Agenda of Council Meeting - 23 June Web view23 June 2014. Page 81. Page ... of the Council Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 2 ... and are to be commended for their vision

NOTICE PAPERMonday 23 June 2014 at 7pm

Council Chamber, Stonnington City Centre,(enter off Glenferrie Road, Malvern)

Page 2

RECONCILIATION STATEMENT

We acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional land of the Boonwurrung and Wurundjeri people and offer our respects to the elders past and present. We recognise and respect the cultural heritage of this land.

PRAYER

Almighty God, we humbly beseech you, to grant your blessing on this Council, direct and prosper its deliberations to the advancement of your glory, and the true welfare of the people of the City of Stonnington. Amen.

NOTE

Council business is conducted in accordance with Part 4 Division 3 of the Meeting Procedure section of Council’s General Local Law 2008 (No 1). Some copies are available with the agenda or you can find a copy on Council’s website www.stonnington.vic.gov.au under local laws.

Page 3

http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/

Council MeetingNotice Paper

Monday 23 June 2014Order of Business and Index

a) Reading of the Reconciliation Statement and Prayerb) Apologies c) Adoption and confirmation of minutes of previous meeting(s) in accordance with Section 63

of the Act and Clause 423 of General Local Law 2008 (No 1)1. MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 2 JUNE 2014...........................................................7

d) Disclosure by Councillors of any conflicts of interest in accordance with Section 79 of the Act1

e) Questions to Council from Members of the Publicf) Correspondence – (only if related to council business)g) Questions to Council Officers from Councillorsh) Tabling of Petitions and Joint Lettersi) Notices of Motion j) Reports of Special and Other Committees; - Assembly of Councillors

1. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: IMAP.................................................................................................9 k) Reports by Delegates l) General Business

1. PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 0936/13 - 78 WATTLETREE ROAD, ARMADALE – CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING ON A LOT LESS THAN 500 SQM IN THE RESIDENTIAL 1 ZONE AND A REDUCTION IN THE CAR PARKING REQUIREMENTS................................................................11

2. PLANNING PERMIT AMENDMENT 0049/10 - 24 HYSLOP PARADE, MALVERN EAST – SECONDARY CONSENT AMENDMENT APPLICATION TO THE APPROVED PLANS COMPRISING CHANGES TO THE LANDSCAPING AND DRIVEWAY.......................................................................................................25

3. CRANBOURNE-PAKENHAM RAILWAY CORRIDOR UPGRADE...............................................................334. AMENDMENT C177 – ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT– LOCAL PLANNING

POLICY – CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PANEL AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT.....................................................................................................37

5. PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENTS C199 & C201 - PERMANENT HERITAGE PROTECTION FOR 24 GRANGE ROAD, TOORAK - UPDATE................................................................................................43

6. BURKE ROAD GLEN IRIS LEVEL CROSSING REMOVAL - RAIL UNDER..................................................517. RETURN OF GENERAL REVALUATION 2014.....................................................................................558. COUNCIL PLAN 2013-2017 YEAR 1 - BUDGET ACTIVITIES QUARTERLY REPORT, QUARTER 3.............599. UNION STREET RESERVE - SHADE SAILS.........................................................................................6110. AGED CARE REFORM..................................................................................................................... 6511. MARKET STREET CAR PARK, SOUTH YARRA – PROPOSED PERMANENT CLOSURE TO THROUGH

TRAFFIC ...................................................................................................................................... 6912. REPLACEMENT OF SOUTH YARRA TO ST KILDA WATER MAIN........................................................75

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

Page 4

13. WINTER ARTS FESTIVAL: GLOW...................................................................................................8114. MIDSUMMA FESTIVAL SUPPORT.....................................................................................................8515. WINDSOR SQUARE - PUBLIC ART PROPOSAL.............................................................................91

m) Other General Businessn) Urgent Businesso) Confidential Business

Page 5

ADOPTION AND CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

23 JUNE 2014

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council confirms the Minutes of the Council Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 2 June 2014 and Minutes of the Confidential Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 2 June 2014 as an accurate record of the proceedings.

