ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING MI N U T E S€¦ · 12/12/2011 · Recommendation Summary Council...

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

MM II NN UU TT EE SS

MONDAY, 12 DECEMBER 2011 AT 7:00PM

Council Chambers 397-405 Springvale Road SPRINGVALE VIC 3171

John J

COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 12 DECEMBER 2011

Page (i)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM SUBJECT PAGE NO 1 ATTENDANCE ....................................................................................... 8581

2 OFFERING OF PRAYER ....................................................................... 8581

3 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING .................. 8582

4 ASSEMBLIES OF COUNCIL ................................................................. 8582

5 DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST ............................................................. 8583

6 ADOPTION OF THE AUDIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES ....... 8583

7 OFFICERS REPORTS ........................................................................... 8584

7.1 DOCUMENTS FOR SEALING ....................................................................................... 8584

7.1.1 Documents for Sealing .................................................................................. 8584

7.2 DOCUMENTS FOR TABLING ....................................................................................... 8586

7.2.1 Documents for Tabling .................................................................................. 8586

7.2.2 Receipt of Petitions and Joint Letters ........................................................... 8588

7.3 CONTRACTS .................................................................................................................. 8589

7.3.1 Municipal Buildings Project – Development Agreement for Civic Precinct Site C1 .......................................................................................................... 8589

7.4 TOWN PLANNING .......................................................................................................... 8595

7.4.1 Town Planning Application – No. 14 Finchaven Avenue, Keysborough (Planning Application No. PLN10/0703) ....................................................... 8595

7.4.2 Town Planning Application - No. 5 Leonard Street, Dandenong (Planning Application No. PLN10/0766) ........................................................................ 8620

7.4.3 Town Planning Application - No. 67 Stanley Road, Keysborough (Planning Application No. PLN11/0629) ........................................................................ 8657

7.4.4 Town Planning Application - No. 11 Hopetoun Street, Dandenong (Planning Application No. PLN09/0787) ....................................................... 8671

7.4.5 Town Planning Application - Noble Park Football Social Club, 46-56 Moodemere Street, Noble Park (Planning Application No. PLN11/0431) .... 8701

7.5 FINANCE AND BUDGET ............................................................................................... 8728

7.5.1 2011/2012 Mid Year Budget Review ............................................................ 8728

7.6 POLICY AND STRATEGY ............................................................................................. 8736


Page (ii)

7.6.1 Springvale Road / Cheltenham Road Commercial Gateway, 476 Cheltenham Road, Keysborough - Development Plan ................................. 8736

7.6.2 Planning Scheme Amendment C131 – No. 227 Princes Highway, Dandenong. Proposed Rezoning ................................................................. 8756

7.6.3 Review of Council Policies, Codes of Practice and Strategies ..................... 8771

7.7 OTHER ............................................................................................................................ 8775

7.7.1 Audit Advisory Committee Charter Review ................................................... 8775

7.7.2 Election 2012 Voting Methodology ............................................................... 8779

7.7.3 Preventative Community Health Program .................................................... 8786

7.7.4 Proposal to Discontinue and Sell Part of Peter Court ................................... 8792

7.7.5 Municipal Building Project - Annual Activity and Program Update ............... 8797

8 NOTICES OF MOTION .......................................................................... 8805

8.1 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 40 – RECOGNITION OF RETIRING DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, MR MAL BAKER ........................................................... 8805

9 REPORTS FROM COUNCILLORS/DELEGATES & COUNCILLORS' QUESTIONS .......................................................................................... 8806

10 QUESTION TIME - PUBLIC ................................................................... 8814

10 URGENT BUSINESS ............................................................................. 8820

10.1 RECOGNITION OF CRICKETERS - JAMES PATTINSON, DARREN PATTINSON, PETER SIDDLE AND MICHAEL FINDLAY ................................................................... 8820


Page 8581

1 ATTENDANCE

Apologies Cr Loi Truong Bruce Rendall, Director Development Services Councillors Present Cr Youhorn Chea (Chairperson) Cr Roz Blades, Cr Peter Brown, Cr Paul Donovan, Cr Yvonne Herring, Cr John Kelly, Cr Angela Long, Cr Jim Memeti, Cr Maria Sampey, Cr Pinar Yesil. Officers Present John Bennie, Chief Executive Officer; Mal Baker, Director Development Services; Mick Jaensch, Director Corporate Services; Oliver Vido, Acting Director Engineering Services, Lynette While, Acting Director Community Services. 2 OFFERING OF PRAYER

All present remained standing as Father Declan O’ Brien from St. Mary’s Catholic Parish, a member of the Greater Dandenong Interfaith Network, read the opening prayer.

“Father, We give our thanks for the men and women who go on doing their duty in the face of loneliness, monotony, misunderstanding, danger. We pray for those who serve us in this city at hazard to their lives: the policemen and firemen and all others whose work demands constant risk. We pray for the soldiers and sailors who at any moment are either bored or scared, but they stay at their post and do what they must. Father, bless their courage with the peace that they, and we, are praying for. Forgive us, Father, if we ever take for granted what others are doing so that we can live in peace and safety. Make us the kind of people who deserve these blessings. We expect others to show courage in the line of duty. If, once in a while, we must stand up to be counted and show a little courage of our own, help us to set them an example by being the kind of people Christ has called us to be. Amen.”

Cr Youhorn Chea acknowledged His Excellency Pen Sovann, the Former Cambodian Prime Minister who was present in the Chamber.


Page 8582

3 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

Ordinary Meeting of Council held 28 November 2011 and Annual Statutory Meeting of Council held 5 December 2011.

Recommendation That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held 28 November 2011 and Annual Statutory Meeting of Council held 5 December 2011 be confirmed.

MINUTE 1034 Moved by: Cr Jim Memeti Seconded by: Cr Pinar Yesil That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held 28 November 2011 and Annual Statutory Meeting of Council held 5 December 2011 be confirmed.

CARRIED 4 ASSEMBLIES OF COUNCIL

The following assemblies of Council occurred on 21 November 2011 and in the period 25 November-8 December 2011: Date Meeting

Type Councillors Attending

Topics Discussed & Disclosures of Conflict of Interest

21/11/11 Municipal Buildings Project Control Group

Roz Blades, Peter Brown, Youhorn Chea, Angela Long, Jim Memeti, Pinar Yesil

• Façade options for the municipal building.

28/11/11 Councillor Briefing Session

Roz Blades, Peter Brown, Youhorn Chea, John Kelly, Angela Long, Jim Memeti, Maria Sampey, Pinar Yesil

• Municipal Building Project update. • Dandenong Benevolent Society

(CONFIDENTIAL). • Proposed Citizen Award. • Agenda items for the Council meeting 28

November 2011. 1/12/11 Councillor

Briefing Session

Roz Blades, Peter Brown, Youhorn Chea, Paul Donovan, Yvonne Herring, John Kelly, Angela Long, Jim Memeti, Maria Sampey, Loi Truong, Pinar Yesil

• Informal Discussion – Councillor Representatives and Election of Mayor for the Council 5 December 2011.

5/12/11 Councillor Briefing Session

Roz Blades, Peter Brown, Youhorn Chea, Paul Donovan, Yvonne Herring, John Kelly, Angela Long, Jim Memeti, Maria Sampey, Pinar Yesil

• Meeting process and procedures for the Council meeting 5 December 2011.

Recommendation That the assemblies of Council listed above be noted.


Page 8583

MINUTE 1035 Moved by: Cr Roz Blades Seconded by: Cr Pinar Yesil That the assemblies of Council listed above be noted.

CARRIED 5 DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

Cr Kelly disclosed a Conflict of Interest (indirect due to close association) in Item 7.4.5: Town Planning Application – Noble Park Football Club, 46-56 Moodemere Street, Noble Park (Planning Application No. PLN11/0431), as Cr Kelly’s son is a contracted player for the Noble Park Football Club. Cr Kelly left the Chamber prior to discussion and voting on this item. 6 ADOPTION OF THE AUDIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES

The Audit Advisory Committee held a meeting on 18 November 2011. Minutes of this meeting were presented to Council for adoption.

Recommendation That the unconfirmed minutes of the Ordinary Audit Advisory Committee meeting held 18 November 2011 be adopted. MINUTE 1036 Moved by: Cr Roz Blades Seconded by: Cr Pinar Yesil That the unconfirmed minutes of the Ordinary Audit Advisory Committee meeting held 18 November 2011 be adopted.

CARRIED Cr Brown left the Chamber at 7.10pm.


Page 8584

7 OFFICERS REPORTS

7.1 DOCUMENTS FOR SEALING

7.1.1 Documents for Sealing

File No: A4586 Responsible Officer: Director Corporate Services

Report Summary

Under the Victorian Local Government Act, each Council is a body corporate and a legal entity in its own right. Each Council must therefore have a common seal (like any corporate entity) that is an official sanction of that Council. Sealing a document makes it an official document of Council as a corporate body. Documents that require sealing include agreements, contracts, leases or any other contractual or legally binding document that binds Council to another party.

Recommendation Summary

This report recommends that the listed documents be signed and sealed.


Documents for Sealing (Cont.)

585

Item Summary

There are four (4) items being presented to Council’s meeting of 12 December 2011 for signing and sealing as follows: 1. A letter of recognition to P Shelton, Development Services for 10 years to the City of

Greater Dandenong;

2. A Section 173 Agreement of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 between the Greater Dandenong City Council and E & M Farag Pty Ltd required by condition 5 of Planning Permit PLN07/0562 which requires waste to be collected by a private waste collector at a property in Market Street, Dandenong;

3. A section 173 Agreement of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 between the Greater Dandenong City Council and Abbotcrest Pty Ltd, Intrapac Holdings Pty Ltd, Stranlee Pty and Masterplanned Community Developments Pty Ltd relating to the Maintenance Period for Public Areas; and

4. A section 173 Agreement of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 between the Greater Dandenong City Council and Abbotcrest Pty Ltd, Intrapac Holdings Pty Ltd, Stranlee Pty and Masterplanned Community Developments Pty Ltd relating to the Maintenance Levy for Open Space.

Recommendation That the listed documents be signed and sealed. MINUTE 1037 Moved by: Cr Pinar Yesil Seconded by: Cr Jim Memeti That the listed documents be signed and sealed.

CARRIED


Page 8586

7.2 DOCUMENTS FOR TABLING

7.2.1 Documents for Tabling

File No: qA228025 Responsible Officer: Director Corporate Services

Report Summary

Council receives various documents such as annual reports and minutes of committee meetings that deal with a variety of issues that are relevant to the City.

These reports are tabled at Council Meetings and therefore brought to the attention of Council.


This report recommends that the listed items be received.


Documents for Tabling (Cont.)

Page 8587

List of Reports

Author Title Victorian Ombudsman Own motion investigation into ICT-enabled projects –

November 2011 Public Transport Ombudsman

Annual Report 2010 - 2011

Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria


Connections UnitingCare

Annual Report 2011

Public Libraries Victoria Network Incorporated


Southern Cross Care

Annual Report 2011

Inner Melbourne Action Plan


A copy of each report is made available at the Council meeting or by contacting the Governance Unit on telephone 9239 5309.

Recommendation That any listed items be received. MINUTE 1038 Moved by: Cr Roz Blades Seconded by: Cr Pinar Yesil That any listed items be received.

CARRIED Cr Brown returned to the Chamber at 7.11pm.


Page 8588

7.2.2 Receipt of Petitions and Joint Letters


Report Summary

Council receives a number of petitions and joint letters on a regular basis that deal with a variety of issues which have an impact upon the City. Issues raised by petitions and joint letters will be investigated and reported back to Council if required.


Council received 1 (one) petition and 1 (one) joint letter prior to the Council meeting of 12 December 2011 as follows: • A joint letter signed by 12 residents from Cypress Grove, Dandenong regarding the

removal of debris left behind after tree pruning in Cypress Grove, Dandenong. This joint letter has been forwarded to the relevant Council Business Unit for consideration.

• A letter and petition signed by fourteen (14) residents from Henry Street, Noble Park in objection to Planning Application No. PLN11/0610 for a proposed multi unit development in Henry Street, Noble Park. This petition will be considered as part of the statutory planning process.

Recommendation That any listed items be received. MINUTE 1039 Moved by: Cr John Kelly Seconded by: Cr Angela Long That any listed items be received.

CARRIED


Page 8589

7.3 CONTRACTS

7.3.1 Municipal Buildings Project – Development Agreement for Civic Precinct Site C1

Attachments: Development Agreement File No: fA29333 Responsible Officer: Chief Executive Officer

Report Summary

This report provides details of a Development Agreement between Council and Places Victoria (previously VicUrban) that will facilitate the acquisition of a footprint of land on Site C1 in the Dandenong RCD which will allow Council to proceed with the development of a new Dandenong Library, Council Chamber, Community Meeting Space and Council Administration Offices. This follows the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding by Council on 13 December 2010 and the signing of a Heads of Agreement on 11 April 2011.


This report recommends that Council considers the Central Dandenong Civic Precinct – Site C1, Development Agreement and signs and seals the document.


Municipal Buildings Project – Development Agreement for Civic Precinct Site C1 (Cont.)

Page 8590

Background

At its meeting on 13 December 2010, Council signed and sealed a Memorandum of Understanding with VicUrban. At its meeting on 11 April 2011, Council further committed to this process by signing and sealing a Heads of Agreement with VicUrban. These documents outline the process to agree on the terms and conditions for acquiring Site C1 in the Dandenong RCD to allow the development of a new Dandenong Library, Council Chamber, Community Meeting Space and Council Administration Offices. Site C1 in the RCD is made up of three distinct parcels. Parcels A & B are set aside for two building footprints and the balance of the land is to be used for a Civic Square which will remain as Crown land under the control and management of Council once the development goes ahead. Parcel A will accommodate the new Municipal Building. Comprehensive negotiations have been occurring with VicUrban over the past 6 months to finalise this Development Agreement which will facilitate the acquisition and the results of these negotiations are the subject of this report.

Proposal

The development of a new civic precinct on the land identified as Parcels A, B and C which comprises: • on Parcel A:

o a regional library;

o a civic customer services facility;

o city chambers and community based meeting rooms; and

o Council offices;

• on Parcel B:

o temporary landscaping to complement the works and uses on Parcel C; and

• on Parcel C:

o a permanent open air civic plaza and programmable events space;

o a permanent outdoor integration facility and associated landscaping; and

o any other works and/or uses as agreed between Places Victoria and Council, Council is acquiring Parcel A, however Council has a longer term interest in Parcel B and has retained some influence in how this site is developed. To this end clauses have been inserted in the Development Agreement to ensure a satisfactory outcome is achieved. In relation to Parcel B: • Council may acquire and develop Parcel B to accommodate a building of

complementary use to the Council's office located on Parcel A and civic plaza located on Parcel C; or



Page 8591

• Council and Places Victoria will work together to attract a third party developer to acquire and develop Parcel B to accommodate a building of complementary use to the Council's office located on Parcel A and civic plaza located on Parcel C.

Places Victoria agrees not to sell, transfer, encumber or deal with Parcel B in any other way that is inconsistent with this intention of the parties, without: • providing prior written notice to Council of its intention to deal with Parcel B, including

sufficient details and information relevant to the proposal (Alternative Proposal Notice); and

• allowing Council 30 days from the date that Council receives the Alternative Proposal Notice to submit its own alternative proposal for Parcel B (Council's Proposal) and negotiating with Council in good faith in respect of the Council's Proposal.

In relation to the C1 Site Purchase: • Council will purchase Parcel A from Places Victoria at the price determined based on

a valuation of the Land by the Valuer General Victoria. Places Victoria may vary the Price to reflect changes to the Town Planning Documentation required by Council.

• A contract of sale in respect of Parcel A (Contract of Sale) will be simultaneously exchanged and settled with a settlement date of 29 June 2012 (Transfer Date).

• A separate Crown Grant will issue for Parcel A (prior to the Transfer Date) and Parcel B (once the boundary and design of Parcel B has been determined).

• Parcel C, the residual land, will be subject to a Committee of Management after the Crown Grant for Parcel B has issued.

There will be a single management agreement for Parcel B and Parcel C. Parcel ‘A’ can be purchased by Council in two alternative ways. Unrestricted Purchase allows Council to develop the site and have a free and unencumbered ability to alter the development in the future or sell the development to a third party. The alternative position for Council is to consider the option of Restricted Purchase on the land which would limit the use to “Municipal Purposes” but still allow all of the uses which Council proposes on this site. A “restriction” would only be an issue if Council ever wanted to dispose of the site in the future. This is unlikely but is still a scenario that must be considered. The advice Council has been given in this regard is that the purchase price has been discounted for the “Municipal Purposes” restriction. If Council wanted to remove this restriction in the future to sell the site then it would have to pay to the Government the present day cost of the original discount at the date of sale. There is a 40% reduction in valuation for adopting a “restricted title.” The valuation in the Development Agreement is based on the Valuer General Victoria’s future valuation of the land at date of transfer (1 July 2012) and is for an Unrestricted Purchase. Council Officers will work with Places Victoria and relevant State Government Agencies to determine if a restricted price is available for Council to consider prior to the date of transfer.



Page 8592

Milestone Dates: • Commencement of active construction on Parcel A - 31 January 2013;

• Date for Practical Completion - 30 December 2014.

The Development Agreement is attached to this report.

Council Plan 2009-2013 Strategic Objectives, Strategies and Plans

A Leading Council

EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE

1. Establish a sound financial framework through the implementation and regular review of the Long Term Financial Strategy and annual budget process.

2. Actively seek additional financial resources from other levels of government.

EXCELLENCE IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT

3. Demonstrate excellent environmental practices and act as a role model to the community.

THE BEST PLACE TO WORK

4. Implement the Organisational Development Strategy to attract and retain the best employees for the organisation and promote pride in working for Greater Dandenong Council.

The strategies and plans that contribute to these outcomes are as follows:

• Council accommodation – continue development of plans to establish a single office for governance, administration and service delivery functions

Related Council Policies

• Asset Management - Policy

• Financial Management – Policy

• Procurement - Policy

Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities

The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities has been considered in the preparation of this Policy but is not relevant to the content of the Policy.

Financial Implications

The commercial terms contained within the Development Agreement are within the financial capacity and parameters of the Long term Financial Strategy. Resource requirements for this project have been extensively modelled in the preparation of the Business Case and will further form part of the review of Council’s Long term Financial Strategy.



Page 8593

Council has ensured that it will remain within prudential borrowing limits established by the State Government at all times and is further investigating options to reduce potential borrowings through increased provision of grant funding and reviewing asset holdings within the Dandenong business district.

Consultation

There has been extensive community consultation on the Revitalisation of Central Dandenong since the project was launched by the State Government in 2006. The “Shared Vision” drawn from this consultation talks about more opportunities for learning, including a new public library, and a new Civic Square, to provide a new heart in Central Dandenong. The Municipal Buildings Project has been born out of this “Shared Vision” and is moving to the next stage of realisation. Consultation on this Development Agreement has occurred with senior officers of Places Victoria, members of the Dandenong Municipal Building Project Control Group and Councillors.

Conclusion

The proposed Development Agreement allows Council to confidently proceed to the next stage of the project which is the contract documentation and project tendering.

Recommendation That Council considers and endorses the Central Dandenong Civic Precinct – Site C1, Development Agreement and signs and seals the document.

MINUTE 1040 Moved by: Cr Jim Memeti Seconded by: Cr John Kelly That Council considers and endorses the Central Dandenong Civic Precinct – Site C1, Development Agreement and signs and seals the document.

CARRIED



Page 8594

The attachment to this report is available under a separate cover at:

www.greaterdandenong.com (“Council”, “Council Meetings”, “Agendas and Minutes”)

or by contacting: Governance - 9239 5309


Page 8595

7.4 TOWN PLANNING

7.4.1 Town Planning Application – No. 14 Finchaven Avenue, Keysborough (Planning Application No. PLN10/0703)

Attachments: Location of Objectors Submitted Plans Clause 55 Assessment

File No: 340565 Responsible Officer: Director Development Services

Application Summary

Applicant: Ivan Josifovski Proposal: The construction of two double storey dwellings Zone: Residential 3 Zone Overlay: Not applicable Ward: Paperbark It is proposed to demolish all existing structures on site and to develop the site for two double storey dwellings. Each dwelling is oriented to Finchaven Avenue with a separate access for car parking to each dwelling. A permit is required pursuant to Clause 32.06-4 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme for the construct two or more dwellings on a lot.

Objectors Summary

The application was advertised to the surrounding area through the erection of a notice on-site and the mailing of notices to adjoining and surrounding owners and occupiers. Three objections were received to the application. The issues raised generally relate to matters of neighbourhood character, loss of privacy, overshadowing, traffic and parking problems and setting a precedent with double storey dwellings in Finchaven Avenue.

Assessment Summary

It is proposed to demolish the existing dwelling on the land at No. 14 Finchaven Avenue, Keysborough, and to construct two semi-detached double-storey dwellings comprising 4 bedrooms and 2 associated car parks. Pursuant to Clause 32.06-4 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot within the Residential 3 Zone. As assessed, the proposal does comply with the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme.


As assessed, the proposal is consistent with and appropriately responds to the provisions of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme. The proposal appropriately responds to strategic policy for residential development in the area with this report recommending that the application be supported, that a Notice of Decision (which provides appeal rights to objectors) to grant a permit be issued containing the conditions as set out in the recommendation.


Town Planning Application – No. 5 Finchaven Avenue, Keysborough (Planning Application No. PLN10/0703) (Cont.)

Page 8596

Subject Site and Surrounds

Subject Site The subject sit is rectangular shaped with an inverted curvature of the northern boundary abutting the southern side of Finchaven Avenue, Keysborough. The intersection with Haldane Street is approximately 20m to the north-west. The site has frontage measuring 21.27m, east boundary of 26.4m, west boundaries of 32.2m and the southern boundary of 20.4m, an overall site area of 593m². There is an easement, E-1 that is contained along the entire eastern and southern boundary of the subject site; no buildings and works are proposed on these easements. The site has a 0.5m fall from the south-west corner (rear) to the north-east corner (front). The site currently contains a single storey brick dwelling with a detached corrugated iron-clad outbuilding located to the south-eastern side of the dwelling. All existing structures on the site are to be demolished to make way for the proposed development. Access to the site is via an existing single vehicle crossover located on the north-eastern side of the site. Vegetation on the site is minimal. A street tree and power pole are located to the front of the site on the nature strip.

Surrounding Area The subject site is located in an established residential area, with residential uses surrounding the site. The surrounding area is comprised of single storey detached brick veneer dwellings with generous setbacks from the street and hipped, tiled roofs. The dwellings immediately surrounding the subject site are all single storey fully detached brick veneer dwellings. There is a park located 15m to the south of the site which incorporates children’s play equipment and grassed open spaces. Dwellings in the area have consistent frontage setbacks of approximately 7-9m. Dwellings are generally setback off at least one (1) side boundary. The site is located approximately 15m north of a playground, approximately 250m north and west of an established industrial estate and approximately 300m east of the Chandler Park Primary School.



Page 8597

= Subject Site Melway Reference: 89H9, 89H8

Previous Applications A search of Council records revealed that no planning applications have previously been lodged for the subject site.

Proposal

It is proposed to demolish the existing single storey brick dwelling with detached outbuilding and to develop the site for two (2) double storey dwellings. Details of the proposal are as follows:

Dwelling 1 and 2 (4 bedrooms with a single garage and tandem car space) each consists of:

• Each dwelling will have an entry with a covered porch facing Finchaven Avenue;

• The ground floor level contains the master bedroom with walk-in-robe and ensuite, open dining and living area, study, laundry, kitchen with pantry and toilet;

• The first floor level contains three bedrooms with wardrobes, one bathroom and a separate toilet;

• For Dwelling 1, a single garage is located on the western side of the building with a tandem car space located to the front. Dwelling 2 is proposed to have a single carport along the eastern boundary, above the easement, with a tandem car space to the front;



Page 8598

• The car parking for Dwelling 1 will be accessed via an additional crossover along the western side of the front boundary;

• Private open space towards the rear of each dwelling with approximately 74.4m² of total area for each dwelling with additional open space area towards the frontage of the site;

• A retractable clothes line and storage area would be contained within the secluded open space of each dwelling.


No financial resources are impacted by this report.

Planning Scheme and Policy Frameworks

Pursuant to the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme, a planning permit is required: • To construct two or more dwellings on a lot under Clause 32.06-4 of the Residential 3

Zone.

The relevant controls and policies are as follows:

Zoning Controls The subject site is located in a Residential 3 Zone, as is the surrounding area. The purpose of the Residential 3 Zone outlined at Clause 32.06 is: • To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy

Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

• To provide for residential development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings to meet the housing needs of all households.

• To encourage residential development that respects the neighbourhood character.

• To limit the maximum height of a dwelling or residential building

• In appropriate locations, to allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of other non-residential uses to serve local community needs.

Pursuant to Clause 32.06-4, a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot. The development must meet the requirements of Clause 55.



Page 8599

Clause 32.06-6 states that the schedule to the zone may specify differing requirements to some of the Standards of Clause 55. It is noted that in the schedule to the Zone, different requirements are set for the following: • Standard B5 (Site Coverage) – Up to a maximum of 50%

• Standard B17 (Side and rear setbacks) – A minimum 2 metre setback form side or rear boundaries where opposite a high amenity outdoor living area or main living room window with a high amenity outlook. Otherwise as per B17.

• Standard B28 (Private open space) – An area of 60 square metres, 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 40 square metres, a minimum dimension of 5 metres and convenient access from a living room.

• Standard B32 (Front fence height) – Maximum of 1.5 metre height in streets in Road Zone Category 1 and 1.2 metre maximum height for any other street.

Overlay Controls No overlays affect the subject site or surrounding area.

State Planning Policy Framework The proposal complies with the following state planning policies: Clause 15 of the Scheme looks at Built Environment and Heritage, with the Urban Environment focused on under Clause 15.01. Relevant objectives of that Clause to be considered include: • To create urban environments that are safe, functional and provide good quality

environments with a sense of place and cultural identity.

• To improve community safety and encourage neighbourhood design that makes people feel safe.

• To recognise and protect cultural identity, neighbourhood character and sense of place. Housing, which is of particular relevance to this application, is considered under Clause 16 of the Scheme. Objectives relating to Residential Development outlined at Clause 16.01 to be considered include: • To promote a housing market that meets community needs.

• To locate new housing in or close to activity centres and employment corridors and at other strategic redevelopment sites that offer good access to services and transport.



Page 8600

Local Planning Policy Framework The Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) includes the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and Local Policies. The proposal complies with the following local planning policies: The Vision for Greater Dandenong is outlined at Clause 21.03. Amongst others, the vision is that Greater Dandenong will be a municipality where housing diversity and choice is promoted in its various attractive neighbourhoods.

Under Clause 21.04 – Land Use the matter of housing and community, amongst others, is covered. It is noted within Clause 21.04-1 relating to the matter of housing and community, that Greater Dandenong is forecast to be home to some 16,700 new households by 2031, representing a 36 percent increase on the number of households when compared with numbers in 2001. Relevant objectives and strategies of that Clause include: 1. To encourage and facilitate a wide range of housing types and styles which increase

diversity and cater for the changing needs of households. 1.1 Encourage a mix of housing types that better reflects the cross section of the

community in Greater Dandenong. 1.3 Encourage the provision of housing that is adaptable to support the needs of the

changing needs of present and future residents. 1.5 Encourage innovative redevelopment and renewal of deteriorating housing stock and

older styled higher-density apartments and multi-unit developments. 2. To respect and improve residential environments.

2.1 Encourage developments to exceed minimum compliance with the requirements of Clauses 54, 55 and 56, where appropriate and identified.

2.2 Encourage new residential development that incorporates adequate space for the planting and the long term viability and safe retention of canopy trees.

6. To improve access to affordable and appropriate housing. 6.2 Support residential development that allows people to age in their existing

communities. 7. To provide for the orderly development of new residential areas, including appropriate

forms of higher density housing within existing activity centres. Under Clause 21.05 – Built Form the matters of: urban design, character, streetscapes and landscapes; and, sustainability, amongst others, are covered. It is noted that within that Clause the identification of preferred character areas and the incorporation of clear policy directions with regard to building types and design elements appropriate to the particular character is noted as important in facilitating the achievement of attractive and sustainable built form. Relevant objectives and strategies of Clause 21.05-2 relating to the matter of urban design, character, streetscapes and landscapes, include: 1. To facilitate high quality building design and architecture.

1.1 Ensure building design is consistent with the preferred character of an area and fully integrates with surrounding environment.

1.2 Encourage high standards of building design and architecture, which allows for flexibility and adaptation in use.

1.3 Encourage innovative architecture and building design.



Page 8601

2. To facilitate high quality development, which has regard for the surrounding environment and built form. 2.1 Promote views of high quality landscapes and pleasing vistas from both the private

and public realm. 2.2 Promote all aspects of character – physical, environmental, social and cultural. 2.3 Encourage planting and landscape themes, which complement and improve the

environment. 2.4 Encourage developments to provide for canopy trees. 2.5 Recognising valued existing neighbourhood character and promoting desired future

character as defined in the Residential Development and Neighbourbood Character Policy at Clause 22.09.

3. To improve the quality, consistency and function of the city’s environment. 3.3 Apply the Residential and Neighbourhood Character Policy at Clause 22.09. 6. To ensure that design of the public and private environment supports accessibility and

healthy living. 6.2 Encourage new developments to provide for safe environments.

6.3 Ensure that all new developments accord with and embrace universal design principles outlined in Council’s ‘Access and Inclusion Strategy for people with Disabilities 2004-2008’.

7. To protect and improve streetscapes. 7.1 Ensure new developments improve streetscapes through generous landscape

setbacks and canopy tree planting. 7.2 Ensure landscaping within private property that complements and improves the

streetscapes and landscaping of public areas. 8. To ensure landscaping that enhances the built environment.

8.1 Encourage new developments to establish a landscape setting, which reflects the local and wider landscape character.

Clause 22.09 – Residential Development & Neighbourhood Character Policy is of particular relevance to this application. The objectives of that Policy are:

• To guide the form of residential development that occurs in residential areas throughout Greater Dandenong, having regard to metropolitan policies and planning policies concerning urban form and housing, while respecting valued characteristics of residential neighbourhoods throughout the municipality.

• To promote a range of housing types, in appropriate locations, to accommodate the future needs of the municipality’s changing population.

• To improve the quality and standard of residential development that occurs throughout Greater Dandenong and the quality, sustainability and standard of on site landscaping provided in residential developments.

• To encourage high quality, creative and innovative design that makes a positive contribution to the streetscape.

• To encourage varied forms and intensities of residential development in appropriate locations throughout Greater Dandenong, having regard to metropolitan policies promoting urban consolidation and increased densities, and existing neighbourhood character.



Page 8602

• To ensure that the siting and design of new residential development takes account of its interface with existing residential development on adjoining sites and responds to the individual circumstances of its site and streetscape it is located within.

• To implement the City of Greater Dandenong Neighbourhood Character Study (Sept 2007).

The Policy identifies three (3) areas of change to occur within the residential areas of the municipality – substantial, incremental and limited change, with those areas relating to Residential 2, Residential 1 and Residential 3 zoned areas respectively.

The Substantial Change Area aligns with the Residential 2 Zone, the Incremental Change Area aligns with the Residential 1 Zone and the Limited Change area aligns with the Residential 3 Zone. Consistent with its Residential 3 zoning, the subject site is located within Future Character Area C (Limited Change Area). Limited change areas generally include more recently developed residential areas located a greater distance from the central spine of the municipality that comprises the Princess Highway and railway corridor and key activity centres of Dandenong, Springvale and Noble Park. It includes areas:

• to the north east of the municipality, broadly encompassing Dandenong North & Noble Park North; and

• to the south west of the municipality, broadly encompassing Keysborough and parts of Noble Park

Limited change areas display a gradual transition in age from 1960’s through to 1980’s, as residential subdivision expanded outward from the central spine of the municipality. The broad character is defined by detached dwellings predominantly of single storey scale, with the inclusion of occasional double storey detached dwellings The future character of limited change areas will evolve over time to contain a relatively limited number of well designed and site responsive infill medium density residential developments. Residential development will essentially comprise dwellings with ground level components and a building form that comprises a mix of one and two storey components, with separation between at the upper level. Sufficient ground level space will be provided at the front of sites, and alongside and rear boundaries to provide landscaping and canopy trees to generate a landscaped character throughout. The amenity of adjoining dwellings will be preserved by responsive site design that ensures an appropriate setback of two storey buildings from sensitive outdoor living areas, or main outlook from living rooms, on adjoining properties to enable screen planting. An assessment against the decision guidelines of Clause 22.09 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme is contained within the assessment Section of this report.



Page 8603

Particular Provisions Clause 55 – Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings, details the provisions which relate to an application for residential development. Its purpose includes:

• To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

• To achieve residential development that respects the existing neighbourhood character or which contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character.

• To encourage residential development that provides reasonable standards of amenity for existing and new residents.

• To encourage residential development that is responsive to the site and the neighbourhood.

Under this Clause, the objectives must be met, and the standards should be met as a means of meeting the objectives.

Reference Documents The ‘City of Greater Dandenong Neighbourhood Character Study’ (Sept 2007) is a reference document listed both under Clauses 21.08 and 22.09. That document was used to formulate the policy outlined at Clause 22.09 of the Scheme. It is noted that in addition to identifying areas of preferred character that document also considers existing character in greater detail, with the subject site located in Existing Character Area B as identified in that Study.

Other Council Documents Council has documents, which whilst not included in the Planning Scheme should be considered in the assessment of the application for the purpose of being used for guidance. This includes Council’s ‘Multi-Unit Developments Waste Collection Guidelines for Developers’ (December 2004). Those Guidelines aim to provide developers with guidance on waste collection and management requirements when designing multi-dwelling developments with the municipality. Council’s general waste collection for residential properties typically comprises:

• A weekly collection of household garbage using an 80 or 140 litre mobile bin;

• A fortnightly recycling collection using a 240 litre mobile bin; and,

• A fortnightly garden waste collection (on alternate weeks to the recycling service) using a 240 litre mobile bin.

Under the Guidelines, for the collection of waste from the nature strip a minimum length of 1.76 metres is required for the garbage bin and either the recycling/garden waste bin, clear of any obstructions. A minimal clearance equal to the height of each bin (up to 1.1 metres) is required behind and along the lifting arc. Where the provision of waste collection from the nature strip is inappropriate, collection from the site will be required, which may or may not be undertaken by Council services.



Page 8604

Waste from the site can adequately be collected from the site through Council’s municipal waste collection system.

Links to Council's Annual Plan

In accordance with the commitment in Council’s Annual Plan, all applications are considered on their merits.

Diversity (Access & Equity)

It is not considered that the proposal raises any diversity issues affecting the planning assessment of this application.

Community Safety

It is considered that there would be no adverse community safety implications in permitting the proposal subject to strict conditions on any planning permit issued.

Safe design Guidelines

The application is consistent with the relevant requirements of these Guidelines, which are further considered within the Clause 55 assessment of the application.

Covenant/Restriction Details

The applicant has declared that there are no restrictive covenants affecting the land. This has been verified upon perusal of the Title documentation.

Referrals

External The application was not required to be externally referred.



Page 8605

Internal The application was internally referred to the following for their consideration:

Council Referrals Advice/Response/Conditions

Traffic/Drainage Provision must be made for the drainage of the site including landscaped and paved areas, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Stormwater discharge is to be retained on site to the pre-development level of peak stormwater discharge. Approval of any retention system within the property boundary is required by the relevant building surveyor. Connection from the legal point of discharge to stormwater infrastructure is to be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, prior to the issue of Building Approval.

All wastes must be disposed of to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and no liquid waste or polluted waters shall be discharged into a sewer or stormwater drainage system.

Access to the site and any associated roadwork must be constructed, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

The applicants are able to apply to remove the easements on site.

Advertising

The application has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, by: • Sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land.

• Placing a sign on site facing Finchaven Avenue.

The notification has been carried out correctly. Council has received 3 objections. The location of the objectors is shown in Attachment 2.

Consultation

A consultative meeting was held on 18 May 2011, with the applicant, objectors and Council representatives in attendance. Whilst the issues were discussed at length there was no resolution and the objections stand as submitted.



Page 8606

Summary of Grounds of Objection

The objections are summarised below (bold), followed by the Town Planner’s Response (in italics). 1. Neighbourhood Character – the application for a two storey dual occupancy with

corrugated iron roofing, two crossovers and setback distances is out of character of the surrounding area.

The subject site is surrounded by single storey brick veneer dwellings with generous

front setbacks dating back to the 1960s and 70s. There are no double storey dwellings in the vicinity. The two dwellings have been altered to reduce visual bulk by concentrating the development in the centre of the property with the first floor having generous setbacks from the title boundaries.

The only building in Finchaven Street that does not have roofing tiles is the business

located on the corner of Finchaven and Chandler Road, 180m to the west. As such, the corrugated roofing is out of character with the existing future character of the area and it is recommended a condition of permit require the roofing to be tiled. The proposal is consistent with the preferred future characteristics of the site regarding bulk and design. The limited change areas policy specifies that 2 storey dwellings, where the building form respects the character of the area, can be supported as noted within Clause 22.09-3 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme. The built form of the two proposed dwellings, concentrates the double storey form in the centre of the property which reduces the visual bulk giving the appearance of bulk for a single large double storey dwelling and considering that the subject site is relatively wide compared to the surrounding area, this would reduce the perceived bulk and built form.

It should be noted that in Clause 22.09-3.3 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme which relates to the neighbourhood character study of limited change areas, of which this site is incorporated within, that: “Car access, parking and paving within the front setback will be limited in order to maximise the opportunity for soft landscaping. Second crossovers on allotments with frontage widths below 17m will be discouraged.” Accordingly given the frontage of the subject site is greater than 17m, being 21.27m wide, the proposal for two crossovers is consistent with this policy particularly since there is a substantial balance of land along the frontage that will be designated for landscaping.

Indeed the two accessways would be separated by approximately 14m and importantly the neighbouring allotment to the west does not have vehicle access to Finchaven Avenue, therefore if the development was approved there would be 2 crossovers (totalling 6m) over a frontage distance of approximately 47m along Finchaven Avenue. Given that there are no existing crossovers in proximity to the proposed crossover, the proposed crossover would present in a similar rhythm and spacing of existing crossovers in Finchaven Avenue. It is considered that the proposed accessways are visual compatible and do not detract from the existing neighbourhood character. A 14m setback between crossovers is typical of the other setback distances between existing crossovers along Finchaven Avenue.



Page 8607

2. Dual crossovers – the two crossovers would result in more traffic on the roads and the new crossover to the west of the site is a hazard as it is too close to the intersection with Haldane Street. Cars should not be reversing onto a busy road and vehicles entering and leaving the site at night result in light onto neighbouring properties. The proposed dwellings would result in more traffic on the roads however this increase is relatively small; there would be the provision for an additional two vehicles. The location of the new proposed crossover is setback approximately 15m from the intersection between Finchaven and Haldane Streets which is a sufficient setback to allow safe manoeuvring from an intersection. Whilst it is inevitable that lights from cars will be seen beyond the property it must be questioned on whether this would cause any unreasonable detriment to the surround neighbours. Reverse and break lights cause a glow, that are not beams of light which shine strongly in through the habitable windows of the surrounding neighbours. It would be common to expect that the neighbouring dwellings would have blinds or curtains on the windows if this was to be an issue. Furthermore even if only one house is built on the site, which does not require a planning permit, there is potential for the lights of vehicles to impede on the neighbouring properties. The existing driveways within the street allow vehicle head lights to shine onto the opposite neighbouring properties. It is considered that this concern has been addressed.

3. Overshadowing and loss of privacy – Due to the development being double storey it will overshadow the abutting neighbours and the upper storey windows will have views into secluded private open space.

The applicant was required to submit plans showing the extent of overshadowing to the surrounding properties to satisfy Rescode standard B19 and B21. The shadow diagrams clearly indicate that whilst there is overshadowing of the neighbouring habitable windows and secluded private open space it is minimal and complies with the objectives and standards of Clause 55. The bedrooms on the upper level for both dwellings overlook the secluded open space for the adjoining neighbours but they are proposed to have obscure glazing to a height of 1.7m above the first floor level therefore limiting the views into areas of secluded private open space.

4. Loss of views – due to the proposed dwelling being closer to the street than the

existing dwelling views from the neighbouring allotments will be impeded. Currently the dwelling is setback a minimum of 9m from the front boundary whilst the surrounding setback distances for dwellings ranges between 6m-8m. Dwelling 2 is set back 7.58m and meets the standard; due to the angled front boundary Dwelling 1 is setback between 6.58m to 10.33m from the front boundary. Given that the front setback for Dwelling 1 mostly complies with the required setback of 7.5m and due to the angle of the front boundary a small section is setback slightly closer and appropriately Dwelling 1 creates a staggered setback between No. 12 and 16 Finchaven Avenue; this minor variation is considered acceptable and respectful of the neighbourhood character.



Page 8608

5. Create precedent – there are no double storey developments in the neighbourhood and if this was approved it would set a precedent allowing double storey.

If the development was for one double storey dwelling on a lot greater than 300m² a planning permit would not be required, the permit trigger is for two dwellings on a lot. Whilst this proposal is the first double storey development in the area the first floor form is recessed to reduce the appearance of visual bulk and the graduated height of the building respects the surrounding built form. The preferred future character of the area as per Clause 22.09 also supports double storey forms subject to the design meeting the design guidelines.

6. Speeding cars – Cars already speed along Finchaven Avenue and two units will

add to the problem.

Traffic offences, such as speeding, cannot be enforced under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 or the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme and therefore cannot be considered is assessment of this application.

Assessment

The proposal is consistent with the State and Local Planning Policies. The State Policies relating to residential development promotes housing diversity that meets the community needs, delivery of more affordable housing that are closer to jobs, transport and services. Further to this the Vision for Greater Dandenong, which is outlined in Clause 21.03, is that Greater Dandenong will be a municipality where housing diversity and choice is promoted. The reoccurring theme of diverse housing is also included under Clause 21.04.

Landscaping and built form are significant areas addressed under both State and Local Planning Policies, Clause 21.05 – Built Form is aimed at protecting and improving streetscapes by encouraging landscape plans, retention of significant vegetation and encouraging new developments to establish a landscape setting, which reflects the local wider landscape character. Both the State and Local Planning Policies aim to increase housing diversity, promote affordable housing and increase densities in select locations and this proposal is consistent with that. The area of the subject site is a Limited Change Area which under Clause 22.09-3 identifies villa units, dual occupancy and detached houses as the preferred housing styles within these areas. As such, the proposed dual occupancy is consistent with the State and Local Planning Policies. An assessment against the design guidelines of the limited change area is listed below:



Page 8609

Design Guideline Standard Comments Housing Form A lower proportion and intensity of

medium density infill development than in substantial and incremental change areas.

