design Policy to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The revised Water Sensitive Urban Design Response must be generally in accordance with the Stormwater Management Report prepared by Low Impact Development Consultants dated 15 June 2016 but and updated to reflect the changes as brought about by discussion plans Council date stamped 27 October 2016.All proposed treatments included within the Water Sensitive Urban Design

COUNCIL MINUTES


Response must also be indicated on the plans.9. The project must incorporate the Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives

detailed in the endorsed site plan and/or stormwater management report. 10. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan must be

submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must include:

a) Changes as brought about by discussion plans Council date stamped 27 October 2016

b) Dimensions of waste areasc) The number of bins to be providedd) Method of waste and recyclables collectione) Hours of waste and recyclables collection NB. These should correspond

with our Local Laws f) Method of presentation of bins for waste collectiong) Strategies for how the generation of waste and recyclables from the

development will be minimised


VicRoads Conditions11. Before the development starts, a functional layout plan must be submitted to and

approved by VicRoads. When approved by VicRoads, the plans must be endorsed by the Responsible Authority and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be generally in accordance with the Plans submitted, but modified to show:

a) Details of the physical island and associated line markings and signage enforcing left-in and left-out vehicle movement for the proposed access.

b) The proposed access to have at least 1.0 metre clearance from any fixed object at the entrance to the property.

c) The sightline distance at the access ramp, as per Design Standard 1 of Clause 52.06 of the Kingston City Council Planning Scheme and AS/NZS 2890.1:2004.

13. The crossover and driveway are to be constructed, in accordance with approved plan, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and at no cost to the Roads Corporation prior to the commencement of the use hereby approved.

14. Prior to the commencement of the use hereby approved, all disused or redundant vehicle crossings must be removed and the area reinstated to match with the adjacent road environment (e.g. kerb and channel) to the satisfaction of and at no cost to the Roads Corporation.

15. The proposed development requires reinstatement of disused crossovers to kerb and channel. Separate approval under the Road Management Act for this activity may be required from VicRoads (the Roads Corporation). Please contact VicRoads prior to commencing any works.

End VicRoads Conditions

COUNCIL MINUTES


16. Poles, service pits or other structures/features on the footpath required to be relocated to facilitate the development must be done so at the cost of the applicant and subject to the relevant authority’s consent.



19. The redundant vehicular crossing must be removed and the footpath, naturestrip and kerb reinstated at the owner’s cost to the satisfaction of Council.

20. The existing footpath levels must not be lowered or altered in any way at the property line (to facilitate the basement ramp). This is required to ensure that normal overland flow from the street is not able to enter the basement due to any lowering of the footpath at the property line

21. Prior to the occupation of the building/ commencement of use, the walls on the boundary of the adjoining properties must be cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

22. The collection of wastes and recyclables from the premises (other than normal Stonnington City Council collection) must be in accordance with Council's General Local Laws.


a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit. b) The development is not completed within four years of the date of this

permit. In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a request may be submitted to the Responsible Authority within the prescribed timeframes for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition

NOTES

i. This permit does not constitute any authority to carry out any building works or occupy the building or part of the building unless all relevant building permits are obtained.

ii. Nothing in this permit hereby issued shall be construed to allow the removal of, damage to or pruning of a significant tree (including the roots) without the further written approval of Council.

“Significant tree” means a tree:

a) with a trunk circumference of 180 centimetres or greater measured at its base; or

b) with a trunk circumference of 140 centimetres or greater measured at 1.5

COUNCIL MINUTES


metres above its base; orc) listed on the Significant Tree Register.

Please contact the Council Arborists on 8290 1333 to ascertain if permission is required for tree removal or pruning or for further information and protection of trees during construction works.

i. Nothing in the permit hereby issued may be construed to allow the removal of, damage to or pruning of any street tree without the further written consent of the Stonnington City Council. Contact the Council Arborists on 8290 1333 for further information.

ii. The owners and occupiers of the dwelling/s hereby approved are not eligible to receive “Resident Parking Permits”.

iii. At the permit issue date, Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 stated that the Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing within the following timeframes:

i. Before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has not yet started; and

ii. Within 12 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully started before the permit expires.