Page 7

REPORTS OF SPECIAL AND OTHER COMMITTEES; -ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS23 JUNE 2014

j) Reports of Special and Other Committees; -Assembly of Councillors

1. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: IMAP

Civic Support Officer: Judy Hogan Manager Governance & Corporate Support: Fabienne ThewlisGeneral Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram

BACKGROUND

The Cities of Melbourne, Port Phillip, Stonnington, Yarra and Maribyrnong have set up the Inner Melbourne Action Plan Implementation Committee, pursuant to Section 86 of the Local Government Act 1989, to provide a coordinated decision making process to facilitate the implementation of the Inner Melbourne Action Plan (IMAP) as adopted by member Councils in December 2005.

DISCUSSION

The Committee held A meeting on Friday 28 February 2014. The minutes of the meeting are submitted to Council for confirmation.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION

This recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

ATTACHMENTS

1. IMAP Minutes 28 February 2014 Attachment 1 of 1 Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council confirms the minutes of the Inner Melbourne Action Plan Implementation Committee (IMAP) meeting held on Friday 28 February 2014.

Page 9

GENERAL BUSINESS23 JUNE 2014

l) General Business

1 PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION 0936/13 - 78 WATTLETREE ROAD, ARMADALE – CONSTRUCTION OF A DWELLING ON A LOT LESS THAN 500 SQM IN THE RESIDENTIAL 1 ZONE AND A REDUCTION IN THE CAR PARKING REQUIREMENTS

Acting Statutory Planning Manager: Gareth GaleGeneral Manager Planning & Development: Stuart Draffin

PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for a new two storey dwelling over basement on a site less than 500 sqm in the Residential 1 Zone

Executive Summary

Applicant: Craig TanWard: SouthZone: Residential 1Overlay: NoneDate lodged: 16/12/2013Statutory days: 68Trigger for referral to Council:

Councillor Call Up

Number of objections: 1Consultative Meeting: NoOfficer Recommendation: Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Craig Tan Architects Pty Ltd. They are known as TP100, TP101, TP150, TP151, TP250, TP260, TP261, TP300, TP301, TP302, TP303, TP320, TP322, TP321, TP350, TP351, TP352, TP353, TP410, TP500, TP501, TP510. The plans are Council date stamped 15 April 2014. The development plans are accompanied by a landscape planning report prepared by Oculus which is Council date stamped 19 February 2014.

Key features of the proposal are:

Removal of the majority of existing dwelling (no permit required). A portion of the western boundary wall will be retained.

Construction of a two storey dwelling over a basement. The basement features a wine cellar, studio, courtyard and a gym/storage area.

The ground floor features a living room, kitchen and dining room, study and associated amenities, and a car port accessed via the rear laneway which provides one on site car

Page 11


space. Open space is provided in the form of a garden and terrace to the north of the dwelling.

The first floor features three bedrooms and associated amenities. The dwelling has a maximum height of RL 55.690 (6.52m above the street level). The building has been designed in a contemporary manner. The proposed construction

materials include pre-cast concrete, timber screens, timber hardwood decking, bronze plated steel fin panels, clear glazing and polycarbonate roof sheeting.

NB: it is unclear as to the proposed materials for the projecting north and south facing first floor elevations. The perspectives show this area as bronze steel coated steel fins, whereas the elevations seem to show timber hardwood screens (amongst other things).

This will be discussed in more detail later in the report.

It is further noted that revised plans were lodged on 15 April 2014. The revised plans removed a car space from the proposed garage, which now features a single space.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the south side of Wattletree Road. The site has the following significant characteristics:

The site is regular in shape and has a frontage of 7.93m, a depth of 38.96m, an overall area of 315sqm and a north-south orientation.

The land has a slight slope down towards the south. The land is affected by the Residential 1 Zone and no overlays. The land benefits from laneway access to the rear of the site.

The site is currently occupied by a single storey brick dwelling with a tiled roof. An existing carport is currently located along the rear of the site. The dwelling is constructed boundary-to-boundary in part, however is predominately sited along the western property boundary.

No. 80 Wattletree Road abuts the site to the east. The site is occupied by a double fronted weatherboard dwelling that is located between approximately 1.29 and 1.71m from the common property boundary. The dwelling features a two storey extension to its rear and a number of habitable room windows that are orientated towards the subject site. A garage is developed within the south western corner of the allotment.