Complies. This proposal is for a medium density infill development of only two dwellings.

Height A mix of 1 and 2 storey, with entirely 2 storey development only where appropriate considering its interface with existing residential development, response to site circumstances and streetscape.

Complies. The proposal is 2 storey and the design is responsive to the height neighbouring dwellings with the proposal only being approximately 1.15m in height taller than the abutting dwellings.

Bulk Building form to respect the scale of the existing prevailing built character. Separation between dwellings at the upper level. Double storey buildings to the rear of existing buildings on a lot are generally discouraged.

Complies. The design has a tiered approach with the upper levels well setback from the side boundaries. Whilst separation at first floor level is encouraged, typically in the surrounding area 1 dwelling is provided behind the other, where separation at upper levels is an important design element. The proposed design is a side-by-side dual occupancy, with the upper level side elevation being of 1 dwelling only. Upper level separation as such is demonstrated through the individual and distinct roof forms presenting to the street and rear elevations. The design also provides an open carport and an articulated front facade which draws attention to the porches and the different textures of the front elevations. This reduces the appearance of visual bulk.

Site Coverage Up to 50% Complies. The development has site coverage of 294.93m² or 49.7%, below the 50% permitted.

Permeable site area

Minimum of 40%. Complies. A total of 245.25m² (41.33%) of the site is permeable, just more than the minimum 40% required.



Page 8610

Front setback As per Clause 55 with an emphasis

on encouraging ample setback to provide for soft landscaping and canopy trees.

Can comply. The dwellings to the east and west of the subject site are setback 8m and 7m respectively, therefore both dwellings should be setback 7.5m from the front boundary. Dwelling 2 complies as it is setback 7.58m, however due to the angled front boundary Dwelling 1 is setback between 6.58m to 10.33m from the front boundary. The front setback for Dwelling 1 mostly complies with the required setback of 7.5m; the angle of the front boundary means a small section is setback slightly closer yet appropriately Dwelling 1 creates a staggered setback between No. 12 and 16 Finchaven Avenue; as such this minor variation is considered acceptable and respectful of the neighbourhood character

Side and rear setbacks

Minimum of 2 metres where opposite a high amenity outdoor area or a living room window with a high amenity outlook, then as per Clause 55.

Can Comply. Dwelling 1 is to be setback 1.2m from the west boundary and whilst it is opposite a covered verandah it is considered that given the dining room does not face onto the neighbour as only a highlight windows faces west and the main open area of secluded ‘open’ space at 12 Finchaven Avenue is well over 2m from the wall, it is considered a variation from this design guideline is acceptable. Dwelling 2 is a minimum of 2.5m from the eastern boundary and both dwellings have a minimum setback of 4m form the rear boundary.



Page 8611

Private open space

Minimum of 60m² per unit at ground level within a minimum of 40m² secluded private open space (all areas to have a minimum dimension of 5 metres).

Complies. Dwelling 1 has a secluded private open space area of 74.7m² to the rear of the dwelling and an additional 37.9m² of private open space to the front of the dwelling with a total of 112.5m² of private open space. Dwelling 2 has a total of 113.79m² of private open space consisting of 42.7m² to the front of the dwelling and 70.98m² of secluded private open space to the rear of the dwelling.

Car parking Garage and car parking areas located behind buildings, generally hidden from view.

Complies. The garage for Dwelling 1 is setback approximately 500mm from the front facade of the dwelling and setback 2.5m from the porch whilst the carport for Dwelling 2 is setback 2.93m from the front of the dwelling. The tandem car spaces for both dwellings are to the front of the covered parking spaces.

Landscaping 70% of ground level front setback planted with substantial landscaping and canopy trees.

Complies. At least 70% of the front setback will be planted out with vegetation and canopy trees.

Front boundary Open or low scale front fences not to exceed 1.5m for street in Road Zone Category 1 and maximum height of 1.2 metres for other roads to allow a visual connection between landscaping in front gardens and street tree planting. Car access, parking and paving within the front setback will be limited in order to maximise the opportunity for soft landscaping. Second crossovers on allotments with frontage widths below 17m will be discouraged.

Complies. The proposed development does not have a front fence.



Page 8612

Clause 55 Assessment An assessment of the proposal against the requirements of Clause 55 is attached to this report. The assessment of the application against this Clause found the proposed development meets the overall objectives of the Clause, or can do so through conditions imposed on any permit issued, meeting the objectives as a whole. The proposed two semi-detached, double storey dwellings with iron roofing and rendered façades is generally consistent with the existing neighbourhood character which comprises of detached single storey brick veneer dwellings with tiled roofs and setbacks averaging 7-8m. The proposal has been designed to be a similar height as the surrounding dwelling with the width of the proposal similar to the existing dwelling on the subject site. The proposal will be located within the limited change area that is defined under Clause 22.09 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme. The future character of limited change areas is expected to evolve over time to contain a limited number of medium density developments, comprising a mix of 1 and 2 stories. As per this policy, the dwellings will be well setback from the front and rear setbacks to allow landscaping and the planting of canopy trees. It is considered that the proposal complies with the preferred future character of the area and will contribute to the change encouraged within this area by providing a sensitively designed medium density development which is respectful of the surrounding residential area. The proposal provides sufficient open space to the front of the dwelling for the provision of landscaping, which will be required as a permit condition, and despite the development consisting of 2 double storey dwellings the proposal will preserve the visual amenity of the adjoining dwellings by reducing the bulk of the buildings and minimising overlooking and overshadowing; as such, the development is considered to be consistent with the preferred future characteristics of the limited change areas as stated in Clause 22.09-3.3 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme. The proposed development provides sufficient usable open space to the rear of the dwellings, consistent with the surrounding area and exceeds that of number 12 and 18 Finchaven Avenue and 16 Hatfield Court. There is adequate space for on-site car parking thus reducing the need for on-street car parking and the proposed car parking spaces are located to the side of the dwellings and setback from the façade. A full assessment of the application against Clause 55 is contained within the attachment no. 3 and it is considered the proposal complies with the objectives of this standard.

Waste Collection The proposal shows 2 refuse bins allocated to each dwelling. Bins are to be stored beside the garage for dwelling 1 and behind the car port for dwelling 2. In terms of collection, bins can be wheeled out onto the nature strip on collection day where they can be safely and conveniently collected by refuse trucks.



Page 8613

Vegetation & Tree Impact (Site & Surrounds) The landscaping character of Finchaven Avenue is green with numerous established street trees and majority of the allotments having lawn with minimal canopy trees between the dwellings and front boundary. The subject site is no different with a significant street tree and lawn within the front setback. The development proposes to remove some vegetation from the site as part of the development. The vegetation to be removed is minimal and not considered significant as it planted medium sized vegetation which is exempt from removal under Clause 32.01-4 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme as the lot is less than 0.4ha. Pursuant to Clause 55.03-8 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme, the retention of mature vegetation is encouraged. Given that no permit is required to remove the trees it is considered that a landscaping plan will address any vegetation removal. As part of the plan, at least one (1) advanced canopy tree with a minimum planting height of 1.5m must be planted within the rear secluded private open space of each dwelling to offset the removed vegetation.

Conclusion

The application has been assessed against the relevant sections of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme, including the State and Local Planning Policy Framework, Municipal Strategic Statement and Clause 55 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme. This type of development is supported in the Residential Development & Neighbourhood Character Policy at Clause 22.09 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme. The proposed double storey dwellings are consistent with the objectives and standards set out under Clause 55. It is recommended this application be approved.

Recommendation That Council’s delegate resolves to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit in respect of the land known and described as No. 14 Finchaven Avenue, Keysborough, for the construction of two double storey dwellings, all in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the development starts, two copies of amended plans drawn to scale and dimensioned, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. No buildings or works must be commenced until the plans have been approved and endorsed by the Responsible Authority. The endorsed copy of the plans forms part of this permit.

The plans must be in accordance with the plans submitted with the application, but modified to show: 1.1. A north facing skylight above each dining room; 1.2. The roofs to each dwelling to be tiled; 1.3. A landscape plan in accordance with Condition 3; To the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.



Page 8614

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

3. Prior to the endorsement of plans under Condition 1, a landscape plan must be submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and two (2) copies must be provided. The landscaping plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and must show: a) The site at a scale of 1:100/200, including site boundaries, existing and

proposed buildings, neighbouring buildings, car parking, access and exit points, indicative topography and spot levels at the site corners, existing and proposed vegetation, nature strip trees, easements and landscape setbacks;

b) Details of the proposed layout, type and height of fencing; c) All screening structures, loading bays and refuse collection locations; d) Legend of all plant types, surfaces, materials and landscape items to be

used including the total areas of garden and lawn; e) A plant schedule giving a description of botanical name, common name,

mature height and spread, pot size, purchase height (if a tree) and individual plant quantities;

f) At least one (1) advanced canopy tree with a minimum planting height of 1.5 metres within the rear secluded open space areas of each dwelling and within the front yard;

g) Improved landscaping to the front of the existing dwelling, including at least two (2) advanced canopy trees with a planting height of 1.5 metres;

h) Shrubbery plantings, with a maximum mature height of 1 metre, to the south of the car space to the existing dwelling;

i) Any paving or deck areas within the secluded open space area of the proposed dwellings on a permeable base

4. The obscured glazing to the windows shown on the endorsed plans must be

through frosted glass or similarly treated glass, and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Adhesive film or the like that can be removed must not be used.

5. Prior to the occupation of the development, all disused or redundant vehicle crossings must be removed and the area reinstated to kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6. Provision must be made for the drainage of the site including landscaped and pavement areas, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

7. Access to the site and any associated roadwork’s must be constructed, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

8. Stormwater discharge is to be retained on site to the pre-development level of peak stormwater discharge. Approval of any retention system within the property boundary is required by the relevant building surveyor. Connection from the legal point of discharge to stormwater infrastructure is to be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority , prior to the issue of Building Approval



Page 8615

9. All wastes must be disposed of to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and no liquid waste or polluted waters shall be discharged into a sewer or a stormwater drainage system.

10. Before the occupation of the dwelling, landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plan/s must be completed and then maintained, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

11. This permit will expire if:- 11.1. The development does not start within two (2) years of the date of this

permit, or 11.2. The development is not completed within four (4) years of the date of this

permit. Before the permit expires or within three (3) months afterwards the owner or occupier of the land may in writing request the Responsible Authority to extend the expiry date.

Notes

• A Vehicle Crossing Permit must be obtained from Council for all vehicular crossings prior to construction of the crossings.

• Building Approval is required prior to the commencement of the approved

development. • Prior to the final design being completed, the applicant should consult with

Council’s Infrastructure Planning Department in regard to the legal point of discharge for this site.

• This permit has been granted on the basis that consent to build over any

easement will be obtained from the relevant authority. If consent is not able to be obtained, the development plan will be required to be amended.



Page 8616

MINUTE 1041 Moved by: Cr Roz Blades Seconded by: Cr Pinar Yesil That Council’s delegate resolves to issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit in respect of the land known and described as No. 14 Finchaven Avenue, Keysborough, for the construction of two double storey dwellings, all in accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the development starts, two copies of amended plans drawn to scale and dimensioned, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. No buildings or works must be commenced until the plans have been approved and endorsed by the Responsible Authority. The endorsed copy of the plans forms part of this permit.

The plans must be in accordance with the plans submitted with the application, but modified to show: 1.1. A north facing skylight above each dining room; 1.2. The roofs to each dwelling to be tiled; 1.3. A landscape plan in accordance with Condition 3; To the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


3. Prior to the endorsement of plans under Condition 1, a landscape plan must be submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and two (2) copies must be provided. The landscaping plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person and must show: a) The site at a scale of 1:100/200, including site boundaries, existing and

proposed buildings, neighbouring buildings, car parking, access and exit points, indicative topography and spot levels at the site corners, existing and proposed vegetation, nature strip trees, easements and landscape setbacks;

b) Details of the proposed layout, type and height of fencing; c) All screening structures, loading bays and refuse collection locations; d) Legend of all plant types, surfaces, materials and landscape items to be

used including the total areas of garden and lawn; e) A plant schedule giving a description of botanical name, common name,

mature height and spread, pot size, purchase height (if a tree) and individual plant quantities;

f) At least one (1) advanced canopy tree with a minimum planting height of 1.5 metres within the rear secluded open space areas of each dwelling and within the front yard;



Page 8617

g) Improved landscaping to the front of the existing dwelling, including at least two (2) advanced canopy trees with a planting height of 1.5 metres;

h) Shrubbery plantings, with a maximum mature height of 1 metre, to the south of the car space to the existing dwelling;

i) Any paving or deck areas within the secluded open space area of the proposed dwellings on a permeable base

4. The obscured glazing to the windows shown on the endorsed plans must be

through frosted glass or similarly treated glass, and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Adhesive film or the like that can be removed must not be used.

5. Prior to the occupation of the development, all disused or redundant vehicle crossings must be removed and the area reinstated to kerb and channel to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


7. Access to the site and any associated roadwork’s must be constructed, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

8. Stormwater discharge is to be retained on site to the pre-development level of peak stormwater discharge. Approval of any retention system within the property boundary is required by the relevant building surveyor. Connection from the legal point of discharge to stormwater infrastructure is to be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority , prior to the issue of Building Approval


10. Before the occupation of the dwelling, landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plan/s must be completed and then maintained, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

11. This permit will expire if:- 11.1. The development does not start within two (2) years of the date of this

permit, or 11.2. The development is not completed within four (4) years of the date of this

permit. Before the permit expires or within three (3) months afterwards the owner or occupier of the land may in writing request the Responsible Authority to extend the expiry date.

Notes

• A Vehicle Crossing Permit must be obtained from Council for all vehicular crossings prior to construction of the crossings.



Page 8618

• Building Approval is required prior to the commencement of the approved development.

• Prior to the final design being completed, the applicant should consult with

Council’s Infrastructure Planning Department in regard to the legal point of discharge for this site.

• This permit has been granted on the basis that consent to build over any

easement will be obtained from the relevant authority. If consent is not able to be obtained, the development plan will be required to be amended.

CARRIED



Page 8619





Page 8620

7.4.2 Town Planning Application - No. 5 Leonard Street, Dandenong (Planning Application No. PLN10/0766)

Attachments: Location of Objector Submitted Plans 03/10/2011 Clause 22.09 Assessment Table Clause 55 Assessment Table


Application Summary

Applicant: Coomes Planning Proposal: To develop the land for four (4) double storey dwellings with

associated roof terraces and two (2) ground level car parking spaces, together with the waiver of two (2) car spaces pursuant to Clause 55.03-11 of the planning scheme

Zone: Residential 1 Zone Overlay: Design & Development Overlay – Schedule 3 Ward: Red Gum The application proposes to demolish the existing structures on site in order to develop the land for four (4) double storey dwellings with associated roof terraces and two (2) ground level car parking, together with the waiver of two (2) car spaces pursuant to Clause 55.03-11 of the planning scheme. A permit is required pursuant to Clause 32.01-4 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme to construct two (2) or more dwellings on a lot.

Objector Summary

The application was advertised to the surrounding area through the erection of two (2) on-site notices and the mailing of notices to adjoining and surrounding owners and occupiers. One (1) objection was received to the application and a consultation meeting has been held. The issues raised by the objector are summerised below: • Concern that the ground floor plan was inaccurate and the notes regarding the site statistics

were incorrect; • Objection to the level of development proposed, considering four (4) units to be excessive

(although the objectors comments indicate a misunderstanding of the number of bedrooms being proposed within each dwelling, the concerns relate to mainly to the overdevelopment of the site);

• An objection to the proposed design of the dwellings, including that they would be out of character with the area and offer poor areas of Secluded Private Open Space (“SPOS”);

• Concerns that the two (2) on-site car parking spaces would be insufficient for four (4) dwellings, and that cars accessing the on-site spaces would damage the existing boundary fencing;

• Concerns regarding sustainability matters, including that the lack of external clothes drying area would result in a need for electric clothes dryers and a failure to provide water conservation or collection measures;

• Concern that the space proposed for solid waste, recyclables and green waste bins is insufficient;

• Concern that no ground floor landscaping areas of fencing was proposed;


Town Planning Application – No. 5 Leonard Street, Dandenong (Planning Application No. PLN10/0766) (Cont.)

Page 8621

• Safety concerns regarding future residents being at risk of electrocution from nearby power lines when using roof-top terraces;

• Devaluation of property; and • Inconvenience during construction period. The location of the objector is included as Attachment 1.

Assessment Summary

The application has been assessed against the provisions of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme and is considered not to have met the objectives of both Clause 22.09 and Clause 55. This four dwelling proposal fails to achieve an acceptable design solution for this site. The amount of floor space proposed to provide four dwellings results in a solution where only two car parking spaces can be provided on-site, and where a ‘reverse living’ situation with bedrooms facing onto the street at ground floor results in a design outcome that can only accommodate any secluded private open space within the roof terrace. Taking the neighbourhood character and subject site specific constraints into account, the ‘reverse living’ proposal fails to provide an acceptable outcome. The proposed dwellings would have poor ‘livability’ and internal amenity. The future residents would have an unacceptable standard of living owing to the lack of adequate storage and car parking, poor internal layouts and a lack of natural light and outlook for many of the proposed habitable rooms, and a failure to have an acceptable, usable area of secluded private open space. Furthermore, the amenity of existing residents and the existing residential environment in the Leonard Street and Louis Avenue would be unacceptably impacted upon as a direct result of this proposal. Despite two revisions of the scheme, the design of the building remains unacceptable. The external appearance of the ground floor of the dwellings has no activity because the living rooms are only able to be accommodated at first floor within the reverse living design, and as a result the sense of entry, sense of place and street scene, roof and window patterns are out of keeping with Council’s future neighbourhood character. The proposed flat, tiered and ‘cat slide’ mixed roof form is unacceptable, as it is badly shaped and only provided to accommodate the roof terraces. The height and bulk of the proposed building is also unacceptable. Whilst the dwellings are double storey in layout, the need to provide the SPOS within the roof terraces means that roof overruns are necessary. This results in a need for a partial three storey wall of up to 8.8m in height on the northern elevation. This three storey development is at odds with the largely single and double storey housing form of the future expected character of the neighbourhood, and would be highly visible from street scene on Leonard Street and from the existing adjacent residential properties on Louis Avenue. The unacceptable height and consequential appearance of the building is further exacerbated by the slope of the site. Whilst the redevelopment of the site for residential dwellings is welcomed, this proposal is unacceptable and would not result in a good outcome for future or existing residents and the visual appearance of the urban environment would be detrimentally affected.


As assessed, the proposal does not meet the requirements of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme. It is inconsistent with and does not appropriately respond to the provisions of the Scheme as detailed in this report, and for the reasons set out in the recommendation should be Refused.



Page 8622

Subject Site and Surrounds Subject Site The subject site is located on the north-east corner of Leonard Street and Louis Avenue, Dandenong. The subject site is rectangular in shape and has a frontage of 7.62m to the north side of Leonard Street, a depth of 24.38m along Louis Avenue and contains a site area of 185.7m2. As noted above, the subject site is a corner allotment with frontage to Leonard Street and a sideage to Louis Avenue. The existing single storey building on the land appears to have been originally constructed as a shop, but has been converted for a use as an office for some time. The subject site has rights of access over a 6.1m wide road located immediately to the south, between the property and Leonard Street and a 3.66m wide road immediately to the north (right-of-way). The site has a fall of 1.7m to the south a gradient of 1:13 and contains no vegetation of significance.

Surrounding Area The subject site is located in a predominantly single storey residential area to the north-east of the Dandenong Central Activities District to the east of Stud Road, south of Heatherton Road and close to the parklands along the Dandenong Creek. The current building on the subject site formed part of a small local shopping centre that appears to have been constructed in the 1970’s. The shopping centre comprises five lots, the frontages of which were setback 20 feet (i.e. 6m) from Leonard Street so that it could be used for car parking for the shops. A three metre wide unmade road extends along the rear of the lots. It would now appear that the buildings at No’s 9 to 13 Leonard Street have been converted for use as dwellings. None of the buildings within the development continue to operate as shops and it appears that only the subject site is used for commercial purposes. The adjoining lot, No.7 Leonard Street, has been granted a building permit for conversion for a residence. The area in the vicinity of the subject site was originally developed for detached housing and much of the original housing stock, generally dating from the 1960’s, remains intact. Generally, the surrounding buildings are single storey constructed of brick and with tiled and hipped roofs. Some of the lots in the surrounding area have been redeveloped for multi-dwelling residential development, but these newer developments are predominantly double storey detached dwellings or dual occupancies, each with significant landscaping and on-site car parking. The land is located in an established area, well serviced with all necessary community services and facilities, which include education, recreation, retails and community facilities, as well as public transport. Leonard Street and Louis Avenue are local streets providing access to houses in the local area. See the Locality Plan on the following page.



Page 8623

Locality Plan

0 100.00 200.00

meters

North Subject Site Melway Ref: 90F4

Background

Previous Applications A search of Council records shows that the following planning applications have previously been considered for the subject site:

• Planning Permit No. PLN05/0808 was issued on 30 January 2006 to construct and carry out buildings and works, comprising of a garage and enclosure to the rear of the existing building. Plans were endorsed to this permit on the same date. It is noted that this permit was never acted upon and has now expired.

• Planning Permit No. 12271 was issued by the then Melbourne Metropolitan Board of Works on 11 November 1958 to develop and use lots 79 to 83 for five (5) shops.

Therefore, there are no current permits for the development of the subject site.



Page 8624

Proposal

The application proposes to demolish the existing structures on site in order to develop the land for four (4) double storey dwellings with associated roof terraces and two (2) ground level car parking spaces on the site, together with the waiver of two (2) car spaces pursuant to Clause 55.03-11 of the planning scheme. A permit is required pursuant to Clause 32.01-4 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme to construct two (2) or more dwellings on a lot. The applicant provided revised plans to officers on 03 October 2011, and these updated plans now form the application to be considered by Council. The proposed development is summarised as follows:

Building Layout and Massing The proposal is to develop four townhouse units in a ‘reverse living’ layout, with two units proposing two bedrooms, and the remaining two units proposing to accommodate one bedroom. Each unit comprises two floors of residential development, with a roof terrace at third floor. The bedrooms for each unit are located on the ground floor, with living and dining spaces at first floor. Access to the area of secluded private open space on the roof terraces would be through a flight of stairs from the first floor living areas. The dwellings are symmetrically aligned and face Louis Avenue. The land slopes from the north and the proposed dwellings gradually stepped down the slope, giving the appearance of two sets of dual townhouses. Each dwelling is provided with a separate entrance from Louis Avenue.

Dwellings Dwellings 1 and 4 will contain:

• two bedrooms and a bathroom at ground floor;

• living room/kitchen with laundry cupboard/meals area, and a toilet at first floor; and

• a roof top terrace at second floor of 13m2.

Dwellings 2 and 3 will contain:

• one bedroom and a bathroom at ground floor;

• living room/kitchen/meals area, and a toilet with laundry facilities at first floor; and

• a roof top terrace at second floor of 8.7m2.



Page 8625

The details of the floor areas of each of the dwellings are as follows: Dwelling No. Floor Area (Sqm) Roof Terrace (Sqm) Total (Sqm) 1 66.2 13 79.2 2 62.4 8.7 71.1 3 62.4 8.7 71.1 4 66.2 13 79.2 Car Parking A total of two (2) car spaces are provided on site, located at the northern end of the site (i.e. on site) with access from Louis Avenue. As four units are provided, Clause 55 of the Planning Scheme requires the development to provide four (4) car spaces. The applicant therefore seeks to waive the requirement for two (2) car spaces that cannot be provided on-site within the proposed scheme. These two car spaces onsite are set aside for Units 1 and 4 (given that these dwellings contain two-bedrooms) and are accessed by a double crossover from Louis Avenue. The applicant proposes that there is sufficient capacity within the on-street parking areas on Leonard Street to accommodate the car parking spaces that cannot be provided on the site. The applicant has submitted a Traffic and Car Parking Assessment Report prepared by Traffix Group Pty Ltd to support his proposal.

Building Height The building will have varying heights above the footpath level in Louis Avenue as a result of the slope of the land. The height of the stairwell enclosure for Units 1 and 2 will be 8.5 metres above the footpath and the stairwell enclosure for Units 3 and 4 will be 8.8 metres above the footpath. The parapet above Units 1 and 2 will vary from 5.4 metres to 6 metres above the footpath and the parapet above Units 3 and 4 will be from 5.6 to 6.2 metres above the footpath.

Building Setbacks The proposed building will be constructed on the boundary of the east, west and southern boundaries (i.e. zero setback). Unit 4 will be setback 7.32 metres from the northern boundary to allow the provision of the two on-site parking spaces.

Building Design and Appearance Each dwelling has a separate entrance from Louis Avenue. Each front door will be inset slightly from the front wall of the building in order to create a small porch. An entrance canopy is provided which overhangs the public footpath on the western property boundary. All units will face onto Louis Avenue, which will be the primary light source. Units 1 and 4 will also gain light from the north and the south. The two central units, Units 2 and 3 will be provided with a rectangular light well of approximately 1m in depth and a total of 3 square metres along the northern boundary. This will provide light to the ground floor rear bedrooms and the first floor living areas. The light wells will be bound by walls on all sides.



Page 8626

On the ground floor Louis Avenue frontage, each of the units will have one horizontal high level slot window. These windows are all bedroom windows. The height to the sill level of each window above the footpath level in Louis Avenue is shown in the following table: Dwelling No. Bedroom Window sill height above footpath

level in Louis Street (m) 1 1.9 2 1.7 3 2.3 4 1.7

The sill of the horizontal ground floor windows facing Leonard Street is at least 2.0 metres above the footpath level. These windows are also bedroom windows. The kitchen windows on the first floor will have a sill height one metre above floor level, with the first floor windows proposed to be clear glazed and openable.

Landscaping The applicant submits that the design allows for a small area landscaping to be incorporated around the northern parking area. Planter boxes are also proposed for the roof-top terraces. No landscape plans have been provided.

Secluded Private Open Space A roof terrace is provided for each unit at third storey. Access to these areas from the living space is provided by a stairwell. The stairwell becomes external and proposed a skillion roof extending over the area between the roof deck and the frontage to Louis Avenue to facilitate the terrace stair access. The stairwells are visible as a three storey element of construction along the northern boundary, being proposed at 2.6 metres above the roof deck. The access point to the stairway will be located adjacent to the eastern edge of the building. The terraces are located at the eastern side of the roof, adjoining the boundary with 7 Leonard Street and will be setback 3.1 metres from the Louis Avenue frontage. A parapet 1.2 metres high will extend around the edge of each of the roof decks together with an in-built planter box.

External Colours and Materials The dominant portion of the building will be rendered masonry and coloured ‘Sandbank’. Features include metal finishes for the canopy coloured ‘Jasper’ and the use of timber detailing finished in ‘Paperbark’. Roofing will be Colourbond ‘Woodland Grey’ and the aluminium window frames will be coloured ‘Jasper’.

Storage Each of the units is proposed to have an external storage unit with a capacity of 4 cubic metres located beside the car parking area at the northern end of the site.



Page 8627

Waste Management Bin storage is proposed to be located adjacent to rear car parking area and to be accessed from the existing laneway. The applicant has provided supporting documentation from Viola Waste Management (Australia) Pty. Ltd which proposed that dwellings of this type can be expected to generate 120 litres of solid waste per week and 120 litres of recyclables (co-mingle). Therefore the four proposed units would generate approximately 480 litres of both solid waste and recyclables per week, a total waste output of 960 litres. Three 250 litre bins will be provided for waste and recyclables. The bins will be moved to and from the street for collection along the common pathway by the Owners Corporation.

Laundry Facilities No external clothes lines or other drying facilities are proposed to be provided. All units will use ‘European laundry’ style arrangement with clothes dryers built into the toilet at first floor to dry clothes. There is limited capacity to provide a laundry room under this design.

Fencing No fencing is to be provided.

Sustainability The applicant considers that the dwellings have been designed having regard to sustainable design and will include the provision of:

• Roof top terraces to allow vegetation to be located within the site confines and

• Energy efficient light globes within each dwelling.

Utilities Mail and meter boxes will be located on the return frontage side of site.

Development Statistics The subject land has an area of 185 square metres. The proposed site density is one dwelling per 46 square metres of site area. The proposed built form will have an area of 128 square metres, meaning that the proposed development would result in a site coverage of 69%.The hard surface area of the proposal is 142 square metres, giving a hard surface coverage of 76%. A copy of the amended proposal plans received by Council on 03 October 2011 is included as Attachment 2.



Page 8628




Pursuant to the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme, a planning permit is required:

• To construct two (2) or more dwellings on a lot under Clause 32.01-4 of the Residential 1 Zone.


Zoning Controls The subject site is located in a Residential 1 Zone, as is the surrounding area. The purpose of the Residential 1 Zone outlined at Clause 32.01 is:





Pursuant to Clause 32.01-4, a permit is required to construct two (2) or more dwellings on a lot. The development must meet the requirements of Clause 55.

Overlay Controls The subject land along with other land located in the vicinity of the Dandenong Hospital is in a Design & Development Overlay – Schedule 3 (“DDO3”). Pursuant to Clause 43.02-2, in the Design and Development Overlay a permit is required to construct buildings and works unless a schedule to the overlay specifically states that a permit is not required. Paragraph 2.0 of Schedule 3 to the Design and Development Overlay and provides that no permit is required to construct a building or works which have a height of less than 47.9 metres AHD. In this regard, as the proposal is less than 47.9 metres AHD, a permit is not required under this Clause/Overlay provision.



Page 8629

State Planning Policy Framework The Operation of the State Planning Policy Framework outlined at Clause 10 seeks to ensure that the objectives of planning in Victoria are fostered through appropriate land use and development planning policies and practices which integrate relevant environmental, social and economic factors in the interests of net community benefit and sustainable development. The objectives of Planning in Victoria are noted as: (a) To provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land. (b) To provide for the protection of natural and man-made resources and the maintenance of

ecological processes and genetic diversity. (c) To secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for

all Victorians and visitors to Victoria. (d) To conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of scientific,

aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value. (e) To protect public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community. (f) To facilitate development in accordance with the objectives set out in paragraphs (a), (b),

(c), (d) and (e). (g) To balance the present and future interests of all Victorians. In order to achieve those objectives, there are a number of more specific objectives contained within the State Planning Policy Framework that need to be considered under this application. The matter of Settlement is outlined at Clause 11. Metropolitan Melbourne is considered under Clause 11.04 with the following objective outlined at Clause 11.04-5 relating to Melbourne’s Urban Growth of particular relevance to this application: To set clear limits to Metropolitan Melbourne’s urban development. Clause 15 of the Scheme looks at Built Environment and Heritage, with the Urban Environment focused on under Clause 15.01. Relevant objectives of that Clause to be considered include: • To create urban environments that are safe, functional and provide good quality

environments with a sense of place and cultural identity.


• To recognise and protect cultural identity, neighbourhood character and sense of place. Clause 15.02 – Sustainable Development is also of relevance to this application, with the following objective relating to Energy and Resource Efficiency at Clause 15.02-1 having to be considered: To encourage land use and development that is consistent with the efficient use of energy and the minimisation of greenhouse gas emissions.



Page 8630

Housing, which is of particular relevance to this application, is considered under Clause 16 of the Scheme. Objectives relating to Residential Development outlined at Clause 16.01 to be considered include: • To promote a housing market that meets community needs.


• To identify strategic redevelopment sites for large residential development in Metropolitan Melbourne.

• To provide a range of housing types to meet increasingly diverse needs.

• To deliver more affordable housing closer to jobs, transport and services. With Infrastructure considered at Clause 19, Clause 19.03 the broad objectives relating Development Infrastructure should be considered. Those objectives include: • To plan for the provision of water supply, sewerage and drainage services that efficiently

and effectively meet State and community needs and protect the environment.

• To reduce the impact of stormwater on bays and catchments.

Local Planning Policy Framework The Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) includes the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and Local Policies. The MSS is contained within Clause 21 of the Scheme. The MSS at Clause 21.02 focuses on the Municipal Profile, within which the following is noted: • In 2006 Greater Dandenong was home to over 130,000 people within an area of 129.6

square kilometres (Clause 21.02-1).

• There is considerable diversity within Greater Dandenong’s housing stock. Most housing stock is between 30 to 50 years, though there are some areas with dwellings in excess of 100 years old. Areas of newer housing are located in the north-east and central southern areas, with in-fill development occurring across the municipality (Clause 21.02-3)

• Higher density housing is generally located in proximity to railway stations and major shopping centres, in particular in central Dandenong (Clause 21.02-3).

• The municipality has similar levels of home ownership and people renting when compared to metropolitan Melbourne (Clause 21.02-3).

• Housing is relatively affordable in Greater Dandenong, though the costs have risen steeply in recent years, with house prices having risen by 27 percent in the past 5 years within Greater Dandenong compared with 4 percent across metropolitan Melbourne (Clause 21.02-3).

• The older age population (60 and above) accounts for 19 percent of the Greater Dandenong population as compared to 18 percent for metropolitan Melbourne (Clause 21.02-3).



Page 8631

• There is a clear predominance of single detached dwellings within the municipality however there are a range of other dwelling types including dual occupancies, villa-units, townhouses and apartments. The highest concentration of older villa-units and apartments and more recent multi-dwelling redevelopment have occurred around central Dandenong, Springvale and Noble Park activity centres (Clause 21.02-4).

• Cultural influences have defined certain precincts with their own built form character, generally flat unarticulated facades, prominent balconies, limited front and side setbacks, and limited or no landscaping (Clause 21.02-4).

The Vision for Greater Dandenong is outlined at Clause 21.03. Amongst others, the vision is that Greater Dandenong will be a municipality where housing diversity and choice is promoted in its various attractive neighbourhoods. The objectives and strategies of the MSS are under four (4) main themes including: land use; built form; open space and natural environment; and, infrastructure and transportation (considered individually under Clauses 21.04 to 21.07). Of particular relevance to this application are Clauses 21.04 – Land Use, 21.05 – Built Form and 21.07 – Infrastructure and Transportation. Under Clause 21.04 – Land Use the matter of housing and community, amongst others, is covered. It is noted within Clause 21.04-1 relating to the matter of housing and community, that Greater Dandenong is forecast to be home to some 16,700 new households by 2031, representing a 36 percent increase on the number of households when compared with numbers in 2001. Of those new households 3,700 are forecast to be within ‘green field’ locations, and the balance within strategic redevelopment sites and within residential areas. Relevant objectives and strategies of that Clause include: 1. To encourage and facilitate a wide range of housing types and styles which increase

diversity and cater for the changing needs of households. 1.1 Encourage a mix of housing types that better reflects the cross section of the

community in Greater Dandenong. 1.2 Promote subdivision that provides for a range of lot sizes to cater for the diversity of

the community of Greater Dandenong. 1.3 Encourage the provision of housing that is adaptable to support the needs of the

changing needs of present and future residents. 2. To respect and improve residential environments.

2.1 Encourage developments to exceed minimum compliance with the requirements of Clauses 54, 55 and 56, where appropriate and identified.

2.2 Encourage new development that incorporates adequate space for the planting and the long term viability and safe retention of canopy trees.

4. To optimise residential consolidation around activity centres/transport nodes, and more efficient use of existing urban infrastructure. 4.2 Develop appropriate planning guidelines (including overlay controls) for the

development of well defined areas on the periphery of Central Dandenong, Springvale, Noble Park and Parkmore activity centres without detriment to the existing urban character and without compromising existing commercial businesses.

6. To improve access to affordable and appropriate housing. 6.1 Encourage the provision of affordable housing in association with larger residential

developments. 6.2 Support residential development that allows people to age in their existing

communities.



Page 8632

Under Clause 21.05 – Built Form the matters of: urban design, character, streetscapes and landscapes; and, sustainability, amongst others, are covered. It is noted that within that Clause the identification of preferred character areas and the incorporation of clear policy directions with regard to building types and design elements appropriate to the particular character is noted as important in facilitating the achievement of attractive and sustainable built form. Relevant objectives and strategies of Clause 21.05-2 relating to the matter of urban design, character, streetscapes and landscapes, include: 1. To facilitate high quality building design and architecture.



1.3 Encourage innovative architecture and building design. 2. To facilitate high quality development, which has regard for the surrounding environment

and built form. 2.1 Promote views of high quality landscapes and pleasing vistas from both the private and public realm. 2.2 Promote all aspects of character – physical, environmental, social and cultural. 2.3 Encourage planting and landscape themes, which complement and improve the

environment. 2.4 Encourage developments to provide for canopy trees.

6. To ensure that design of the public and private environment supports accessibility and healthy living.

6.2 Encourage new developments to provide for safe environments. 6.3 Ensure that all new developments accord with and embrace universal design

principles outlined in Council’s ‘Access and Inclusion Strategy for people with Disabilities 2004-2008’.



streetscapes and landscaping of public areas. Relevant objectives and strategies of Clause 21.05-4 relating to sustainability, include: 1. To promote ecologically sustainable development.

1.1 Encourage the design of developments to provide for integration of water sensitive urban design.

1.2 Encourage the recycling of grey water in new developments. Under Clause 21.07 – Infrastructure and Transportation matters of physical, community and cultural infrastructure and public transport, amongst others, are covered.



Page 8633

Relevant objectives and strategies of Clause 21.07-1 relating to the matter of physical, community and cultural infrastructure include: 2. To manage the impact of discharge of stormwater to minimise pollution and flooding. 2.1 Promote water sensitive urban design principles. 3. To minimise damage to physical infrastructure (including trees) from development.

3.1 Ensure that developments are appropriately designed and sites to minimise damage to the physical infrastructure.

3.2 Ensure works associated with development minimise the impact on tree roots. Relevant objectives and strategies of Clause 21.07-2 relating to the matter of public transport include: 1. To increase the use of public transport.

1.1 Encourage development in locations which can maximise the potential use of public transport.

1.2 Encourage medium-density housing and mixed use development to locate near activity centres which have access to public transport.

Relevant objectives and strategies of Clause 21.07-3 relating to the matter of walking and cycling include: 1. To promote and facilitate walking and cycling. Ensure walking and cycling are important design elements in all land use and

development decisions. 1.4 Discourage vehicle cross-overs where they have a significant impact on pedestrian

movements. Clause 22.09 – Residential Development & Neighbourhood Character Policy The character of existing neighbourhoods is not static and will change and evolve over time. This policy provides guidance to manage the evolution of the character of different residential neighbourhoods throughout Greater Dandenong into the future, while responding to state and metropolitan planning policy regarding urban form and housing, and respecting valued characteristics of residential neighbourhoods. Importantly the policy encourages high quality design outcomes, design outcomes that are creative and innovative, and design outcome that respect the future character of the locality in they are located, as identified in this policy. The policy encourages high quality, drought tolerant and generous landscaping of residential redevelopments to reinforce the garden character that exists throughout all of Greater Dandenong’s residential areas. The policy divides the residential areas of Greater Dandenong into three categories: substantial change areas; moderate change areas; and incremental change areas. The policy identifies a future character and design guidelines for each of these precincts.



Page 8634

The objectives of this clause are:





• To encourage varied forms and intensities of residential development in appropriate locations throughout Greater Dandenong, having regard to metropolitan policies promoting urban consolidation and increased densities, and existing neighbourhood character.

• To encourage higher densities and forms of development in preferred strategic locations that have good access to existing public transport and the Proposed Public Transport Network (PPTN), commercial, community, educational and recreational facilities.


• To implement the City of Greater Dandenong Neighbourhood Character Study (Sept 2007).

Consistent with its Residential 1 zoning, the subject site is located within Future Character Area B (Incremental Change Area). Clause 22.09-3.2 outlines the policy framework for Incremental Change Areas as follows: Location – Incremental change areas generally include those areas developed from the 1950s and 60s, that run through the centre of the Greater Dandenong but which are further from the central spine of the municipality (that includes the Princes Highway road and rail corridor, and the activity centres of Dandenong, Noble Park and Springvale) than substantial change areas. It includes:

• areas that broadly encircle the Dandenong Activity Centre, including Dandenong South;

• the growth corridor along Princes Highway/ railway line, encapsulating: Noble Park, Springvale, Springvale South & Mulgrave;

• directly surrounding Parkmore Shopping Centre/ Fredrick Wachter Reserve;

• directly to the south of Waverley Gardens Shopping Centre; and

• corridors along Cheltenham and Stud Road



Page 8635

Existing character – Incremental change areas originally developed from the 1950’s onwards and substantially consists of single storey detached houses in a garden setting. Throughout these areas there has been a reasonable level of new infill development, but this has largely been restricted to one and two storey detached dwellings and one and two storey multi-dwelling developments. Future character - The future character of incremental change areas will evolve over time to contain a greater proportion of well designed and site responsive medium density infill development, at a lower intensity than in substantial change area, but a higher intensity than in limited change areas. Residential development will essentially comprise dwellings of up to 2 storeys with ground level components. Developments of up to three storeys and development that contain dwellings that do not have ground level components will only occur in special circumstances. Consolidation of allotments to increase development potential is encouraged. The amenity of adjoining dwellings will be preserved by responsive site design that ensures an appropriate setback of two and three storey buildings from sensitive outdoor living areas, or from the main outlook from living rooms, on adjoining properties to enable screen planting. Sufficient ground level space will be provided at the front of sites, and along side and rear boundaries adjacent to sensitive outdoor living areas on adjoining properties, to provide for landscaping and canopy trees to soften the appearance of the built form when viewed from the street and from adjoining sensitive outdoor living areas, and to provide a landscape character throughout. The Design Guidelines for Incremental Change Areas are:

• Housing form – A higher proportion and intensity of medium density infill development than in limited change areas. All dwellings to have ground level components. Developments comprising dwellings without ground level components only in special circumstances;

• Height – Up to 2 storeys, with 3 storeys a possibility where appropriate considering its interface with existing residential development, response to site circumstances and streetscape;

• Bulk – More intense and higher elements of built form focussed towards the front of a site. Avoid tiered approach at upper levels. Double storey buildings to the rear of existing buildings on a lot are generally discouraged. Where appropriate dwellings on a site may be two storey, provided there are separations between the upper levels of dwellings;

• Site coverage – As per Clause 55;

• Permeable site area – Minimum of 30%;

• Front setback – As per Clause 55 or 7.5 metres, whichever is the lesser;

• Side & rear setbacks – As per Clause 55;

• Private open space – As per Clause 55 – with minimum dimension of 5.0m;



Page 8636

• Car parking – For developments comprising dwellings with a ground level component - garages and parking areas located behind buildings, generally hidden from view. For more intensive developments comprising dwellings without a ground level component, basement or in building car parking;

• Landscaping – 70% of ground level front setback planted with substantial landscaping and canopy trees;

• Front boundary – Open or low scale front fences not to exceed 1.5 metres for street in Road Zone Category 1 and maximum height of 1.2 metres for other roads to allow a visual connection between landscaping in front gardens and street tree planting. Car access, parking and paving within the front setback will be limited in order to maximise the opportunity for soft landscaping. Second crossovers on allotments with frontage widths below 17m will be discouraged.