PROCEDURAL MOTION: MOVED CR JUDY HINDLE SECONDED CR MARCIA GRIFFIN

That consideration of Planning Permit No: 268/16 for the land located at 222 Burke Road & 1564 Malvern Road, Glen Iris for construction of a multi dwelling development in a General Residential Zone, reduction in the car parking requirement and creation of access to a Road Zone Category be deferred for one Council cycle.

Carried

5 AMENDMENT C132 HERITAGE POLICY AND HERITAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES

MOTION: MOVED CR STEVE STEFANOPOULOS SECONDED CR JOHN CHANDLER That Council:1. Requests the Minister for Planning appoint a Panel pursuant to Section 23 of the

Planning and Environment Act 1987 to hear and consider submissions to proposed Amendment C132 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

2. In its submission to the Panel hearing, adopts a position in support of Amendment C132, generally in accordance with the officer's response to the submissions as contained in this report and Attachments 1-2.

3. Refers the submissions and any late submissions received to the Panel appointed to consider Amendment C132.

4. Advises the submitters to proposed Amendment C132 of Council’s decision.Carried

COUNCIL MINUTES


6 AMENDMENT C238 - PERMANENT HERITAGE PROTECTION FOR 29-31 PHOENIX STREET, SOUTH YARRA - SUBMISSIONS

MOTION: MOVED CR JOHN CHANDLER SECONDED CR STEVE STEFANOPOULOS That Council:1. Requests the Minister for Planning appoint a Panel pursuant to Section 23 of the

Planning and Environment Act 1987 to hear the submissions and consider proposed Amendment C238 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

2. In its submission to the Panel hearing, adopts a position in support of Amendment C238, generally in accordance with the Officer's response to the submissions as contained in this report and Attachment 4.

3. Refers the submissions and any late submissions to the Panel appointed to consider Amendment C238.

4. Advises the submitters to proposed Amendment C238 of Council’s decision.Carried

7 PROGRESS REPORT ON COUNCIL PLAN 2013-17 (QUARTER 1: JULY TO SEPTEMBER 2016)

MOTION: MOVED CR MARCIA GRIFFIN SECONDED CR JOHN CHANDLER That Council receives the Quarter One Progress Report on Council Plan 2013-17.

Carried

8 AUDIT COMMITTEE - APPOINTMENT OF TWO COUNCILLOR MEMBERS

MOTION: MOVED CR MELINA SEHR SECONDED CR STEVE STEFANOPOULOS That Council appoint Cr Sally Davis and Cr Marcia Griffin to the Audit Committee.

Carried

9 FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD JULY 2016 TO SEPTEMBER 2016

MOTION: MOVED CR MATTHEW KOCE SECONDED CR JOHN CHANDLER That Council receives and notes the Financial Report for the City of Stonnington for the three months ended 30 September 2016.

Carried

M. Other General BusinessNil

N. Urgent BusinessNil

COUNCIL MINUTES


O. Confidential Business

PROCEDURAL MOTION: MOVED CR MELINA SEHR SECONDED CR MATTHEW KOCE That the meeting be closed to the public to consider the following matters that are confidential in accordance with Section 89 (2) of the Local Government Act 1989 for the reasons specified: (8.05pm)

Confidential Matter Reason for Confidentiality

1. Stonnington Indoor Stadium Proposal 89 (2)(e) proposed developments

2. Proposed Property Purchase 89 (2)(d) contractual matters

Carried

Cr Chandler left the chamber at 8.05pm prior to discussion of Item 1 – Stonnington Indoor Stadium Proposal.

Cr Chandler returned to the chamber at 8.10pm during discussion of Item 1 - Stonnington Indoor Stadium Proposal.

PROCEDURAL MOTION: MOVED CR MELINA SEHR SECONDED CR JUDY HINDLE

That the meeting be opened to the public.(8.28pm)Carried

Gardiner OvalCouncillors requested a briefing on Gardiner Oval. The CEO Warren Roberts advised this will be provided with the Briefing Papers. He further advised on other matters relating to the fencing of the oval.

There being no further business the meeting closed at 8.32pm.