The application has been assessed against this policy as detailed within the attached “Assessment Table – Clause 22.09-3 Incremental Change Area” document, which is included as Attachment 3.

Particular Provisions Clause 55 – ‘Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings’, details the provisions which relate to an application for residential development. Its purpose includes:





Under this Clause, the objectives must be met, and the standards should be met as a means of meeting the objectives. The application has been assessed against this clause and an “Assessment Table – Two or More Dwellings on a Lot and Residential Buildings (Clause 55)” document has been prepared by officers. This document is included as Attachment 4.



Page 8637

General Provisions Clause 65 – ‘Decision Guidelines’ needs to be considered, as is the case with all applications for development. For this application, the requirements of Clause 65.01 regarding the approval of an application or plan is of relevance. This Clause outlines the requirements that the responsible authority must consider when determining the application.

Proposed Planning Scheme Amendments Not applicable – there are no planning scheme amendments currently proposed that will affect this site or the determination of this application for development.

Other Council Documents Council has a number of documents, which whilst not included in the Planning Scheme, are considered in the assessment of the applications for guidance. Of relevance to this application is Council’s ‘Multi-Unit Developments Waste Collection Guidelines for Developers’ (December 2004). These Guidelines aim to provide developers with guidance on waste collection and management requirements when designing multi-dwelling developments with the municipality. The document states that Council’s general waste collection for residential properties typically comprises:

• A weekly collection of household garbage using an 80 or 140 litre mobile bin;



Under the Guidelines for the collection of waste from the nature strip, a minimum length of 1.76 metres is required for the garbage bin and either the recycling/garden waste bin, clear of any obstructions. A minimal clearance equal to the height of each bin (up to 1.1 metres) is required behind and along the lifting arc. Where the provision of waste collection from the nature strip is inappropriate, collection from the site will be required, which may or may not be undertaken by Council services.

Restrictive Covenants

The applicant has declared that there is no restrictive covenant affecting the land. This has been verified upon perusal of the Title documentation.

Links to Council's Annual Plan






Page 8638

Community Safety

It is considered that there would be no adverse community safety implications in permitting the proposal (should a permit be issued).

Safe Design Guidelines

Consideration of the relevant requirements of these Guidelines has been undertaken within the Assessment of this application.

Referrals

External The application was not required to be externally referred.



Page 8639

Internal The application was internally referred to the following for their consideration. Council’s Traffic Engineering, Strategic Planning and Urban Design officers object to the proposal as follows:


Traffic Engineering

Council’s Traffic Engineer objects to the proposals on the following basis:

Car Parking

• As per the planning scheme and Australian standards, all car parking is required to be provided for the development on-site. The proposals are not supported by the Planning Scheme.

• If four new dwellings are to be provided on this site, then four on-site car parking spaces are required as per the Planning Scheme.

• The use of on-street parking to provide the 2 car parking spaces for Units 2 and 3 is not supported. The applicant has no control over the use and maintenance of these spaces for future residents. These spaces could be used as casual parking visitors to the dwellings only.

• The current plans show that one of the car parking spaces is below the required standard size.

Access

• It is preferable to have access via the laneway as 7.6m available rear frontage. However if all required parking is provided on-site from Louis Avenue, a minimum 5.4m parking spaces required to avoid any overhangs on to the footpath.

In the event that a permit is given, the following conditions must be applied:

• Roadways - To require any access to the site and any associated roadwork must be constructed, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

• Waste Collection – Prior to the endorsement of the plans, the applicant/owner must provide supporting information for waste collection services in the form of a Waste Management Plan.



Page 8640

Urban Design Council’s Urban Design officer reviewed the proposals submitted on 3

October 2011 and provided planning officers with a number of comments objecting to the proposal in relation to overdevelopment of the site because parking cannot be provided on-site with a four townhouse form and the design has a number of significant design issues including:

• Overall poor elevations and excessive height on the northern boundary for the form of development;

• Poor roof form and poor fenestration of window patterns; • Visually over-dominant external storage units and bin storage in the

parking area that would be very visible from the street and unable to be screened;

• Poor quality SPOS areas not able to be accessed directly from living areas that would have no solar screening because of the street visibility therefore and become unusable.

The preferred solution for this site would be to have 3 (three) x larger 2 (two) storey townhouse units with an improved parking layout, better storage and waste areas, ground floor living spaces using balconies and the corner unit facing Leonard Street (rather than Louis Avenue). Each unit in this scenario is likely to be accommodated with an on-site car parking space.

Strategic Planning Council’s Strategic Planning Team objects to the proposal on the following basis:

• The location of bedrooms at ground level is not supported. • The kitchen, living and meals area should be located at ground

level to contribute to an active frontage, provide surveillance and provide street life as much as possible.

The principle of residential development on this site is supported, but the specific proposals are unacceptable.

Drainage Engineering

No objection subject to the following conditions:

• Provision must be made for the drainage of the site including landscaped and paved areas, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

• Stormwater discharge is to be retained on site to the pre-development level of peak stormwater discharge. Approval of any retention system within the property boundary is required by the relevant building surveyor. Connection from the legal point of discharge to stormwater infrastructure is to be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, prior to the issue of Building Approval.

• All wastes must be disposed of to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and no liquid waste or polluted wasters shall be discharged into a sewer or stormwater drainage system.

• Before commencement of the development occurs, the applicant should contact the City of Greater Dandenong’s Civil Development and design Unit regarding legal point of discharge, new crossings, building over easements, etc.



Page 8641

Advertising

The application has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, by:

• Sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land.

• Placing two (2) signs on site facing each road abuttal (i.e. one sign facing Leonard Street, and the other sign facing Louis Avenue).

The notification has been carried out correctly. Council has received one (1) objection to date. The location of the objector is included in Attachment 1.

Consultation

A consultative meeting was held on 22 June 2011. The applicant, objector and Council representatives in attendance. Although some details of the scheme have been amended since the consultation meeting, the general form of proposed development remains as originally submitted. The objection has not been withdrawn and the objectors issues remain relevant to the revised scheme.

Summary of Grounds of Objection

The objections to the proposals raised in the objectors submission to Council are set out below in bold text. The Town Planner’s Response is provided in italics.

• Inaccurate ground floor plan – site statistics

The objector claims that the site statistics as shown on the advertised plans are incorrect because they make reference to 4 x 2 bedroom units. The plans in fact, show 2 x 2 bedroom and 2 x 1 bedroom units. Should a permit be issued, this notation can be corrected on the plans.

• Object to four bedroom dwellings

The objector objects to the proposal on the basis that it will compromise the quality of living space in particular bedroom size and will reduce the amount of car parking currently available in Louis Avenue. It is noted that the proposal is not for 4 x 2 bedroom dwellings as the objector suggests, rather 2 x 2 bedroom dwellings and 2 x 1 bedroom dwellings are proposed.

In any event, the objectors comments regarding the overdevelopment of the site and the subsequent lack of on-site parking concur with the comments provided by Council’s Traffic Engineer. All car spaces associated with this development must be provided on the site. As it is not possible to provide four spaces on the site because there is insufficient site area for four townhouse dwellings and four parking spaces, it is considered that the proposal is likely to reduce the amount of car parking available within the Louis Avenue locality.



Page 8642

Car parking and vehicular access – insufficient car parking and potential to damage boundary fence

The objector claims that the rear parking spaces will compromise their side boundary fence as there is minimum vehicle turning space for two cars entering and exiting the rear of the subject site. Bollards could be installed to deal with this issue, and required as a condition of a permit (should one be issued).

However, the on-site parking is not of sufficient size. It is noted that a distance of 5.5m is proposed between the onsite car spaces and the objector’s side fence to the north of the three metre wide unmade road that extends along the rear of the subject site. This 5.5m width area will be used as an accessway servicing these onsite car spaces. One of these car spaces is shown to be 2.6m in width. Having regard to Table B2 of Standard B16, this car space should be 2.8m in width to ensure that the design of parking and access areas is practical and useable.

Further, noting that external storage sheds are located within the rear portion of the site, it is considered that there is insufficient area to accommodate adequate appropriate storage for each dwelling as well as providing the required width for both onsite car spaces. In this regard, Council agrees with the objector’s assertion in that the proposed car parking and vehicular access arrangements are unacceptable.

• Clothes dryers should not be permitted

The objector claims that the proposal should demonstrate well managed and efficient sustainable energy use. The objector considers that the use of clothes dryers as a result of the scheme’s inability to provide external clothes line space is not economical in power consumption and contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.

Whilst clothes dryers are not the most efficient sustainable energy use, a fixed clothes line would be. Whilst the use of clothes dryers is not a reason to refuse such an application, the design as submitted, cannot accommodate any external fixed clotheslines without adversely impacting on the visual amenity of the area. This is not a satisfactory situation for a housing form of development.

• Insufficient solid waste, recyclables and green waste bins

The applicant claims that advice provided by Viola Waste Management (Australia) Pty Ltd, that the dwellings proposed are expected to generate 480 litres of both solid waste and recyclables per week, a total waste output of 960 litres. Three 250 litre bins will be provided for waste and recyclables. The applicant claims that these bins will be moved to and from the street for collection along the common pathway by the Owners Corporation. This is less than the required standard for bin storage as set out in the Council guidelines. The objector considers the proposed dwellings will generate more waste than the applicant suggests and that the level of bin storage is unacceptable. Officers consider that each dwelling should be provided with the appropriate number of bins per household. The waste and recycling arrangements are therefore not acceptable and conditions cannot be used to remedy the concerns because the rear portion of the site is incapable of providing all appropriate bins and the two parking spaces within this design.



Page 8643

• No provision of water conservation/collection The objector claims that the proposed development has no provision for water conservation. Whilst the plans do not show any form of water conservation, no such provision is required to me made under the Planning Scheme for a development of this size.

• Out of character building design The objector claims that the proposed building design is inconsistent with neighbourhood character and contrary to the planning scheme. Whilst the building appearance is contemporary, Officers have significant concerns with the design outcomes of this overdeveloped, reverse living scheme. This matter is considered in more detail within the assessment tables attached to this report.

• Insufficient landscaping on the site It is considered that the proposal fails to provide any form of ground floor landscape treatment and Officers agree with the objector that this is unacceptable.

• Insufficient width of Secluded Private Open Space (“SPOS”) (i.e. roof-top terrace) The objector claims that the roof-top terraces are not appropriately dimensioned to be 5m wide. The planning scheme does not specify that roof-top terraces to be dimensioned 5m wide. Clause 55.05-4 specifies only that a roof-top SPOS should have an area of 10m2, with a minimum width of 2m and convenient access from a living room. In this case, the width dimension is not the issue. However, officers are concerns about the overall size (m2) and usability of the proposed roof-top terraces.

• Residents at risk of electrocution when using roof-top terraces (too close to power lines) The objector claims that the residents using the roof-top terraces are at risk of electrocution due to power lines being within close proximity of the proposed development. The roof-top terraces are setback 3.1m from the western boundary (i.e. Louis Avenue) and approximately 5.8m from the power lines when scaled from the plans. This view was confirmed during a visit to the site. The objector has not substantiated this claim by any technical evidence and therefore officers no not consider this matter to be a valid planning objection.

• No provision of fencing and that fencing should be provided for safety/security reasons The objector claims that fencing should be installed to the rear of the site to obscure views of the rear car parking area for safety purposes, as vehicle theft and damage is known to the area. A permit condition could be used to require fencing to be provided along the side of car space for Unit 1, should a permit be issued. However, there is insufficient space on the site to provide fencing or any screening on the western boundary adjacent to the objector’s property.



Page 8644

• Inconsistent permeability statistics The objector claims that the permeable site area is 23.4%, which is insufficient. It is noted that Clause 22.09-3.2 suggests a minimum of 30% of permeable site area. As proposed, the development does not meet the design guidelines of this clause.

• Devaluation of property Various VCAT matters have outlined that the devaluation of property is not a valid planning consideration.

• Inconvenience during construction period Should a permit be issued, a construction management plan can be required as a condition of permit.

Assessment

Use The use of the land for dwellings does not require a planning permit pursuant to Clause 32.01-1 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme. The residential nature of the proposal is consistent with the residential zoning of the site and surrounding uses. Strategic Planning support the development of new residences on this site in principle. A permit is only required for the construction of the dwellings. The subject site is located within an established residential area and appears to be well suited for medium density housing. The site is located in relatively close proximity to the Dandenong Activities Centre and within moderate walking distance of many community facilities. However, as set out below, the proposed residential scheme fails to meet the relevant objectives and standards of the Planning Scheme. Therefore, while the principle of the use is supported, the proposed development is not. Development The proposed development has been assessed against and Clause 22.09 and Clause 55 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme, with these respective assessments provided as Attachments 3 and 4 to this report. These assessments show that the proposal fails to comply with the objectives of the Planning Scheme. The development is poorly designed, would have an unacceptable standard of liveability for future residents, would impact upon existing residential amenity through visual impact and a failure to provide sufficient on-site parking, and would have an adverse impact on neighbourhood character. The scheme fails to meet a number of the Planning Scheme design guidelines, which are considered to be fundamental criteria in which to achieve the desired and preferred outcome for the municipality and what is an expected form of development within the Residential 1 Zone.



Page 8645

The areas of non-compliance are outlined below having regard to Clause 22.09 and Clause 55 of the planning scheme. Reverse living and design outcome – Non-compliance with Clauses 22.09 and Clause 55 Standards B1/B5/B31 The appearance of the ground floor west and south elevations that directly result from the ‘reverse living’ scenario. No solution has been put forward to result in a good resolution of how to deal with the lack of living space windows at ground floor. In this case, the reverse arrangement does not present as a better solution for this site than does a standard townhouse arrangement for 2-3 dwellings. Dwelling 1 on the corner is the particular concern as this turns its back on Leonard Street and the window rearrangement has not been successful. The wrapping around of ground floor windows has not worked and the design of the development should address both streets by interest and quality detailing. The proposal fails to do this. Roof form and neighbourhood character - Non-compliance with Clauses 22.09 and Clause 55 Standards B28/B31 The roof form is considered to be overly prominent within the streetscape because a stairwell is needed to access the roof gardens, which is the only area of secluded private open space. Because of the stair overrun, the building would appear as a three storey form in an area characterised only by single (with pitched/hipped roofs) and double storey (with flat roofs) brick dwellings. There are no other buildings in this area of a similar height and form, and the future character of the area does not support this form of development. The three storey effect would be visible from Louis and Leonard Street, and would create an unacceptable relationship with the other one storey former shops on Leonard Street. The use of roof gardens is supported where this would provide adequate private open space for the reasonable recreation and service needs of residents. Dwellings 2 and 3 only have 8.7sqm and a minimum of 10sqm is required for each dwelling. Also, the window pattern at the ground floor fails to activate to Louis Avenue, which is important for the appearance of the building particularly where the proposal is built along the boundary. The wrap around windows at first floor work better, but the sills are overly dominant, and the sill heights need to work across each dwelling. The materials have not been shown well on the plans.



Page 8646

Storage and parking – Non-compliance with Clauses 22.09 and Clause 55 Standards B16/B30/B31/B34 The parking at the rear of the site together with the storage/waste management area does not physically work. Car space for Dwelling 1 should be 2.8m wide given that the accessway servicing this car space is 5.5m in width. As proposed, this car space is not designed to meet Clause 55. Also, the door to the storage unit for Dwelling 4 swings open into the car space of this dwelling. This is considered inconvenient as this should be avoided. Further, all storage units on this site vary in height from 2.8m down to 2.5m. This is considered bulky and prominent to the street. This has not been successfully hidden / concealed, and safety to goods may be of concern.

Site coverage – Non-compliance with Clause 55 Standards B8 The relevant site coverage maximum for the Residential 1 Zone is 60%. The application drawings show that the current proposed coverage is 69.2%.

Other matters The proposal seeks to construct four townhouses in a ‘reverse living’ arrangement. It is noted that in The Silver Arc v Greater Dandenong CC [2011] VCAT 33 (13 January 2011), the presiding VCAT member, considered the quality of living space as being the most important issue in a reverse living arrangement, particularly the internal amenity of new dwellings, being a fundamental design criteria to the quality of housing and amenity for residents. The member raised the issue that internal amenity in the form of private open space (balconies) was not considered satisfactory (in that case) and was not something that could be resolved by permit conditions without substantial changes to the design. These matters are raised here with the subject proposal. The proposal fails to provide sufficient roof-top areas that that provides adequate private open space for the reasonable recreation and service needs of residents. In addition, the proposal fails to activate the frontages at ground level, in a manner that satisfactorily addresses good urban design and safety. As submitted, the proposal compromises the safety and security of residents and property. Overall, as the proposal fails to meet basic and fundamental design criteria, consideration should therefore be given to a reduced 2-3 dwelling development (at most), with internal living arrangements at ground floor and a sense of address to Leonard Street. Essentially, the proposal as submitted warrants refusal, as it cannot be resolved by permit conditions without substantial changes to the design.

Waste Collection As discussed above, the waste storage area is located at the rear of the site. It is considered that each dwelling should be provided with the requisite number of bins. As submitted, the proposal fails to adequately provide an adequate number of bins for this development.



Page 8647

Vegetation & Tree Impact (Site & Surrounds) Not applicable – there is no vegetation on this site.

Proposed Planning Scheme Amendments Not applicable – there are no planning scheme amendments currently proposed that will affect this site.

Conclusion

The application has been assessed against the relevant sections of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme, including the State and Local Planning Policy Framework, Municipal Strategic Statement, Clause 55 and Clause 65. As noted within the body and assessment sections of this report, the proposal fails to comply satisfactorily, with the provisions of Clause 22.09 and Clause 55 respectively of the Planning Scheme. The proposal specifically fails to meet the design guidelines and objectives of the planning scheme, and would result in an acceptable outcome to the local area if approved. Whilst the redevelopment of the site for residential dwellings is welcomed, this proposal isunacceptable and would not result in a good outcome for future or existing residents and the visual appearance of the urban environment would be detrimentally affected. For the reasons outlined in this report, the proposal should be refused on the ground outlined within the recommendation below.

Recommendation That Council resolves to Refuse to grant a planning permit in respect of the land known and described as No.5 Leonard Street, Dandenong, for the purpose to develop the land for four (4) double storey dwellings with associated roof terraces and two (2) ground level car parking spaces, together with the waiver of two (2) car spaces pursuant to Clause 55.03-11 of the planning scheme, for the following reasons: Grounds of Refusal: 1. The bulk and massing of the development, with use of roof-top terraces and

associated stair overruns, presents as a three-storey building that is uncharacteristic of the area, failing to meet Clause 55.02-1 – Neighbourhood Character Objective and Clause 55.06-1 Design Detail Objective.

2. The proposed development fails to integrate the layout of Dwelling 1 (being on

the corner) with Leonard Street, failing to meet Clause 55.02-5 – Integration with the Street Objective.

3. The absence of living room windows with views of the street, results in a

design that fails to address the street and does not provide an active frontage or natural surveillance, failing to meet Clause 55.02-5 Integration with the Street and Clause 55.03-7 Safety Objective.



Page 8648

4. The use of roof-top terraces and associated stair overruns, accentuates the bulk and massing of the development, failing to meet Clause 55.03-2 – Building Height Objective.

5. The extent of development floor and impervious area is inconsistent with the

requirements of Clause 55.03-3 – Site Coverage Objective and Clause 55.03-4 Permeability Objective.

6. There are inadequate opportunities for the landscaping of the site around the development, particularly of canopy trees that will aid in the softening of the built form, which fails to satisfy Clause 55.03-8 Landscaping Objectives.

7. The development fails to avoid parking difficulties for the car space of Dwelling

1 in the development and the neighbourhood, and protect residents from vehicular noise, failing to meet Clause 55.03-10 Parking Location Objective.

8. The development fails to provide the required number of car spaces on the land

as well as ensure that the design for the car space of Dwelling 1 is provided as shown in Table B2, as outlined by Clause 55.03-11 Parking Provision Objective.

9. The bulk and massing of the development that is uncharacteristic of the area,

fails to meet Clause 55.04-1 Side and Rear Setbacks Objective and Clause 55.04-2 Walls on Boundaries Objective.

10. The development fails to protect residents from external noise sources

particularly for Dwelling 4, failing to meet Clause 55.04-8 Noise Impacts Objective.

11. The development fails to provide an adequate size roof-top terrace of 10m2 for

Dwellings 2 and 3, failing to meet Clause 55.05-4 Private Open Space Objective. 12. The storage areas at the rear of the site are inadequately accessed and of

limited size, failing to meet Clause 55.05-6 Storage Objective. 13. The recycling bin areas at the rear of the site is not of sufficient size for the

level of development proposed and cannot be accessed directly and adequately by future resident, failing to meet Clause 55.06-4 Site Services Objective.



Page 8649

MOTION Moved by: Cr Angela Long Seconded by: Cr Paul Donovan That Council resolves to Refuse to grant a planning permit in respect of the land known and described as No.5 Leonard Street, Dandenong, for the purpose to develop the land for four (4) double storey dwellings with associated roof terraces and two (2) ground level car parking spaces, together with the waiver of two (2) car spaces pursuant to Clause 55.03-11 of the planning scheme, for the following reasons: Grounds of Refusal: 1. The bulk and massing of the development, with use of roof-top terraces and

associated stair overruns, presents as a three-storey building that is uncharacteristic of the area, failing to meet Clause 55.02-1 – Neighbourhood Character Objective and Clause 55.06-1 Design Detail Objective.

2. The proposed development fails to integrate the layout of Dwelling 1 (being on

the corner) with Leonard Street, failing to meet Clause 55.02-5 – Integration with the Street Objective.

3. The absence of living room windows with views of the street, results in a

design that fails to address the street and does not provide an active frontage or natural surveillance, failing to meet Clause 55.02-5 Integration with the Street and Clause 55.03-7 Safety Objective.

4. The use of roof-top terraces and associated stair overruns, accentuates the bulk and massing of the development, failing to meet Clause 55.03-2 – Building Height Objective.

5. The extent of development floor and impervious area is inconsistent with the

requirements of Clause 55.03-3 – Site Coverage Objective and Clause 55.03-4 Permeability Objective.

6. There are inadequate opportunities for the landscaping of the site around the development, particularly of canopy trees that will aid in the softening of the built form, which fails to satisfy Clause 55.03-8 Landscaping Objectives.

7. The development fails to avoid parking difficulties for the car space of Dwelling

1 in the development and the neighbourhood, and protect residents from vehicular noise, failing to meet Clause 55.03-10 Parking Location Objective.

8. The development fails to provide the required number of car spaces on the land

as well as ensure that the design for the car space of Dwelling 1 is provided as shown in Table B2, as outlined by Clause 55.03-11 Parking Provision Objective.

9. The bulk and massing of the development that is uncharacteristic of the area,

fails to meet Clause 55.04-1 Side and Rear Setbacks Objective and Clause 55.04-2 Walls on Boundaries Objective.



Page 8650

10. The development fails to protect residents from external noise sources

particularly for Dwelling 4, failing to meet Clause 55.04-8 Noise Impacts Objective.

11. The development fails to provide an adequate size roof-top terrace of 10m2 for

Dwellings 2 and 3, failing to meet Clause 55.05-4 Private Open Space Objective. 12. The storage areas at the rear of the site are inadequately accessed and of

limited size, failing to meet Clause 55.05-6 Storage Objective. 13. The recycling bin areas at the rear of the site is not of sufficient size for the

level of development proposed and cannot be accessed directly and adequately by future resident, failing to meet Clause 55.06-4 Site Services Objective.

LOST

For the Motion: Crs Paul Donovan, Yvonne Herring, John Kelly and Angela

Long (called for the division)

Against the Motion: Crs Roz Blades, Peter Brown, Youhorn Chea, Jim Memeti, Maria Sampey and Pinar Yesil

MINUTE 1042 Moved by: Cr Maria Sampey Seconded by: Cr Jim Memeti

That Council resolves to issue a Notice of Decision in respect of the land known and described as No.5 Leonard Street, Dandenong, for the purpose to develop the land for three (3) attached double storey dwellings and the waiver of one (1) car space pursuant to Clause 55.03-11 of the planning scheme, all in accordance with the endorsed plans.

Conditions:

1. Before the development starts, three (3) copies of amended plans drawn to scale and dimensioned, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. No buildings or works must be commenced until the plans have been approved and endorsed by the Responsible Authority. The endorsed copy of the plans forms part of this permit. The plans must be in accordance with the plans submitted with the application, but modified to show:

1.1 The reduction in the number of dwellings from four (4) to three (3). These dwellings must be in the following configuration and generally in accordance with Clause 55:

1.1.1. Dwelling 1 on the corner of Leonard Street and Louis Street:

• Open plan living, meals and kitchen at ground floor. A laundry and toilet must be provided at this level. The front entry door and portico must address Leonard Street;



Page 8651

• The ground floor front wall facing Leonard Street must be setback at least 300mm from the southern boundary to provide for a planter box; and

• Two (2) bedrooms only with a communal bathroom at first floor.

1.1.2. Dwellings 2 and 3 central of the site:

• Open plan living, meals and kitchen at ground floor. A laundry and toilet must be provided at level this level. The front entry door and portico must address Louis Street;

• The ground floor front wall facing Louis Street must be setback at least 300mm from the western boundary to provide for a planter box; and

• Two (2) bedrooms only with a communal bathroom at first floor.

1.2 Canopies over the associated entry porticos must not overhang the property boundary into the road reserve; and the development must be appropriately designed having regard to safety and the risk of spread of fire. The development must meet the Site Coverage and Permeability requirements of the Planning Scheme.

1.3 With respect to Condition 1.1 above, an area of secluded private open space (“SPOS”) for each dwelling at ground floor (clear to the sky and permeable) along the eastern boundary of the site, with these areas equating to at least 10m2 for all dwellings with a minimum width dimension of 2m. These areas must contain a clothesline and be drained appropriately. Dwelling 1’s southern area of SPOS must contain a front wall facing Leonard Street (a false window or similar design feature may be used to complement the Leonard Street streetscape). A roof-top terrace must not be provided to any dwelling hereby approved.

1.4 Two (2) onsite car spaces must be provided on the land at the rear of the site and accessed from the rear laneway. Each car space must be at least 2.8m wide and have an accessway width of at least 5.5m (greater if possible). These spaces must be permeable and be nominated for Dwellings 2 and 3.

1.5 A flat-roof form with parapet walls must be constructed for this development, and window proportions must address each street. The development design must be of a high architectural standard and address each street with an active frontage.

1.6 The exterior walls must be of masonry brick or block and may be cement rendered or textured finish. An external finishes and materials schedule must be shown on the plans.



Page 8652

1.7 External storage sheds must be provided for each dwelling, with these sheds located at the rear of the site clear of the two (2) car spaces required by Condition 1.4 above. The storage sheds must equate to 6m3. A permeable base must be provided to these sheds.

1.8 The full complement of recycling waste bins must be provided for each dwelling, with these bins located at the rear of the site clear of the two (2) car spaces required by Condition 1.4 above. A permeable base must be provided to these bins.

1.9 Location of all heating and cooling units, mailboxes, meter boxes, rain water tanks and lighting for each dwelling and common property areas (if applicable).

1.10 A transparent fence at a maximum height of 1.2m along the western boundary at the rear of the site (were occupied by the two on site car spaces, external storage sheds and associated waste bins).

1.11 The removal of the existing canopy along Leonard Street.

1.12 Landscape plans in accordance with Condition 3.

1.13 A Construction Management Plan (“CMP”) in accordance with Condition 4.

To the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

2. The layout of the site, and the size of the proposed buildings and works as shown on the endorsed plan, shall not be altered or modified (whether or not in order to comply with any Statute, Statutory Rule or Local Law or for any other reason) without the prior consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Prior to the endorsement of plans under Condition 1, a landscape plan must be submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and two (2) copies must be provided. The landscaping plan must be prepared by a suitably qualified person, and must show:

3.1 The site at a scale of 1:100/200, including site boundaries, existing and proposed buildings, neighbouring buildings, car parking, access and exit points, indicative topography and spot levels at the site corners, existing and proposed vegetation, nature strip trees, easements and landscape setbacks;

3.2 Details of the proposed layout, type and height of fencing;

3.3 Legend of all plant types, surfaces, materials and landscape items to be used including the total areas of garden and lawn;

3.4 A plant schedule giving a description of botanical name, common name, mature height and spread, pot size, purchase height (if a tree) and individual plant quantities;



Page 8653

3.5 The planter boxes as required by Condition 1, to include a moderate number of low shrubbery plants; and

3.6 The area to the rear of the site and each SPOS area to be surfaced using permeable materials.

to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

4. Prior to the endorsement of plans under Condition 1, a Construction Management Plan (“CMP”) prepared by a suitably qualified building surveyor or equivalent must be submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. Once approved the Plan will be endorsed and form part of the Permit.

The CMP must address, but is not limited to, the following:

• The matters outlined at Condition 6;

• A copy of a current public liability and professional indemnity insurance policy indemnifying the Responsible Authority against any claims which may arise from any actions initiated or carried out pursuant to this permit. The value of this insurance must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority;

• No compensation shall be payable by Council for any buildings and/or works carried out pursuant to this permit;

• The general timing and staging of the development, and general working hours;

• The arrival time of plant, machinery and equipment to the site, and storage of such items; and

• Waste management and measures to ensure odours are mitigated and do not adversely affect the amenity of the area.

All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The approved CMP must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

5. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling(s) hereby permitted, all landscaping as shown on the endorsed plans, including trees, shrubs and lawn, shall be planted and thereafter maintained, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6. During the construction phase, all buildings and works permitted under this permit must at all times comply with the conditions of this permit and any applicable by-law, local-law, legislation, act/s and approval/s governing the construction of this development, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

7. The dwelling(s) hereby approved must not be occupied until all buildings and works and the conditions of this permit have been complied with, unless with the written consent of the Responsible Authority.



Page 8654


9. Stormwater discharge is to be retained on site to the pre-development level of peak stormwater discharge, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

10. All wastes must be disposed of to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and no liquid waste or polluted waters shall be discharged into a sewer or stormwater drainage system.

11. All piping and ducting above the ground floor storey of the building, except for downpipes and spouting, shall be concealed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

12. The obscure glazing to the windows shown on the endorsed plans must be through frosted glass or similarly treated glass, and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Adhesive film or the like that can be removed must not be used.

13. All screens marked on the endorsed plan shall be maintained by the owner of the land to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

14. All boundary walls in the development must be constructed, cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

15. Access to the site and any associated roadwork must be constructed, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

16. This permit will expire if:-

16.1 The development does not start within two (2) years of the date of this permit, or

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

` Before the permit expires or within three (3) months afterwards the owner or occupier of the land may in writing request the Responsible Authority to extend the expiry date.

Notes:

• A Building Approval is required prior to the commencement of the approved development.

• Approval of any retention system within the property boundary is required by the relevant building surveyor.

• Before commencement of the development occurs, the applicant should contact the City of Greater Dandenong’s Civil Development and Design Unit regarding legal point of discharge, new crossings, building over easements, etc.



Page 8655

• As this is an established site, the proposed internal drainage should be connected to the existing legal point of discharge. The applicant may apply for local drainage information, if available; otherwise on site verification should be undertaken by the applicant.

• No buildings or works shall be constructed over any easement without the written consent of the relevant authorities.

This permit has been granted on the basis that consent to build over any easement will be obtained from the relevant authority. If consent is not able to be obtained, the development plan will be required to be amended.

CARRIED For the Motion: Crs Roz Blades, Peter Brown, Youhorn Chea, Jim Memeti,

Maria Sampey and Pinar Yesil

Against the Motion: Crs Paul Donovan, Yvonne Herring, John Kelly and Angela Long (called for the division)



Page 8656





Page 8657

7.4.3 Town Planning Application - No. 67 Stanley Road, Keysborough (Planning Application No. PLN11/0629)


Application Summary

Applicant: Reeds Consulting Pty Ltd Proposal: Removal of Native Vegetation on the road reserve adjacent to

the land. Zone: Residential 1 Zone Overlay: Environment Audit Overlay (EOA), Development Plan Overlay

(DPO5) and Development Contributions Plan Overlay (DPCO1) Ward: Red Gum The application proposes the removal of native vegetation, as shown on the plan included in this report. This includes three (3) independent trees within the Church Road road reserve (Eucalyptus Pryoriana’s) and a patch of trees (Swamp Scrub) adjacent to the Stanley Road road reserve on the western side of the site. There are also two (2) dead trees in this location not subject to a permit application, but should be included if a permit is granted, to cover offsets. A permit is required pursuant to Clause 52.17-2 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation, including dead native vegetation.

Assessment Summary

The proposal is consistent with the decision guidelines contained at Clause 52.17-5 and it has been confirmed via the Applicant’s Arborist report. The applicant’s Engineering assessment and Council’s Environmental Planner confirm that the trees and Swamp Scrub patch all have a low retention value and would be adversely affected by future road and services construction, and therefore can and should be removed to accommodate the proposed infrastructure associated with the residential development of the Keysborough South Stags 2 & 3 area. An offset management plan is being developed for the overall area, including offsets for the removal under this permit.


As assessed, the proposal is consistent with and appropriately responds to the provisions of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme. The proposal appropriately responds to strategic policy for the residential development in the area with this report recommending that the application be supported, and that a Permit be granted subject to conditions as set out in the recommendation.


Town Planning Application – No. 67 Stanley Road, Keysborough (Planning Application No. PLN11/0629) (Cont.)

Page 8658


Subject Site The subject site is located, in the area known as the Keysborough South Development Plan Stages 2 & 3, and known from the owners as Stages 15 and 15A (both inclusive) of the Intrapac land. This is on the east side of Stanley Road, running between Church Road and Newsom Street. The land is generally vacant former market gardens, containing some minor buildings, drainage culverts, trees and a dam. The following approved subdivision plan and tree location is provided for information.



Page 8659

Background

Previous Applications Various permits have been issued for the subdivision of the land within the overall area. It is noted that the land to the south of the subject site has been granted previous permits and been developed for residential developments. Only one permit includes the removal of vegetation, which is to the south of Tyers Lane. It is noted that all endeavours have been carried out to retain as many existing trees in the overall area within recreation reserves, drainage reserves and on the side of a number of new roads. The subject site has a permit for subdivision (PLN09/0345) which does not include the removal of native vegetation.

Council Resolution Council, at its meeting on 9 May 2011, following a Notice of Motion introduced by Cr. Brown, resolved the following:

That it be Council’s position, that vegetation along Church Road – both within and immediately abutting the road reserve between Chapel Road and Perry road – plays a significant role in quality, amenity and ecology of the streetscape and that all steps are to be taken to protect and enhance that vegetation in-situ or under any development scenario with such steps to include as a minimum, directions to private developers, specifications of works, arboricultural inspections and maintenance and any action or decision by Council or its delegates.

This will be discussed later in the report.

Proposal

The application proposes the removal of native vegetation, as shown on the submitted plan. This includes three (3) independent trees within the Church Road road reserve (Eucalyptus Pryoriana’s) and a patch of trees (Swamp Scrub) adjacent to the Stanley Road road reserve on the western side of the site. There are also two (2) dead trees in this location not subject to a permit application, but should be included if a permit is granted, to cover offsets. It is noted that the site forms Stage 15 and 15A of the Intrapac/Somerfield Estate subdivisions in the locality.





Page 8660



• To remove, destroy or lop native vegetation, including dead native vegetation pursuant to Clause 52.17-2 of the planning scheme.

The following controls and policies affect the land, although they do not impact on the application being assessed. The information is provided for information in relation to the planning context of the land and the matters which are considered in the subdivision and development of the land.

Zoning Controls The subject site is located in the Residential 1 Zone. The purpose of this Zone pursuant to Clause 32.01 of the Planning Scheme is:





A permit is required for the subdivision of the land.

Overlay Controls Development Plan Overlay (Clause 43.04) The purpose of the Development Plan Overlay is:


• To identify areas which require the form and conditions of future use and development to be shown on a development plan before a permit can be granted to use or develop the land.

• To exempt an application from notice and review if it is generally in accordance with a development plan.

Specific to this application is Schedule 5 relating to the Keysborough South Development Plan – Stages 2 & 3.). Conditions and requirements for permits are outlined in Part 2.0 of this Schedule and are to be taken into account in the consideration of an application.



Page 8661

This includes specific requirements relating to subdivision applications, which requires that conditions be provided for applications where the following is applicable:

• land containing public open space or a drainage reserve;

• lots abutting Hutton Road or Greens Road; and,

• lots within 100 metres of the Dingley Freeway reservation.

Subdivision permit requirements listed included the need for applications for residential subdivisions to be accompanied by:

• a Residents Information Kit;

• regard to the VicRoads Traffic Noise Reduction Policy; and,

• an acoustic report where within 500 metres of an animal boarding use for applications to use and develop land for a sensitive use.

It is noted that the Keysborough South Development Plan – Stages 2 and 3, prepared by SJB Planning, was approved by Council on 3 February 2009. Development Contributions Plan Overlay (Clause 45.06) The purpose of the Development Contributions Overlay (DCPO1) is:


• To identify areas which require the preparation of a development contributions plan for the purpose of levying contributions for the provision of works, services and facilities before development can commence.

Development contributions are required to be paid prior to the release of the subdivision or development of the land. Environmental Audit Overlay The purpose of the Environmental Audit Overlay (EAO) is:


• To ensure that potentially contaminated land is suitable for a use which could be significantly adversely affected by any contamination.

This is a requirement under the subdivision permit.



Page 8662

State Planning Policy Framework The Operation of the State Planning Policy Framework outlined at Clause 10 seeks to ensure that the objectives of planning in Victoria are fostered through appropriate land use and development planning policies and practices which integrate relevant environmental, social and economic factors in the interests of net community benefit and sustainable development. The objectives of Planning in Victoria are noted as: (a) To provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of

land. (b) To provide for the protection of natural and man-made resources and the

maintenance of ecological processes and genetic diversity. (c) To secure a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment

for all Victorians and visitors to Victoria. (d) To conserve and enhance those buildings, areas or other places which are of

scientific, aesthetic, architectural or historical interest, or otherwise of special cultural value.

(e) To protect public utilities and other facilities for the benefit of the community. (f) To facilitate development in accordance with the objectives set out in paragraphs (a),

(b), (c), (d) and (e). (g) To balance the present and future interests of all Victorians. In order to achieve those objectives, there are a number of more specific objectives contained within the State Planning Policy Framework that need to be considered under this application. The objective of Clause 12.01-1 Protection of Habitat seeks to assist the protection and conservation of biodiversity, including native vegetation retention and provision of habitats for native plants and animals and control of pest plants and animals. The strategies associated to this proposal are as follows:

• Assist the conservation of the habitats of threatened and endangered species and communities as identified under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, including communities under-represented in conservation reserves such as native grasslands, grassy woodlands and wetlands.

• Address potentially threatening processes identified under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988.

• Assist re-establishment of links between isolated habitat remnants.

• Consider the potential impacts of land use and development on the spread of plant and animal pests from areas of known infestation into natural ecosystems.

• Ensure that the siting of new buildings and works minimises the removal or fragmentation of native vegetation.

• Encourage the use of property vegetation plans or works programs.

• Consider the need to protect waterways and soil from degradation that may result from the loss of native vegetation and the use of voluntary conservation agreements.



63

Local Planning Policy Framework The Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) includes the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and Local Policies. Clause 21.06 Open Space and Natural Environment provides that the vast majority of indigenous flora and fauna has been significantly depleted through clearing for agricultural, industrial and residential development purposes. The remaining scattered trees and other remnant vegetation are considered to be of local conservation significance.

Particular Provisions The purposes of Clause 52.17 Native Vegetation are to:

• To protect and conserve native vegetation to reduce the impact of land and water degradation and provide habitat for plants and animals.

• To achieve the following objectives:

• To avoid the removal of native vegetation. • If the removal of native vegetation cannot be avoided, to minimise the removal of

native vegetation through appropriate planning and design. • To appropriately offset the loss of native vegetation.

• To provide for the management and removal of native vegetation in accordance with a property vegetation plan.

• To manage vegetation near buildings to reduce the threat to life and property from wildfire.

Pursuant to Clause 52.17-2, a permit is required to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation, including dead native vegetation. Pursuant to Clause 52.17-5, before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider, as appropriate:

• General issues

• Land protection

• Conservation significance

• Offsets

• Timber production

• Aboriginal cultural heritage



Page 8664

General Provisions Clause 65 – Decision Guidelines needs to be considered, as is the case with all applications. For this application the requirements of Clause 65.01 for the approval of an application or plan is of relevance. This Clause outlines the requirements that the responsible authority must consider when determining the application.


A review of the Titles finds that there are no Covenants affected by the proposed subdivisions. This has been confirmed by a statement by the applicants.

Links to Council Annual Plan




Community Safety

It is considered that there would be no adverse community safety implications in permitting the proposal. However, it is noted that the trees are within an existing road reserve, required to be re-constructed and widened to accommodate the traffic and pedestrian movements throughout the Keysborough area. Council’s Environmental Planner has reviewed the reports submitted by the Applicant, inspected the subject trees and provided comments, including that the trees identified pose an unnecessary risk to property and persons. Accordingly, it is submitted that the removal of the trees from the road reserve would improve community safety.



Referrals

The application was not required to be referred to any external referral authorities pursuant to Section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Internal The application was internally referred to Council’s Environmental Planner for their consideration. The comments provided will be considered in the assessment of the application.



Page 8665

Advertising

The application was not notified to the surrounding area with respect to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 as it is considered it will not be of detriment to any person or the surrounding area.

Consultation

Having regard to the Notice of Motion on the 9 May 2011 by Cr. Brown and the Resolution of Council in that regard, in a Consultation with Cr. Brown, he has advised that the application, with the Officer’s report be tabled at a Council Meeting.

Assessment

Use The use of the site is not being applied for under this application, and hence is not applicable. A permit has been granted for the residential subdivision of the land.

Development The development of the site is not being applied for under this application, and hence is not applicable. A permit has been granted for the residential subdivision of the land.

Vegetation & Tree Impact (Site & Surrounds) The decision guidelines outlined at Clause 52.17-5 are relevant to this application. The following assessment is provided with respect to this: General issues It is noted that the purpose of removal of the trees is to accommodate infrastructure/road works associated with the development of the land, and assist in the development of the surrounding Keysborough area, for residential subdivision. It is noted that Church Road is a collector road for the overall area and is required to be re-constructed/widened and provide kerbside car parking areas under the Keysborough South Development Plan – Stages 2 & 3. In this case, it would be difficult to realign the existing roads or infrastructure layout, and therefore, the proposal to remove the trees has been applied for and considered acceptable. Land protection Noting the location of the trees and impacts on proposed infrastructure/road works, the native vegetation does not play any role in protecting water quality or preventing land degradation. Conservation significance Council’s Environmental Planner did not consider the quality and condition of the vegetation to be removed as being of a quality worthy of retention. (See later section.)



Page 8666

Offsets An offset management plan for the whole of the Keysborough South Stages 2 and 3 residential area under the Intrapac Master Plan (not a statutory document but used as a guide for residential development as Intrapac owns a large proportion of the land in the locality) is being developed by Intrapac and is in the process of nearing completion. That plan will include offsets for the vegetation proposed to be removed under this application. Timber production The trees are not associated with any timber production process. Aboriginal cultural heritage This matter has been addressed as part of the initial rezoning of the land.

Substantiation for tree removal It is noted that Church Road is a collector road for the overall area and is required to be re-constructed/widened and provide kerbside car parking areas under the Keysborough South Development Plan – Stages 2 & 3. The Applicant has provided an assessment from their Engineers for the removal of the trees. This assessment includes (in brief): Tree at intersection of Church and Stanley Roads (tree 1. nearest the intersection)

• Services such as water, recycled water and gas could be bored under the tree.

• These services to the corner lot would need to be within 2 metres of the trunk of the tree. Past experience indicates that this would adversely affect the health of the tree

• To construct the footpath, parking bay and road pavement world need substantial excavation within the critical root zone. This represents an Occupation Health and Safety issue for contractors. A dramatic impact on the health of the tree.

• Drainage would need further excavation in the critical root zone.

• Alternatives were investigated but none available.

• Determined that due to significant engineering constraints, the tree could not be retained.

Tree 25 metres east of intersection (tree 2 second from the intersection).

• Similar to the above, noting works within the critical root zone.

• Although pruning could be carried out, the angle of the tree also represents issues for contractors and Council for future footpath use and parking bays.

Tree 70 metres east of intersection (tree 3 furthest from intersection).

• This tree is closer to existing and future road pavements.

• Similar to tree 1 although some services would be within 1 metre of the trunk and boring not feasible.



Page 8667

Overall, engineering constraints, the nature of the trees (height and lean) indicated that the trees could not be retained. As (Implied) the trees could also affect safety to the footpath and parking bays due to the adverse affect on their health and existing conditions. The applicant has also provided an Arborist report. This has been reviewed by Council’s Environmental Planner with comments provided in the following section. Council’s Environmental Planner has considered the applicant’s Engineers’ report and Arborist’s report and provided the following (briefly) comments and opinion, which includes the two (2) dead trees:

• Trees in Church qualified for removal based on:

o They have been identified as having low retention suitability. o Identified as being poor in health and declining structure. o Arborist states that recent branch failures indicate questions regarding their

structural integrity. o Identified to pose an unnecessary risk to property and persons. o Identified by DSE as 'Least Concern’ and therefore ‘generally permitted to be

cleared’. o Other trees in the area are more important.

• Swamp Scrub patch permitted to be removed to reduce ongoing safety risks, due to:

o The small size of the patch. o Its relative isolation. o Contained on a disturbed site.

• Offsets required.

• Noted Net Gain Strategy being prepared for the overall area.

It is acknowledged that the removal of the trees and Swamp Scrub patch is consistent with the purpose of Clause 52.17 – Native vegetation, of the scheme and that measures have been initiated for the net gain offsets to be provided within the overall Keysborough area, to the benefit of the community.

Council Resolution Comments It is submitted that the proposed removal of the trees within Church Road have addressed this resolution. The Applicant has provided an Arborist and Engineers’ report, which have been reviewed by Council’s Environmental Planner, confirming the trees are of low retention value and could also have an adverse affect on safety, having regard to their location, existing condition and the future need for the provision of infrastructure to service the Keysborough South Stags 2 & 3 residential development area. In addition, it is a standard requirement that street trees be provided for subdivisions of land, such as has been approved, which will enhance this part of Church Road, and the proposed off-sets will improve the proposed open spaces in the area, to the benefit of the community.



Page 8668

General Comments The Structure Plan for the area has undergone significant investigation and development. It is acknowledged that the Keysborough South Stages 2 & 3 is a significant area for the future development of residential premises and associated infrastructure. To achieve the overall concept of an integrated residential area, with appropriate streets, roads and infrastructure it should be recognised that some existing vegetation will be required to be removed and replaced through appropriate offsets. It has always been the intention to retain as many significant trees as possible with the bulk of these being retained in open space and drainage reserves or similar areas. The removal of these trees and Swamp Scrub patch is considered acceptable as it will provide a significant collector road and associated infrastructure, contributing to the vision of part of the overall residential development envisaged by Council under the Keysborough South Stages 2 & 3 structure plan. In addition, the removal of the trees is recognised by the DSE and Council’s Environmental Planner as trees that are not significant and, as stated 'Least Concern’ and therefore ‘generally permitted to be cleared’. Accordingly, it is submitted that the removal of the trees and Swamp Scrub patch are acceptable.

Conclusion

The application has been assessed against the relevant sections of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme, including the State and Local Planning Policy Framework, Municipal Strategic Statement and Clause 65. The proposal is consistent with the decision guidelines contained at Clause 52.17-5 and it has been confirmed via the Applicant’s Arborist report, Applicant’s Engineering assessment and Council’s Environmental Planner to have a low retention value and can be removed to accommodate the proposed infrastructure associated with the development of the Keysborough South Stags 2 & 3 area. An offset management plan is being developed for the overall area, including offsets for the removal under this permit. The proposal is considered acceptable



Page 8669

Recommendation That Council decides to Grant a planning permit in respect of the land known as No. 67 Stanley Road KEYSBOROUGH VIC 3173 for the removal of three (3) native trees, two (2) dead trees and a Swamp Scrub patch on the road reserve adjacent to the land in accordance with the endorsed plans subject to the following conditions:

1. Only the trees and Swamp Scrub patch shown on the endorsed plans may be removed.

2. The dead trees (two (2)) in the locality may be removed.

3. The owner of the land must provide offsets for the removal of the vegetation to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

4. This permit will expire if:

4.1 The vegetation removal does not start within two (2) years of the date of this permit, or

4.2 The vegetation removal is not completed within four (4) years of the date of this permit.

Before the permit expires or within three (3) months afterwards the owner or occupier of the land may in writing request the Responsible Authority to extend the expiry date.

MINUTE 1043 Moved by: Cr Peter Brown Seconded by: Cr Jim Memeti That Council decides to Grant a planning permit in respect of the land known as No. 67 Stanley Road KEYSBOROUGH VIC 3173 for the removal of three (3) native trees and two (2) dead trees on the road reserve adjacent to the land in accordance with the endorsed plans subject to the following conditions:

1. Only the trees shown on the endorsed plans may be removed.

2. The dead trees (two (2)) in the locality may be removed.

3. The owner of the land must provide offsets for the removal of the vegetation to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

4. This permit will expire if:

4.1 The vegetation removal does not start within two (2) years of the date of this permit, or

4.2 The vegetation removal is not completed within four (4) years of the date of this permit.



Page 8670


CARRIED


Page 8671

7.4.4 Town Planning Application - No. 11 Hopetoun Street, Dandenong (Planning Application No. PLN09/0787)

Attachments: Location of Objectors Submitted Plans Clause 55 Assessment


Application Summary

Applicant: Zai Pty Ltd Present Use of the Land: Existing single storey Boarding House with thirteen (13)

bedrooms Proposal: To use and develop the site for the purposes of a double-storey

Boarding House comprising twenty-six (26) rooms with a reduction of the car parking requirements of Clause 52.06 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme

Zone: Residential 2 Zone (R2Z) Overlay: Not applicable Ward: Red Gum The application proposes to develop and use the land for the purposes of a new double–storey Boarding House comprising twenty-six (26) bedrooms with a reduction in the car parking requirement. The site is currently used as a single storey Boarding House (Shared Housing) with thirteen (13) bedrooms, which would be demolished to make way for the current proposal.

Objectors Summary

Notice of the application was sent to the owners and occupiers of surrounding land and by the erection of a notice on the subject land for the required statutory period of fourteen (14) days. At the close of advertising ten (10) objections were received. The grounds of objection relate to neighbourhood character, the potential increase in noise, alleged drug and alcohol abuse of the residents of the subject site and other anti-social behaviour undermining safety, property devaluation as well as car parking and traffic problems.


As assessed, the proposal does not meet the requirements of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme. It is inconsistent with and does not appropriately respond to the provisions of the Scheme as detailed in the report, and for the reasons set out in the recommendation should be Refused.


Town Planning Application – No. 11 Hopetoun Street, Dandenong (Planning Application No. PLN09/0787) (Cont.)

Page 8672


Subject Site The subject site is located on the eastern side of Hopetoun Street between Scott Street in the south and Bulong Street in the west. The site is rectangular in shape with a western frontage of 20.17 metres along Hopetoun Street, a southern boundary of 41.97 metres, an eastern boundary of 20.18 metres and a northern boundary of 42.02 metres. The total site area is approximately 847.73m². In relation to its topography the site has an upwards slope of approximately 0.1 metres from the front to the rear of the site. There is a 1.22 metre wide easement along the southern boundary of the subject site. The subject site is currently occupied by a single storey Boarding House with thirteen (13) bedrooms and a garage. These structures are to be demolished under this proposal. There is a single vehicle crossover located along the southern side of the western street frontage which is to be retained as part of the development. There is currently no fence along the site’s eastern street frontage. Side and rear boundary fencing consists of 1.62 metre high timber paling fencing. Communal open space is currently enclosed on three (3) sides by the existing Boarding House.

Surrounding Area Land in the immediate locality is generally used for residential purposes, comprising various types of accommodation. The housing stock is characterised by single and double storey detached dwellings of brick or weatherboard construction comprising tiled hipped roofs, in addition to numerous multi unit developments, including single and double storey flats, ranging in age and style. Car parking spaces are generally located to the side or rear of the dwellings with access generally via a single crossover. Front setbacks generally range between 5 and 9 metres. The setback of the residential dwelling abutting the south of the subject site at 1/9 Hopetoun Street is 8.7 metres. The subject site is located approximately 160 metres to the south-east of the Hemmings Street neighbourhood shopping strip. This strip is mainly for local convenience shopping. Dandenong CAD, which contains a major shopping mall, is located approximately 500 metres to the east. The subject site is located in close proximity to a number of local bus services which run along Hemmings Street approximately 85 metres to the north, including the 812 (Dandenong to Brighton), 813 (Dandenong to Waverley Gardens), 814 (Dandenong to Springvale South), 815 (Dandenong to Noble Park) and 848 (Dandenong to Brandon Park) bus routes. Public open space close to the subject site comprises of John Hemmings Memorial Park (approximately 310 metres to the north-east) and Greaves Reserve (approximately 420 metres to the west). Educational facilities close to the site are Dandenong West Primary School (approximately 375 metres to the north-west); and Dandenong High School (approximately 580 metres to the north-east).



Page 8673

Locality Plan

Subject Site Melway Ref: 90 B6

Please refer to the locality map for the location of the subject site and its surroundings:

Background

Previous Applications A search of Council records revealed that the existing building on the subject site was constructed in 1955. No planning permit applications have previously been considered for the subject site.

Proposal

The application proposes to develop and use the land for the purposes of a new double storey Boarding House comprising twenty-six (26) bedrooms with a reduction in the car parking requirement. The site is currently used as a single storey Boarding House with thirteen (13) bedrooms and a garage. Both buildings are proposed to be demolished as part of the proposed development of the site. As such, the current application proposes a 100% increase in the number of bedrooms available within the existing Boarding House. The proposed Boarding House would be setback a minimum of 7.5 metres from the front boundary. The details are as follows:



Page 8674

Ground Floor Level At ground floor level the proposed Boarding House would comprise of:

• An Entry Area, a Supervisor Room and Ensuite, a Living Room, Dining Area, Kitchen, Laundry, Bin Yard, Disabled Toilet, Cleaner’s Room, a communal Bathroom comprising of two (2) toilets and two (2) showers, a Corridor, a Bed Store and seven (7) Bedrooms.

First Floor Level At first floor level the proposed Boarding House would comprise of:

• A Communal Lounge Room, Balcony, Storeroom, Cleaner’s Room, Corridor, and nineteen (19) Bedrooms, plus two (2) communal toilets and two (2) communal showers.

Other Outside of the proposed double storey Boarding House, the development would comprise of:

• An accessway along the southern part of the site, leading to a covered car parking area with eight (8) car spaces.

• Nine (9) bicycle parking spaces.

• A communal open space of approximately 73m² including an outdoor terrace within the front setback.

• Landscaping strips along the northern and eastern boundaries including a 3,000 litre slimline rainwater tank.

• A single garage in the south-east corner of the subject site.

A copy of the submitted plans is included as Attachment 2.





• To construct a Residential Building (Boarding House) under Clause 32.02-4 of the Residential 2 Zone.




Page 8675

Zoning Controls The subject site is located in a Residential 2 Zone, as is the surrounding area. Clause 32.02 of the Scheme outlines the purpose of the Residential 2 Zone, which is:


• To encourage residential development at medium or higher densities to make optimum use of the facilities and services available.



Pursuant to Clause 32.02-4, a permit is required for the construction of a Residential Building. The development must meet the requirements of Clause 55. The variations to the schedule to the Residential 2 Zone are as follows:

• Minimum street setback – As per A3 (Clause 54) and B6 (Clause 55) or 5 metres, whichever is lesser.

• Site coverage – up to a maximum of 70%.

• Front fence height – Maximum 1.5 metre height in streets in Road Zone Category 1, 1.2 metre maximum height for other street.


State Planning Policy Framework The Operation of the State Planning Policy Framework outlined at Clause 10 seeks to ensure that the objectives of planning in Victoria are fostered through appropriate land use and development planning policies and practices which integrate relevant environmental, social and economic factors in the interests of net community benefit and sustainable development. The objectives of Planning in Victoria are noted as: (a) To provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of

land. (b) To provide for the protection of natural and man-made resources and the






Page 8676


(b), (c), (d) and (e). (g) To balance the present and future interests of all Victorians. In order to achieve those objectives, there are a number of more specific objectives contained within the State Planning Policy Framework that need to be considered under this application. The matter of Settlement is outlined at Clause 11. Metropolitan Melbourne is considered under Clause 11.04 with the following objective outlined at Clause 11.04-5 relating to Melbourne’s Urban Growth of particular relevance to this application: To set clear limits to Metropolitan Melbourne’s urban development. Clause 15 of the Scheme looks at Built Environment and Heritage, with the Urban Environment focused on under Clause 15.01. Relevant objectives of that Clause to be considered include:

• To create urban environments that are safe, functional and provide good quality environments with a sense of place and cultural identity.

• To achieve architectural and urban design outcomes that contribute positively to local urban character and enhance the public realm while minimising detrimental impact on neighbouring properties.


• To recognise and protect cultural identity, neighbourhood character and sense of place.

Clause 15.02 – Sustainable Development is also of relevance to this application, with the following objective relating to Energy and Resource Efficiency at Clause 15.02-1 having to be considered: To encourage land use and development that is consistent with the efficient use of energy and the minimisation of greenhouse gas emissions. Housing, which is of particular relevance to this application, is considered under Clause 16 of the Scheme. Objectives relating to residential development outlined at Clause 16.01 to be considered include:

• To promote a housing market that meets community needs.


• To identify strategic redevelopment sites for large residential development in Metropolitan Melbourne.



Page 8677

• To provide a range of housing types to meet increasingly diverse needs.

• To deliver more affordable housing closer to jobs, transport and services.

Clause 18.02-2 considers Cycling, in which the objective is:

• To integrate planning for bicycle travel with land use and development planning and encourage as alternative modes of travel.

Clause 18.02-5 relating to Car parking also needs to be considered under this application. The objective of this Clause is:

• To ensure an adequate supply of car parking that is appropriately designed and located.

With Infrastructure considered at Clause 19, Clause 19.03 the broad objectives relating Development Infrastructure should be considered. Those objectives include:

• To plan for the provision of water supply, sewerage and drainage services that efficiently and effectively meet State and community needs and protect the environment.

• To reduce the impact of stormwater on bays and catchments.

Local Planning Policy Framework The Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) includes the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and Local Policies. The MSS is contained within Clause 21 of the Scheme. The MSS at Clause 21.02 focuses on the Municipal Profile, within which the following is noted:

• In 2006 Greater Dandenong was home to over 130,000 people within an area of 129.6 square kilometres (Clause 21.02-1).

• There is considerable diversity within Greater Dandenong’s housing stock. Most housing stock is between 30 to 50 years, though there are some areas with dwellings in excess of 100 years old. Areas of newer housing are located in the north-east and central southern areas, with in-fill development occurring across the municipality (Clause 21.02-3).

• Higher density housing is generally located in proximity to railway stations and major shopping centres, in particular in central Dandenong (Clause 21.02-3).

• The municipality has similar levels of home ownership and people renting when compared to metropolitan Melbourne (Clause 21.02-3).

• Housing is relatively affordable in Greater Dandenong, though the costs have risen steeply in recent years, with house prices having risen by 27 percent in the past 5 years within Greater Dandenong compared with 4 percent across metropolitan Melbourne (Clause 21.02-3).



Page 8678

• The older age population (60 and above) accounts for 19 percent of the Greater Dandenong population as compared to 18 percent for metropolitan Melbourne (Clause 21.02-3).

• There is a clear predominance of single detached dwellings within the municipality however there are a range of other dwelling types including dual occupancies, villa-units, townhouses and apartments. The highest concentration of older villa-units and apartments and more recent multi-dwelling redevelopment have occurred around central Dandenong, Springvale and Noble Park activity centres (Clause 21.02-4).

• Cultural influences have defined certain precincts with their own built form character, generally flat unarticulated facades, prominent balconies, limited front and side setbacks, and limited or no landscaping (Clause 21.02-4).

Greater Dandenong’s vision is outlined at Clause 21.03. Amongst others, the vision is that Greater Dandenong will be a municipality where central Dandenong functions as the sustainable economic heart of the City where a range of high quality affordable high to medium density housing exists in harmony with a thriving retail and commercial sector and where sustainable modes of transport are highly accessible, and where housing diversity and choice is promoted in its various attractive neighbourhoods. The objectives and strategies of the MSS are under four (4) main themes including: land use; built form; open space and natural environment; and, infrastructure and transportation (considered individually under Clauses 21.04 to 21.07). Of particular relevance to this application are Clauses 21.04 – Land Use, 21.05 – Built Form and 21.07 – Infrastructure and Transportation. Under Clause 21.04 – Land Use the matter of housing and community, amongst others, is covered. It is noted within Clause 21.04-1 relating to the matter of housing and community, that Greater Dandenong is forecast to be home to some 16,700 new households by 2031, representing a 36 percent increase on the number of households when compared with numbers in 2001. Of those new households 3,700 are forecast to be within ‘green field’ locations, and the balance within strategic redevelopment sites and within residential areas. Relevant objectives and strategies of that Clause include: 1. To encourage and facilitate a wide range of housing types and styles which increase

diversity and cater for the changing needs of households.

1.1 Encourage a mix of housing types that better reflects the cross section of the community in Greater Dandenong.

1.2 Promote subdivision that provides for a range of lot sizes to cater for the diversity of the community of Greater Dandenong.

1.3 Encourage the provision of housing that is adaptable to support the needs of the changing needs of present and future residents.

1.5 Encourage innovative redevelopment and renewal of deteriorating housing stock and older styled higher-density apartments and multi-unit developments.

2. To respect and improve residential environments. 2.1 Encourage developments to exceed minimum compliance with the requirements of

Clauses 54, 55 and 56, where appropriate and identified. 2.2 Encourage new development that incorporates adequate space for the planting and

the long term viability and safe retention of canopy trees.



Page 8679

3. To accommodate an increase in resident population of 15000 in central Dandenong and its periphery by the year 2015. 3.1 Strongly encourage medium density housing of up to 4 levels within the residential

periphery to Central Dandenong as illustrated in Clause 22.09-3. 3.2 Encourage only higher density housing within Central Dandenong. 4. To optimise residential consolidation around activity centres/transport nodes, and more

efficient use of existing urban infrastructure. 4.1 Actively encourage medium and higher density housing in strategic locations and in

areas nominated for substantial change. 4.2 Develop appropriate planning guidelines (including overlay controls) for the

development of well defined areas on the periphery of Central Dandenong, Springvale, Noble Park and Parkmore activity centres without detriment to the existing urban character and without compromising existing commercial businesses.

4.3 Encourage and promote increased densities in the Residential 2 Zoned areas, particularly those in proximity to the Major Activity Centres of Springvale and Noble Park.

4.6 Ensuring new development takes into full account the neighbourhood character design guidelines for each type of building and that such new development positively contributes to be preferred future neighbourhood character of each particular residential area.

4.7 Actively encouraging well designed, medium and higher density housing in strategic locations and in areas nominated for substantial change.

6. To improve access to affordable and appropriate housing. 6.1 Encourage the provision of affordable housing in association with larger residential

developments. 6.2 Support residential development that allows people to age in their existing

communities. Under Clause 21.05 – Built Form the matters of: urban design, character, streetscapes and landscapes; and, sustainability, amongst others, are covered. It is noted that within that Clause the identification of preferred character areas and the incorporation of clear policy directions with regard to building types and design elements appropriate to the particular character is noted as important in facilitating the achievement of attractive and sustainable built form. Relevant objectives and strategies of Clause 21.05-2 relating to the matter of urban design, character, streetscapes and landscapes, include: 1. To facilitate high quality building design and architecture.



1.3 Encourage innovative architecture and building design. 2. To facilitate high quality development, which has regard for the surrounding environment

and built form. 2.1 Promote views of high quality landscapes and pleasing vistas from both the private

and public realm. 2.2 Promote all aspects of character – physical, environmental, social and cultural. 2.3 Encourage planting and landscape themes, which complement and improve the

environment. 2.4 Encourage developments to provide for canopy trees. 2.5 Recognising valued existing neighbourhood character and promoting desired future

character as defined in the Residential Development and Neighbourhood Character Policy at Clause 22.09.



Page 8680

3. To improve the quality, consistency and function of the city’s environment. 3.3 Apply the Residential Development and Neighbourhood Character Policy at Clause

22.09. 6. To ensure that design of the public and private environment supports accessibility and

healthy living. 6.2 Encourage new developments to provide for safe environments.

6.3 Ensure that all new developments accord with and embrace universal design principles outlined in Council’s ‘Access and Inclusion Strategy for people with Disabilities 2004-2008’.



streetscapes and landscaping of public areas. Relevant objectives and strategies of Clause 21.05-3 relating to sustainability, include: 1. To promote ecologically sustainable development.

1.1 Encourage the design of developments to provide for integration of water sensitive urban design.

1.2 Encourage the recycling of grey water in new developments.

1.3 Require an environmental management plan where a use or development would require on going management controls.

Under Clause 21.07 – Infrastructure and Transportation matters of physical, community and cultural infrastructure and public transport, amongst others, are covered. Relevant objectives and strategies of Clause 21.07-1 relating to the matter of physical, community and cultural infrastructure include: 2. To manage the impact of discharge of stormwater to minimise pollution and flooding. 2.1 Promote water sensitive urban design principles. 2.2 Require Environmental Management Plans for large developments. 3. To minimise damage to physical infrastructure (including trees) from development.

3.1 Ensure that developments are appropriately designed and sites to minimise damage to the physical infrastructure.

3.2 Ensure works associated with development minimise the impact on tree roots. Relevant objectives and strategies of Clause 21.07-2 relating to the matter of public transport include: 1. To increase the use of public transport.

1.1 Encourage development in locations which can maximise the potential use of public transport.

1.2 Encourage medium-density housing and mixed use development to locate near activity centres which have access to public transport.

2. To integrate transport and land use. 2.3 Encourage higher density and mixed use development (including rezoning if

necessary) within 400m of transport nodes.



Page 8681

Relevant objectives and strategies of Clause 21.07-3 relating to the matter of walking and cycling include: 1. To promote and facilitate walking and cycling. Ensure walking and cycling are important design elements in all land use and

development decisions. 1.1 Require developers to undertake an assessment of the extent, contents and quality of

the ‘walkable catchment’ for major development proposals. 1.4 Discourage vehicle cross-overs where they have a significant impact on pedestrian

movements. Clause 22.09 – Residential Development & Neighbourhood Character Policy – affects all residential development requiring a planning permit in a Residential 1, 2 and 3 Zone (this policy does not apply to land included in the Logis Site under Amendment C90, Keysborough South Stages 1, 2 and 3 of the Keys and Crystal Waters Estates under Amendment C36 and any other land located within a major or principal activity centre such as the Dandenong CAD, Springvale, Parkmore and Noble Park), as defined in the City of Greater Dandenong Neighbourhood Character Study (September 2007). Clause 22.09-2 contains the following objectives:





• To encourage varied forms and intensities of residential development in appropriate locations throughout Greater Dandenong, having regard to metropolitan policies promoting urban consolidation and increased densities and existing neighbourhood character.

• To encourage higher densities and forms of development in preferred strategic locations that have good access to existing public transport and the Proposed Public Transport Network (PPTN), commercial, community, educational and recreational facilities.


• To implement the City of Greater Dandenong Neighbourhood Character Study (September 2007).



Page 8682

Within the City of Greater Dandenong Neighbourhood Character Study (September 2007) which is listed as a Reference Document under Clause 21.08, the subject site is identified as being located within Existing Character Area 8. The Study describes the existing Character Area 8 a being located directly adjacent to the Dandenong Town Centre, extending west in a corridor between Princes Highway and the railway. Predominantly developed in the 1950’s-1960’s, it has accommodated a significant level of redevelopment in the streets immediately adjacent to the town centre. Mixed with remnant original single dwellings, is a high proportion of villa units, traditional walk up flats, apartment blocks and medium density developments, which broadly reflect the Residential 2 zoning in that location. The overall built form of this area is dominant and landscaping in the public and private realm is limited. Clause 22.09 divides the residential zoned land within the municipality into three character areas and articulates what degree of change is appropriate in each area by reference to design guidelines. The three character areas are:

• Substantial Change Area;

• Incremental Change Area; and

• Limited Change Area.

The Substantial Change Area aligns with the Residential 2 Zone, the Incremental Change Area aligns with the Residential 1 Zone and the Limited Change area aligns with the Residential 3 Zone. Consistent with its Residential 2 zoning, the subject site is located within a Substantial Change Area. Clause 22.09-3.1 outlines the policy framework for Substantial Change Areas as follows: Location - Substantial change areas are generally located close to principal and major activity centres and major transport corridors that have been identified as suitable to undergo a relatively high level of change. They include areas:

• to the north, south, east and west of Dandenong Activity Centre;

• to the south of Noble Park Activity Centre;

• surrounding Springvale Activity Centre; and

Existing character – These areas were originally developed from the 1940’s onwards and largely consisted of single storey detached houses. The existing character of substantial change areas now includes a wide range of housing types, including relatively high proportions of medium density housing compared to other parts of the municipality. Around the Dandenong Activity Centre in particular, there has been considerable infill development comprising one and two storey detached and semi-detached forms of housing, and two and three storey walk-up apartments. Areas around Noble Park and Springvale have also accommodated a comparatively high degree of change, however these areas contain relatively fewer walk-up apartments than the area around Dandenong. Building height in these areas rarely exceeds two storeys.



Page 8683

The Residential Two Zone (R2Z) surrounding the central Dandenong Activities Centre supports the objectives of the Revitalising Central Dandenong Initiative by facilitating higher density residential development within walking distance of the centre. Residential Development of up to four storeys within the Residential Periphery boundary as shown on Map 1: Future Character Areas is strongly supported. The Residential Periphery can generally be described as being 400 metres beyond Central Dandenong. The subject site is outside of the Residential Periphery Boundary. Future character - The future character of substantial change areas will evolve over time to contain a greater proportion of well designed and site responsive two and three storey medium density residential development. Appropriately articulated building elevations and well proportioned ground level setbacks are provided at the front, side and rear of buildings to allow for substantial landscaping to soften the built form. Consolidation of allotments to increase development potential is encouraged. The reasonable amenity of adjoining dwellings will be preserved by responsive site design that ensures an appropriate ground level setback of two and three storey buildings from sensitive outdoor living areas, and from the main outlook from living rooms on adjoining properties, to enable screen planting. Sufficient space will be provided at ground level at the front of sites, and along side and rear boundaries adjacent to sensitive outdoor living areas on adjoining properties, to provide for landscaping and canopy trees to soften the appearance of the built form when viewed from the street and from adjoining sensitive outdoor living areas, and to provide a landscape character throughout. Car access, parking and paving within the front setback will be limited in order to maximise the opportunity for soft landscaping. The Design Guidelines for Substantial Change Areas are:

• Housing form – A higher proportion and intensity of medium density infill development than in incremental and limited change areas;

• Height – Outside the Dandenong residential periphery – Up to 3 storeys, with 4 storeys a possibility where appropriate considering its interface with existing residential development, response to site circumstances and streetscape;

• Bulk – Building bulk and height can be relatively uniform throughout the depth of sites, provided appropriately articulated building elevations and well proportioned ground level setbacks are provided at the front, side and rear of buildings to allow for substantial landscaping to soften the built form. Avoid a tiered approach at upper levels. No need for separation between upper levels of dwellings on a site, as is the case in incremental and limited change areas, providing the building portrays a high standard of design and does not result in unreasonable amenity impacts;

• Site coverage – Up to 70%;


• Front setback – As per Clause 55 or 5 metres, whichever is the lesser;



Page 8684


• Private open space – As per Clause 55;

• Car parking – For more intensive developments comprising dwellings without a ground level component - basement or in building car parking to maximise the opportunity for soft landscaping at ground level. For developments comprising dwellings with a ground level component - garages and parking areas located behind buildings, generally hidden from view;

• Landscaping – 70% of ground level front setback planted with substantial landscaping and canopy trees;

• Front boundary – Open or low scale front fences not to exceed 1.5 metres for street in Road Zone Category 1 and maximum height of 1.2 metres for other roads to allow a visual connection between landscaping in front gardens and street tree planting. Second crossovers on allotments with frontage widths below 17m will be discouraged.

Particular Provisions Car Parking Clause 52.06 – Car Parking needs to be considered. The purposes of this provision are:

• To ensure that car parking facilities are provided in accordance with:

- The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

- Any parking precinct plan. • To provide the opportunity to use parking precinct plans in appropriate locations.

• To promote the efficient use of car spaces through the consolidation of car parking facilities.

• To ensure the provision of an appropriate number of car spaces having regard to the activities on the land and the nature of the locality.

• To ensure that the design of car parking areas:

- Does not adversely affect the amenity of the locality, in particular the amenity of pedestrians and other road users.

- Achieves a high standard of urban design. - Creates a safe environment for users, particularly at night. - Enables easy and efficient use. - Protects the role and function of nearby roads. - Facilitates the use of public transport and the movement and delivery of goods.

Clause 52.06-1 notes that a new use must not commence or the floor area of an existing use must not be increased until the required car spaces have been provided on the land. The required spaces are identified in the table to Clause 52.06-5. Clause 52.06-1 further notes that a permit may be granted to reduce or waive the number of car spaces required by the table, with the decision guidelines for such considerations also at that Clause.



Page 8685

The table at Clause 52.06-5 notes that a Residential Building requires one (1) car parking space to each lodging room. Car parking is to be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of Clauses 52.06-2 and 52.06-3 of the Scheme. Shared Housing Clause 52.23 – Shared Housing, of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme, contains the provision for Shared Housing. A permit is not required to use a building, including outbuildings normal to a dwelling, to house a person, people and any dependants or 2 or more people (including people with intellectual disabilities) if the building meets all of the following requirements:

• Is in an area or zone which is used mainly for housing.

• Provides self contained accommodation.

• Does not have more than 10 habitable rooms.

The proposal will increase the number of bedrooms (which are classed as habitable rooms) on the site from thirteen (13) to twenty-six (26). As noted earlier, no planning permit exists for the site although it is noted that the existing building was constructed in 1955, and the land has been used for a Boarding House for at least the past fifteen (15) years so that existing use rights may have been established. Nevertheless, a planning permit is required to use the land for Shared Housing (which includes a Boarding House) as the number of habitable rooms being proposed exceeds ten (10) habitable rooms. Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings Clause 55 – Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings, details the provisions which relate to an application for residential development. Its purpose includes: • To implement the State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy

Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.




Under this Clause, the objectives must be met, and the standards should be met as a means of meeting the objectives.




Page 8686

Other Council Documents Council has documents, which whilst not included in the Planning Scheme should be considered in the assessment of the application for the purpose of being used for guidance. Multi-Unit Waste Collection Guidelines for Developers This includes Council’s ‘Multi-Unit Developments Waste Collection Guidelines for Developers’ (December 2004). Those Guidelines aim to provide developers with guidance on waste collection and management requirements when designing multi-dwelling developments with the municipality. Council’s general waste collection for residential properties typically comprises: • A weekly collection of household garbage using an 80 or 140 litre mobile bin;



Under the Guidelines, for the collection of waste from the nature strip a minimum length of 1.76 metres is required for the garbage bin and either the recycling/garden waste bin, clear of any obstructions. A minimal clearance equal to the height of each bin (up to 1.1 metres) is required behind and along the lifting arc. Where the provision of waste collection from the nature strip is inappropriate, collection from the site will be required, which may or may not be undertaken by Council services. Code of Practice Car Parking – Town Planning The “Code of Practice Car Parking – Town Planning”, which was adopted on 30 July 1998 and re-considered with amendments on 9 March 1999. The Code identifies car parking ratios applicable to different uses within the Greater Dandenong region. Under that Code, the rate that is applied to a Residential Building is 0.8 car spaces per lodging room.


The applicant has provided a declaration advising that the proposal does not breach, in any way, an encumbrance on title. A perusal of the title documentation provided confirms that this is indeed the case.







Page 8687

Community Safety




Referrals

External The application was not required to be referred to any external referral authorities pursuant to Section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Internal The application was internally referred to the following for their consideration:


Project Delivery Standard traffic and drainage conditions.

Advised that the property is subject to flooding. Minimum floor level suggested is 26.3m to AHD in the north-east to 25.5m at the south-west side of the proposed building. This would be a condition of any report and consent.

Advised that statutory levels of car parking are required to be provided and a traffic impact assessment to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority is required prior to the plans being endorsed.

Building Advised that disabled access needs to be provided from Hopetoun Street to the building entry and that access to the community lounge room or first floor needs to be provided via a lift.

Health Advised that registration under the Health and Wellbeing (Prescribed Accommodation) Act 2009 is required.

All room sizes and distances to amenities are to comply with the Health and Wellbeing (Prescribed Accommodation) Act 2009

Adequate commercial weekly rubbish removal is required.

A cleaning system for common areas including the kitchen is required at all times whilst the premises are operating.



Page 8688

Social Planning Advised that with regard to public safety and amenity,

comments from neighbours indicate that they have concerns about the use of alcohol and other drugs by tenants at the existing boarding house on the subject site, and that regardless of site improvements, future tenants will continue to impact on local amenity and compromise neighbourhood security through abusive language, littering and other anti-social behaviour.

However, it was advised that following further investigations of the matter, it would appear that there is no history of complaints of this nature received by Council or by Victoria Police against the current boarding house owner or tenants. In 20 years of operation, police have on average attended the site once or twice a year, and for issues not related to the above.

It was noted that the proposed boarding house would include an on-site supervisor who will provide support and supervision to the residents of the building, thereby addressing issues of potential future anti-social behaviour.

It was recommended (based on the experience of various Councils) that one toilet/shower/bathroom be provided to every eight (8) to ten (10) tenants in prescribed accommodation. The current floor plans for the proposed development indicate that the first floor will include a total of two (2) toilets for nineteen (19) boarding room units. At times, it may be that these rooms will house more than one boarder.

It was recommended that an additional toilet, shower or bath be provided, and a hand basin facility be added to the other end of the first floor, in the vicinity of boarding rooms 15 and 16.

It was further advised that the proposed facility makes a positive contribution to the City, and that the proposal will strategically address some of the general housing shortage being experienced within Greater Dandenong.

It was considered that, if approved, the proposal would be a significant and worthwhile response to the growing need for community-oriented accommodation for single people on lower incomes, who are often socially and economically disadvantaged.



Page 8689

Advertising



• Placing a sign on site facing Hopetoun Street. The notification has been carried out correctly. Council has received ten (10) objections to date. The location of the objectors is shown in Attachment 1.

Consultation

A consultative meeting was held on 28/04/2010, with the applicant, the objectors and Council representatives in attendance. Whilst the issues were discussed at length there was no resolution and the submissions stand as received.

Summary of Grounds of Submissions/Objections

The objections are summarised below (bold), followed by the Town Planner’s Response (in italics). 1. Neighbourhood character

The objectors are concerned that the quiet nature of Hopetoun Street, which they claim comprises of couples and families with children and grandchildren, would be undermined by the proposal for a twenty-six (26) room boarding house for homeless men, which they claim would be detrimental to the neighbourhood and would have a negative impact on the integrity of the current local family life and streetscape qualities. They believe that if Council were to permit the proposal, Hopetoun Street would end up like streets in inner suburban areas such as Richmond where parking permits are required for residents due to high density housing. It is noted that there is already a boarding house on the site, so the land use will not be changing as such, only the intensity of the land use. The concerns of the objectors with respect to the inadequate provision of car parking for the site (with only eight (8) car parking spaces proposed for the twenty-six (26) lodging rooms) are valid and are indicative of overdevelopment.

2. Potential increase in noise

The objectors have outlined existing examples of noise from the existing boarding house on the subject site including loud arguing, yelling, coarse language and parties. They claim that these problems will be increased with the increase in the number of lodging rooms proposed. The concern regarding noise is noted. As the intensity of the development will increase significantly, it is considered that the concerns about noise, if substantiated, would be exacerbated.



Page 8690

3. Alleged drug and alcohol abuse of the residents of the subject site and other anti-social behaviour will undermine the safety of adjoining and surrounding residents The objectors allege that the residents of the existing Boarding House on the subject site engage in various forms of anti-social behaviour including excessive consumption of alcohol, yelling, arguing, coarse language, fighting, stabbings, drug dealing, littering, public urination and other disturbances requiring police attendance. The objectors are concerned for the safety of their children and themselves due to potential attacks from residents of the boarding house. Council’s Social Planning Unit advises that it has made enquiries with Victoria Police to investigate the above claims. The Unit advises that there is no history of complaints of the above nature being lodged at Victoria Police against the existing Boarding House on the site.

4. Property devaluation

The objectors are concerned that the proposal for a twenty-six (26) room Boarding House will decrease property values and rents. It is considered that devaluation of property is not a valid planning argument and cannot be relied upon as a reason to refuse a permit. As the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal frequently states, the matters which will determine the final decision of an application must be based on planning considerations. It has long been held by the Tribunal that a general claim concerning property devaluation is not a relevant planning issue.

5. Car parking and traffic problems.

The objectors are concerned that the proposal for a twenty-six (26) room Boarding House with only eight (8) car parking spaces will increase traffic congestion along Hopetoun Street due to the utilisation of on-street car parking by residents of, and visitors to, the Boarding House. They state that Hopetoun Street is a narrow street and the proposal’s reliance on on-street car parking to make up the on-site shortfall will inhibit their ability to drive on the street and get in and out of their properties. An assessment of the application has found that car parking provision for the proposed development does not comply with the minimum requirements under Clause 52.06, nor Council’s Code of Practice and Standard B16 of Clause 55 (Rescode). This is not acceptable as the shortfall of on-site residents and visitor car parking provision will cause traffic-related material detriment to adjoining and surrounding properties, due to the occupation of on-street car parking by residents of, and visitors to, the proposed Boarding House. This ground of objection has been substantiated, and forms one of the grounds of refusal for this application.

Assessment

Use The application proposes to develop and use the land for the purposes of a Boarding House comprising twenty-six (26) bedrooms with a reduction in the car parking requirement. The site is currently used as a Boarding House with thirteen (13) bedrooms.



Page 8691

Pursuant to Clause 52.23 – Shared Housing, of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme, a permit is not required to use a building, including outbuildings normal to a dwelling, to house a person, people and any dependants or 2 or more people (including people with intellectual disabilities) if the building meets all of the following requirements:

• Is in an area or zone which is used mainly for housing.

• Provides self contained accommodation.

• Does not have more than 10 habitable rooms.

A habitable room pursuant to Clause 72 (General Terms) of the Planning Scheme is defined as, “Any room of a dwelling or residential building other than a bathroom, laundry, toilet, pantry, walk-in wardrobe, corridor, stair, lobby, photographic darkroom, clothes drying room and other space of a specialised nature occupied neither frequently nor for extended periods.” The site will have a total of thirty-one (31) habitable rooms (26 bedrooms, a Supervisor Room, Dining Area, Living Room, Kitchen and Communal Lounge Room) and therefore the use requires a permit. Shared Housing is not defined under Clause 74 – Land Use Terms of the Planning Scheme. The use is defined as a Boarding House under the Building Regulations. A Boarding House is listed under Clause 74 of the Planning Scheme but is not defined. A Boarding House is a sub-category of Residential Building which is a sub-category of Accommodation. Accommodation (other than a Dependent person’s unit, Dwelling or Residential aged care facility) is a permit required use pursuant to Clause 32.02-1 – Residential 2 Zone, of the Planning Scheme. One of the purposes of the Residential 2 Zone is to encourage residential development at medium or higher densities to make optimum use of the facilities and services available. The proposed building is to be used for residential purposes. However, the proposed development and the reduction in car parking proposed are considered inappropriate and will result in material detriment to the surrounding properties. This will be further discussed below.

State and Local Planning Policies As noted above, the State and Local Planning Policy Framework encourages higher densities and a range of dwelling types where advantage of well established physical and social infrastructure can be taken. The proposed development is located within close proximity to a range of existing infrastructure and services, including shops and public transport nodes and would add to the housing diversity of the area, catering for the changing community profile.



Page 8692

Clause 22.09 – Residential Development and Neighbourhood Character Policy Pursuant to Clause 22.09-3.1, an assessment against the Design Guidelines for Substantial Change Areas is provided as follows:

• Housing form – A higher proportion and intensity of medium density infill development than in incremental and limited change areas;

It is considered that the proposed development constitutes a more intense form of medium density infill which in principle is appropriate to the substantial change area that the subject site is located in. However, the proposal is poorly designed and is an overdevelopment of the site.

• Height – Outside the Dandenong residential periphery – Up to 3 storeys, with 4

storeys a possibility where appropriate considering its interface with existing residential development, response to site circumstances and streetscape;

The subject site is located outside of the Dandenong residential periphery area and has a maximum height of two storeys, which is considered reasonable along Hopetoun Street.