Confirmed on Monday 5 December 2016

...................................................................................CR JAMI KLISARIS, MAYOR

ITEM 5 ATTACHMENT 1 C132 HERITAGE POLICY AND HERITAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES - ATTACHMENT 1 OF 2

AMENDMENT C132RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS

THEME SUMMARY OF MAIN ISSUES RAISED OBJECTION/SUPPORT COMMENT/ DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION

Submission 1: Vibe Town Planning

Population growth 1. The Amendment fails to address growth. The proposed new policy will negatively impact the potential of heritage dwellings within a residential zone to yield anticipated growth in the City of Stonnington. There is no evidence that this aspect of the policy has been assessed or considered in deliberations.

2. The predominant planning tool under the Victorian Planning Provisions is zone. Zone determines use and development with other provisions being subservient to same unless specified. Are properties under heritage overlays to be exempted from the purpose of the zone or the standards, objectives and guidelines associated with same?

Objection 1. The intent of the policy is to guide Council’s decision-making assessment for planning permit applications required under the Heritage Overlay. The MSS and the new residential zones, applied in June 2014, provide an appropriate planning framework to manage projected population growth. The new zones aim to accommodate growth within the proposed Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) and General Residential Zone (GRZ) while minimising development in areas of heritage significance (where minimal change in dwelling density is anticipated) and in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ). Furthermore, significant additional capacity exists for further development and growth in non-residential areas including the Chapel reVision, High Street and Glenferrie Road areas as well as other commercial and mixed use precincts.

2. When an application for development is made, the objectives in the Policy will need to be balanced against other planning objectives that encourage a diversity of housing types and housing growth, as appropriate to the particulars of the zone.

No change



Plan Melbourne 3. The Amendment conflicts with the directions of Plan Melbourne which seeks a balance between growth, retention of heritage fabric and improved liveability.

Objection 3. The Amendment has been prepared with regard to Ministerial Direction No. 9 – Metropolitan Planning Strategy. It will strengthen policy to conserve the City’s heritage, in accordance with initiative 4.7.3 in Plan Melbourne.

No change



Development potential

4. The amendment will have a profound impact on development potential under a heritage overlay. Under this proposed new regime, development to upper levels of existing heritage footprints would be virtually outlawed. There is no vision for redesign or enhancement of existing heritage buildings. There is no policy for innovation that takes advantage of the outside environment, vacant airspace or other matters.

If the proposed guidelines and policy were in place today the owners would have to relocate because your policy would not allow for family homes at the site.

Key characteristics of a majority of heritage dwellings include:

“High ceilings - rooms with high ceilings in heritage buildings could be enhanced if the policy allowed for improved airflow but your heritage policy says we can’t remove any part of a heritage walls.

Limited or no windows - Yes, we could improve natural light to the heritage place but the policy says we can’t remove any part of a heritage wall or roofing.

Wood fires and associated chimneys - Wood fires are seldom used in today’s world, with heating and cooling systems having evolved to the point where fireplaces and chimneys are now superfluous or even counter-productive, but your heritage policy says they must be retained.

Cold rooms - These could be improved, but your heritage policy doesn’t allow any alteration to the heritage fabric of the built form.

Compartmentalised living arrangements - This could be improved, but the new heritage policy precludes large open plan extensions by virtue of the limited footprint (lower and upper).”

Objection 4. The intent of the policy is to provide a strengthened policy framework for the assessment of planning permit applications within the Heritage Overlay.

While the Policy encourages the retention of significant building fabric, the proposed Heritage Design Guidelines and Policy do not preclude redevelopment and innovation. The Heritage Design Guidelines and Policy encourage any alterations and additions to be set back behind the primary building volume and adopt a visually recessive design.

The Policy also does not prevent owners from adapting heritage places for modern living, including providing open plan extensions. The Guidelines and Policy seeks to achieve a balance between heritage conservation objectives and the need to adapt heritage buildings for modern living accommodation.

It is noted that Local Planning Policies, such as the proposed Heritage policy, and reference documents, such as the Heritage Guidelines, cannot prescribe mandatory requirements, including preventing demolition and the construction of upper levels. Any mandatory requirements are included in the schedules to zones, overlays and particular provisions.

The appropriate mechanism to consider specific aspects of a development of a heritage place is through the planning permit application process, where the heritage conservation will be balanced against other planning objectives for growth and adaptability.

No change



Cause 22.04-4.6 Services and equipment

5. Section 6 of the 2015 draft heritage guidelines addresses ‘ancillary services and equipment’. This section of policy at least contemplates that original heritage buildings were not designed to include ancillary services but restricts discussion to solar panels, rainwater tanks etc. The policy goes on to state that all such services be hidden from public view. Why? Whilst some infrastructure is unsightly and is best hidden there are other innovations such as solar panels that require correct orientation. Skylights are not even mentioned.

Objection with changes 5. The intent of the provisions in these sections of the Policy and Guidelines is to ensure that ancillary services and equipment do not detract from and diminish the significance of a place. It is not the intent of the policy and guidelines to discourage these types of services where they are to improve the sustainability of the place; it is however the intent to consider their location. To this end, the wording in the exhibited policy can be made clearer and better aligned with existing terminology in the Planning Scheme.

It is considered that the term ‘services and equipment’ should be consistent with the wording contained under General Terms ‘domestic services normal to a dwelling’. In accordance with Clause 72 (General Terms) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, the term ‘domestic services normal to a dwelling’ includes:

Disabled access ramps and handrails, an air conditioner, cooling or heating system, a hot water service, security systems and cameras, shade sails, a barbeque, downpipes and flues, a skylight, security screens, and the like.

It is noted that the term ‘domestic services normal to a dwelling’ also captures solar panels and rainwater tanks.

Amend wording of the Policy and Guidelines regarding domestic services normal to a dwelling.



Other policy provisions

6. Where is the policy for improved environmental outcomes? Where is the policy for people with limited mobility?

Objection 6. The intent of the Heritage Policy is to provide a clear and strengthened policy framework for the assessment of planning permit applications for development of significant and contributory places within the Heritage Overlay.

The Environmental Sustainable Development Policy at Clause 22.05 in the Planning Scheme provides a comprehensive list of objectives to achieve best practice in environmentally sustainable development.

The inclusion of access and mobility provisions in the Planning Scheme is not considered appropriate as it may be inconsistent with the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) and the Building Code of Australia (BCA).

The appropriate mechanism to consider compliance with the DDA and BCA is through the building permit approval process.

No change



29-31 Phoenix Street, South Yarra

7. Owners of 29-31 Phoenix Street, South Yarra had a planning application refused by Council in May 2016. Council secretly tested the development proposal against current heritage policy and crucially, for the purpose of this objection the guidelines.

8. I remind Council that your staff failed to make disclosure to my clients that their property was being considered for heritage protection. Whilst Council officers advised my clients that a decision on our proposal was imminent, Council was instead obtaining a heritage report on the site. This non-disclosure directly contradicts the notification rights assigned to parties under the Planning & Environment Act 1987 in circumstances where a party may be affected by a decision.

My clients have lodged an application for review with VCAT and although we are locked out of submitting to Amendment C237 Interim Heritage Protection, we have made submission to amendment C238 permanent Heritage Protection.

Objection 7. This is outside the scope of this Amendment. This planning permit is being assessed through a separate process by Council’s Statutory Planning Department.

8. This is also outside the scope of this Amendment (C132). The submitters’ views on the proposed heritage protection of 29-31 Phoenix Street, South Yarra will be considered through the separate process for Amendment C238 which proposes permanent heritage protection to be applied to 29-31 Phoenix Street, South Yarra.

No change



Timing of Heritage Policy

9. It is inappropriate for amendment of heritage policy to take place in advance of the Victorian Housing Study 2016 currently underway in the City of Stonnington. It would seem to me that the people likely to be affected by this new policy are those that Council intends to capture in the Victorian Housing Study 2016 and other heritage reviews currently underway. If your new heritage policy proceeds, it would be mean new properties captured under current reviews would inherit the new policy without having been made aware that they were potentially impacted by these changes. Conversely, any heritage reviews should be undertaken with the knowledge that inclusion of properties in any new heritage overlay would severely restrict the development potential of same. A fair, just and reasonable approach would be to conduct the review of policy AFTER Council has identified the new properties that may be impacted.