• Bulk – Building bulk and height can be relatively uniform throughout the depth of

sites, provided appropriately articulated building elevations and well proportioned ground level setbacks are provided at the front, side and rear of buildings to allow for substantial landscaping to soften the built form. Avoid a tiered approach at upper levels. No need for separation between upper levels of dwellings on a site, as is the case in incremental and limited change areas, providing the building portrays a high standard of design and does not result in unreasonable amenity impacts;

The building height and bulk of the proposed development is relatively uniform throughout the depth of the subject site. The development is minimally articulated, however ground level setbacks would be provided at the front, sides and rear, which will allow for landscaping to soften the built form. A tiered approach has been avoided at the upper levels. There is no separation between the lodging rooms on the upper level of the proposed development.

• Site coverage – Up to 70%;

The site coverage of the proposal is approximately 47.44% which is under the maximum of 70% allowed under Clause 22.09-3.1.


20.92% of the site area will remain permeable enabling lawn, porous paving and landscaping to be achieved, which is greater than the minimum of 20% required under Clause 22.09-3.1.

• Front setback – As per Clause 55 or 5 metres, whichever is the lesser;

The front setback proposed is 7.5 metres, which is greater than the minimum 5.0 metres required under Clause 22.09-3.1 and as such is considered reasonable.



Page 8693


Pursuant to Standard B17 of Clause 55 all ground floor walls (with the exception of walls which are built on the boundary) are setback more than 1.0 metre from side and rear boundaries, whilst all upper level walls are setback more than 1.66 metres from side and rear boundaries, with the exception of the upper level eastern wall, which is only setback 1.4 metres from the eastern boundary.

• Private open space – As per Clause 55;

Secluded private open space has not been provided as required under Standard B28 of Clause 55. Instead, a communal open space of approximately 73m² within the front setback is proposed and would include an outdoor terrace. Ideally, each habitable room should be provided with secluded private open space either in the form of a balcony or ground floor space. The proposal does not comply with this requirement under Clause 22.09.

• Car parking – For more intensive developments comprising dwellings without a

ground level component - basement or in building car parking to maximise the opportunity for soft landscaping at ground level. For developments comprising dwellings with a ground level component - garages and parking areas located behind buildings, generally hidden from view;

The proposed development comprises of seven (7) lodging rooms with ground level components and nineteen (19) lodging rooms without ground level components. There are eight (8) car parking spaces located behind the entry area and supervisor’s room at ground level underneath the southern half of the upper floor level and a single garage for the supervisor’s vehicle to the rear of the site at the south-east corner of the subject site. These would generally be hidden from view.

• Landscaping – 70% of ground level front setback planted with substantial landscaping

and canopy trees;

At least 70% of the ground level front setback can be planted with substantial landscaping and canopy trees and shown on a landscaping plan as such as a condition of permit, if one were to be granted.

• Front boundary – Open or low scale front fences not to exceed 1.5 metres for street

in Road Zone Category 1 and maximum height of 1.2 metres for other roads to allow a visual connection between landscaping in front gardens and street tree planting. Second crossovers on allotments with frontage widths below 17m will be discouraged.

A new 2.0 metre high brick pier front fence is proposed as part of this application. This exceeds the maximum height of 1.2 metres allowed under this design guideline. It is noted that the existing crossover will be retained under the current proposal, and no additional crossovers are proposed.



Page 8694

Clause 55 Assessment An assessment of the proposal against the requirements of Clause 55 is attached to this report. The following standards are not complied with due to the following:

• Standard B16 (Parking Provision) is not complied with in that there is a shortfall of twenty-three (23) car parking spaces on the subject site, including eighteen (18) resident car spaces and five (5) visitor car spaces.

• Standard B17 (Side and Rear Setbacks) is not complied with in that the eastern wall of the proposed building has been provided with an inappropriate setback from the eastern boundary at the upper floor level.

• Standard B25 (Accessibility) is not complied with in that there would be inadequate access for persons of limited mobility due to the lack of disabled access between Hopetoun Street and the front entry of the building, and the lack of a lift to access the first floor, in particular the communal lounge room.

• Standard B28 (Private Open Space) as none of the dwellings/boarding rooms has been provided a secluded private open space area for the reasonable recreation needs of residents.

• Standard B30 (Storage) is not complied with in that individual storage facilities for each lodging room have not been provided.

• Standard B34 (Site Services) is not complied with in that mailbox and clothesline facilities have not been provided and insufficient waste facilities have been provided.

A full Clause 55 assessment is included as Attachment 3.

Car Parking When having regard to the requirements of Clause 52.06 of the Scheme, given twenty-six (26) lodging rooms are proposed, a total of twenty-six (26) car parking spaces are required (it is noted that Clause 52.06-5 requires the provision of 1 car space to each lodging room). The application however only proposes to provide a total of eight (8) car parking spaces at ground floor level. All eight (8) spaces are provided for residents with no spaces provided for visitors. This results in a shortfall of eighteen (18) spaces. A permit is therefore required for a reduction in the car parking requirement under Clause 52.06-1. Consideration of the proposed reduction against the decision guidelines of that Clause is as follows:

• Any relevant parking precinct plan.

There are no parking precinct plans relevant to this locality.



Page 8695

• The availability of car parking in the locality.

Although parking in Hopetoun Street is unrestricted, it cannot be relied upon to absorb the substantial shortfall of car parking provision on the site. In addition, the subject site is located on a bend in Hopetoun Street, making it dangerous for cars to be parked in the street directly opposite the subject site. Over-reliance on on-street car parking will contribute to traffic and car parking problems in this area.

• The availability of public transport in the locality.

The subject site is not on a Principal Public Transport Network, although it is noted that a number of local bus services run along Hemmings Street, including the 812 (Dandenong to Brighton), 813 (Dandenong to Waverley Gardens), 814 (Dandenong to Springvale South), 815 (Dandenong to Noble Park) and 848 (Dandenong to Brandon Park) bus routes. These bus routes provide a connection to the closest Principal Public Transport Nodes, being Dandenong station which is located approximately 770 metres to the south-east and Yarraman station which is located approximately 1,320 metres to the north-west, respectively.

• Any reduction in the car parking demand due to the sharing of car spaces by multiple

uses, either because of a variation of car parking demand over time or because of efficiencies gained from the consolidation of shared spaces.

Given that the proposed development comprises of a residential building (boarding house), there is no reduction in car parking demand due to the sharing of car spaces by multiple uses.

• Any car parking deficiency or surplus associated with the existing use of the land.

It is noted that the existing use of the land comprises of a single-storey thirteen (13) bedroom Boarding House. Given that there is only a single garage provided, there is a car parking deficiency of twelve (12) car spaces associated with the existing use of the land.

• Any credit which should be allowed for a car parking demand deemed to have been

provided in association with a use which existed before the change of parking requirement.

The existing building on the subject site was constructed in 1955, thus it can be established that the building and the car parking spaces provided in conjunction with the building predate the change in parking requirements. However, it is not acceptable to allow any credits for car parking demand deemed to have been provided at the time given the extent to which car parking has historically been under-provided on the site. In any case, as the existing building would be demolished and would be replaced by a new building the opportunity to meet the demands of the new development should be taken.



Page 8696

• Local traffic management.

It is considered that there would be detrimental impacts upon local traffic management in this quiet residential area due to the proposed reduction in the car parking requirement under Clause 52.06 by eighteen (18) spaces and the lack of on-site visitor car parking. The excessive levels of on-site car parking deficiency would have a detrimental impact on street parking in the area.

• Local amenity including pedestrian amenity.

Further to the above, it is considered that local amenity, including pedestrian amenity, would be detrimentally impacted upon by the proposed development due to its inadequate car parking provision, which will lead to over-reliance on on-street car parking in the area, thus compromising pedestrian amenity.

• An empirical assessment of car parking demand.

The applicant provided a Traffic Report from Amerado Traffic Engineers. Two (2) parking surveys are said to have been conducted on Thursday January 28, 2010 between 11.30am and 4.30pm and on Friday January 29, 2010 between 9.30am and 5.00pm respectively and they revealed that of the thirty-two (32) car parking spaces in the area, the following were occupied and vacant at the following times:

Location North

side of the east-

west section

of Hopetoun

St

South side of

the east-west

section of

Hopetoun St

West side of

the north-south

section of

Hopetoun St

East side of the north-south

section of

Hopetoun St

Total Parking Spaces

Available

Inventory 6 6 10 10 32 Thursday January 28, 2010 11.30am 1 1 1 0 3 29 1.30pm 1 0 0 0 1 31 4.30pm 0 0 0 0 0 32 Friday January 29, 2010 9.30am 1 0 0 1 2 30 2.00pm 2 0 1 1 4 28 5.00pm 1 1 2 0 4 28

The study notes that peak demand occurred at approximately 2.00pm and 5.00pm on Friday January 29, 2010 when there were twenty-eight (28) car parking spaces available, representing 87.5% of parking available in the area. However, over-reliance on on-street car parking is not an ideal way of meeting car parking requirements for development proposals, especially in a quiet residential street such as Hopetoun Street.



Page 8697

• Any other relevant consideration.

Council’s Code of Practice for Car Parking requires 0.8 car spaces per lodging room. An assessment against Council’s Code of Practice reveals a reduced requirement of twenty-one (21) car spaces (26 x 0.8) which means that there is a shortfall of thirteen (13) car spaces for the proposed development under Council’s Code of Practice. It is therefore considered that the proposed reduction in the required number of car parking spaces under Clause 52.06 and Council’s Code of Practice is not acceptable. The proposed car parking reduction will cause traffic-related material detriment to adjoining and surrounding properties, due to the occupation of on-street car parking by residents of, and visitors to, the proposed Boarding House.

Bicycle Facilities Under the table to Clause 52.34-3, a Residential building of four (4) or more storeys requires one (1) bicycle space to each ten (10) lodging rooms for residents and one (1) bicycle space to each ten (10) lodging rooms for visitors. In this instance, given that the proposed building is less than four storeys in height, no bicycle parking spaces are required under this Clause. However, the development proposes nine (9) bicycle parking spaces. Clause 52.34 notes that Shower and change room requirements are needed once 5 or more bicycle spaces are provided. It is noted that two (2) showers and a bathroom have been provided at each level for the residents of the proposed building.

Waste Collection Council’s Health Department advised that adequate commercial weekly rubbish removal is required. A Waste Management Plan can be provided as a condition of permit, if one were to be granted.

Vegetation & Tree Impact (Site & Surrounds) An indicative landscaping layout has been provided on the ground floor plan. A landscape plan can be required as a condition of permit, if one were to be issued, and would include advanced planting of shrubs across the site, and canopy trees with a minimum planting height of 1.5 metres.

Conclusion

The application has been assessed against the requirements and stated objectives of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme for this area and is considered to be unsatisfactory as insufficient car parking has been provided for the proposal, and this will cause traffic-related material detriment to adjoining and surrounding properties, due to the occupation of on-street car parking by residents of, and visitors to, the proposed Boarding House As assessed, the proposed development does not meet the requirements of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme. It is inconsistent with and does not appropriately respond to the provisions of the Scheme as detailed in the report, and for the reasons set out in the recommendation should be Refused.



Page 8698

Recommendation That Council resolves to Refuse to grant a planning permit in respect of the land known and described as No. 11 Hopetoun Street, Dandenong, to use and develop the site for the purposes of a Boarding House comprising twenty-six (26) rooms with a reduction of the car parking requirements of Clause 52.06 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is contrary to Clause 52.06-1 in that the proposed reduction in the

required number of car parking spaces is not acceptable, and it will cause traffic-related material detriment to adjoining and surrounding properties, due to the excessive occupation of on-street car parking by residents of, and visitors to, the proposed Boarding House.

2. The proposal constitutes an overdevelopment of the subject site due to

inadequate car parking and private open space provision. 3. The proposal is contrary to Clause 22.09 and Clause 55.05-4 – Private Open

Space Objective – in that it fails to provide for private open space to each of the boarding rooms for the reasonable recreation needs of residents.

4. The proposal is contrary to Clause 55.04-1 in that the eastern wall of the proposed building has been provided with an inappropriate setback from the eastern boundary at the upper floor level.

5. The proposal is contrary to Clause 55.05-1 in that there would be inadequate

access for persons of limited mobility due to the lack of disabled access between Hopetoun Street and the front entry of the building, and the lack of a lift to access the first floor, in particular the communal lounge room.

6. The proposal is contrary to Clause 55.05-6 in that individual storage facilities for

each lodging room have not been provided. 7. The proposal is contrary to Clause 55.06-4 in that mailbox and clothesline

facilities have not been provided and insufficient waste facilities have been provided.



Page 8699

MINUTE 1044 Moved by: Cr Angela Long Seconded by: Cr Jim Memeti That Council resolves to Refuse to grant a planning permit in respect of the land known and described as No. 11 Hopetoun Street, Dandenong, to use and develop the site for the purposes of a Boarding House comprising twenty-six (26) rooms with a reduction of the car parking requirements of Clause 52.06 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme for the following reasons: 1. The proposal is contrary to Clause 52.06-1 in that the proposed reduction in the

required number of car parking spaces is not acceptable, and it will cause traffic-related material detriment to adjoining and surrounding properties, due to the excessive occupation of on-street car parking by residents of, and visitors to, the proposed Boarding House.

2. The proposal constitutes an overdevelopment of the subject site due to

inadequate car parking and private open space provision. 3. The proposal is contrary to Clause 22.09 and Clause 55.05-4 – Private Open

Space Objective – in that it fails to provide for private open space to each of the boarding rooms for the reasonable recreation needs of residents.

4. The proposal is contrary to Clause 55.04-1 in that the eastern wall of the

proposed building has been provided with an inappropriate setback from the eastern boundary at the upper floor level.

5. The proposal is contrary to Clause 55.05-1 in that there would be inadequate

access for persons of limited mobility due to the lack of disabled access between Hopetoun Street and the front entry of the building, and the lack of a lift to access the first floor, in particular the communal lounge room.

6. The proposal is contrary to Clause 55.05-6 in that individual storage facilities for

each lodging room have not been provided. 7. The proposal is contrary to Clause 55.06-4 in that mailbox and clothesline

facilities have not been provided and insufficient waste facilities have been provided.

CARRIED



Page 8700





Page 8701

7.4.5 Town Planning Application - Noble Park Football Social Club, 46-56 Moodemere Street, Noble Park (Planning Application No. PLN11/0431)

Attachments: Submitted Plans File No: 188455 Responsible Officer: Director Development Services

Application Summary

Applicant: Crosier Scott Architects Proposal: Construct buildings and works comprising alterations and

additions to the existing Noble Park Football Social Club building; remove Native Vegetation under Clause 52.17; and increase the extent of the Licensed Area under Clause 52.27 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme, respectively.

Zone: Public Park and Recreation Zone Overlay: No Overlays Ward: Paperbark The application proposes to construct buildings and works comprising alterations and additions to the existing Noble Park Football Social Club building; to remove Native Vegetation (11 Trees) under Clause 52.17; and increase the extent of the Licensed Area under Clause 52.27 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme, respectively.

Objectors Summary

The application was advertised to the surrounding area through the the mailing of notices to adjoining and surrounding owners and occupiers. No objections were received to the application.


As assessed, the proposal is consistent with and appropriately responds to the provisions of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme. The proposal appropriately responds to strategic policy for the area with this report recommending that the application be supported, and that a Permit be granted subject to conditions as set out in the recommendation.


Town Planning Application – Noble Park Football Social Club, 46 – 56 Moodemere Street, Noble Park (Planning Application No. PLN11/0431) (Cont.)

Page 8702


Subject Site The subject site, Noble Park Reserve, is located on the southern side of Moodemore Street, Noble Park, between Corrigan Road in the west and Arena Square in the east and the western side of Arena Square between Moodemere Street in the north and Wallarano Drive in the south. It is generally rectangular in shape with a northern frontage to Moodemere Street of approximately 262 metres, a north-eastern frontage facing the intersection of Moodemere Street and Arena Square of approximately 4 metres, an eastern frontage (northern section) to Arena Square of approximately 226 metres, a southern boundary (eastern section) of approximately 242 metres, an eastern boundary (southern section) of approximately 53 metres, a southern frontage (western section) to Wallarano Drive of approximately 20 metres, a western boundary (which includes frontages to Aenone Avenue and Horatio Street) of approximately 284 metres, giving it a total area of approximately 10,624m² or 1.06ha. Noble Park Reserve is currently occupied by the Noble Park Football Social Club, the Wright Football Oval, a Pavilion and Kiosk, the Noble Park Community Tennis Club, the Noble Park Bowl Club, a Scout Hall and a Telecommunication Tower. There are one hundred and fifty-six (156) car parking spaces on the subject site within close proximity of the Noble Park Football Social Club which are accessed from Moodemere Street. There are thirty-one (31) indented on-street car parking spaces to the immediate north of the subject site along Moodemere Street, and a further sixty-six (66) indented on-street car parking spaces to the immediate east of the subject site along Arena Square.



Page 8703

Locality Plan

Subject Site Melway Ref: 89 D4 & 89 D5

Surrounding Area The subject site is located within the Noble Park Reserve in Noble Park. Please refer to the locality map below for the location of the subject site and its surroundings:

Background

Previous Applications A search of Council records revealed that Council has most recently considered the following planning applications for the site:

• Planning Permit PLN02/0590 was issued on 17/01/2003 for ‘The development of part of No. 46-56 Moodemere Street, Noble Park (Noble Park Reserve) with the provision of four (4) light poles’.

• Planning Permit PLN02/0552 was issued on 02/01/2003 ‘To construct buildings and works to an existing Scout Hall including the provision of a disabled ramp and toilet facilities, all in accordance with the endorsed plans’.

• Planning Permit PLN03/0600 was issued on 17/02/2004 for ‘The construction of buildings and works (alterations and additions to an existing club room building), all in accordance with the endorsed plans’.



Page 8704

• Planning Permit PLN05/0705 was issued for the Noble Park Community Tennis Club on 06/03/2006 for a ‘Variation of Existing Restricted Club Liquor License’.

• Planning Permit PLN07/0058 was issued on 12/07/2007 for ‘Buildings and works comprising alterations and additions to the existing Restricted Place of Assembly (Noble Park Football Social Club Ltd Clubrooms), with a reduction in the car parking requirement under the Scheme and signage’.

Proposal

The application proposes to construct buildings and works comprising of alterations and additions to the existing Noble Park Football Social Club building pursuant to Clause 36.02-2 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme as follows:

Internal Alterations to the existing building

• The provision of a new Back of House (a term used in the restaurant business to refer to kitchen and staff area, as opposed to the dining area), new Staff Room, new Communications Room, new Cash Room, new Bistro Bar, new Gaming Bar, new Kitchen, new Kid’s Play Area, new TAB, new Reception and a new Office.

• Alterations to the existing first floor Member’s Lounge.

External Additions to the existing building

• The construction of a new Smoker’s Courtyard to the south of the Noble Park Football Social Club building, which would be accessed from the existing Sports Bar.

• The construction of an extension at the south-west corner of the Noble Park Football Social Club Building which would include a new Liquor Cool Room, a relocated Freezer, a new Dry Store, a new Cool Room and a new Loading Bay.

• The provision of a new Service Yard to the west of the new Loading Bay.

• The provision of a new awning over the existing external courtyard along the eastern side of the existing Noble Park Football Social Club building near the north-east corner of this building.

Extension to Licensed (“Red Line”) Area The application also proposes to increase the extent of the Licensed Area under Clause 52.27 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme by including into the existing ‘red line area’ the external additions (i.e. the outdoor smoking area, the new liquor room, the new back of house, etc.) to the existing Noble Park Football Social Club which are proposed under this application.



Page 8705

Removal of Vegetation As noted above, the proposal includes the removal of native vegetation (11 trees) under Clause 52.17 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme. The applicant submits the following native trees noted on the plans, to be removed to facilitate the proposed additions: Tree Description and Applicant’s submission

Tree 1

Eucalyptus pryoriana

‘Rough-barked Manna Gum’

Mature, with a height of 9.0 metres and a canopy width of 11.0 by 6.0 metres, poor structure, poor health, low retention value. This tree is to be removed as it is located close to the main entrance to the car park and lists considerably over the entrance driveway. This tree is of poor health and structure and is not suitable for retention. This tree’s canopy has died-back considerably and consists primarily of epicormic development. Sound future structural integrity is not attainable. This tree presents an immediate and unnecessary risk to property and persons.

Tree 2

Corymbia ficifolia

‘Flowering Gum’

Mature, with a height of 4.0 metres and a canopy width of 5.0 metres, poor structure, poor health, low retention value. This tree is located within the island garden bed west of the main building. This tree is of poor health and structure and is not suitable for retention. The tree’s structure consists of coppiced regrowth originating from the stump of a previously lopped tree.

Tree 3

Eucalyptus sp.

‘Mallee Gum’

Mature, with a height of 10.0 metres and a canopy width of 9.0 metres, below average structure, below average health, medium retention value. This tree is located within the island garden bed west of the main building. This tree is of below average declining health and structure and is not suitable for long term retention. This tree’s canopy is moderately sparse. Its structure lists considerably over an internal road and car parking area.

Tree 4

Lophostemon confertus

‘Brush Box’

Mature, with a height of 7.0 metres and a canopy width of 7.0 metres, below average structure, poor health, low retention value. This tree is located within the island garden bed west of the main building. This tree is of poor health with below average structure and is not suitable for retention. This tree’s canopy has died-back considerably, particularly its central upper portion. Its structure consists of a bifurcated trunk union originating at 1.0 metre above ground level.

Tree 5

Eucalyptus cladocalyx

‘Sugar Gum’

Mature, with a height of 7.0 metres and a canopy width of 8.0 metres, poor structure, fair health, low retention value. This tree is located within the island garden bed west of the main building. This tree is of fair health but has poor structure and is not suitable for retention. This tree’s structure lists considerably over an internal road and car parking area. Numerous mechanical wounds are present due to vehicles regularly coming into contact with this tree’s trunk.



Page 8706

Tree 6

Corymbia calophylla

‘Marri’

Mature, with a height of 13.0 metres and a canopy width of 10.0 metres, below average structure, poor health, low retention value. This tree is located within the island garden bed west of the main building. This tree is of poor health with below average declining structure and is not suitable for long-term retention. The tree’s canopy is significantly sparse and has minor die-back. Its structure, due to a poorly formed trunk bifurcation at 5.0 metres above ground level, lacks integrity.

Tree 7

Lophostemon confertus

‘Brush Box’

Mature, with a height of 6.0 metres and a canopy width of 6.0 metres, poor structure, poor health, low retention value. This tree is located within the island garden bed west of the main building. This tree is of poor declining health and structure and is not suitable for retention. The tree’s canopy is significantly sparse and has died-back considerably (>90%).

Tree 8

Casuarina cunninghamiana

‘River She-oak’

Mature, with a height of 6.0 metres and a canopy width of 5.0 metres, poor structure, poor health, low retention value. This tree is located within the island garden bed west of the main building. This tree is of poor declining health and structure and is not suitable for retention. The tree’s canopy is significantly sparse and has died-back considerably (>80%).

Tree 9

Corymbia ficifolia

‘Flowering Gum’

Mature, with a height of 4.0 metres and a canopy width of 5.0 metres, below average structure, below average health, low retention value. This tree is located within the island garden bed west of the main building. This tree is of below average declining health and structure and is not suitable for retention. Due to overshadowing by tree #10, the tree’s canopy is poorly formed and unevenly distributed. Most canopy branches are lateral in formation and terminally weighted.

Tree 10

Eucalyptus viminalis

‘Manna Gum’

Mature, with a height of 17.0 metres and a canopy width of 14.0 metres, poor structure, fair health, low retention value. This tree is located within the island garden bed west of the main building. This tree is of fair health but has poor structure and is not suitable for retention. This tree’s central leader has been previously lopped at 5.0 metres above ground level. The subsequent regrowth crown, consisting of four (4) leaders originating from a common and coppiced union, lacks structural integrity. This tree presents a real and unnecessary risk to property and persons.

Tree 11

Corymbia ficifolia

‘Flowering Gum’

Mature, with a height of 10.0 metres and a canopy width of 11.0 metres, below average structure, fair health, medium retention value. This tree is located south of the island garden bed west of the main building. This tree is of fair health with below average structure and is not suitable for long-term retention. This tree’s canopy structure has considerable weighted lateral development. Many terminal branch points have failed; some have been shortened by unorthodox pruning methods. Coppiced development is present at the ends of many canopy branches, and although moderately sound at present, will develop with limited structural integrity and be prone to failure.



Page 8707

The above list of vegetation on the site is contained in the Constructive Arboriculture Tree Management and Consultancy Arborist Report submitted with the application. Of the eleven (11) trees to be removed, only two (2) (#1 Eucalyptus pryoriana; and #10 Eucalyptus viminalis) are defined as native to the Dandenong bio-region. The rest are native to a wider bio-region, i.e. Victoria and the rest of Australia. A planning permit is required to remove native vegetation under Clause 52.17 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme. A copy of the submitted plans is included as Attachment 1.





• To construct a building or construct or carry out works pursuant to Clause 36.02-2 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme (Permit Requirement – Public Park and Recreation Zone);

• For the removal of Native Vegetation under Clause 52.17-2.

• To increase the area that liquor is allowed to be consumed or supplied under a licence pursuant to Clause 52.27 (Licensed Premises)


Zoning Controls The subject site is located in a Public Park and Recreation Zone. The surrounding area is located in a Residential 1 Zone. The purpose of the Public Park and Recreation Zone outlined at Clause 36.02 is:


• To recognise areas for public recreation and open space.

• To protect and conserve areas of significance where appropriate.

• To provide for commercial uses where appropriate.

Pursuant to Clause 36.02-2, a permit is required to construct a building or carry out works. The proposed development requires a permit.




Page 8708

State Planning Policy Framework The Operation of the State Planning Policy Framework outlined at Clause 10 seeks to ensure that the objectives of planning in Victoria are fostered through appropriate land use and development planning policies and practices which integrate relevant environmental, social and economic factors in the interests of net community benefit and sustainable development. The objectives of Planning in Victoria are noted as: (a) To provide for the fair, orderly, economic and sustainable use, and development of land. (b) To provide for the protection of natural and man-made resources and the





(b), (c), (d) and (e). (g) To balance the present and future interests of all Victorians. In order to achieve those objectives, there are a number of more specific objectives contained within the State Planning Policy Framework that need to be considered under this application. Clause 19 (Infrastructure) states that: “Planning is to recognise social needs by providing land for a range of accessible community resources, such as education, cultural, health and community support (mental health, aged care, disability, youth and family services) facilities”.

Local Planning Policy Framework The Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) includes the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and Local Policies. The MSS is contained within Clause 21 of the Scheme. The MSS at Clause 21.02 focuses on the Municipal Profile, within which the following is noted:

• Major open space areas include Dandenong Park, Alex Wilkie Nature Reserve, Tirhatuan Park, Fotheringham Reserve, Tatterson Park, Coomoora Woodland and the Dandenong Wetlands, part of the Creek floodplain, which showcase natural bushland and wetland habitats. Greaves and Ross Reserves have significant areas of remnant vegetation (Clause 21.02-5).

Clause 21.04-2 (Retail, Commerce and Entertainment – Social Issues) states that entertainment and associated uses are important in maintaining local cultural vitality but need to be managed to avoid late night disturbances to surrounding residents, and inadequate provision of car parking.



Page 8709

Under Clause 21.06 matters of the natural environment including open space, watercourses, wetlands and habitats are covered. The following is of relevance to this application:

• Open space and natural areas in Greater Dandenong have significant ecological value and include bush areas, public parks and reserves, roadside and railway corridors and undeveloped areas, many of which provide habitat for flora and fauna. These areas need to be preserved and enhanced.

• The vast majority of indigenous flora and fauna has been significantly depleted through clearing for agricultural, industrial and residential development purposes. The remaining scattered trees and other remnant vegetation are considered to be of local conservation significance.

Particular Provisions Native Vegetation The Native Vegetation requirements of Clause 52.17 of the Planning Scheme need to be considered. The purpose of this Clause is:

• To protect and conserve native vegetation to reduce the impact of land and water degradation and provide habitat for plants and animals.

• To achieve the following objectives:

o To avoid the removal of native vegetation. o If the removal of native vegetation cannot be avoided, to minimise the removal

of native vegetation through appropriate planning and design. o To appropriately offset the loss of native vegetation.

• To provide for the management and removal of native vegetation in accordance with a property vegetation plan.

• To manage vegetation near buildings to reduce the threat to life and property from wildfire.

Pursuant to Clause 52.17-2, a permit is required to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation, including dead native vegetation. This does not apply:

• If the table to Clause 52.17-6 specifically states that a permit is not required.

• To the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation specified in the schedule to this clause.

• To an area specified in the schedule to this clause.

Clause 52.17-5 lists the Decision Guidelines which must be considered in the assessment of this application.



Page 8710

Licensed Premises Clause 52.27 – Licensed Premises needs to be considered. The purposes of this provision are:

• To ensure that licensed premises are situated in appropriate locations.

• To ensure that the impact of the licensed premises on the amenity of the surrounding area is considered.

These provisions apply to premises licensed, or to be licensed, under the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998. A permit is required to use land to sell or consume liquor if any of the following apply:

• A licence is required under the Liquor Control Reform Act 1998.

• A different licence, or category of licence is required from that which is in force.

• The hours of trading allowed under a licence are to be extended.

• The number of patrons allowed under a licence is to be increased.

• The area that liquor is allowed to be consumed or supplied under a licence is to be increased.

Before deciding on an application, in addition to the decision guidelines in Clause 65, the responsible authority must consider the following decision guidelines, as appropriate:

• The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

• The impact of the sale or consumption of liquor permitted by the liquor licence on the amenity of the surrounding area.

• The impact of the hours of operation on the amenity of the surrounding area.

• The impact of the number of patrons on the amenity of surrounding area.

• The cumulative impact of any existing licensed premises and the proposed licensed premises on the amenity of the surrounding area.



The applicant has provided a declaration to Council advising that the proposal does not breach, in any way, an encumbrance on title. A perusal of the title confirms that this is indeed the case.



Page 8711





Community Safety




Referrals

External The application was not required to be referred to any external referral authorities pursuant to Section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Internal The application was internally referred to the following for their consideration: Council Referrals Advice/Response/Conditions Corporate Services The Director of Corporate Services advised that Council

Officers have discussed the proposal with the Noble Park Football and Social Club.

Further discussions will be held in terms of Disability Discrimination Act compliance and a loan guarantee.

There are no issues that prevent landowner’s consent being provided.



Page 8712

Arborist Council’s Arborist inspected the subject site and reviewed

the proposal and the Arborist’s Report on 26/10/2011. Council’s Arborist noted that all works are located within

Noble Park Reserve, a Council Reserve. Council’s Arborist agrees with the Arborist’s comments with

the exception of Tree 1 - Eucalyptus pryoriana ‘Rough-barked Manna Gum’ at the entrance to the carpark area. The tree has some deadwood in the upper canopy, which needs to be removed. It may never grow into a large tree as nutrients are limited by the larger and more mature Eucalyptus pryoriana ‘Rough-barked Manna Gum’ to the west.

Council’s Arborist advised that the other ten (10) trees included in the Arborist’s Report meet the requirements which allow removal. Nine (9) of the trees are in poor condition or represent a potential threat to the users of the carpark and surrounds. The large Corymbia ficifolia (Tree 11) is healthy and stable, though it falls within the intended building footprint.

Council’s Arborist recommends the removal of all Trees 2 to 11, and deadwooding works to Tree 1, though this is conditional on the following requirements:

o Tree removals are to be undertaken by the City of Greater Dandenong, to ensure the protection of Council assets, and to meet Council’s Occupational Health and Safety policies. These removals are to be undertaken as a customer funded removal. This can be required as a condition of permit, if granted.

o All other trees within the park are not to be damaged or affected by the planned works. A maintenance plan should be submitted on how the trees are to be protected during construction, particularly those at the entrance and the tree to the south of Tree 11. See AS4970 – Protection of Trees on Development Sites. This can be required as a condition of permit, if granted.

Advertising



The notification has been carried out correctly. Council has received no objections to date.



Page 8713

Assessment

State and Local Planning Policy Clause 19 (Infrastructure) states that: “Planning is to recognise social needs by providing land for a range of accessible community resources, such as education, cultural, health and community support (mental health, aged care, disability, youth and family services) facilities”. It is considered that the proposal for internal alterations and external additions to the existing Noble Park Football Social Club building and the increase to the extent of the area used as a Licensed Premises in association with the existing Noble Park Football Social Club building pursuant to Clause 52.27 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme, would recognise a social need by enabling the viability of the Noble Park Football Social Club. Clause 21.04-2 (Retail, Commerce and Entertainment – Social Issues) states that entertainment and associated uses are important in maintaining local cultural vitality but need to be managed to avoid late night disturbances to surrounding residents, and inadequate provision of car parking. It is noted that the nearest residential properties to the Noble Park Football Social Club building are located 55 metres to the north. Conditions on any permit issued will help to manage late-night disturbances.

Use It is noted that a planning permit is not required for the use as it is existing and has already been approved. The applicant seeks to increase the extent of the area used as a Licensed Premises in association with the existing Noble Park Football Social Club to include the external additions to the existing Noble Park Football Social Club building which are proposed under this application. This will allow the applicant to obtain a variation to their existing “red line” area within which liquor may be consumed, from the Liquor Licence Authority. To determine the appropriateness of the proposed extension to the licensed area, consideration must be made of the decision guidelines at Clause 52.27 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme. The following is an assessment against each of the decision guidelines:

• The State Planning Policy Framework and the Local Planning Policy Framework, including the Municipal Strategic Statement and local planning policies.

It is considered that the proposal for the inclusion of the external additions to the Noble Park Football Social Club building as part of the existing Licensed Premises is in accordance with Clause 21.04-2 (Retail, Commerce and Entertainment – Social Issues) of the MSS which recognises the importance of entertainment and associated uses in maintaining local cultural vitality. It is policy that whilst the importance of entertainment is acknowledged, entertainment premises must be managed to avoid late night disturbances to surrounding residents. It is noted that in this instance, the existing premises has operated with a liquor licence for many years. This application has been advertised to surrounding residents and no complaint has been received from any of the residents.



Page 8714

• The impact of the sale or consumption of liquor permitted by the liquor licence on the amenity of the surrounding area.

The subject site is located on the southern side of Moodemere Street and the nearest residential land uses are located approximately 55 metres away (as the crow flies) to the north of the Noble Park Football Social Club building. A condition which addresses the management of patron behaviour can be included as a condition of permit, if granted. It is considered that this would appropriately address the potential for adverse impacts on the amenity of the area.

• The impact of the hours of operation on the amenity of the surrounding area.

The current application does not propose any variation to the existing hours of operation.

• The impact of the number of patrons on the amenity of the surrounding area.

The current application does not propose any additional patrons.

• The cumulative impact of any existing licensed premises and the proposed licensed premises on the amenity of the surrounding area.

The proposal for the inclusion of the external additions to the Noble Park Football Social Club building as part of the existing Licensed Premises is considered to be a minimal increase to the licensed area and will have no added impact on the amenity of the surrounding area. It is noted that there are no other licensed premises in close proximity to the subject site.

Development The application proposes to construct buildings and works comprising of alterations and additions to the existing Noble Park Football Social Club Rooms pursuant to Clause 36.02-2 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme as follows: Internal Alterations to the existing building

• The provision of a new Back of House, new Staff Room, new Communications Room, new Cash Room, new Bistro Bar, new Gaming Bar, new Kitchen, new Kid’s Play Area, new TAB, new Reception and a new Office.

• Alterations to the existing first floor Member’s Lounge.

The internal alterations proposed above will provide a more efficient layout for the Noble Park Football Social Club, and will not be visible from outside the subject site. As such they are considered reasonable. External Additions to the existing building

• The construction of a new Smoker’s Courtyard to the south of the Noble Park Football Social Club building, which would be accessed from the existing Sports Bar.

• The construction of an extension at the south-west corner of the Noble Park Football Social Club Building which would include a new Liquor Cool Room, a relocated Freezer, a new Dry Store, and a new Cool Room.



Page 8715

• The provision of a new Loading Bay to the south of the new Liquor Cool Room.

• The provision of a new Service Yard to the west of the new Loading Bay.

• The provision of a new awning over the existing external courtyard along the eastern side of the existing Noble Park Football Social Club building near the north-east corner of this building.

The external additions proposed above are relatively minor and will not be visible from outside of the reserve. As such they are considered reasonable.

Vegetation & Tree Impact (Site & Surrounds) There are no trees or vegetation on adjoining or surrounding properties which would be affected by the proposed development. Consideration of the proposed effects on native vegetation against the Decision Guidelines of that Clause 52.17-5 is as follows: General issues

• Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management – A Framework for Action (Department of Natural Resources and Environment 2002).

The abovementioned document has the primary goal (p.14) of “A reversal, across the entire landscape, of the long-term decline in the extent and quality of native vegetation, leading to a Net Gain”. Under the current proposal at least eleven (11) native trees would be removed. Of these, two (2) trees (Trees 1 and 10) are classified as ‘indigenous’ (i.e. native to Greater Dandenong), whilst the other nine (9) trees (Trees 2 to 9 and 11) are ‘native’ (i.e. trees that are not indigenous to Greater Dandenong, but can be found elsewhere in Victoria and Australia). As assessed, a Net Gain recruitment is not required as none of the trees to be removed is of high significance. Notwithstanding this, it is still considered appropriate to require that a landscape plan be submitted to provide for the establishment of at least ten (10) semi-mature trees on site to compensate for those being removed. The Arborist’s Report submitted with the application states that “the trees assessed have become a maintenance and safety issue and are proposed for removal”. However, the Arborist’s Report does “provide a list of native and indigenous vegetation to assist with selecting species for (the) proposed landscape plan”. As such an informal ‘net gain’ will be provided for, as a condition of permit, if granted, as part of a landscape plan for the new garden beds proposed under this application to the west of the Noble Park Football Social Club building. This would allow for a reversal across the subject site of the long-term decline in the extent and quality of native vegetation.



Page 8716

• Whether the proposed development can be located and designed to avoid the removal of native vegetation.

It is noted that only one (1) tree (Tree 11) would be directly impacted by the proposed external additions. The only way that the proposed development could be designed and located to avoid the removal of this tree is for the south-western additions, the new loading bay and the new service yard to be omitted from this proposal, which is not feasible.

• Whether the proposed development is located and designed to minimise the removal of native vegetation.

The proposed development is located and designed to minimise the removal of native vegetation. As advised by Council’s Arborist, Tree 1 (Eucalyptus pryoriana) would need to be retained and lopped to remove dead wood in the upper canopy. The remaining ten (10) trees are allowed by Council’s Arborist to be removed for maintenance and safety reasons, as submitted by the applicant’s Arborist.

• The need to offset the loss of native vegetation having regard to the conservation significance of the vegetation.

All eleven (11) trees proposed to be removed are assessed as being of low to medium significance, therefore a Net Gain offset is not required under the offset criteria in Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management – A Framework for Action. The Arborist’s Report submitted by the applicant provides a list of native and indigenous vegetation to assist with selecting species for the proposed landscape plan. A landscape plan for the new garden beds proposed under this application to the west of the Noble Park Football Social Club building can be required as a condition of permit, if granted, and would require the provision of ten (10) new semi-mature native trees of a similar species to those being removed under this proposal. This would compensate the loss of native vegetation proposed.

• The conservation and enhancement of the area.

It is considered that the loss of eleven (11) established native trees will not conserve or enhance the area in the short term, however a landscape plan for the new garden beds proposed under this application to the west of the Noble Park Football Social Club building can be required as a condition of permit, if granted, and would require the provision of new canopy trees, which would conserve and enhance the area in the long term.

• The preservation of and impact on the natural environment or landscape values.

It is considered that the loss of eleven (11) established native trees will undermine and have a detrimental impact on the natural environment and landscape values of the subject site in the short term. However a landscape plan for the new garden beds proposed under this application to the west of the Noble Park Football Social Club building can be required as a condition of permit, if granted, and would require the provision of new canopy trees, which would improve the natural environment and landscape values of the subject site in the long term.



Page 8717

• Any relevant approved Regional Vegetation Plan.

The Westernport Catchment Management Authority’s Native Vegetation Plan is not relevant to this application.

• Whether the proposed development is in accordance with any property vegetation plan that applies to the site.

There are no property vegetation plans which apply to the subject site.

• The cumulative impact of native vegetation removal on biodiversity conservation and management.

It is considered that the removal of ten (10) native trees on the subject site (as assessed) would have a short term detrimental impact on biodiversity conservation and management on the subject site. However a landscape plan for the new garden beds proposed under this application to the west of the Noble Park Football Social Club building can be required as a condition of permit, if granted, and would require the provision of ten (10) semi-mature new canopy trees, which would provide habitat for wildlife in the long term and assist in biodiversity conservation and management.

Land protection • The role of the native vegetation in:

o Protecting water quality and waterway and riparian ecosystems, particularly within 30 metres of a wetland or waterway and in special water supply catchment areas listed in the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994. It is noted that there are no waterways or wetlands on the subject site or in close proximity to the subject site.

o Preventing land degradation, including soil erosion, salinisation, acidity,

instability and water logging, particularly: Where ground slopes are more than 20 per cent.

It is noted that the subject site is relatively flat, and would not slope more than 20%.

On land which is subject to soil erosion or slippage.

It is considered that the subject site is not one which is subject to soil erosion or slippage. In harsh environments, such as coastal or alpine areas.

The subject site is not in a coastal or alpine area.

o Preventing adverse effects on groundwater recharge, particularly on land where groundwater recharge to saline watertables occurs or which is in proximity to a discharge area. It is noted that there are no waterways or wetlands on the subject site or in close proximity to the subject site. As such, it is considered that the removal of the native vegetation proposed would not have any adverse effects on groundwater recharge. The subject site does not form part of an area where groundwater recharge to saline watertables occurs, nor is it in proximity to a discharge area.



Page 8718

• Whether the proposed works will adversely affect the land protection role of the native vegetation.

It is considered that the proposed works will not adversely affect the land protection role of the native vegetation on the subject site, particularly given that the native vegetation currently sits within a landscaped garden bed.

• The need to mitigate any adverse impacts of native vegetation removal.

Council’s Arborist has advised that all other trees on the subject site are not to be damaged or affected by the planned works. A maintenance plan should be submitted on how the trees are to be protected during construction, particularly those at the entrance and the tree to the south of Tree 11 with regard to AS4970 – Protection of Trees on Development Sites. This can be required as a condition of permit, if granted.

Conservation significance • The conservation status of the native vegetation.

Only two (2) of the native trees proposed to be removed are of medium retention suitability, whilst the other nine (9) native trees proposed to be removed are of low retention suitability. Therefore it is considered that the native vegetation proposed to be removed under this application is not of high conservation significance.