Objection 9. Numerous recent planning panels appointed to consider heritage related planning scheme amendments in Stonnington have recommended that Council redraft the Heritage Policy and Heritage Guidelines to ensure mutual consistency and clarity.

Council has progressed the protection of many heritage places in advance of progressing an amendment for a revised Heritage policy. Since 2012, 91 new individual places have been included in a HO. These amendments and the process have been supported by Panel.

In response to the Panel’s recommendations Council is progressing the updated Heritage policy to ensure the broader policy context is confirmed before progressing future Planning Scheme Amendments for the protection of individual places identified in the Victorian and Federation Studies.

It is noted that if an Amendment proposes to apply the Heritage Overlay to a place or precinct, then there would be an opportunity for affected owners to make a submission during the exhibition process for that Amendment, as has been the case in this instance

No change



General Objection 10.Whilst my clients have determined to make contribution to this amendment process it is our sincere hope that the amendment does not progress in its current form and that submission to a planning panel will become unnecessary.

Objection 10. Noted. No change

Submission 2: Public Transport Victoria

General comments 1. The Heritage Overlay applies to a number of individual places and precincts that are of interest to PTV, including a number of railway stations.The new Heritage Design Guidelines also relate to Public Realm works, including road infrastructure and street furniture, which may be of relevance to PTV.

No objection 1. Noted. No change

City of Stonnington Railway and Road Heritage Places — Permit Exemptions, November 2015

2. A number properties listed at the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay are exempt from permit requirements under the Incorporated Document City of Stonnington Railway and Road Heritage Places — Permit Exemptions, November 2015.

No objection 2. Noted. The City of Stonnington Railway and Road Heritage Places — Permit Exemptions, November 2015 (amended September 2016) sets out the permit exemptions that apply to specific railway and road heritage places within the City of Stonnington.

However, it is noted a permit must be sought for railway and road heritage places which seek to alter the identified elements of significance (as listed in the Incorporated Document).

No change



Stonnington Railway and Road Heritage Places — Permit Exemptions, November 2015

3. PTV understands that, should upgrades or maintenance work be required at any site of interest within the Heritage Overlay, planning permits may be required in accordance with Clause 43.01−1, except in those cases where exemptions apply. The updated policy framework would, therefore, apply to the assessment of planning permit applications at such a time.

No objection 3. Noted. The Heritage Policy guides Council’s decision-making assessment for planning permit applications required under the Heritage Overlay, including application for works to improve road and railway infrastructure.

No change

General comments 4. PTV does not object to the amendment. No objection 4. Noted. No change


Item 5Attachmen

t2 C132 Heritage Policy and Heritage Design Guidelines - Attachment 2 of 2

COUNCIL MINUTES


COUNCIL MINUTES


ASSEMBL

COUNCIL MINUTES


Y OF COUNCILLORS RECORD

This Form MUST be completed by the attending Council Officer and returned IMMEDIATELY to Judy Hogan – Civic Support Officer

ASSEMBLY DETAILS:

Date:5&6 November 2016 Name of Meeting: Councillor Induction

Time: 8.30am – 5.30pm Saturday and 8.30am-3.00pm Sunday

Assembly Location: Committee Room 311 Glenferrie Road Malvern

IN ATTENDANCE:

Councillors:

Crs Atwell, Chandler, Davis, Griffin, Hindle, Klisaris, Koce, Sehr and Stefanopoulos

Council Officers:Warren Roberts – CEO, Geoff Cockram, Simon Thomas, Karen Watson, Stuart DraffinTracey Limpens, Fabienne Thewlis, Matt Clear (Sunday)

Matter/s Discussed: Introduction to current Capital Works and proposed works, planning and current and possible future applications, meet the Councillor, Guiding Principles of conduct, bus tour of municipality points of interest, Council profile and local government sector issues, hot issues for Stonnington, and challenges

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES : including time left and returned to meeting

Councillors:

Nil

Council Officers:

Nil

Form completed by: Fabienne Thewlis

COUNCIL MINUTES


ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS RECORD


ASSEMBLY DETAILS:

Date:7/11/16 Name of Meeting: Governance Training

Time: 6.00pm


IN ATTENDANCE:

Councillors:

Crs Atwell, Chandler, Davis, Griffin, Hindle, Klisaris, Koce, Sehr and Stefanopoulos

Council Officers:Warren Roberts CEO, Geoff Cockram, Stuart Draffin, Fabienne Thewlis, Judy Hogan

Presenter: Melanie, Olynyck - Maddocks

Matter/s Discussed: Legal overview of the role of Councillors and Council, focus on probity and integrity in decision making and conduct.


Councillors:

Nil

Council Officers:

Nil


COUNCIL MINUTES




ASSEMBLY DETAILS:

Date:7/11/2016 Name of Meeting: Informal Meeting regarding Mayoral Election

Time: 8.00pm


IN ATTENDANCE:

Councillors:

Crs Atwell, Davis, Klisaris, Chandler, Griffin, Koce, Hindle, Sehr and Stefanopoulos

Council Officers:Warren Roberts - CEO

Matter/s Discussed: Matters regarding the Mayoral election and opportunity to hear candidates for this election


Councillors:

Nil

Council Officers:

Nil

Form completed by: Warren Roberts


COUNCIL MINUTES



ASSEMBLY DETAILS

Date: Monday 14 November 2016 Councillor Briefing

Time: 6.02pm

Assembly Location: Committee Room, Level 2, 311 Glenferrie Road, Malvern

IN ATTENDANCE

Councillors:

Cr G Atwell Cr J Chandler Cr J Hindle

Cr S Davis Cr M Griffin Cr M Sehr

Cr J Klisaris Cr M Koce (6.05pm) Cr S Stefanopoulos

Council Officers:

Warren Roberts (CEO) Stuart Draffin Simon Thomas

Karen Watson Geoff Cockram Fabienne Thewlis

Anthony De Pasquale (left 7.15pm)

Tracey Limpens Augarette Malki (left 7.16pm)

Tony Oulton (left 6.38pm) Grant Smethurst left 6.38pm)

Matter/s Discussed:1. STONNINGTON INDOOR STADIUM PROPOSAL -CONFIDENTIAL2. AMENDMENT C132 HERITAGE POLICY AND HERITAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES3. AMENDMENT C238 - PERMANENT HERITAGE PROTECTION FOR 29-31 PHOENIX STREET, SOUTH YARRA -

SUBMISSIONS4. PLANNING APPLICATION 1072/14 – 39 EDGAR STREET, GLEN IRIS – CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-DWELLING

DEVELOPMENT AND A REDUCTION IN THE CAR PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN A SPECIAL BUILDING OVERLAY 5. PLANNING APPLICATION 233/16- 42-44 WILLS STREET, GLEN IRIS - CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-DWELLING

DEVELOPMENT IN A GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND ALTERATION OF ACCESS TO A ROAD IN A ROAD ZONE CATEGORY 1

6. PLANNING APPLICATION 361/16 - 4 PARAN PLACE, GLEN IRIS - USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF A BREWERY AND TAVERN AND ASSOCIATED REDUCTION IN CAR PARKING

7. PLANNING APPLICATION 268/16- 222 BURKE ROAD & 1564 MALVERN ROAD, GLEN IRIS - CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI DWELLING DEVELOPMENT IN A GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE, REDUCTION IN THE CAR PARKING REQUIREMENT AND ALTERATION OF ACCESS TO A ROAD ZONE CATEGORY 1

8. PROGRESS REPORT ON COUNCIL PLAN 2013-17 (QUARTER 1: JULY TO SEPTEMBER 2016)9. FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD JULY 2016 TO SEPTEMBER 201610. RECORD OF INCOMING VCAT APPEALS 11. AUDIT COMMITTEE – APPOINTMENT OF TWO COUNCILLOR MEMBERS12. PROPOSED PROPERTY PURCHASE - CONFIDENTIAL

COUNCIL MINUTES


CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES: including time left and returned to meeting

Councillors:

Nil declared

Council Officers:

Nil declared


minutes of council meeting - 21 november 2016 · web view21 november 2016 a.reading of the...

Documents