• The quality and condition of the vegetation.

Of the eleven (11) native trees proposed to be removed as part of this application, three (3) trees are in fair health, two (2) trees are of below average health and six (6) are of poor health. It is also noted that two (2) of the trees are of medium retention suitability, whilst the other nine (9) trees are of low retention suitability.

• The strategic location of the native vegetation in the local landscape.

The eleven (11) trees proposed to be removed under this application are aligned in a north-south direction and would generally not be visible from Moodemere Street as there are a number of existing large trees with extensive canopies aligned in an east-west direction along the subject site’s northern frontage, which are more prominent when viewed from Moodemere Street.

• Whether the native vegetation is a threatened community, or provides habitat for threatened fauna or flora, as listed in the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988.

It is considered that the native vegetation proposed to be removed does not form a ‘threatened community’ and would be unlikely to provide habitat for threatened fauna or flora, given the location of the trees within a landscape garden bed within a carpark on a subject site which is located in a built-up urban area.

• Whether the removal of the native vegetation could jeopardise the integrity or long term preservation of an identified site of scientific, nature conservation or cultural significance.

It is considered that Noble Park Reserve is not an identified site of scientific, natural or cultural significance.



Page 8719

Offsets • The conservation significance of the native vegetation.

As noted earlier, only two (2) of the native trees proposed to be removed are of medium retention suitability, whilst the other nine (9) native trees proposed to be removed are of low retention suitability. Therefore it is considered that the native vegetation proposed to be removed under this application is not of high conservation significance.

• The offset criteria in Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management – A Framework for Action (Department of Natural Resources and Environment 2002).

Appendix 4 states that for every large old tree of high significance, four (4) other large old trees must be protected and twenty (20) new trees would need to be ‘recruited’, whilst for large old trees of medium significance two (2) other large old trees must be protected and ten (10) new trees be recruited. All the trees proposed to be removed are either of low or medium retention value as submitted by the applicant’s Arborist. Council’s Arborist has agreed with this assessment upon reviewing the Arborist Report submitted by the applicant. Therefore, given that none of the native trees to be removed are of high significance, a Net Gain recruitment is not required and no new trees would need to be recruited under the offset criteria.

• Offset requirements in an approved Regional Vegetation Plan.

The offsets requirements outlined in the Appendices of the Westernport Catchment Management Authority’s Native Vegetation Plan are not relevant to this application.

• The long term security of the offset.

No offsets are proposed or required.

Timber production • In the case of timber production, the benefit of including a condition requiring

operations to be carried out in accordance with any relevant code of practice under Part 5 of the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987.

No timber production is proposed as part of this application.

Aboriginal cultural heritage • The conservation of native vegetation protected under the Aboriginal Heritage Act

2006.

The subject site is not located in an area of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sensitivity.

Overall, given the issues discussed above, it is considered appropriate to allow the removal of the native vegetation proposed under this application (with the exception of Tree 1 as advised by Council’s Arborist) and as such the proposed development is supported.



Page 8720

Conclusion

As assessed, the proposal is consistent with and appropriately responds to the provisions of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme. The proposal appropriately responds to strategic policy for recreational facilities in the area with this report recommending that the application be supported, and that a Permit be granted subject to conditions as set out in the recommendation.

Recommendation That Council resolves to Grant a planning permit in respect of the land known and described as No. Noble Park Football Social Club 46-56 Moodemere Street, NOBLE PARK VIC 3174, for ‘Buildings and works comprising alterations and additions to the existing Noble Park Football Social Club building; the removal of Native Vegetation under Clause 52.17; and to increase the extent of the Licensed Area under Clause 52.27 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme, respectively, all in accordance with the endorsed plans’ and subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the development starts, two (2) copies of amended plans drawn to scale and dimensioned, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. No buildings or works must be commenced until the plans have been approved and endorsed by the Responsible Authority. The endorsed copy of the plans forms part of this permit. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application, but modified to show:

1.1 A landscaping plan in accordance with Condition 19 of this permit, but modified to show: 1.1.1 Advanced planting in the new garden beds proposed to the west

of the Noble Park Football Social Club building; 1.1.2 Ten (10) new semi-mature native trees (preferably of the same or

similar species to the ones allowed to be removed under this permit) in the new garden beds proposed to the west of the Noble Park Football Social Club building with a minimum planting height of 1.5 metres each.

1.1.3 The retention of Tree 1 (Eucalyptus pryoriana – ‘Rough-barked Manna Gum’) as identified in the Constructive Arboriculture Tree Management and Consultancy Arborist Report.

1.1.4 The removal of Trees 2 to 11 as identified in the Constructive Arboriculture Tree Management and Consultancy Arborist Report.

All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.



Page 8721

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

the further written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Once the development has started, it must be continued and completed in accordance with the endorsed plans, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

4. Goods, materials, equipment and the like associated with the use of the land must not be displayed or stored outside the building/s, without the further written consent of the Responsible Authority.

5. The loading and unloading of goods from or to vehicles must only be carried out on the land, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6. Floor levels shown on the endorsed plan(s) must not be altered or modified without the further written consent of the Responsible Authority.

7. The sale and consumption of alcohol may only occur within the “red line” shown on the plan endorsed to this permit unless the Responsible Authority gives further consent in writing.

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

9. The carparking area must be lit if in use during hours of darkness, and all lights must be designed, fitted with suitable baffles and located to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

10. The carparking provided on the land must always be available for use by persons employed on or visiting the subject premises, and no measures may be taken to restrict access to the carpark by such persons, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

11. The car parking space/s for disabled persons designated on the endorsed plan/s must be clearly set aside for such a purpose and must not be used for any other purpose.

12. The existing carparking and access lanes shown on the endorsed plans must at all times be made available for the parking of vehicles and not used for any other purpose, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

13. The amenity of the area must not be detrimentally effected by the development on the land, through the:

13.1 Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the building, 13.2 Appearance of any building, works or materials, 13.3 Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour,

steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil, 13.4 Presence of vermin, 13.5 The behaviour of patrons to and from the subject premises.




Page 8722

14. All external lighting of the site, including carparking areas and buildings, must be located, directed and shielded and of such limited intensity that no nuisance or loss of amenity is caused to any person beyond the site.

15. Noise emitted from the premises must not exceed the permissible noise levels determined in accordance with the Environment Protection Policy N-2 Control of Music Noise from Public Places.


17. Before the occupation of the building extension hereby permitted, landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plan/s must be completed and then maintained, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

18. All existing vegetation shown on the endorsed plans to be retained must:

18.1 Be suitable marked before any development starts on the site and be adequately protected from damage during the construction process.

18.2 Retained unless their location or condition is likely to cause damage.


19. A landscape plan for the site prepared by a person suitably qualified in landscape design shall be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The details of that person’s qualifications must be given and the plan must show existing vegetation to be retained, all proposed trees, shrubs and ground cover, including the botanical names and sizes at maturity of all plants, and the location of all areas to be covered by grass, lawn or other surface material to be specified. The development of the land shall not be commenced until such time that the submitted plan has been approved by the Responsible Authority.

An endorsed copy of the approved plan shall form part of this permit.

20. Tree removals are to be undertaken by the City of Greater Dandenong, to ensure the protection of Council assets, and to meet Council’s Occupational Health and Safety policies. These removals are to be undertaken as a customer funded removal.

21. All other trees (save for those shown to be removed on the endorsed plans) within the Noble Park Reserve are not to be damaged or affected by the planned works. A maintenance plan must be submitted on how the trees are to be protected during construction, particularly those at the entrance and the tree to the south of Tree 11 with regard to AS4970 – Protection of Trees on Development Sites.



Page 8723





Notes:

1. A Building Approval may be required prior to the commencement of the approved works.

2. Premises used for the sale or storage of food in any manner whatsoever are to be registered under the Food Act and require Council approval via the Chief Environmental Health Officer before occupation.

3. Prior to the removal of any trees, further consent is required from Council (via Council’s Infrastructure Planning Unit) and where practicable, a replacement tree may be required to be planted. All fees associated with the removal and replacement shall be borne by the applicant requesting the removal of the trees. Arrangements for the removal of the trees must be made through Council’s Infrastructure Planning Unit.

Cr Kelly declared a Conflict of Interest (Indirect interest) in this item as his son is a contracted player for the Noble Park Football Club. Cr Kelly left the Chamber at 7:47pm prior to consideration of the item. MINUTE 1045 Moved by: Cr Roz Blades Seconded by: Cr Pinar Yesil That Council resolves to Grant a planning permit in respect of the land known and described as No. Noble Park Football Social Club 46-56 Moodemere Street, NOBLE PARK VIC 3174, for ‘Buildings and works comprising alterations and additions to the existing Noble Park Football Social Club building; the removal of Native Vegetation under Clause 52.17; and to increase the extent of the Licensed Area under Clause 52.27 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme, respectively, all in accordance with the endorsed plans’ and subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the development starts, two (2) copies of amended plans drawn to scale and dimensioned, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. No buildings or works must be commenced until the plans have been approved and endorsed by the Responsible Authority. The endorsed copy of the plans forms part of this permit.



Page 8724

The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application, but modified to show:

1.1 A landscaping plan in accordance with Condition 19 of this permit, but modified to show: 1.1.1 Advanced planting in the new garden beds proposed to the west

of the Noble Park Football Social Club building; 1.1.2 Ten (10) new semi-mature native trees (preferably of the same or

similar species to the ones allowed to be removed under this permit) in the new garden beds proposed to the west of the Noble Park Football Social Club building with a minimum planting height of 1.5 metres each.

1.1.3 The retention of Tree 1 (Eucalyptus pryoriana – ‘Rough-barked Manna Gum’) as identified in the Constructive Arboriculture Tree Management and Consultancy Arborist Report.

1.1.4 The removal of Trees 2 to 11 as identified in the Constructive Arboriculture Tree Management and Consultancy Arborist Report.



3. Once the development has started, it must be continued and completed in accordance with the endorsed plans, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

4. Goods, materials, equipment and the like associated with the use of the land must not be displayed or stored outside the building/s, without the further written consent of the Responsible Authority.

5. The loading and unloading of goods from or to vehicles must only be carried out on the land, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6. Floor levels shown on the endorsed plan(s) must not be altered or modified without the further written consent of the Responsible Authority.

7. The sale and consumption of alcohol may only occur within the “red line” shown on the plan endorsed to this permit unless the Responsible Authority gives further consent in writing.

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

9. The carparking area must be lit if in use during hours of darkness, and all lights must be designed, fitted with suitable baffles and located to prevent any adverse effect on adjoining land, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

10. The carparking provided on the land must always be available for use by persons employed on or visiting the subject premises, and no measures may be taken to restrict access to the carpark by such persons, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

11. The car parking space/s for disabled persons designated on the endorsed plan/s must be clearly set aside for such a purpose and must not be used for any other purpose.



Page 8725

12. The existing carparking and access lanes shown on the endorsed plans must at all times be made available for the parking of vehicles and not used for any other purpose, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

13. The amenity of the area must not be detrimentally effected by the development on the land, through the: 13.1 Transport of materials, goods or commodities to or from the building, 13.2 Appearance of any building, works or materials, 13.3 Emission of noise, artificial light, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour,

steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil, 13.4 Presence of vermin, 13.5 The behaviour of patrons to and from the subject premises. All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

14. All external lighting of the site, including carparking areas and buildings, must be located, directed and shielded and of such limited intensity that no nuisance or loss of amenity is caused to any person beyond the site.

15. Noise emitted from the premises must not exceed the permissible noise levels determined in accordance with the Environment Protection Policy N-2 Control of Music Noise from Public Places.


17. Before the occupation of the building extension hereby permitted, landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plan/s must be completed and then maintained, all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

18. All existing vegetation shown on the endorsed plans to be retained must: 18.1 Be suitable marked before any development starts on the site and be

adequately protected from damage during the construction process. 18.2 Retained unless their location or condition is likely to cause damage.


19. A landscape plan for the site prepared by a person suitably qualified in landscape design shall be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The details of that person’s qualifications must be given and the plan must show existing vegetation to be retained, all proposed trees, shrubs and ground cover, including the botanical names and sizes at maturity of all plants, and the location of all areas to be covered by grass, lawn or other surface material to be specified. The development of the land shall not be commenced until such time that the submitted plan has been approved by the Responsible Authority.

An endorsed copy of the approved plan shall form part of this permit.



Page 8726

20. Tree removals are to be undertaken by the City of Greater Dandenong, to ensure the protection of Council assets, and to meet Council’s Occupational Health and Safety policies. These removals are to be undertaken as a customer funded removal.

21. All other trees (save for those shown to be removed on the endorsed plans) within the Noble Park Reserve are not to be damaged or affected by the planned works. A maintenance plan must be submitted on how the trees are to be protected during construction, particularly those at the entrance and the tree to the south of Tree 11 with regard to AS4970 – Protection of Trees on Development Sites.





Notes:

1. A Building Approval may be required prior to the commencement of the approved works.

2. Premises used for the sale or storage of food in any manner whatsoever are to be registered under the Food Act and require Council approval via the Chief Environmental Health Officer before occupation.

3. Prior to the removal of any trees, further consent is required from Council (via Council’s Infrastructure Planning Unit) and where practicable, a replacement tree may be required to be planted. All fees associated with the removal and replacement shall be borne by the applicant requesting the removal of the trees. Arrangements for the removal of the trees must be made through Council’s Infrastructure Planning Unit.

CARRIED

Cr Kelly returned to the Chamber at 7:50pm.



Page 8727





Page 8728

7.5 FINANCE AND BUDGET

7.5.1 2011/2012 Mid Year Budget Review

Attachment: Income Statement Variations MYR 2011-12 Notes


Report Summary

The 2011/12 Mid-Year Budget Review process provides Council with the opportunity to review its operations since the adoption of the 2011/12 Budget and make the necessary adjustments to reflect the latest forecast financial position. Where surplus funds are forecast to be available, the Mid-Year Review provides Council with an opportunity to reallocate funding and ensure that available financial resources achieve the maximum benefit to the community. Following consideration of all required amendments to the original 2011/12 Annual Budget and taking into account the final audited position from 2010/11, Council’s cash outcome is an accumulated cash surplus of $0.683M prior to reallocation of additional capital works. Through the 2011/12 Mid-Year Budget Review, Council has reallocated the surplus funds resulting in a forecast breakeven cash result for the 2011/12 year.


This report recommends that Council adopts the 2011-12 Mid-Year Budget Review which includes: 1. the proposed amendments to Capital and Operating Budgets that have occurred

since the adoption of the Annual Budget, including the capital projects carried forward from the previous financial year (refer Attachment 2); and

2. the allocation of $0.683M of new capital funding (refer Attachment 2); and


2011/2012 Mid Year Budget Review (Cont.)

Page 8729

Background

The financial management of City of Greater Dandenong is a complex task with Council managing operational inflows and outflows of $186M, including a capital works program of $70M, across hundreds of different services that are provided to the community. The purpose of this Mid-Year financial review is to assess financial trends that have occurred during the first five months of the 2011/12 financial year and to determine a forecast outcome for 30 June 2012. The Mid-Year review further allows Council to take account of the final outcomes arising from the previous financial year given that the Original Budget is developed in May, some two months prior to the end of the financial year and many of Council’s services and capital projects span across the financial years. Council undertook a half yearly review of the 2011/12 Annual Budget to identify areas where the forecast result to 30 June 2012 may need amendment due to changed circumstances. All proposed variations to the Original Budget for both Capital and Operating are fully described in Attachment 2. Following the completion of this review, Council allocated the forecast cash surplus of $0.683M on capital projects resulting in a revised break even forecast cash result to 30 June 2012. Component Amount

$000's

Unallocated cash surplus from 2010/11 699Budgeted surplus for 2011/12 200Operational variations during 2011/12 (216)Forecast Cash Surplus prior to Mid Year Review 683Council allocated capital in Mid-Year Review (683)

Forecast Cash Surplus to 30 June 2012 0 The detailed allocation of the surplus funds of $0.683M has occurred as outlined in the below table. Component Amount

$Dandenong Market - lift upgrade 24,354

Noble Park Pool Slide Signage 350,000Tatterson Park - "sun-smart" referee/umpires box 40,000Removal of airlock doors Newcomen Road (20,000)Greaves Reserve building renewals 8,400Noble Park toilet block 200,000Noble Park streetscape 80,000

Total 682,754



Page 8730

To assist Council in considering the proposed revisions to the 2011/12 Annual Budget, a number of Attachments are contained in this report, viz.

• Attachment 1 – Income Statement comparing Original Approved 2011/12 Annual Budget against the proposed Mid-Year Revised Budget.

• Attachment 2 - is the full listing of proposed amendments to the Original Budget (both capital and operating) and including the proposed capital works carried forward from 2010/11

• Attachment 3 - contains more detailed notes in respect of each proposed change;

Key Outcomes of the 2011/12 Mid-Year Budget Review

The table below details the movements in Operating, Capital and other non operating cash items resulting from the review.

MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTING SUMMARY

VarianceDescription Budget Forecast Fav/(Unfav)

$000'S $000'S $000'S

Operating StatementRevenue 144,685 142,044 (2,641)Expenditure 140,318 142,750 (2,432)

Surplus/(Deficit) – Ongoing Operations 4,367 (706) (5,073)Plus Capital Income 41,941 44,011 2,070

Operating Statement Surplus/(Deficit) 46,308 43,305 (3,003)

Management Accounting ReconciliationAdd back Non-Cash Items:Depreciation 24,000 24,000Granted Assets (14,717) (14,717)

Written Down Value of Assets Sold/Scrapped 1,610 1,610

Subtotal 10,893 10,893Less Non-Operating Cash Items:Capital Expenditure 69,743 82,796 13,053Transfers to/(from) Reserves (470) (4,887) (4,417)Loan Proceeds (15,200) (15,200)Loan Repayments 2,928 2,928Subtotal 57,001 65,637 8,636

Cash Surplus/(Deficit) for year 200 (11,439) (11,639)

Accumulated Surplus Brought ForwardCapital Carryovers 10,740 10,740Operating CarryoversUnallocated Surplus (382) 699 1,081

Forecast Position Surplus/(Deficit) (182) 0 182

Full Year



Page 8731

1. Revenue and Expenses (Income Statement Result) The Income Statement is Council’s formal accounting result in accordance with Accounting Standards and as such contains several non-cash items (depreciation, written down value of assets sold and gifted assets from developers) and excludes cash items such as capital expenditure and loan repayments.

Original Budget

$000

Mid Year Budgets

$000

Variance

Fav/(Unfav) $’000

Revenue 185,016 184,445 (571) Expenses 138,708 141,140 (2,432) Surplus

46,308

43,305

(3,003)

The forecast operating surplus for the year as projected following the mid-year review is $43.305M, a decrease of $3.003M from the original budget. (see Attachment 1) The significant items of revenue and expenses that contribute to this variation are as follows. Revenue The total revenue reports a net decrease of $0.571M that mainly comprises:

• Decreased allocation from the Victoria Grants Commission (VGC) of $2.806M mainly due to the first quarter payment of $2.696M received in the prior financial year. This amount is offset by funds from the unexpended grants reserve fund. The balance of $0.110M relates to a loss of revenue due to the VGC revising its grant allocation methodology.

• $0.320M reduction in income forecasts for the Number 8 Car park which has experienced significant lower use than first estimated due to free parking on street and with a higher volume of cars using the car park and exiting within the one hour free time limit.

• $0.354M reduction net forecast income at the Dandenong Market. The lower than expected result includes rental abatements for traders.

The decrease in revenue is partly offset by the following additional revenue items:

• Proceeds of $2.010M for the sale of St Johns Avenue property with funds being directed into Councils Major Projects Reserve fund in accordance with Council policy.

• Additional $0.146M in Community Care income for additional hours of service delivery. This revenue is offset by an equivalent amount of expenditure to deliver the service programs.



Page 8732

• Additional $0.096M grant revenue from the Department of Human Services for the drug strategy program. This funding is expected to be offset by equivalent expenditure.

• Additional General Law Enforcement income of $0.054M mainly comprising additional revenue from fees and fines.

• Garbage income of $0.05M that is expected to be received in addition to the original budget allocation.

Expenditure Operating expenditure has increased by $2.432M. The major variations are:

• An additional $2.411M in order to provide community services projects where funding was received in the prior 2010/11 year with funds carried over as unspent grants.

• Additional $0.146M in Community Care service delivery that is offset by an equivalent amount of revenue.

• Additional $0.096M program costs to complete the Department of Human Services funded drug strategy program.

The additional expenditure is partly offset by:

• Savings of $0.434M relating to Council’s workcover premium. The active management of occupational health and safety practices has contributed to this significant rebate in Council’s annual workcover costs.

• Savings relating to loan interest of $0.272M. Council allocated $2.131M within the 2011/12 Budget to service interest payments for existing and new loans. Review of cashflow requirements has identified the capacity to defer 2011/12 new borrowings until 31 March 2012 resulting in the subsequent savings.

2. Capital expenditure The capital expenditure program is forecast to increase by $13.053M from the original budget of $69.743M to $82.796M. The variance of $13.053M comprises the following: Component Amount

$000's

Unexpended Capital Grants carried over from 2010/11 1,570Carried Forward Capital Works from 2010/11 10,800Other Capital Adjustments July-November 2011 683

Total 13,053



Page 8733

3. Variation in Movement in Transfers to/ (from) Reserves – ($4.417M) The following table highlights the expected variations to the movements in Reserve funds arising from the Mid-Year Budget Review.

2011/12 Budget

Mid Year Forecast Variance

$'000s $'000s $'000sTransfer to ReservesMajor Projects Reserve Fund 1,967 3,977 2,010Municipal Building Reserve Fund 1,700 1,700Insurance Reserve 250 250Developer Contributions Fund 18,534 18,534Keysborough Maintenance Levy 664 664Native Revegetation Reserve 136 136Open Space Reserve 959 959Total Transfer to Reserves 23,960 26,220 2,260

Transfers from ReservesDeveloper Contributions fund 20,923 20,923Open Space Reserve 664 664Native Re-vegetation Reserve 198 198Major Projects Reserve 2,045 2,045Insurance Reserve 100 100Keysborough Maintenance Levy 500 500Grants received in advance 6,677 6,677Total Transfers from Reserves 24,430 31,107 6,677

Net Movement in Reserves (470) (4,887) (4,417)

Projected Reserve Balances

Transfers To Reserves: The transfer variance of $2.26M includes the Major Projects Reserve $2.01M for the sale of the St Johns Avenue property as well as a further $0.25M for the workcover premium savings. Transfers From Reserves: The transfer variance of $6.677M relates to unspent grants that were held in the Grants Reserve at 30 June 2011. 4. Carry forward capital expenditure from prior years - $10.800M This amount represents capital works projects budgeted for in 2010/11 which were not completed by the 30 June 2011 and have been carried over to the 2011/12 financial year for completion. These projects are funded from the increased accumulated surplus outcome achieved at 30 June 2011 and does not impact on the projected cash result for 2011/12.



Page 8734

5. Cash Surplus The forecast accumulated cash position following the Mid-Year Review is a breakeven cash position with a $0 accumulated surplus. Should surplus funds be identified during the course of the current financial year it is recommended that they be transferred to the Major Projects Reserve Fund at the conclusion of 2011/12.


The 2011/12 Mid Year Budget review will ensure that Council has accommodated all known variations to the Budget that have occurred during the first six months of the financial year and points to an improvement on the budgetary targets established in the 2011/12 Annual Budget.

Consultation

The 2011/12 Mid-Year Budget Review has been prepared on the basis of budget reviews conducted by all Council staff with budgetary responsibilities and following discussion and consideration by Council. As changes to the Original Budget are not material, Council is not required to formally advertise the Revised Budget.

Recommendation That Council adopts the 2011-12 Mid-Year Budget including:

1. the proposed amendments to Capital and Operating Budgets that have occurred since the adoption of the Annual Budget, including the capital projects carried forward from the previous financial year (refer Attachment 2); and

2. the allocation of $683,000 of new capital funding to the projects highlighted (refer Attachment 2).

MINUTE 1046 Moved by: Cr Peter Brown Seconded by: Cr Angela Long That Council adopts the 2011-12 Mid-Year Budget including:

1. the proposed amendments to Capital and Operating Budgets that have occurred since the adoption of the Annual Budget, including the capital projects carried forward from the previous financial year (refer Attachment 2); and

2. the allocation of $683,000 of new capital funding to the projects highlighted (refer Attachment 2).

CARRIED



Page 8735





Page 8736

7.6 POLICY AND STRATEGY

7.6.1 Springvale Road / Cheltenham Road Commercial Gateway, 476 Cheltenham Road, Keysborough - Development Plan

Attachments: Development Plan File Id: qA274369 Responsible Officer: Director Development Services

Report Summary

This report relates to the Development Plan for the Springvale Road / Cheltenham Road Commercial Gateway site at 476 Cheltenham Road (south east corner of Springvale and Cheltenham Roads), Keysborough. The subject site has the following planning controls: Zone: Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) Overlays: Schedule 8 to the Development Plan Overlay (DPO8) Environmental Audit Overlay The Development Plan has been prepared by the owners of the commercial gateway site, ‘Silverton Pty’, pursuant to the Schedule 8 to the Development Plan Overlay. The Development Plan sets out the building design, parking, landscaping, highway and other important guiding principles for the future development for:

• a home improvement store – likely to be a ‘Masters’ store; • bulky goods retailing; • offices; • shops; and • residential development.

Importantly, the Development Plan does not seek any development, subdivision, use, highways or any other type of planning permit. Development permit applications have been lodged with Council for the Masters store and the subdivision of the land, but these applications are in the initial stages of consideration and will be determined by Council only after the approval of the Development Plan. Other planning applications will be made for the remainder of the site in due course. All of the current and future permit applications will contain the detail of each stage of the development of the commercial gateway site, in accordance with the guiding principles of the Development Plan. Where future development permit applications are generally in accordance with the Plan, these applications will not be required to be the subject of notification to any third parties (other than to statutory referral authorities where necessary). No third parties will have the right to appeal the decision of the Council on the future development permits. This report sets out the Planning Policy Background to the Development Plan, and considers the comments raised during the notification and consultation process from Haileybury College, Bunnings, nearby residents, and referral departments and agencies. The broad content of the Development Plan, the guiding principles which it clearly sets out, are also detailed in this report. Planning officers have also had significant input into the Development Plan process, consultation and assessment of documents. Officers consider that the Development Plan for the site can provide a robust planning policy basis on which all future permit applications can be provided, and will allow a high quality commercial development to be achieved on this important gateway site.


Springvale Road / Cheltenham Road Commercial Gateway, 476 Cheltenham Road, Keyborough – Development Plan (Cont.)

Page 8737


The report recommends that Council approve the November 2011 Development Plan for the Springvale Road / Cheltenham Road Commercial Gateway site at 476 Cheltenham Road (south east corner of Springvale and Cheltenham Roads), Keysborough as set out in this report, pursuant to Clause 3.0 of Schedule 8 of the Development Plan overlay.



Page 8738

Development Proposals

The Planning Scheme allows the commercial gateway site to be developed for the following uses:

• Restricted Retail Premises and Trade Supplies - a home improvement store and bulky goods retailing;

• Offices; • Shops; and • Residential development.

The development, as promoted by the owners of the site ‘Silverton Pty’, is envisaged to come forward in three stages as follows:

• Stage 1: the home improvement store – likely to be a ‘Masters’ store; • Stage 2: bulky goods retailing, offices and shops; and • Stage 3: residential development – to be the subject of a future Development Plan.

The details of the Stage 3 residential development part of the site is not considered within the November 2011 Development Plan. The documents only show where this future residential development area will be. Rather, Stage 3 will be the subject of a separate Development Plan, or an update of this subject Plan, and will be consulted on and drafted to Council’s satisfaction in due course. The planning policy background that has led to the Planning Scheme support for the development of the site, and the evolution and submission of this Development Plan, is given below.

Planning Policy Background

The subject site is within the Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) and subject to Schedule 8 to the Development Plan Overlay (DPO8) and an Environmental Audit Overlay. These policies have consistently supported the mixed use redevelopment of this largely vacant site for a range of commercial and residential uses. However, the owners of the site, Silverton Pty, have sought to amend the Development Plan Overlay to allow for a specific range of uses in accordance with the evolving commercial interest in the site. Council and the Minister for Planning have consistently supported Silverton’s amendments to the Planning Scheme to allow a ‘Masters’ home improvement store, bulky goods retailing, shops, offices and residences on the site through the following approvals:



Page 8739

Amendment C102 - November 2010 to February 2011 An application for Amendment C102 to the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme was made by Silverton and adopted by Council to facilitate the mixed use development of the site in November 2010. Residents were notified of the proposed amendment. On consideration of the Council’s submission and the submissions made by the notified parties, Amendment C102 was approved by the Minister.

Amendment C102 allowed the following changes to the Planning Scheme: • The Schedule to the Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) was varied to provide maximum combined

lettable floor areas for the following uses on the site: o Offices – up to 2,500m2; o Shop - up to 30,000m2 Restricted Retail Premises and 1,000m2 of other Shop;

and o Trade supplies of up to 1,000m2.

• Site specific Schedule 8 to the Development Plan Overlay (DPO8) replaced Schedule 2 to the Development Plan Overlay (DPO2) ‘Keysborough South’, but only in relation to the Springvale Road / Cheltenham Road Commercial Gateway site.

DPO8 sets out the requirement for a Development Plan to be submitted to and approved by Council before the major development permits for the site can be determined. The Development Plan must address the following issues, and provide guidelines to the Council’s satisfaction on:

• Existing site conditions; • The size and dimensions of the land; • Contours and levels of site; • The location of existing vegetation and proposed landscaping areas; • Urban Design Guidelines; • Traffic Management Plan & Traffic Assessment Report (TIAR) to the satisfaction

of Council and VicRoads; • ESD Plan indicating energy, water, waste, transport and other resources use

and management throughout the development; and • An acoustic report detailing the acoustic measures required to protect the

amenity of the adjoining residential uses and Haileybury Secondary College from noise impact in accordance with the State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Industry, Commerce and Trade) No. N-1.

Amendment C135 – June and July 2011 Following the approval of Amendment C102, the Woolworths / Lowes group showed interested in developing a ‘Masters’ home improvement store on the commercial gateway site. However, a standard format Masters store would not have been allowed by the Planning Scheme under the C102 amendments, because the leasable floor area of trade goods to be sold would have greatly exceeded the 1,000m2 maximum (as specified in the MUZ Schedule).



Page 8740

Therefore, Silverton applied to the Minister’s under Section 20(4) of the Planning & Environment Act to seek to re-amend the Schedule to the Mixed Use Zone (MUZ) to facilitate a home improvement store by redistributing the permitted uses and floor areas as follows:

• increase the maximum combined lettable floor area for Trade supplies from 1,000 m2 to 9,000m2 (+ 8,000 m2); and

• reduce the maximum amount of Restricted Retail Premises floor area from 30,000m2 to 22,000m2(- 8,000 m2).

The Minister consented to the request and approved these changes to the MUZ in July 2011: DPO8 remained unchanged.

Exhibition and consultation - August and September 2011 The applicant submitted a Development Plan for the subject site to Council for approval in July 2011.

The Development Plan was placed on public exhibition from 15 August to 16 September 2011. Notification of the exhibition of the Development Plan was given in the prescribed form on 15 August 2011 to the adjoining property owners and occupiers. The area surrounding the site where notifications were sent is shown with a yellow line on ‘Figure 1: Notification Area’ overleaf. The notifications sent advised the recipients that while comments and submissions in relation to the Development Plan would be received by Council for it consideration and information, the submitters would not be able to be party at an application for review before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) for the proposal. The Development Plan referred to the CFA, APA Gasnet and Department of Transport, VicRoads and the EPA Referral Authorities for comments. The Development Plan was also provided to other Council department for comments.



Page 8741

Figure 1: Notification Area

(shown with yellow line)

Haileybury College

Bunnings

Development Site



Page 8742

A total of forty (40) submissions were received to the notification of the Development Plan. The submissions were received from:

A. One (1) submission from Bunnings – located to the north of the subject site across

the Cheltenham Road; B. One (1) submission from Haileybury College – immediate neighbour to the south, C. Thirty two (32) from residents to the south and south east of the subject site; D. One (1) from the Honourable Inga Peulich (local Member of the legislative Council);

and E. Five (5) from referral departments and agencies.

The matters raised within the submissions, and the responses of proponent and Council Officers are summarised in the tables provided in the next section. A: Bunnings Matter raised Officer Response

Have questioned design of signalised access from Cheltenham Road; the design will reduce efficiency of operation of traffic signals.

The design has been assessed by VicRoads and changes to the design have been incorporated and will be enforced through permit conditions.

Independent traffic analysis shows the traffic volumes generated by Masters are underestimated.

The traffic rates referred to by Bunnings are for standalone Masters. The rates adopted are for multiple occupancies with shared and multi-purpose trips.

Existing conditions assessment of Cheltenham/Springvale Road intersection by proponents in 2010 and in 2011 reaches different conclusions using the same base data.

The applicant’s traffic engineering consultants Cardno Grogan have submitted supporting transport assessments to the Council. These assessments have been considered by VicRoads and Council, and changes to the development plan documents have been made to address VicRoads concerns.

Have questioned adoption of parking rates for trade supplies in draft of the State Government Parking Review.

The applicant’s traffic engineering consultants Cardno Grogan state in their traffic assessments that the draft rates proposed by the State Parking Review and not for adoption. Recommended rates are based on an empirical assessment. Council’s Engineering team are broadly happy with the parking areas proposed, and specific details of parking layouts will be provided as part of the permit applications.



Page 8743

B: Haileybury College Haileybury College have had a number of meetings, correspondences, and telephone calls with both Silverton and Council officers. In its correspondence from August and September 2011 in response to the exhibition of the earlier Development Plan, the College also claimed that it was unaware of the earlier exhibition of the proposed scheme amendments and Minister’s amendments to the Planning Scheme. Council did notify the College by the normal process at the same time as all other owners and occupiers within the area specified at Figure 1 were notified. However, no response was received by Council before August 2011. The College also stated in correspondence from September and October 2011 that it was concerned that the Development Plan documents did not provide enough certainty on how the amenity of the College would be protected. The matters raised by the College are summarised in the table below, along with the Officer response which shows that the November 2011 revised Development Plan now addresses the key matters raised by the College. Matters raised Details Officer Response

Clarity and accuracy of plans

Plans forming part of the Development Plan document do not describe the subject land in a consistent manner and preferably by street address or title details.

Section 2 of the revised DP provides the details as required in Haileybury’s submission and addresses their concern. The DP plan DP0, DP1 (a) & (b) provide the tile plan with lot numbers and a survey of the existing conditions.

Urban Design (UD) Guidelines

No Urban Design Guidelines in the DP documentation.

The revised DP includes detailed UD Guidelines indicating: -location & coverage of proposed buildings -open space treatment -built form outcomes including building heights, articulation, materials and finishes -treatment of the interface with Haileybury College and residential land to the south and east. -presentation of development to Springvale and Cheltenham Roads & measures to achieve the “gateway” role of the site -Measures to minimise the negative visual impact of the car parking areas. Plans DP2 & DP3 of the DP depict the above. Council officers are satisfied with the revised DP documentation. The planning permit will ensure that the UD principles are incorporated into the development.



Page 8744

Traffic The DP fails to

identify the impact to school pedestrians travelling north and south past the site to the bus stop at the corner of Springvale And Cheltenham Roads with particular concern for the loading bay exit crossover.

The DP plan has been updated to include strategies to address pedestrian safety on Cheltenham and Springvale Rd crossings as part of permit process. The Traffic report has also been updated to identify the pedestrian safety requirements Treatments that can be implemented to provide improved pedestrian safety along the site frontages, include the following: - Ensure good sight distances are maintained north and south of each access point, including ensuring signage and landscaping does not impact on pedestrian sight lines; - Provide pedestrian warning signage for vehicles on entry and exit to the site (subject to the above sight lines); - Provide vehicle warning signage for pedestrians along the footpath (subject to the above sight lines); Pedestrian safety on Springvale and Cheltenham Road crossings - Provide vehicle speed control (speed humps, etc) on exit from the site; - Provide further identification for the pedestrian crossing points, which may include: - Contrasting pavement treatment; - Raised pedestrian crossings; or - Zebra crossings for pedestrian priority (The provision of pedestrian priority treatments (such as zebra crossings) are subject to VicRoads/Council approval, due to the potential safety concerns which may result)

Solar Access and Amenity

Overshadowing of Tennis Courts and Classrooms

Shadow diagrams for spring equinox show that the buildings will not cast shadows on Haileybury College land.



Page 8745

Acoustics Noise Impacts on

the caretaker’s residence and classrooms on northern boundary of College Operation of the Compactor

The Acoustic Report (page 4, paragraph 3) has been updated to note the presence of the caretaker’s residence and include recent background noise measurements taken outside the residence and classrooms. Appropriate permit conditions will ensure that the noise levels at the interface meet State Environmental Protection Policy (SEPP) requirements. Noise impacts on buildings along the northern boundary of secondary college including class rooms and workshop have been considered in the revised acoustic report. The residential area in Lake View Blvd approximately 100m east of the development is also considered in the revised SLR report and it has been ensured that the noise levels at the interface meet the requirements of the State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) No: N-1. The compactor will not be operated between 10AM and 3PM and also during non delivery hours. Planning permit conditions will ensure that the operation of the compactor is regulated not to cause any adverse amenity impact on the Haileybury College premises as well as the residents to the south and south-east.

Built Form Visual Bulk Overshadowing of tennis courts and class rooms

Materials and finishes selected for the southern elevations of the buildings will provide visual relief through a palate of colours to provide articulation. The building height at the façade will be 13m and at the rear of Masters Store will be 10m Shadow diagrams of the Spring equinox show that the buildings will not cast shadows on Haileybury College land.



Page 8746

Landscaping Whether planting

along the common boundary will disrupt any of the existing vegetation within the Haileybury site? Proposed 6-15m high trees with a spread of 8m within 1-1.5m of the boundary – shadowing due to these tall trees and damage to tennis courts and buildings.

Tree root barriers if necessary will be provided. Appropriate species trees will be selected to avoid any disruption and also damage to the tennis courts and buildings (permit conditions can ensure this. Following negotiations with the College, the applicant has agreed that the fence will be positioned 1.5m north of the southern boundary and landscaping will be provided only on the college side of the fence but within the subject site boundary. More suitable smaller varieties can be selected. All elements of the landscaping scheme will be ensured by permit conditions on the endorsed landscape plans associated with the development permits. The ‘Species’ Landscape Plans L1 and L2 indicate that there is sufficient space for a suitable landscaping barrier to be created between the College and the fencing surrounding the site.

Visual intrusion Lack of screening around the fire services tank, pump room and also the loading dock and goods receiving area of the rear of Masters Stores.

It will be ensured that appropriate visual screening is provided and will be enforced via permit conditions.

Stormwater Management

Whether the overland flow has been assessed and catered for without impact on the College

The revised DP includes a stormwater detention basin at the south-eastern corner of Lot2 of the site, which will address stormwater flows for the 1:100 year flood event.

In summary, the Development Plan has been significantly improved to respond to the Colleges concerns. The documents are now clear and legible, and largely reflect the College’s requested alterations.

C: Residents and D: the Honourable Inga Peulich Metricon (the developer of the residential subdivision south of the application site and adjacent to Haileybury’s eastern boundary) previously raised concerns regarding interface treatment between the development and residential areas to the south & south-east have been incorporated into DPO8 and Development Plan. The other issues raised by residents can be summarised to be the same as those raised by Haileybury College. The measures outlined to address the concerns of Haileybury College will also address the residents’ concerns. The Honourable Ms Peulich’s submission asked the Council carefully consider the resident’s concerns and that the concerns are addressed. Council has done so.



Page 8747

E: Referral Departments and Agencies Five (5) referral authorities were consulted on the Development Plan. Their responses are as follows: CFA, APA Gasnet and Department of Transport The CFA, APA Gasnet and Department of Transport have no objection. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The EPA has no objection, but has some requirements are to be included in future planning permits. The restrictions ensure that the truck delivery times to exclude night period that is no deliveries are made between:

• 22.00hrs – 07.00hrs Monday to Friday; and

• 22.00hrs – 08.00hrs Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays.

VicRoads Similarly VicRoads, while having no objection, requested some changes to the Development Plan, which have been incorporated by the applicant and are satisfied within the November 2011 revised plan. The changes required by VicRoads which have been incorporated are:

• The right turn lanes on the south approach of Springvale Rd to Cheltenham Rd to be lengthened to 160m total length (80m total taper plus 80m parallel length); and

• The Cheltenham Rd Access, the pedestrian crosswalks to be angled and slightly offset in the median, to enable staged crossings to be used.

VicRoads have provided Council with written confirmation that they are content with the Traffic Management Plan & Traffic Assessment Report, as per the DPO8 Clause 3.0 requirement. Outcome of the consultation In light of the above submissions and significant input from Council officers, the Development Plan was reviewed and the revised Development Plan was submitted to Council in November 2011. An overview of the revised November 2011 Development Plan is now provided.



Page 8748

The November 2011 Commercial Gateway Development Plan (DP)

The DP provides a comprehensive framework to guide the future development of the commercial gateway site and is to the satisfaction of Council officers and VicRoads, as required by the DPO. It is considered to be a robust document that addressed the comments and concerns raised by the submissions to the exhibited DP, and has been significantly improved between September and November 2011. The November 2011 Development Plan comprises the following documents: 1. A Development Plan report by Ratio Consultants, dated November 2011;

Development Plan drawings and plans prepared by Watson Young Architects, dated November 2011;

2. A detailed Traffic Management Plan including a Traffic Impact Assessment Report (TIAR) prepared by Cardno Grogan Richards, dated 21 November 2011;

3. An Environmental Noise Assessment prepared by SLR Global Environmental Solutions dated 22 November 2011; and

4. A Landscape Concept Plan prepared by Species (reference L1 and L2), dated November 2011.

Extracts from the Development Plan are provided overleaf and as Attachment 1 to this report.



Page 8749

Extract 1: DP2 – Urban Design Principles and Landscaping



Page 8750

Extract 2: DP3 – Indicative Staging, Heights and Massing



Page 8751

Extract 3: Taken from DP4 – Relationship between new buildings and Haileybury College



Page 8752

Summary of the Development Plan requirements The following table sets out the DPO8 Clause 3.0 requirement that the Development Plan must meet, and the DP references or responses as appropriate.

Requirements to be addressed in the DP

DP response and / or reference Meets the requirement?

Existing site conditions

Section 3 of the DP and illustrated in the drawing DP0 show the context of the site and Drawings DP1(a) and (b) provides a feature survey plan and a Title Plan.

Yes

The size and dimensions of the land

The area of the land is approximately 7.9ha and has a site frontage of 500m to Cheltenham Road and a frontage of 170m to Springvale Road. The size and dimensions are illustrated in drawings DP1 (a) and (b).

Yes

Contours and levels of site

Land generally falls from the north-west to the south-east corner of the site. The fall is approximately 5m and is shown on DP1.

Yes

The location of existing vegetation and proposed landscaping areas

Limited vegetation exists on the site and a report has been provided to support the clearance of all vegetation on the site. The submitted arborist report indicates existing vegetation is very poor and is proposed to be removed. Significant soft landscaping is proposed around the perimeter, and a ‘green wall’ feature is proposed for home improvement building fronting Springvale Road. Landscape Plans L1 & L2 provide indicative details, and each planning permit application will be required to provide the detailed design of the landscaping.

Yes

Urban Design Guidelines

The Development Plan report and plans DP3, DP4 and DP5 set out the Urban Design Guidelines for the site. A high quality development will be achieved, and the built form will be complemented by soft landscaping along the perimeter, Springvale Road frontage as well as car parking areas interspersed with canopy trees, including appropriate signage design to reinforce the “gateway” role of the site. Significant policy grounding to allow a high quality built environment is provided in the DP.

Yes

Traffic Management Plan & Traffic Assessment Report (TIAR) to the satisfaction of Council and VicRoads

The TIAR prepared by Cardno Traffic Consultants dated 21 November 2011 has been provided to the satisfaction of Council and VicRoads.

Yes



Page 8753

ESD Plan indicating energy, water, waste, transport and other resources use and management throughout the development

The DP establishes a series of Sustainable Design Principles and will guide the delivery of environmentally sustainable design outcomes for the site. A more detailed ESD Plan is expected be submitted at the planning permit stage for each building.

Yes

An acoustic report detailing the acoustic measures required to protect the amenity of the adjoining residential uses and Haileybury Secondary College from noise impact in accordance with the State Environment Protection Policy.

A Noise Impact Assessment has been provided, and was updated in November 2011 to take into consideration the impact of the development on Haileybury College and nearby residents. The noise impacts on buildings along the northern boundary of secondary college including class rooms and workshop have been considered in the revised acoustic report. The residential area in Lake View Blvd approximately 100m east of the development is also considered in the revised SLR report and it has been ensured that the noise levels at the interface meet the requirements of the State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) No: N-1

Yes

Table of stages, building areas and heights The following table summarises what the Development Plan will allow to be built, and is in accordance with the Schedule to the MUZ as already approved by the Minister:

Stage Building Maximum Building Heights

Approx, Building Footprint

Maximum combined leasable

floor area

Staging Notes – all information shown on the

Development Plans

1 Home Improvement Store

13m frontage 10m at rear

13,500sqm • 22,000sqm of Restricted Retail premises

• 9,000sqm of Trade Supplies

• 1000sqm of ‘Shop’

The service road access from Cheltenham Road to Springvale Road, including all hard standing areas and junction arrangements, will be completed at Stage 1 construction. The Haileybury College boundary Acoustic Fencing and other fencing / boundary treatment will all be completed at Stage 1 construction.

2 Bulky Goods Retailing

12m frontage 10m at rear

11,000sqm

Office 12m frontage 10m rear

2,500sqm 2,500sqm

3 Residential Development

To be determined

To be determined

To be determined

Stage 3 is not considered within the November 2011 Development Plan but will be the subject of a separate Development Plan or an update of this subject Plan and will be consulted on and drafted to Council’s satisfaction.



Page 8754

The November 2011 Development Plan for the Springvale Road / Cheltenham Road Commercial Gateway therefore meets the requirements of the Planning Scheme and addresses the matters raised by the submitters and is to Council Officers and VicRoads satisfaction. It is considered to provide a clear and legible part of the Planning Scheme that will provide Council with a strong basis to require a high quality development of the site through the future development permits. It is also in accordance with the Departments Best Practice guidelines for the preparation of Development Plan documents.


The proposed Development Plan responds positively to the State and Local Planning Policy Framework of the CGD Planning Scheme particularly Clauses 15-Built Form and Heritage, 17-Economic Development, 21.04-Land Use, 21.05-Built Form and 22.04-Urban Design in Activity Centres.


The financial implication for Council will be the costs associated with staff resources in the evaluation of the Development Plan, and processing of the planning permit application. These costs are accommodated in the Planning & Design Department’s operational Budget.

Conclusion

On the basis of the above assessment, the November 2011 Development Plan is supported and officers recommend that it be approved.

Recommendation That Council approves the November 2011 Development Plan for the Springvale Road/Cheltenham Road Commercial Gateway site at 476 Cheltenham Road (south east corner of Springvale and Cheltenham Roads), Keysborough as set out in this report, pursuant to Clause 3.0 of Schedule 8 of the Development Plan overlay.

MINUTE 1047 Moved by: Cr Angela Long Seconded by: Cr Roz Blades That Council approves the November 2011 Development Plan for the Springvale Road/Cheltenham Road Commercial Gateway site at 476 Cheltenham Road (south east corner of Springvale and Cheltenham Roads), Keysborough as set out in this report, pursuant to Clause 3.0 of Schedule 8 of the Development Plan overlay, subject to the following condition:

• That the acoustic and boundary fence on the site’s southern boundary be continued for a distance along the service access road (on the eastern boundary) from the southern boundary as part of the Stage 1 development.

CARRIED



Page 8755





Page 8756

7.6.2 Planning Scheme Amendment C131 – No. 227 Princes Highway, Dandenong. Proposed Rezoning

Attachment: C131 DPO Schedule 9 File No: qA267478 Responsible Officer: Chief Executive Officer

Report Summary

Amendment C131 proposes to rezone land at 227 Princes Highway, Dandenong from a Business 4 Zone to part Residential 1 Zone (R1Z) and part Residential 2 Zone (R2Z) to enable an application to be made for the use and development of the land for residential purposes; and add a new schedule to the Development Plan Overlay (DPO 9). In addition, there are map changes proposed within the local planning policy framework at Clauses 21.03, 21.04, and 22.09 to reflect the proposed rezoning. On 11 April 2011 Council resolved to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare Amendment C131 to the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme. On 3 May 2011 a letter seeking authorisation was sent to the Minister. On 18 May 2011 authorisation was granted by the Minister. Amendment C131 was exhibited in accordance with the requirements of section 8(A)(3) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 from 9 June 2011 until 15 July 2011. Council received eight (8) submissions, of which seven (7) had no objection to the amendment. Where submissions have called for conditions or changes to the wording in documentation, these have been supported by the officers as is outlined in the section of this report under the heading of “Analysis of Submissions”. The objecting submission was withdrawn on 19 October 2011. On 14 November 2011 Council resolved to note all submissions received and receive a further report from officers with a recommendation on whether or not to Adopt Amendment C131, and to thereafter advise the Minister for Planning accordingly. Following from the 14 November meeting, it is considered that submissions by the Department of Sustainability and Environment and Vic Roads on C131 should be incorporated into the amendment. As there are no outstanding submissions that require referral to an independent planning panel, Council may Adopt Amendment C131 and forward the amendment to the Minister for Planning for Approval. Recommendation Summary

That Council Adopts Amendment C131, with modifications and forwards the amendment to the Minister for Planning for Approval.

Conflict of Interest

The Director Development Services, Mal Baker has disclosed a conflict of interest (direct interest) in this item as he owns an investment property in King George Parade. He has had no involvement in the development, direction or recommendation contained in this report.


Planning Scheme Amendment C131 – No. 227 Princes Highway, Dandenong. Proposed Rezoning (Cont.)

Page 8757

Background

The proposed amendment applies to land at 227 Princes Highway, Dandenong. The subject site has street frontage to Carmen, Maurice, Queen and King George Streets along with frontage to a service road on the Princes Highway. The proponent of the amendment is Poddy bay Pty Ltd. At present the land is occupied by a large factory complex that was originally erected circa 1951. The land was purchased by the present owners approximately 20 years ago and used to build kilns for the manufacture of ceramics. As the demand changed and industrial processes closed down, parts of the factory building were leased to third parties. However, there was no strong demand from tenants wishing to use the land for industry or storage. This trend continued following the cessation of manufacturing operations on the land, which led to the entire building becoming vacant. Over time a succession of tenants occupied the building for short periods, but no tenant was prepared to enter into a long-term lease. The site is currently being used for small scale manufacturing, but the building is mostly unused. The proponent advises that investigation were carried out to identify the potential use of the land in accordance with its zoning and despite rigorous investigations there was no demand for the land to be used for industry, warehousing, big box retailing, office, or factory units. The owners then placed the land on the market, but no viable offer was made for the purchase of the land. Further investigations by the proponent indicated that the highest and best use of the land – and the use that would provide the greatest community benefit – would be for it to be recognized and used for residential purposes. Strategic property consultants Charter Keck Cramer were engaged by the proponent to carry out investigations to advise on this recommendation. Following detailed investigations they also concluded that the land was not appropriate and better located industrial land was available elsewhere, particularly in Dandenong South. They concluded that the use of the land for residential purposes would provide the greatest community benefit. On 11 April 2011 Council resolved to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare Amendment C131 to the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme. A letter seek authorisation was sent to the Minister on 3 May 2011. Authorisation was granted by the Minister on 18 May 2011. Amendment C131 was exhibited in accordance with the requirements of section 8(A)(3) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The details of the exhibition are included in the Consultation section of this report. On 14 November 2011 Council received a report detailing the outcomes of the exhibition (which are again detailed in this report), including recommendations to note all submissions received and receive a further report from officers with a recommendation on whether or not to Adopt Amendment C131, and to thereafter advise the Minister for Planning accordingly.



Page 8758

Proposal

Amendment C131 The amendment proposes to rezone land at 227 Princes Highway, Dandenong from a Business 4 Zone to part Residential 1 Zone (R1Z) and part Residential 2 Zone (R2Z) to enable an application to be made for the use and development of the land for residential purposes; and add a new schedule to the Development Plan Overlay (DPO9). In addition, there are map changes proposed within the local planning policy framework at Clauses 21.03, 21.04 and 22.09 to reflect the proposed rezoning. Note: In the exhibited documents the draft DPO schedule was numbered DPO8. Subsequent assignment of that number to another recently approved Scheme amendment necessitates that this Scheme amendment’s DPO schedule be numbered DPO9. It is an administrative change only and has no affect on the contents or detail of the exhibited DPO schedule. Map 1 – Context Map

The Land Affected by the Amendment The land affected by Amendment C131 is at 227 Princes Highway, Dandenong. It is bounded by Princes Highway to the north, King George Parade to the east, Queen Street to the south and Carmen & Maurice Streets to the west. It comprises an area of approximately 15,500sqm. Light industrial/bulky goods retailing are to the north, west, and east of the site, in particular along the Princes Highway. Residential development abuts the site to the south, west, and east.



Page 8759

Proposed Planning Scheme Changes Amendment C131 proposes to rezone 227 Princes Highway from B4Z to part R1Z and part R2Z. The R2Z area would be along and close to the Princes Highway, while the R1Z area would be further south and closer to the abutting existing residential area. Map 3 shows the proposed rezoning in more detail. In addition, C131 proposes to add a schedule to the Development Plan Overlay (DPO) and make changes to maps within the local planning policy framework at Clauses 21.03, 21.04 and 22.09 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme. The map changes are to maintain consistency with the proposed rezoning. Applying a DPO to the site means that generally, a permit would not be granted to use or subdivide land, construct a building or construct or carry out works until a development plan has been prepared to the satisfaction of Council. It is noted once a development plan has been approved pursuant to the DPO, subsequent permit applications that are generally in accordance with the approved development plan are exempt from notice requirements of Section 52(1)(a), (b), and (d), the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3) and the review rights of Section 82(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.



Page 8760

Map 2 – Affected Area



Page 8761

Map 3 – Proposed Rezoning



Page 8762

Development Plan Overlay The proposed schedule to the DPO outlines how development is to occur on the subject site. In the outline development plan, higher density residential would be to the north of the site, fronting Princes Highway, with medium density to the south, interfacing with the existing residential area. Other aspects of the DPO include requirements for the development plan, urban design guidelines, development concept plan, and landscape concept plan, among others. All of these plans must be developed to the satisfaction of the responsible authority (Council). It is noted that Amendment C131 initially proposed to include the site within an EAO. However, in the process of authorisation this was changed and the requirements of an EAO were written into the proposed schedule to the DPO. This will achieve the same objectives of an EAO.


PLACES & BUILDINGS 1. Managing the planning, development and maintenance of the built environment to be safe, functional and attractive, enabling growth in community and economic activity. 2. Build on the individual character of the City’s many neighbourhoods 3. Promote urban design that respects neighbourhood character and creates attractive places to live and work in. TRAVEL & TRANSPORT 5. Manage road infrastructure to provide safe and convenient movement for all types of transport 6. Encourage use of public transport, cycling, walking and other ways of travel. Manage car parking to improve access to employment, shopping and recreation centres, and to maximise access to available parking. The strategies and plans that contribute to these outcomes are as follows:

• Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme

• Municipal Strategic Statement

• Neighbourhood Character Study

• Strategic Land Use Plan

• Urban Design Guidelines



Page 8763

It is considered that Amendment C131 is in keeping with the objectives of the Council Plan 2009-2013. The proposed schedule to the DPO will ensure that any development of the site will be site-responsive and design-appropriate, supporting objectives 1-3. The proposed higher density dwellings along the Princes Hwy frontage will make use of the existing public transport network, and the site is well situated along existing cycling trails to encourage alternative transport mode choices.


The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities has been considered in the preparation of this report but is not relevant to the content of this report.



Consultation

Consultation for Amendment C131 was conducted via the public exhibition of the Amendment. Amendment C131 was exhibited from 9 June 2011 until 15 July 2011. It was advertised in the Dandenong Leader on 6 June 2011, Star on 9 June 2011, and Weekly on 6 June 2011. Amendment C131 was published in the government gazette on 9 June 2011. It was also placed on Council’s website. Individual notice letters were sent to owners and occupiers as identified in the map overpage. This notification area was chose as it as considered that these properties would be most affected by the Amendment. In total, 127 notices were posted to owners/occupiers. Submissions

Submitter Submission APA Group No Objection South East Water No Objection Department of Sustainability and Environment

No Objection – include the words Encourage the retention of indigenous native vegetation

Department of Transport No Objection Country Fire Authority No Objection – make sure that Victorian

Planning Provisions 56.09-3, Standard C29, 56.06-7, Standard C20 & 56.06-4, Standard C17 are met. If a panel hearing is conducted in respect to this amendment, CFA requests that it be given the opportunity to be heard.

Adjoining property owner/occupier (Private Submitter 1)

No objection, provided the zoning of the submitter’s property remains B4Z and no new restrictions on operating hours.

VicRoads Request a Traffic Impact Assessment Report to Council’s and their satisfaction



Page 8764

Owners of 241-343 Princes Highway, Dandenong (Private Submitter 2)

Any rezoning should be done on a whole block basis with all boundaries fronting a street and not adjoining a compatible zone. At least some form of buffer, a car park maybe or rezone the whole block. Do not support the amendment as it stands. NB: On 19 Oct 2011 the submitter formally notified Council of the withdrawal of the objection

The following section outlines the details of the submissions, analysis of the submissions and response to the submissions. Private Submitter 1 had no objection to the amendment, provided that the submitter’s property remained B4Z and no new noise restrictions or changes to operating hours are brought into effect. The CFA had no objection to the amendment but requested that because the lots may be developed for housing, that Council make sure that Victorian Planning Provisions 56.09-3, Standard C29, 56.06-7, Standard C20 & 56.06-4, Standard C17 are met. If a panel hearing is conducted in respect to this amendment, CFA requests that it be given the opportunity to be heard. VicRoads requested the following changes to the amendment: VicRoads requests that the following dot point be added to the Development Plan Schedule under the heading “Requirements for development plan”.

• A Transport Impact Report assessing the potential effects that the development may have on the abutting road network and the surrounding network to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and VicRoads detailing:

o Performance objectives o Existing conditions o Proposed vehicle access arrangements o Traffic generation o Proposed parking and loading facilities o Base case-without proposed development o Post development analysis o Mitigation treatments



Page 8765

Map 4 - Notification Area & Submitter Locations



Page 8766

DSE also suggested changes to the amendment. In its submission received 11 July 2011, DSE noted:

The Department has no objection to Amendment C131 but recommends the following words be included in proposed Schedule 9 to the Development Plan Overlay under Urban Design Guidelines / Environmentally Sustainable Design –

o Encourage the retention of indigenous native vegetation Private submitter 2 objected to Amendment C131. In his submission, the submitter wrote: As owners of 241-343 Princes Highway we feel that any rezoning should be done on a whole block basis with all boundaries fronting a street and not adjoining a non compatible zone. At least some form of buffer, a car park maybe or rezone the whole block. I do not support the amendment as it stands. NB: On 19 Oct 2011 the submitter formally notified Council of the withdrawal of the objection Analysis of Submissions No action needs to be taken in regards to the Private Submitter 1 submission, as the submitter’s property is not proposed to be rezoned as part of this amendment, nor are any noise restrictions or opening time restrictions proposed. Following post-exhibition consultation, Private Submitter 2 withdrew his application on 19 October 2011. The building requirements requested by the CFA are noted and would be applied during the permit application stage. No modifications to the amendment are required. The amendment proponent submitted a traffic engineering assessment by Traffix Consulting group as part of their supporting documents for Council’s consideration of Amendment C131. It is considered that this report meets most of the dot points requested by VicRoads to be added to the Schedule to the DPO. It is therefore considered that the inclusion of a Transport Impact Report is appropriate and would not preclude the orderly redevelopment of the site for residential purposes. DSE’s submission is supported as it is considered that the retention of native trees will have a positive impact for any future residential development. As such, both the suggested changes to the schedule to the DPO from VicRoads and DSE should be made to the Amendment, prior to adoption. Furthermore, given that there are no objecting submissions, there is no need to refer Amendment C131 to an independent planning panel, and Council may proceed with adoption of the amendment.



Page 8767

Conclusion

Amendment C131 has been exhibited in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The rezoning of the land and subsequent changes to the DPO and local planning policy framework will result in an improved outcome for the site than would be achieved if left the current zoning. The proposed changes to the amendment by DSE and VicRoads are considered appropriate and should be included in a modified amendment. As there are no outstanding submissions than need to be referred to an independent planning panel, Council can adopt Amendment C131 and forward the amendment to the Minister for Planning for approval.

Recommendation That Council:

1. adopts Amendment C131in the following manner:

1.1. Rezone land at 227 Princes Highway, Dandenong from B4Z to part R1Z and part R2Z

1.2. Add a new schedule to Cl. 43.04 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme

1.3 Make changes to maps at Cl 21.03, 21.04 and 22.09 to be consistent with the rezoning

1.4 Subject to the following changes:

1.4.1 Within the proposed Schedule 9 to the Development Plan overlay, include the following language under ‘Urban Design Guidelines/ Environmentally Sustainable Design’: Encourage the retention of indigenous native vegetation

1.4.2 Within the proposed Schedule 9 to the Development Plan overlay, include the following language under ‘Requirements for development plan’:


- Performance objectives

- Existing conditions

- Proposed vehicle access arrangements

- Traffic generation

- Proposed parking and loading facilities



Page 8768

- Base case-without proposed development

- Post development analysis

- Mitigation treatments

2. Submits the modified Amendment C131 to the Minister for Planning for Approval.

MINUTE 1048 Moved by: Cr Paul Donovan Seconded by: Cr Angela Long That Council:

1. adopts Amendment C131in the following manner:

1.1. Rezone land at 227 Princes Highway, Dandenong from B4Z to part R1Z and part R2Z

1.2. Add a new schedule to Cl. 43.04 of the Greater Dandenong Planning Scheme

1.3 Make changes to maps at Cl 21.03, 21.04 and 22.09 to be consistent with the rezoning

1.4 Subject to the following changes:

1.4.1 Within the proposed Schedule 9 to the Development Plan overlay, include the following language under ‘Urban Design Guidelines/ Environmentally Sustainable Design’: Encourage the retention of indigenous native vegetation

1.4.2 Within the proposed Schedule 9 to the Development Plan overlay, include the following language under ‘Requirements for development plan’:


- Performance objectives

- Existing conditions

- Proposed vehicle access arrangements

- Traffic generation

- Proposed parking and loading facilities



Page 8769

- Base case-without proposed development

- Post development analysis

- Mitigation treatments

2. Submits the modified Amendment C131 to the Minister for Planning for Approval.

CARRIED



Page 8770





Page 8771

7.6.3 Review of Council Policies, Codes of Practice and Strategies

Attachments: Disaster Relief Policy (Amended) File No: qA1048 Responsible Officer: Director Corporate Services

Report Summary

Council establishes a number of policies, codes of practice and strategies to guide various operations of the Greater Dandenong City Council. Existing policies, codes of practice and strategies are subject to an ongoing review process to ensure that they comply with current legislation and adequately reflect Council’s operational requirements. Any changes to existing policies, codes of practise or strategies are subject to Council’s approval. Once these documents become superfluous to Council’s needs they require abolition of Council. The following policy has been reviewed and is submitted to Council for re-adoption:

• Disaster Relief Policy


This report recommends that the reviewed policy for Disaster Relief be re-adopted as per the attached policy.


Review of Council Policies, Codes of Practice and Strategies (Cont.)

Page 8772

Background

Policies, codes of practice and strategies establish clear processes and procedures by which Council conducts its business and activities and ensures that the decision making process is consistent, accountable and transparent. When Council resolves to adopt a policy, code of practice and/or strategy, in the absence of a sunset date, the document will remain current until Council resolves to abolish it. It is critical that Council policies, codes of practice and strategies fully reflect the principles, values and issues that Council believes are important as outlined in the Council Plan. Following a detailed review of such documents they are submitted to Council for either re-adoption or abolition. This ensures all policies, codes of practice and strategies remain current. A database of all Council Policies, codes of practice and strategies adopted by Council is maintained by the Governance Business Unit.

Proposal

The following policy has been reviewed and is submitted to Council for re-adoption: Policy Name Summary of Changes Disaster Relief Policy This policy has been updated to limit

donations to Local and National disasters. All references to International support have been removed, as international disasters are sufficiently funded by State and Federal Government.


Councils on-going review process of policies, codes of practice and strategies is in line with Council’s strategic objective to ‘A Council committed to open and transparent democracy that embraces government best practice and community participation’.


The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities has been considered in the preparation of this Policy.



Consultation

Council policies, codes of practice and strategies are referred to the Executive Management Team for review, evaluation and reporting to Council. The changes made to this particular policy were raised by Councillors at the Councillor Briefing Session of 7 November 2011.



Page 8773

Conclusion

The policy detailed in this report has been reviewed and found consistent with Council’s current operational needs and is submitted to Council for re-adoption with changes as highlighted in this report.

Recommendation That the revised Disaster Relief Policy attached to this report be re-adopted.

MINUTE 1049 Moved by: Cr John Kelly Seconded by: Cr Jim Memeti That the revised Disaster Relief Policy attached to this report be re-adopted.

CARRIED



Page 8774





Page 8775

7.7 OTHER

7.7.1 Audit Advisory Committee Charter Review

Attachments: Audit Advisory Committee Charter Draft File No: fA4506 Responsible Officer: Director Corporate Services

Report Summary

This report highlights a review undertaken of Council’s existing Audit Advisory Committee Charter subsequent to the release of a Local Government Victoria publication titled, “Audit Committees – A Guide to Good Practice for Local Government” in February 2011 by the Minister for Local Government.


This report recommends that Council adopts the revised Audit Advisory Committee (AAC) Charter as provided in Attachment 1.


Audit Advisory Committee Charter Review (Cont.)

Page 8776

Background

The Minister for Local Government released, “Audit Committees – A Guide to Good Practice for Local Government” (The Guide) in mid February 2011. Councils Audit Advisory Committee subsequently considered a report that highlighted areas where the existing audit committee charter could be amended to reflect the requirements of the guidelines. In summary, the existing charter was found to be in a high level of alignment with the guide with the majority of the charter recommended to remain in place. Some of the key areas of change proposed to the existing charter are as follows:

• Some administrative changes that remove the requirement for the Mayor to be on the Audit Committee, allowing for external members to be reappointed without an external advertisement process and extending the review of sitting fees from annual to periodically;

• Continuing the process of the Audit Committee appointing the chairperson but for this appointment to be ratified by Council resolution;

• Providing the Audit Committee with the ability to meet in camera without Officers if desired;

• Reflecting the Conflict of Interest legislative changes since the previous charter;

• Allowing the Audit Committee to request presentations from various Council Officers via the Chief Executive Officer and to make recommendations to Council in terms of the seeking of professional and legal advice where required;

• Noting Councils ability to seek the Audit Committee to undertake reviews or investigations on certain matters;

• Assist in the appointment of Internal Auditors;

• Play an active role in monitoring Councils risk framework including receiving regular risk reports, reviewing insurance claims received and the adequacy of Councils insurance framework;

• Requesting regular advice from Council management in respect of legislative compliance;

• Oversight of Council’s fraud prevention and control framework;

• Reviewing the City of Greater Dandenong’s performance against reports and recommendations conducted by VAGO or the Ombudsman.

A full copy of the amended charter that is recommended to Council is included as Attachment 1 to this report, highlighting all proposed amendments.



Page 8777

Proposal

It is proposed that Councillor consider the changes that have been made to the existing Charter as reflected in Attachment 1.


The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities has been considered in the preparation of this Policy but is not relevant to the content of the Policy.


Resource requirements are in accordance with existing budgetary allocation(s).

Consultation

The AAC discussed the existing Charter and the proposed changes at its meeting in May 2011 at which time council officers undertook to bring the revised Charter to Council in due course.

Recommendation That Council adopts the revised Audit Advisory Committee Charter as provided in Attachment 1.

MINUTE 1050 Moved by: Cr Roz Blades Seconded by: Cr Pinar Yesil That Council adopts the revised Audit Advisory Committee Charter as provided in Attachment 1.

CARRIED



Page 8778





Page 8779

7.7.2 Election 2012 Voting Methodology


Report Summary

All Councils in Victoria are scheduled to have general elections on Saturday 27 October 2012. Under section 41A of the Local Government Act 1989, Council may decide on postal voting (other than attendance voting) as its preferred method of voting at municipal elections. This decision is required to be made at least eight months prior to Election Day. The Greater Dandenong City Council has traditionally made a council resolution in relation to the method of voting it will utilise in the following Council elections to ensure transparency of the election process at every stage. This report investigates the two methods of voting for the October 2012 general Council elections so that Council can make an informed decision on the election methodology to be utilised in 2012.


This report recommends that Council adopts either attendance or postal voting as its preferred method of voting for the 2012 October general Council elections.


Election 2012 Voting Methodology (Cont.)

Page 8780

Attendance Voting

Summary of this voting methodology

In attendance voting, most voting is done at voting centres within the municipality mainly on Election Day. The Returning Officer appoints as many voting centres as is deemed necessary. The attendance voting system includes a provision for postal voting by application and early (pre-poll) voting at some voting centres as determined by Council. At least one early voting centre (usually the election office) operates between 9.00am-5.00pm during the month prior to the election. In 2008, Greater Dandenong also operated pre-poll centres for the three days prior to the election at its offices in Springvale and Dandenong, and at the Keysborough Senior Citizens’ Centre.

Perceived advantages of attendance voting The major perceived advantages of attendance voting are as follows:

• it reflects the electoral methods practiced at State and Commonwealth elections and is familiar to most voters;

• voting is confirmed to voters when they see their name marked off voters roll;

• it encourages and supports interaction between candidates and the community, and voters may be better informed as a result of this interaction;

• it supports early (pre-poll) voting – results of pre-poll voting at the 2000, 2003, 2005 and 2008 elections has demonstrated that early voting can be an important accessory to attendance voting; and

• it still provides for a specified time allowed for postal voting by application – however separate candidate information is not included with postal voting.

In addition, councils with a high multicultural demographic believe attendance voting is the most appropriate method of conducting an election because:

• there is significant difficulty in effectively communicating with voters whose first language is not English and personal interaction at voting centres may assist these voters;

• there is a perception that attendance voting is “real” voting and is “confidential”; and

• it encourages community activity on election day because candidates and voters have opportunities to interact.



Page 8781

Perceived disadvantages of attendance voting The major perceived disadvantages of attendance voting are:

• residents with mobility issues or ratepayers who live outside the municipality may struggle to attend voting centres;

• Whilst several of Council’s voting centres would comply with disability access requirements, there are many centres used in past elections in Greater Dandenong that would not fully meet these standards. In this respect, Council exposes itself to a risk of potential concerns or complaints in respect of disability access.

• there is a demonstrated higher informal vote rate at attendance elections as indicated later in this report;

• there is a greater environmental impact than postal voting due to production and distribution of election material prior to and on polling day;

• candidate information is inconsistently presented to voters because it is directly provided by the candidates;

• location of Returning Officer’s office is crucial but not always able to be accommodated in convenient location for pre-poll voting;

• there is significant cost of material and resourcing required of candidates so they can obtain a high level of coverage and assistance to man polling booths on election day

• voters who do not live in the municipality have a very low turnout statistic. In Greater Dandenong there are approximately 10,000 eligible voters who do not live in the municipality; and

• concern has been expressed that voters who do not understand the process may be forced into voting a particular way on election day by candidates and their campaigners.

There is no quantitative evidence to support the perceived advantages and disadvantages of attendance voting.

Postal Voting

Summary of this voting methodology In a postal election, all voters are sent voting material for all candidates by post without prior application. In 2012, ballot packs are scheduled to be posted out 17 days prior to Election Day. Ballot packs include ballot papers and envelopes with a security lining, clear colour-coded voting instructions, reply paid envelopes and a detachable flap containing voter’s details which is removed and recorded prior to the envelope being opened so that voters cannot be identified with their vote. Ballot papers include candidates’ statements (150 words each), photographs and preferences which are all presented in the same format. Also provided if requested is a multi-language leaflet containing voting instructions in 20 languages of Council’s choice. Voters usually return their ballots by post or can deliver them to the Returning Officer directly. At the 2008 Victorian Council elections, 70 of 79 Victorian Councils utilised postal voting (89%).



Page 8782

Perceived advantages of postal voting The major perceived advantages of postal voting are as follows:

• it is a simpler method of voting that allows voters to consider the merits of all candidates in their own time without any pressure placed on them on election day;

• it provides greater convenience for voters particularly for those with limited mobility and the aged;

• it provides a system where voting can occur at the convenience of voters and not of candidates;

• it supplies consistent candidate information to all voters and ensures they all have access to the same information which may assist in more informed decision making by them

• candidates can ensure their platform and how-to-vote preference is posted free of charge to every voter as opposed to distributing electoral material themselves at their own cost;

• under-resourced candidates have no disadvantages in regards to financing promotional information;

• Greater Dandenong has a significant number of voters who live outside the municipality – there are over 10,000 voters on the CEO’s List and postal voting would be more convenient for them;

• the process is completely independent of sitting councillors and Council staff;

• council resources are not ulitlised dealing with significant voter inquiries regarding locations of polling booths and other election day queries;

• ballots are counted at one place which avoids the need for scrutineers at polling booths;

Perceived disadvantages of postal voting The major perceived disadvantages of attendance voting are:

• it may reduce face-to-face interaction between voters and candidates;

• some concern has been expressed about the security of the postal voting method and that candidates could actually assist voters to complete their ballot material (however the VEC has measures in place to ensure the process once votes are received);

• it may not work specifically well for some communities.



Page 8783

Voter Turnout and Informal Voting Statistics

Evidence from previous elections shown in the following tables indicates that postal voting:

• reduces cost;

• increases voter turnout; and

• reduces the incidence of informal votes.

Informal voting rates over time (% of all votes cast across Victoria) LG Elections 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008 Postal elections 3.29 3.29 3.37 3.64 3.78 Attendance elections 8.86 8.86 10.43 9.33 9.90

It should be noted also that informal voting rates generally increase as the number of candidates per ward increases. Voter turnout rates over time (% of enrolled voters who cast a vote)

LG Elections 2002 2003 2004 2005 2008 Postal elections 76.4 76.4 75.1 75.7 76.0 Attendance elections 71.2 71.2 55.7 72.8 70.0

Also a study conducted in 2007 by City of Melbourne indicated that voter turnout rates significantly increased with postal voting (more voters voted) and informal vote rates (votes that cannot be considered) significantly decreased during postal voting.

2008 election results – Greater Dandenong Ward Voter Participation

(% of eligible voters in CGD)

Informal Voting (% of votes received in CGD)

Lightwood 74.02 7.55 Paperbark 74.92 12.13 Red Gum 63.15 10.25 Silverbark 75.64 10.47


The VEC predicts that postal voting will be in the order of 15% and 30% cheaper than attendance voting in 2012. If the Greater Dandenong figures are considered for the 2008 council elections this would have equated to savings ranging from $65,000 to $130,000. The VEC have advised that this prediction is based on a system using 2008 elections tender amounts for councils with similar numbers of voters. It should be noted that the comparisons in the table below are only based on voter numbers and do not take other variables into account. (There can be significant variations between councils which are caused by the particular election demands of those councils.)



Page 8784

Attendance Council: Voter numbers

Postal Council: Voter numbers

% difference in tender amounts

Council A1: 111,195 Council P1: 108,913 Council A1 was costed at 12.7% more than Council P1



Council A4: 95,000 (Greater Dandenong)

Council P4: 98,500 Council A4 was costed at 15.8% more than Council P4

Regardless of the outcome of this report, election costs have been provided for in the 2012-2013 Annual Budget and the Long Term Financial Strategy

Consultation

Councillors were consulted with regards to this report at the Councillor Briefing Sessions held on 3 October and 21 November 2011.

Conclusion

The Greater Dandenong City Council has traditionally made a council resolution in relation to the method of voting it will utilise in the following Council elections to ensure transparency of process of the lection process at every stage. Councillors need to decide on whether postal or attendance voting will be utilised in the 2012 general Council elections. It should be noted that if attendance voting is adopted, a further report will be presented to Council regarding pre-poll voting and other election options.


A. adopts postal voting as its method of voting for the 27 October 2012 general Council elections.

Or

B. adopts attendance voting as its method of voting for the 27 October 2012 general Council elections.



Page 8785

MINUTE 1051 Moved by: Cr Roz Blades Seconded by: Cr Pinar Yesil

That Council adopts attendance voting as its method of voting for the 27 October 2012 general Council elections.

CARRIED (THE MAYOR EXERCISED A CASTING VOTE IN FAVOUR OF THE MOTION)

For the Motion: Crs Roz Blades, Youhorn Chea, Angela Long, Jim Memeti and

Pinar Yesil

Against the Motion: Crs Peter Brown (called for the division), Paul Donovan, Yvonne Herring, John Kelly and Maria Sampey


Page 8786

7.7.3 Preventative Community Health Program

File Id: qA277409 Responsible Officer: Director Community Services

Report Summary

Fourteen (14) Councils have been selected by the State Department of Health to implement a preventative health and healthy lifestyle program. The Preventative Community Program targets those at risk of developing chronic diseases such as Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, obesity and smoking related conditions. Funding of $4.04M is being provided to the City of Greater Dandenong through the Department of Health to implement the preventative program over four years (2011-2014/15). Council has been selected, along with the other 13 Local Government Areas in Victoria on the basis of health, wellbeing and socio-economic indicators. The program will target young people, children and workplaces through education, social media, healthy lifestyle activities and information.


This report recommends that Council acknowledge that it has been selected as one of the ‘lead agent’ municipalities in Victoria to implement the Preventative Community Health Program over the next 4 years and will be working in partnership with the State Government Department of Health and stakeholders such as Southern Health and others to achieve successful health and wellbeing outcomes for the community. This report also recommends that Council acknowledge the State Government approach to supporting local government and specifically the City of Greater Dandenong to implement the legislative requirements of advancing community health and wellbeing expectations as outlined in the Council Community Wellbeing Plan (2010-2013).


Preventative Community Health Program (Cont.)

Page 8787

Background

The City of Greater Dandenong has been selected as one of the 14 Councils in Victoria to partner with the State Government to implement this local preventative health program over four years. Cardinia Shire was the only other Local Government Area selected in the South East Region. The Preventative Health Program links directly to the Victorian Public Health and Wellbeing Plan and places increased emphasis on preventative measures and health promotion to improve longer term health and wellbeing for the community. It also reflects the priorities in Council’s Community Wellbeing Plan. The overall purpose of the funding is to enhance the health and wellbeing of the population and reduce future demand on the health and hospital system. The program seeks to address the rising prevalence of lifestyle related chronic disease by laying the foundations for healthy behaviours in the daily lives of citizens through areas such as:

• Healthy children: targeting early years services and schools;

• Healthy workers: targeting workplaces;

• Healthy communities: targeting the wider community through community based physical activity and healthy eating programs;

• Industry partnerships: developing partnerships with relevant industry and non-government sectors to encourage changes in policies and practises; and

• Social marketing: participating in social marketing campaigns such as weight awareness programs and quit-smoking campaigns.

The selection of Greater Dandenong as a municipality for the Preventative Health Program was based on data such as the high levels of obesity and smoking in some areas of Greater Dandenong as well as the high number of schools, workplaces and businesses, as these are all key settings for health program interventions.. The Victorian Government approach to implementing the Preventative Health Program is through local government as the ‘lead agent’. The program is a new approach to health promotion and will be thoroughly monitored and supported by the Department of Health thorough its’ establishment and operations phases. Although there will be some common outcomes in all participant municipalities across the State, Greater Dandenong will be able to tailor its’ activities to the greatest needs within the local community. The program will have a dedicated research and evaluation officer and outcomes will be closely monitored to assess which strategies are most effective in bringing about change at the population level. It is hoped that, if the program demonstrates successful outcomes, it would form the basis for a longer term preventative program in every Local Government Area in Victoria. This would recognise the significant role that Local Government plays in supporting health and wellbeing at a local level. While Municipal Health and Wellbeing Plans have been a legislated responsibility for Councils for many years, there has been minimal funding from the State to implement preventative health measures at the local level.



Page 8788

The funding would aim to cover staffing costs, on costs and program costs of the initiatives developed and implemented at the local level. Ten new positions would be dedicated to the program until June 2015, and discussions are continuing in regards to possible linkages and resource sharing with existing health promotion resources such as the Community Health area of Southern Health. Delivery of the program would be guided by a Steering Committee involving local stakeholders.

Proposal

Council will be the ‘lead agent’ for the Preventative Health Program and will involve other stakeholders in the development and implementation of initiatives. A range of community based activities and projects are expected to be coordinated through the employment of specific health promotion officers to link community groups, families and workplaces to activities to enhance health and wellbeing. This includes links to the City of Greater Dandenong aquatic and leisure facilities and early years programs. Greater Dandenong is already a recipient of the 2 year funded Healthy Communities Program (one of 5 LGAs in Victoria) and this Program can be incorporated into the overall Preventative Program. Both Programs are Commonwealth funded through the Victorian State Government. The funding provides for:

• Ten (10) positions – One Coordinator, two positions that are associated with research/evaluation and communications, one administrative officer and seven positions for projects and network links;

• There is the capacity to outsource positions and Southern Health is interested to be a recipient to achieve mutual outcomes; and

• Operational funding to implement expected projects.


A Leading Council

ENGAGING THE COMMUNITY

14. Advocate effectively on matters of importance to the Greater Dandenong community.

15. Ensure council’s community engagement approach guides all levels of decision making which affects members of the community.

16. Explore alternative communications media, including social networking and internet tools to improve consultation, engagement and access to information and services.



Page 8789

CUSTOMER FOCUS

17. Provide responsive, caring and culturally sensitive customer service.

18. Provide greater choices for accessing Council information and services.


• Diversity Plan

• Health and Wellbeing Program for employees

• Marketing & Communications Strategy

A City of Respect

COMMUNITY PRIDE

1. Promote pride amongst Greater Dandenong’s community for the City’s places, community assets, people and cultures, and encourage members of the community to promote these to others.

2. Promote Greater Dandenong to Melbourne, Australia and the world as a destination for settlement by individuals, families and business, and as a place to make a long term investment.

3. Promote Greater Dandenong as a welcoming and safe place to visit and enjoy.

LIVING & WORKING TOGETHER

4. Delivery an innovative library service that meets current and future needs for learning, recreation and access to information.

5. Carry out community consultation in and inclusive and respectful way, encouraging civic participation across the municipality.

6. Encourage community leadership and strengthen connections between Greater Dandenong communities, cultures and interests.

7. Respond to the needs of emerging multicultural communities for access to Council services and to be able to take part in civic life.

8. Maximise volunteering opportunities with Council and in the broader community.

THE GENERATIONS

9. Help young people achieve their potential, be included in decisions that affect them, and receive support from Council and other services when needed.

10. Support parents and children in all stages of their growth and development, and provide culturally sensitive services to families.

11. Help older people live fulfilling respected lives, be included in decisions that affect them, and get support from Council and other services when needed.



Page 8790


• Cultural Plan

• Diversity Plan

• Health and Wellbeing Plan

• Indigenous Plan

• Municipal Early Years Plan

• Positive Ageing Strategy


• Media - Policy

• Use of Electronic Media – Policy


All matters relevant to the Victorian Human Rights Charter have been considered in the preparation of this Policy and are consistent with the standards set by the Charter.


The Preventative Health program is a Commonwealth and State initiative which would provide $4.04m to Greater Dandenong over four years. The proposed funding would cover ten (10) EFT ($2.86m) and programs ($1.18m). The Department of Health advised that it is anticipated that the program will be implemented with provision of in-kind support by Council managed through existing budget allocations. An indicative program budget has been developed which shows that establishment costs and operational costs can be managed from the proposed allocation, with Council contributing in-kind support such as office space, social planning and management support from within existing resources.

Consultation

Consultation has occurred with the State Department of Health, Southern Health and with the other Councils involved in the Preventative Health Program.



Page 8791

Conclusion

Greater Dandenong has been identified as one of the fourteen Council’s invited to participate in this pilot project. It provides a unique opportunity for Council to advance the strategic objective of improving health and wellbeing within the local community and links strongly with Council’s Community Wellbeing Plan and the Community Plan Imagine 2020. Based on planning discussions with the Department of Health and Southern Health it is expected that a detailed work plan and governance structure for the Program will be established in early 2012. Council will be informed of key developments as they occur.


1. notes the information regarding the development of the Preventative Community Health Program and acknowledge that it has been invited to be one of 14 municipalities in Victoria to provide community leadership in the advancement of community health and wellbeing; and

2. acknowledges the State Government for its approach in supporting local government and the City of Greater Dandenong to implement the community expectations outlined in the Council Community Wellbeing Plan (2010-2013).

MINUTE 1052 Moved by: Cr Yvonne Herring Seconded by: Cr Angela Long That Council:

1. notes the information regarding the development of the Preventative Community Health Program and acknowledge that it has been invited to be one of 14 municipalities in Victoria to provide community leadership in the advancement of community health and wellbeing; and

2. acknowledges the State Government for its approach in supporting local government and the City of Greater Dandenong to implement the community expectations outlined in the Council Community Wellbeing Plan (2010-2013).

CARRIED


Page 8792

7.7.4 Proposal to Discontinue and Sell Part of Peter Court

Attachments: Plan of Road Abutting 8 Peter Court Dandenong Responsible Officer: Director Corporate Services

Report Summary

This report addresses the proposal to discontinue part of Peter Court, abutting 8 Peter Court Dandenong (Refer to Attached plan, land shown highlighted) (Land). Council officer have been approached by the abutting owner of 8 Peter Court Dandenong, who proposes to develop a unit development on the site and have requested that Council investigate the road discontinuance of the section of road and sell the land to them. The Land has been occupied by the owners of 8 Peter Court for many years and agreement in principle has been reached with abutting owners to purchase the Land. The abutting owners have agreed to pay the costs associated with the project as well as the market value of the Land.


This report recommends that Council resolves that the statutory process be commenced to discontinue the road and transfer the Land to the abutting owner at market value and on the basis that all of Council’s costs will be paid by the abutting owners.


Proposal to Discontinue and Sell Part of Peter Court (Cont.)

Page 8793

Background

The court bowl of Peter Court was not constructed in accordance with the land area set aside for the road reserve and as such the Land has been occupied by the abutting owner at 8 Peter Court for many years. The Land only abuts 8 Peter Court, no other properties within Peter Court have an interest in the Land. The road was set aside in the plan of subdivision to provide access to properties in Peter Court. As the Land is occupied within the abutting property it is evident that the section of road is no longer required for the purpose it was set aside for and therefore is considered to be a section of redundant road that has no useful purpose. The section of road is included within the Council’s Register of Public Roads and is known as a public road under the Road Management Act. There are no services within the land that require protection by way of an easement in favour of the applicable service authority. There are also no Council services within the Land. The Land is located within a residential area near the intersection of Heatherton and Stud Roads. The abutting owner is generally in support of the proposal. The section of road shown as highlighted on the attached plan, Attachment 1, is now redundant and can be discontinued without any adverse impact on accessibility to the abutting properties or any effect on services.


The Road is surplus to Council’s requirements and in accordance with Council’s policies and procedures a market valuation of the Road has been assessed taking account of the estimated land area of 80m2. An in principle agreement has been reached with the abutting owner to purchase the Land at the market value, assuming the statutory procedures are completed successfully and a decision is made to proceed with a road discontinuance and sale of the Land. Agreement in principle has been reached for the Land to be sold to the abutting owner at a total value of $29,000 plus GST, subject to survey. The abutting owners have also agreed to pay all costs associated with the project.

Policy Implications

All transfers will be carried out according to Council policy and relevant legal requirements.

Consultation

Should this proposal be adopted then a public consultation process will be commenced as required by the Local Government Act 1989. Council’s Property Services and other relevant departments have been consulted and have contributed to this report. The property owner abutting this Land has been consulted. Referral Authorities have been formally consulted and there are no assets within this section of road.



Page 8794

Conclusion

It is considered that the Road abutting 8 Peter Court Dandenong (Refer to plan in Attachment 1), will not be required for use by the public as a road as originally intended. It is considered reasonable to discontinue the road and either sell the Land to the abutting property owner or retain title to the section of the Land.

Recommendation That Council, being of the opinion that the road abutting 8 Peter Court Dandenong will not be required for use by the public as a road, resolves that:

1. the statutory process be commenced with a proposal to discontinue the road abutting 8 Peter Court Dandenong and public notice be given in the newspaper generally circulating in the area of the intention to discontinue the road and sell the Land; and

2. if no submissions are received:

a) a notice be published in the Government Gazette to discontinue the road and allow for the sale of the Land;

b) the Land is to be transferred to the abutting owner or held in Council ownership;

c) Council authorises the Chief Executive Officer to sign and seal all documentation associated with the sale of the Land.

3. if submissions are received a Special Committee of Council will be established to hear submissions and submitters will be notified of the time and place of the Special Committee.

MINUTE 1053 Moved by: Cr Peter Brown Seconded by: Cr Angela Long That Council, being of the opinion that the road abutting 8 Peter Court Dandenong will not be required for use by the public as a road, resolves that:

1. the statutory process be commenced with a proposal to discontinue the road abutting 8 Peter Court Dandenong and public notice be given in the newspaper generally circulating in the area of the intention to discontinue the road and sell the Land; and

2. if no submissions are received:

a) a notice be published in the Government Gazette to discontinue the road and allow for the sale of the Land;

b) the Land is to be transferred to the abutting owner or held in Council ownership;



Page 8795

c) Council authorises the Chief Executive Officer to sign and seal all documentation associated with the sale of the Land.

3. if submissions are received a Special Committee of Council will be established to hear submissions and submitters will be notified of the time and place of the Special Committee.

CARRIED



Page 8796





Page 8797

7.7.5 Municipal Building Project - Annual Activity and Program Update

Attachments: Municipal Building Project Annual Activity Program Update Attachment 1

File No: fA29333 Responsible Officer: Director Engineering Services

Report Summary

This report has been prepared to provide an update to Council in regards to the progress of the Municipal Building Project for 2011.


This report recommends that Council receives and notes the report.


Municipal Building Project Annual Activity and Program Update (Cont.)

Page 8798

Background

This report is presented as a year–end overview of key deliberations and considerations with regard to the Municipal Building Project. It is appropriate that Council formally consider and note the activities of the Project Control Group and the staff in the development of the project. Matters canvassed include:

Land Purchase Heads of Agreement The land purchase process commenced in 2010 with the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Vic Urban (VU) and the City of Greater Dandenong (CGD). This commitment was reinforced with the signing of a Heads of Agreement (HoA) between the two parties in April 2011. Since that time CGD & VU (now ‘Places Victoria’) have been working together to finalised the Development Agreement (DA). Tenant Relocation The relocation of tenants commenced in July this year with the aim of having the site vacant by the second quarter of 2012. This will enable construction to commence as programmed in July 2012. Tenants have been notified by Places Victoria of their obligation to vacate by the agreed dates. Development Agreement The Development Agreement is a document that will enable CGD to purchase and develop the site. CGD & Places Victoria (PV) have been working through a number of issues contained in the base document and the result of this work has been presented to Council tonight for sealing. Project Planning and Delivery Project Director The Project Director, Darren Rogers, was appointed in April 2011 to drive all aspects of the project from Council’s perspective. In August 2011, a Project Engineer was engaged to assist the Project Director. Project Plan A high level master program has been prepared and is regularly monitored to map progression. The Design Team has produced a detailed project plan in line with CGD’s master program and this is updated on a fortnightly basis to monitor compliance. At this stage, due to a number of issues including Parcel B options and the introduction of a Design Review Panel, the project is around 2-3 weeks behind schedule. The Project Team is confident that this time will be recovered during the next phase of the work. Advertise Consultant EOI’s 16/04/11 EOI closes 06/05/11 Request for Tender to select Consultants 24/05/11 RFT closes 10/06/11 Engage Consultants 01/07/11 Advertise Contractor EOI 07/02/12 EOI closes 28/02/12 Request for Tender to select Contractors 28/03/12



Page 8799

RFT Closes 07/05/12 Engage Contractor 01/06/12 Construction works commence 02/07/12 Fit Out, FFE. Artwork, Relocation 15/11/13* Completion 31/03/14 * Items to be procured over a period of time around this date. Procurement Plan In line with Council policy, a comprehensive procurement plan has been prepared. This Procurement Plan includes the procurement of a new Administration Office, Community Rooms, Regional Library and Civic Space in Central Dandenong comprising the individual elements of Design, Costing and Construction. Following the signing of a Heads of Agreement with Places Victoria to progress the acquisition of the central RCD site the next stage in the program is a formal design to allow the signing of a Development Agreement with Places Victoria. The Procurement Plan covers all the necessary elements to complete the development process and should be read in conjunction with the adopted “Procurement Conduct Plan”. A Tender Evaluation Team was convened and the members of that team are the Director of Engineering Services, Project Director, Manager Organisational Sustainability, Team Leader Contracts and PCG Advisor. Risk Management Plan As an outcome of a risk management workshop in 2010 a detailed Risk Management plan has been produced for this project. Elements of the risk plan that are currently active have been updated and reported back to the PCG. All active elements of the Risk Management Plan have been managed to the satisfaction of the PCG. Communication Plan To manage effective communications throughout the project, CGD engaged Royce Communications to workshop and formulate a Communications Plan. This plan has been presented to the PCG and endorsed for the duration of the project.

Probity and Governance Probity Plan The approach adopted in the Probity Plan is intended to deliver equitable and justifiable procurement processes. The Plan is to be implemented with common sense and flexibility so that achievement of the overall Project objectives takes priority. The Plan applies across each phase and governance level of the Project. Probity is the responsibility of each team member or organisation engaged on the Project and the Plan applies to any member of the Project governance structure, Project Team Members, external contractors or consultants and any other person or organisation that assists the CGD with the conduct of the Project.



Page 8800

Project Control Group (PCG) The PCG consists of Cr Roz Blades, Cr John Kelly, Cr Peter Brown, Cr Angela Long, Cr Jim Memeti, Chief Executive Officer, Director Corporate Services, Director Engineering Services, Project Director, Project Manager, Manager Organisational Sustainability, representatives of Pitcher Partners, and Burns Bridge Sweett. The PCG was initially convened in 26/07/10 and has met 23 times with the most recent meeting for 2011 being held on 28/11/11.

Cost Quantity Surveyors Slattery Australia was engaged in July 2012 to provide Quantity Surveying and Cost Planning advice for the duration of the project. Slattery Australia also undertook the cost planning work for the early stages of the project and were engaged through an Expression of Interest and a Request for Tender process in accordance with MBP’s Procurement Plan. Budget At the end of Schematic Design Phase Slattery Australia confirmed that Council is within its project budget. This budget includes appropriate sums for escalation and contingencies.

Design Design Team Following an Expression of Interest and selected Request for Tender, Lyons Architects were appointed as Lead Consultant for the Project. Lyons heads an extensive consultant team that will provide design documentation for the project. Lyons is one of Australia’s leading Architectural firms, demonstrated by the numerous awards received over multiple categories including Public Architecture, Design, Sustainability, Health and Institutional Architecture. Design Review Panel (DRP) As part of CGD’s commitment to excellence in design, the Municipal Building Project was reviewed under the State Government’s Design Review Panel. The Panel consisted of 4 leading professionals including the State Government Architect, a renowned Local Architect, President Elect Royal Australian Institute of Architects and an Urban Planner & Landscape Architect. The DRP met the design team on four occasions for extensive reviews of the design and at each meeting feedback was given by the Panel which was adopted in the design process and reported back at the next meeting. This culminated in a sign-off by the DRP and a copy of that letter is attached to this report. A final DRP meeting has been set for February next year to review the approved Town Planning documents.



Page 8801

Design Progress The Design Stages are as follows: • Concept Design

• Schematic Design

• Design Development

• Contract Documentation

• Contract Administration (Construction Phase)

Concept Design was completed in late August 2011. Schematic Design was completed early November 2011. The Schematic Design Report is held by the Project Director and is available for viewing by PCG members. Numerous Workshops have been undertaken with internal and external stakeholders. Internal Workshops: • Civic Space

• Customer Service

• Office Environments

• Library

• Councilor & Community

• IT, Records, Security & AV

• Waste & Cleansing

External Workshops: • Community Engagement Workshops

• Local Industry & Suppliers

• Design Review Panel

• DPCD



Page 8802

Planning Application CGD Project Team undertook a number of pre-application meetings with the relevant planning authorities. These included CGD Planners & RCD Manager, Places Victoria Planners and the DPCD RCD Planner. A final pre-submission meeting was held with DPCD Senior Planners and the Head of DPCD’s Urban Planning Department. All meetings received positive feedback and a resounding endorsement for the overall design and direction of the project. The Planning Application was submitted to DPCD on 7 November 2011. It is noted that Places Victoria have agreed not to use their veto right as CGD submitted their design to be reviewed by the Design Review Panel. An amendment will need to be issued due to the change by Councilors from the submitted façade material of Corten to the Councilor preferred facade material of anodized aluminium. This change was determined by individual Councilor votes collected by the Project Team (6-5) in overall favour of anodized aluminium. Initial feedback from DPCD is very positive and it is anticipated that a Planning Permit will be in place by mid to late February 2012. The Minister is the Responsible Authority and there are no third party appeal rights. Community, Business & Staff Engagement The project has wide community support. Key stakeholder support comes from the State Government, Places Victoria, business and community groups. Consultation on the project dates back to 2005 coinciding with the development and release of the Revitalising Central Dandenong blue print. Consultation at that time and since has included community engagement meetings with various sectors of the community on an individual and group basis. Ongoing consultation will include a combination of nominated CGD employees, appointed consultants and external stakeholders meetings. As part of the Design Team, CGD has engaged a Professor to provide place making advice and connect with the community to provide a vehicle for engagement over the life of the project and beyond. An extensive series of interviews with residents and community figures will determine outcomes for the detailed design. The product of this work will be in the form of an open access digital platform that will provide insights into the stakeholder’s world and provide a communication tool for people within the community & for those from further afield. The business sector has been engaged by the Project Team and CGD’s Economic Development Unit through briefings & the business magazine “Stakeholder”. Staff have been engaged through workshops and through an internal sharepoint website which provides up to date information on key elements of the building design. Staff have participated in this process and feedback in regards to the building has been informative and highly useful.

Site Works Surveying The Design Team has engaged Bortolli Wellington to undertake extensive site surveying works to determine site conditions and location of services and other key features. Geotechnical and Environmental Testing The Design Team has engaged Douglas Partners to undertake extensive drilling on site to assess geotechnical and environmental conditions to assist in the documentation of the project works.



Page 8803

Funding Funding options CGD’s Project Team is pursuing a number of options to procure additional funding to allow additional works to be included in the project. These include upgrading the library to accommodate a wider range of services, improvements in the Civic Space such as a big screen for major events and increases in the Community spaces for use by local and regional residents and businesses. Applications underway There are several applications underway and the result of these will not be known until early 2012.

Conclusion

This significant and long awaited Municipal Project is progressing in line with Council’s plans and expectations. Council’s appointed Project Control Group (PCG), Senior Project Officers and Professional Consultants have given sound consideration and guidance in the emergence of the project. With the separate adoption of the Development Agreement and continuing activities of groups and personnel involved in the project, favourable progress can be anticipated.

Recommendation That Council receives and notes the report. MINUTE 1054 Moved by: Cr John Kelly Seconded by: Cr Jim Memeti That Council receives and notes the report.

CARRIED



Page 8804





Page 8805

8 NOTICES OF MOTION

8.1 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 40 – RECOGNITION OF RETIRING DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, MR MAL BAKER

Author: Cr Peter Brown

Motion That:

1. Council place on record, its general appreciation of the long standing efforts of its retiring Director Development Services, Mr. Mal Baker and specifically notes in that record, a significant and single sample of his achievements being the securing on Council’s behalf, of a high quality and pristine parcel of woodlands known as the ‘Abbotts Road Vegetation Protection Area’ being an area of approximately 23 Hectares located on the western side of the Cranbourne Railway line south of Abbotts Road with a street frontage to National Drive, Dandenong South; and

2. in recognition of this specific outcome, Council request that the Chief Executive Officer give consideration to - and report to a future meeting of Council – an appropriate mechanism for the permanent recording at the ‘Abbotts Road Vegetation Protection Area’ of that achievement on behalf of the Greater Dandenong community.

MINUTE 1055 Moved by: Cr Peter Brown Seconded by: Cr John Kelly

That:

1. Council place on record, its general appreciation of the long standing efforts of its retiring Director Development Services, Mr. Mal Baker and specifically notes in that record, a significant and single sample of his achievements being the securing on Council’s behalf, of a high quality and pristine parcel of woodlands known as the ‘Abbotts Road Vegetation Protection Area’ being an area of approximately 23 Hectares located on the western side of the Cranbourne Railway line south of Abbotts Road with a street frontage to National Drive, Dandenong South; and

2. in recognition of this specific outcome, Council request that the Chief Executive Officer give consideration to - and report to a future meeting of Council – an appropriate mechanism for the permanent recording at the ‘Abbotts Road Vegetation Protection Area’ of that achievement on behalf of the Greater Dandenong community.

CARRIED


Page 8806

9 REPORTS FROM COUNCILLORS/DELEGATES & COUNCILLORS' QUESTIONS

Comment Cr John Kelly

I would like to provide a quick update on some of my activities in my role as Councils delegate on the waste forum. Some of the members of the forum went to Japan recently to look at new technologies for waste disposal. There is a lot of new technology in regards to waste disposal and one of the systems that councillors looked at was a gasification system. There are not too many if any of those in Australia but I think that it probably be something that we as residents and users will have to look at in the future as an alternative. One of the things that caught the delegate’s attention was Unit developments. Council should have a serious look at a vacuum system that was used in a new major multi unit development there. It appeared that it was quite successful and took up very little room. They looked at an even more major vacuum system that treated a small housing estate of 500 homes. The garbage was put in a chute and taken to a central point. We look at our landfill sites here and we have also discussed the carbon tax and where that might be in the near future. Of the 500 major contributors to carbon in this Australia, 109 of those are landfill. We cannot keep putting our rubbish in a hole in the ground and Council will have to look at new technologies.

Another item of interest to come up was the demise of one of the companies that disposes of mattresses. If mattresses go into landfill they float back to the ground surface. This particular company pulled apart the mattress, disposed of and recycled a lot of the parts. As a result of the company’s demise the State Government has handed out money to Local Government and some local contractors to dispose of 120,000 mattresses each year until an alternative can be achieved. The company left 100,000 mattresses to be disposed of so it is an issue for Councils to deal with. Another thing that caught my eye was the carbon tax implications for waste removal. I have heard talk that the increase in carbon tax on waste alone in any one city would be between one and three percent which is huge. Talking to Oliver Vido, Manager Infrastructure Services beforehand we estimated that this could be anywhere in the vicinity of $600,000.00 to 1 million dollars that Council would have to find in July 2012 to dispose of our waste . When we talk of the year coming up, an election year, we will not only have our levy, we will not only have our carbon tax but we will have an evaluation year and also probably a fire levy. Our rates next year will certainly need to be heavily scrutinised.

Question Cr John Kelly

In recent days I have made comments in regards to three cricketers from our city, James Pattinson, his brother Darren and Peter Siddle. Peter and James represented Australia in the last test match and did extremely well. I said that we should make them Mayor for the day, perhaps that is a bit over the top but surely we could get the robes on one or two of them just for a picture anyway. Is there any way Council can officially recognise them?


Reports from Councillors/Delegates & Councillors Questions (Cont.)

Page 8807

Response John Bennie, Chief Executive Officer

I think the most appropriate mechanism for recognising key people within the community is a letter with the common seal of Council. The difficulty that we have under these circumstances is timing. The common seal cannot be applied without a resolution of the Council but given that this is a matter of what I consider, and councillors would have to agree on, is an urgent matter this evening we have the option open for Cr Kelly or any of the other councillors to promote as an item of Urgent Business. Council could authorise the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to apply the common seal to a letter of commendation for Peter Siddle, James Pattinson and Darren Pattinson.

Comment Cr John Kelly

As this is Mal Baker, Director Development Services last meeting I would like to congratulate him this evening Mal on his great work here. He has been in the system longer than I but I just want to congratulate you on the work that you have done for the Council. I think it has been nothing short of magnificent. Through the time that I have known him, the professional way about which he has gone about his business, the support he has given staff and Councillors has been commendable. Sometimes we did not agree on all decisions but I really sincerely thank him for his friendship. I wish him all the best in his future wherever it may take him.

Comment Cr Angela Long

These are only a few of the things that I have attended over the last two weeks: On 29 November 2011, I was a guest speaker along with Vickie Nicholson-Brown, Chair of Inter Council Aboriginal Consultative Committee (ICACC), Wurundjeri elder , at the Second Annual Building Partnerships within Urban Indigenous Communities which was held in Melbourne. We spoke about how ICACC which has Local Government and Indigenous representatives from eight Councils across Melbourne’s South East is working together for a better outcome for the local indigenous communities. I would like to thank Council’s Media department, especially Tracey Cheeseman for helping put our presentation together.That night I attended the Dandenong Retail Traders Annual Awards Dinner. On 30 November 2011, I attended the unveiling of a replica plaque and interpretive signs at the Erikson Gardens. Andrew Erkison was a former Mayor and Councillor for the former City of Springvale.



Page 8808

That night I attended the Retirement Dinner for Michael Lakeland, Manager Organisational Sustainability and Mal Baker, Director Development Services. Both men have worked for Greater Dandenong since the Cities of Springvale and Dandenong became one. Prior to that both Michael and Mal worked for the former City of Springvale. Although I have the feeling your friendly faces and friendship will be sorely missed. On 5 December 2011, I attended the official opening of the Nano Nagle Centre at St John’s Regional College, I also attended the opening of the Harmony Village in Herbert Street Dandenong. It is a Retirement Village of over 90 Apartments of which 60 are dedicated to low cost housing. Of those 60, 22 are for the residents that moved from the Dandenong Returned Services.League (RSL) retirement village. On 6 December 2011, I attended the Volunteers Christmas Party. What would we do without the volunteers. They do a fantastic job. On 7 December 2011, I attended the Dandenong Council Chamber Breakfast, a meeting at Willow Lodge, morning tea at Dandenong Primary School, Christmas lunch with the Dandenong North Senior Citizens Club, Christmas lunch with Spanish/Italo Club where I presented a cheque on behalf of Council, two Planning meetings, A forum on Sporting Club bonds and lastly I attended a 20/20 cricket match at Dandenong Cricket Club. On 11 December 2011, I attended the Ceylonese Welfare Organisation Christmas Lunch. I would like to wish all of our residents a Happy Festive Season. Thank you

Comment Cr Jim Memeti

At Shepley Oval last week I attended the Dandenong Vs Richmond 20/20 cricket match. It was entertaining. Whilst there, I was approached by some committee members and the President of the club and we discussed the scoreboard at the Cricket Club. The club has $20,000.00 in its budget and the football club has $20,000.00 in its budget. While we have the media present here tonight, I would like to suggest that maybe we pass on to the businesses of Dandenong that they are welcome to contribute to the upgrading of the scoreboard. We need a new scoreboard at Shepley Oval and maybe we can get a few good contributions from the business community. I would also like to recognise Mal Baker.Director, Engineering Services. When I think of Mr Baker I think about professionalism and his knowledge about Dandenong He has always got words of wisdom and he has got some great stories that come with comedy. Thank you for those Mal, I would like to wish all the best in your future endeavours. I would also like to wish staff, Councillors and the community a happy festive season.



Page 8809

Comment Cr Pinar Yesil

Last week I attended the launch of the Crime Prevention Program at Dandenong High School. The program is to designed to raise harmony and understanding across cultural groups in schools. At the secondary school level the prevention program is a big initiative in Victoria. I do not think there is another program quite like this across the state. City of Greater Dandenong officers from the Community Services department have had a lot of input into putting this group activity together. I want to congratulate them. I also want to thank Mal Baker, Director, Development Services for his help and support. I will remember him for your wisdom and also his jokes. Sometimes they would go over my head and on my way back home, I would understand his jokes and start laughing.

ReportTabled Cr Roz Blades

29 November 2011 • Keysborough Senior Citizens Lunch • Dandenong Retail Traders Association Annual General Meeting and Business

Awards Dinner 30 November 2011 • Dandenong Australian Taxation Office (ATO) Site Appreciation and Years of Service

Awards • Unveiling of replica plaque and interpretive sign, Andrew Erikson Reserve • Accessability, Transparency and Accountabilty Charter Fortnightly press meeting

with The Leader • Launch of Cultural Comprehension project, Dandenong High School

1 December 2011 • Informal Councillor Briefing Session 2 December 2011 • Cheque Presentation: Mayoral Charity event proceeds presented to Noble Park

Special Development School

3 December 2011 • Wallara's Annual Report to the community • Keysborough Tennis Club meeting 4 December 2011 • Parkmore Pirates Football Club BBQ • South East Polio Network Christmas Lunch 5 December 2011 • Annual Statutory Meeting to elect the Mayor



Page 8810

6 December 2011 • Red Gum Christmas Party, Noble Park Returned Services League (RSL) • Community Safety Committee meeting, Dandenong • City of Greater Dandenong Volunteers Christmas Function

7 December 2011 • Oasis Advisory Group Meeting • Sports Pavilion Management Policy Consultation meeting

8 December 2011 • Launch of Wallarano Primary School's community garden • Meetings with residents, Springvale • Cyrene Centre meeting 9 December 2011 • Channel 31 TV Interview for Greater Dandenong In-Focus program • Meeting regarding Men’s Shed 10 December 2011 • Noble Park Christmas Carnival • Springvale Little Athletics, Ross Reserve • Burghers Christmas Function 11 December 2011 • Ceylonese Welfare Organisation End of Year Luncheon

Comment Cr Roz Blades

I just wanted to mention the great work of the Springvale Benevolent Society to whom which Councillor Herring and I are attached. This is a busy time of the year for us looking after the needy families to try to make sure that they have a good Christmas. It seems important now more than ever as prices have risen but incomes have not. I would also like to let Council know that the well publicised activities around Dandenong Station are being discussed at the Community Safety Committee that I am involved in. Council has also presented a cheque to the Noble Park Special Development School for just over $14,000.00 which we achieved from my Mayoral charity function. I am currently investigating other ways in which the school can continue to be funded so they do not have to rely on one-off lump sums from functions like mine. It is important for them to have a continual financial stream to look after the children the way they should be looked after. The families, parents and teachers of these children are the real heroes of this community. I would also like to thank the staff that put together the Noble Park Christmas Festival that Councillor Brown and I attended on 10 December 2011.



Page 8811

Question Cr Roz Blades

Does Council have a date yet for the opening of the Noble Park “More than just a Pool” project?

Response Lynette While, Acting Director Community Services

Council has not finalised the date yet. We are opening Noble Park Aquatic Centre in February to the community. We will be having an official opening probably late February early March 2011. As soon as we know we will be more than happy to do a media release to let the community know.

Comment Cr Yvonne Herring

I would like to wish Mal Baker, Director, Development Services all the best in his retirement. I have only known Mal since 1997 when I was elected to Council. I thank you for all the help and assistance you have given me since I have been at Council. Councillor Blades mentioned the Springvale Benevolent Society. I am Council representative for the society and also their Secretary. On behalf of the society I would like thank Council Staff who donated through the Staff giving program. The Benevolent Society gets revenue from those funds to turn it food hampers and food vouchers for our needy residents.

Comment Cr Youhorn Chea

On 6 December 2011, I attended the Volunteer Christmas Dinner with Councillor Long and Councillor Blades. It was a beautiful event. On 10 December 2011, I attended the Noble Park Christmas carnival which was run in conjunction with the Southern Regional Championships of Little Athletics at Ross Reserve. We had a lot of young athletes attend, not only from our municipality but from all across the south eastern region. Councillor Blades and I presented trophies to the athletes. Many people commented on how good the facilities at the reserve were, particularly in relation to there being plenty of car parking spaces. This is the last meeting that Mal Baker, Director Development Services is attending. I would like to personally thank you for the support you have extended to me and my fellow Councillors. Over the years, we have all benefited from your knowledge, skills, experience and expert advice. As we wish you well in your retirement, Council is unanimous in expressing our gratitude for your invaluable contribution to the City of Springvale and more recently to the City of Greater Dandenong. I have known you since 1997 when I was first elected as a Councillor. We have worked together very closely. Best wishes to you and your family as you begin your retirement. We hope you will continue to keep a watchful eye on what is happening within the City of Greater Dandenong, just like you have done for the past 20 years. Thank you.



Page 8812

ReportTabled Cr Youhorn Chea

1 December 2011: • Informal Councillor Briefing Session

5 December 2011: • Annual Statutory Meeting - elected Mayor

8 December 2011: • City of Greater Dandenong Youth Leadership End of Year Celebration

9 December 2011: • Meeting with Minister for Planning • Interview for the Council TV show • Meetings with residents, Springvale

10 December 2011: • Noble Park Christmas Carnival • Southern Metropolitan Region Relay Championships hosted by the Springvale Little

Athletics • Full Moon Night Market, Springvale

12 December 2011: • Visit from His Excellency Pen Sovann • Meetings with Council Officers, Springvale • Council Meeting, Springvale Comment Mal Baker, Director Development Services

Thank you, Councillors for those kind words. I will certainly miss it. I know I have been very fortunate to have been here. Every year has had an achievement and that has been in tough times such as recessions or terrible events like accidents with staff. The good thing is we have always excelled. One of the things about this Council is that it always punches above its weight and all of that is due to the people around this table, my Executive colleagues. It will be 21 years in February since I sat on this table exactly on the chair where Lynette While, Acting Director Community Services sits. Someone said they could write a book out of it and they would make a fortune but I will not. It has been a fortunate life. There are two questions that I have been asked a lot recently “When do you finish?” I try to avoid the answer to that and “How many days to go?” My reply is “Many thousands I hope”. Thank you.



Page 8813

Comment Cr Youhorn Chea

I wish all of our residents and staff a safe and fun filled festival season and a happy and prosperous new year. All the very best for 2012. Thank you.


Page 8814

10 QUESTION TIME - PUBLIC

Questions Matthew Kirwan, Keysborough To: Cr Peter Brown

Given the significant size of the Bangholme precinct that you put forward as a significant Green Wedge anomaly why did you not recommend that Greater Dandenong undertake community consultation prior to referring this for consideration to the Minister for Planning, particularly given the significant amount of time between when the Minister of Planning requested responses (26 July 2011) and when responses needed to be supplied to the Minister?

Given the significant size of the Bangholme precinct, Why did you not Agenda your proposal for the Bangholme precinct to be considered a significant anomaly prior to putting forward this proposal to refer it for consideration to the Minister of Planning at the Council Meeting of 14 November 2011, particularly given the significant amount of time between when the Minister of Planning requested responses (26 July 2011) and that meeting?

Given the considerable potential for the Bangholme precinct to be rezoned as industrial if no longer Green Wedge, what is your view of the potential impact on the quality of life of Willow Lodge residents if it was no longer Green Wedge?

Given the considerable potential for the Bangholme precinct to be rezoned as industrial if no longer Green Wedge, lifting the commercial value of the land, what is your view of the effect of your proposal to remove the Bangholme precinct from the Green Wedge on the security of tenure of Willow Lodge residents given Willow Lodge will be more attractive to sell?

Response Cr Peter Brown

In relation to the first question asked regarding why did I recommend that Greater Dandenong undertake community consultation prior to referring this to the Minister of Planning. I would like to advise Mr Kirwan that in February 2003, that under this Council’s Planning Scheme for large areas of land in the municipality, those proposals were endorsed. They were still part of Council’s policy capacity at the time. In February 2003, this issue was bought before Council. The suggestion in the request in the report, and I would be more than happy to provide Mr Kirwan an electronic copy of that report, was that the area of land that Mr Kirwan is referring to was recommended by the then Minister for Planning for rezoning as Industrial Zone One. One of the design standards meetings of the Minister of Planning did not accept Council’s advice. Council’s recommendation was that the implications for rezoning to potential industrial use was that staff who had then been working there compromised the then treatment process at the treatment plant. Nevertheless there was a resolution of Council and it would remain so in respect to the request for consultation. Whether the land is zoned X, Y or Z or whether it is the development plan overlay or whether it is the design or whether it is heritage overlay on the site or whatever, the simple fact is that the property changed hands. Changes in the property title ownership does not factor as a contributor for community consultation.


Question Time - Public (Cont.)

Page 8815

When people buy into a precinct they buy knowing what the zoning is; they buy into it knowing what the proposals are; they buy into it understanding what the overlays are. A change of ownership does not provide the necessity for further community consultation. In relation to the second question part of which I believe I have already answered “Why didn’t you agenda your proposal prior to the Council Meeting 14 November 2011, relating to the Ministerial response?” That could be seen as a valid criticism but it does not change the fact of what was done. It was a Council policy, a very thoroughly assessed recommendation which was then put to the Planning Minister back in 2003. It was literally dusted off by myself and referred back to Council who agreed yes this is our policy. That was our policy then and our view on that site has remained unchanged. I think what significantly added to Council’s support for that being referred to the Minister was for it to go to an Independent Panel, be further assessed and checked that it was a significant anomaly, not a minor anomaly as some people may interpret that the Minister’s letter indicated. It was a significant anomaly in the context that of all the land around it was zoned Industrial Zone One apart from the south east plant on the corner there. So we had the anomaly that the extensive track of land which, in Council’s mind in 2003, ought to have been rezoned to Industrial Zone One, should while the opportunity presented itself, be put to an independent review panel for further assessment in due course. That was the view that Council took. A change of ownership does not trigger a need for further community consultation or greater consultation. With respect to the question in relation to the impact on the residents at Willow Lodge, I can only answer that by referring to an area that Mr Kirwan would be very familiar with and that is the Industrial Zone One / Residential Zone One interface between Cambria Road and Festival Crescent Keysborough. Over the years there has been a significant rise between the construction of Industrial Zone One interface for residential uses but again whether it is a Residential Zone One use or industrial use where there is interface between two different zones most of the time problems do not arise but it is acknowledged that problems can arise. They just need to be worked through in the same ways a number of issues are being worked through in Cambria Road so that they are minimised if possible, the immediate impact on residents. In respect to Willow Lodge, one would hope and one would expect in the event of a rezoning, that would be for the panel to determine but there would be respect given to the Willow Lodge residents in terms of both the buffering and the open space contribution. Bearing in mind its proximity to the Eumemmering Creek of course, one would expect that significant area which is flood prone would be treated as a retarding basin. I am well aware of the flooding problems there for the Willow Lodge residents. The greater concern for me is the question Mr Kirwan has asked given the considerable potential for the Bangholme precinct to be rezoned as Industrial if no longer Green Wedge, lifting the commercial value of the land. Well I do not think that Peter Brown’s view is necessarily of much importance. But if you look at the empirical evidence should there be a rezoning, the value of Willow Lodge which is currently in the Green Wedge, whatever the rezoning be whether it be Residential Zone One or an industrial zone, it would significantly enhance its value. The owners of the properties at Willow Lodge, would expect a substantial increase in property values if it went from Green Wedge to Residential Zone One. Of course there would be an increase in rating assessments but there is always an opportunity for differentiated systems to use an anonymous situation. I did notice two weeks ago in reference to Mr. Kirwan’s question in the Greater Dandenong Weekly that units were for sale at Willow Lodge for about $290,000.00. Willow Lodge was initially established as a caravan park that was a permitted use in the then zoning. It was a permitted use within the Green Wedge. Unfortunately, in some respects the wheels have fallen off all the caravans and they are now lodgements. There are a large number of people living there and in fact I would expect not on Peter Brown’s views, but on planning grounds, the security of tenure of those residents would actually be enhanced for that property to be taken out of the Green Wedge.



Page 8816

In fact these new units have been sold to residents who are living there and I do not know whether it is a $290,000.00 strata title freehold or whether it is a $290,000.00 lease, I do not know the way in which the land is structured for the purpose of the sale.

Cr Yesil left the Chamber at 8.45pm.

Comment Cr Angela Long

I would like to clarify with you they do not actually own the land, they pay rent on the land that their property is on, they own the cabin, or the Mobile Home as they are called but the land still belongs to the owner of the whole complex. Cr Yesil returned to the Chamber at 8.47pm.

MINUTE 1056 Moved by: Cr Jim Memeti Seconded by: Cr John Kelly That Cr Peter Brown be granted an extension of time of two (2) minutes to speak in response to the question.

CARRIED

Response Cr Peter Brown

What was interesting for me to note was that in the paper they were selling these places for $290,000.00. If I was a resident I would like to be assured of some security of tenure and that is not a Council issue that is between the vendor and the owner of those properties. But in terms of the value of the properties there is little doubt whatsoever that, on planning grounds the rezoning from Green Wedge to Industrial or Residential Zone One, the value of the land would be considerably enhanced. Comment John Bennie, Chief Executive Officer

I would just like to take the opportunity to clarify the question about whom the questions may be directed. Clause 33 is the relevant section under the Meeting Procedure Local Law and under 33g the Chief Executive or delegate must read the text of the question and then the Chief Executive or delegate may direct the question to be answered by a nominated Councillor or a member of Council staff.



Page 8817

Question Cr Roz Blades

Does the Councillor have to answer the question? Can someone say that they were not prepared to be asked the question tonight and can answer on notice? Response John Bennie, Chief Executive Officer

There are further provisions under the same clause in the Meeting Procedure Local Law where questions may be taken on notice. Officers do that from time to time and Councillors have the same opportunity.

Question Noela Walsh, Keysborough

What measures are to be taken to ensure that recommendations of the Acoustic Report will be implemented regarding our property which is the most affected by the proposed development? The acoustic barrier on the latest drawing stops at the end of Haileybury College. The original plans showed an acoustic barrier extending along the back of the properties on the northern side of Edgewater Drive, Keysborough. Response Mal Baker, Director Development Services

The amendment to the resolution which was put forward by Councillor Long extends that boundary by 30 metres. What role does the Acoustic Report play? The Acoustic Report was part of the development plan that was developed. When it comes to the timing of the issuing of permits for building and works and uses, that Development Plan would be the benchmark for the requirements of the issuing of the permit. The height restrictions of the buildings that are put up will revert back and be assessed against that development plan of which the Acoustic Report is part of and direct where the acoustic barrier must be and what it must do.

Question Peter Walsh, Keysborough

What is the Litre capacity of the water retention basin given its location at the south east corner of the proposed development? Will it impact on my property at this point given the site has a five metre fall towards my back fence? Response Mal Baker, Director Development Services

Council’s decision was all about what the Development Plan has done. It has given a location of where the potential water basin would be located. When the application for buildings, works and uses comes forward then Melbourne Water will do an assessment of that site and look at retention capacity. They will size the drain at that time so that the retarding basin, and therefore the overland flow on can go through, which is not on your property. It is all in the future again as I said before. This development is subject to these conditions that must be met. If you have any further questions either now or in the future, Jody Bosman, Manager Planning & Design can carry that through in future weeks.



Page 8818

Question Richard Olszewski, Springvale

Regarding the development of 39 – 45 Sandown Road, Springvale. Council rejected the proposal for car parking. In the delegate report, the reasons for rejecting the proposal on car parking were 1) Substantial public transport, residents won’t rely on motor vehicles. 2) Enough car parking spaces near the site. 3) Use clause 55 (one car park space) instead of Clause 52.06 (two carpark spaces). With VCAT describing this as strange, why didn’t Council send a solicitor, as agreed at the 10 October 2011, Council meeting? Response John Bennie, Chief Executive Officer

I can advise that officers recommended a refusal of this application. Council also resolved to support the officers recommendation through the business application. I was not in attendance at the 10 October 2011 Council meeting. I have no recollection of any agreements that may have been alluded to about Council representation. It is customary Council practice that unless the resolution differs from the recommendation of officers a senior and experienced planning officer will represent Council at the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). Generally it would be the officer who recommended refusal who is best placed to go to VCAT to argue that refusal.

Question Andrew Olszewski, Springvale

145 signatures were against the proposed development at 39 – 45 Sandown Road, Springvale. While the Council urban designer strongly supported the building proposal at 39 -45 Sandown Road, Springvale. 134 residents strongly opposed it. As the urban designer doesn’t live in the area, why didn’t the urban designer seek some input from the Ward Councillors or the community? Response John Bennie, Chief Executive Officer

I can advise that I will have to take the assertion on notice that Council’s urban designers strongly supported the building proposal given that the officer recommendation was for refusal of the application. Irrespective of this, the application was advertised, consultation was made available and all views were received, noted and reported in the report that went to Council for refusal of the application.

Question Colin Riddiford, Dandenong North

What is being done in relation to the amount of graffiti and out–of-date garage signs that are continuing to appear within the city? Also there are a lot ‘We Buy Your House’ signs starting to appear on light poles as are notices about painting your roof.



Page 8819

Response Mal Baker, Director Development Services

I will address the garage signs first of all. It is a big city and it is very difficult to get around. It would really help if you do see them to ring them through and report them. We put them on a customer service tracking system and they get assigned a work flow and that way we will get to them a lot quicker than when we are out and about. We just do not get to every street within the city every day of the week. Regarding house signs and painting signs, that is more difficult. We try to chase them down. Most of the time they have only got a mobile number which in itself ought to be a caution to people thinking of painting their house without a normal telephone number. We have had some success tracking them down and once again if anyone saw the number plate of a person putting these signs up it would be a great help. Graffiti is not really my area and I will hand the question over to Oliver Vido Acting Director, Engineering Services. Response Oliver Vido, Acting Director Engineering Services

We have a graffiti removal contract in place which removes graffiti on Council assets. That is how Council deals with it. For graffiti on private property there is legislation relating to that and we are looking at some options which we may bring back to Council early in 2012 about what can be done. It is a bit like what Mal Baker, Director Development Services was just indicating. It really depends on the community reporting the graffiti as it is seen, particularly on Council assets. Our contractors can deal with that as a soon as possible. The timeframe in relation to the removal of the graffiti really relates to the type of graffiti it is.


Page 8820

10 URGENT BUSINESS

10.1 RECOGNITION OF CRICKETERS - JAMES PATTINSON, DARREN PATTINSON, PETER SIDDLE AND MICHAEL FINDLAY

Cr John Kelly sought leave of Council to raise an item of Urgent Business relating to recognition via letter under seal to Cricketers James Pattinson, Darren Pattinson, Peter Siddle and Michael Findlay for their achievements in the Cricket work and contribution to the Greater Dandenong community.

Motion

That the item be considered as Urgent Business. MINUTE 1057 Moved by: Cr John Kelly Seconded by: Cr Angela Long That the item be considered as Urgent Business.

CARRIED Cr Memeti left the Chamber at 9:04pm.

Motion That Council presents letters under seal to James Pattinson, Darren Pattinson, Peter Siddle and Michael Findlay in acknowledgment of their achievements in Cricket and their contribution to the Greater Dandenong community.

MINUTE 1058 Moved by: Cr John Kelly Seconded by: Cr Angela Long That Council presents letters under seal to James Pattinson, Darren Pattinson, Peter Siddle and Michael Findlay in acknowledgment of their achievements in Cricket and their contribution to the Greater Dandenong community.

CARRIED Cr Memeti returned to the Chamber at 9:06pm.


Page 8821

The meeting closed at 9:06PM Confirmed: / /

________________________ CHAIRPERSON

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING MI N U T E S€¦ · 12/12/2011 · Recommendation Summary Council...

Documents

Transcript of ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING MI N U T E S€¦ · 12/12/2011 · Recommendation Summary Council...