No. 76 Wattletree Road abuts the site to the west. The site is occupied by a single storey brick dwelling with a hipped iron roof. The dwelling is situated approximately 1.486m and 1.467 from the common property boundary and features a number of habitable room windows orientated towards the subject site.

The unnamed laneway is located to the south of the site.

Previous Planning Applications

A search of Council records did not uncover any relevant history for the site.

The Title

Page 12


The site is described as Lot 1 on Title Plan 688051E on Certificate of Title Volume 02290 Folio 842. The land is not impacted by any easements or covenants.

Planning Controls

The following controls/permit triggers are considerations for this application:

Zone

Clause 32.01- Residential 1 Zone Pursuant to Clause 32.01-4, a permit is required to construct a dwelling on a lot less than 500sqm. Development must also meet the requirements of Clause 54.

Overlays

There are no overlays covering this site.

Particular Provisions

Clause 54 – One Dwelling on a Lot

Clause 52.06 – Car ParkingPursuant to Clause 52.06-3, a three bedroom dwelling requires two car spaces to be provided on-site. The proposal only features one on-site space, and as such a car parking waiver is required.

Proposed New Residential Zones

Following Council’s resolution on Monday 16 December, an amendment request was made to the Minister on 24 December 2013 to delete the existing Clause 32.01 (Residential 1 Zone) and introduce Clauses 32.07 (RGZ), 32.08 (GRZ) and 32.09 (NRZ). Council is still awaiting a response and the proposed zones are yet to be gazetted. The subject land is located within the Residential Growth Zone – Residential Boulevards. This requires a mandatory maximum height of 12m.

Relevant Planning Policies

Clause 15.01 Urban EnvironmentClause 15.02 Sustainable DevelopmentClause 16.01 Residential DevelopmentClause 21.03 VisionClause 21.06 Built Environment and HeritageClause 32.01 Residential 1 ZoneClause 52.06 Car ParkingClause 54 One dwelling on a lot Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

Advertising

The original application was advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land any by placing two signs on site. The public notification of the application was completed satisfactorily.

Page 13


The site is located in South Ward and an objection from 1 property (80 Wattletree, Armadale). The objection raises the following concerns:

Double storey form to the rear of the site Visual bulk Design of the building and how it fits in the streetscape Overshadowing Reduction in outlook due to visual bulk of building

A Consultative Meeting was not held for this application.

It is noted that formally revised plans were lodged on 14 April 2014. The key change as illustrated on these plans was the removal of a car space to ensure that the remaining space was easily accessed from the rear laneway. The loss of a single space was not considered to cause material detriment to any person. On this basis, the proposal was not re-advertised.

Referrals

Infrastructure (comments provided in response to advertised plans)

The only concern from an Infrastructure perspective is that the floor levels are sitting low relative to the site.

Could you please place a condition stating that a report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared by in accordance with that report prior to a building permit being issued.

Parks (comments provided in response to advertised plans)

I have inspected the submitted landscape concept and it is suitable for approval.

Transport (comments provided in response to advertised plans)

The parking provision meets the requirements of the Planning Scheme and is considered satisfactory.

The traffic impact of this development, considering the small number of parking spaces provided on site, is anticipated to be negligible.

The Planning Scheme states that parking bays in double garages are to be at least 6m long, and 5.5m wide. The dimensions of the proposed car spaces in the garage do not meet the requirements of the Planning Scheme for a garage, and instead appear to be proposed as individual spaces that are 4.9m long and 2.6m wide.

For these individual spaces proposed on site, the Australian Standards state that an apron width of 6.4m is required for a parking space that is 2.6m wide. As the R.O.W has a width of 3.1m these individual spaces cannot be provided on site as the required apron width cannot be provided so this will just be assessed as a double garage. The double garage proposed is 5.8m long which does not meet the requirements of the Planning Scheme.

The dimensions on the plans are very unclear so the applicant is to revise the plans to ensure that the necessary changes are provided and are clearly legible.

The dimensions show that the height between the floor and garage door is proposed at 2.4m. This exceeds the requirements of the Australian Standards. The applicant is to ensure that the minimum clear height of 2.2m is provided to the lowest point in the garage, including the door in the open position.

The Australian Standards state that the minimum width for a double garage door is 4.8m. The submitted material states that the width of the double garage door will be

Page 14


7.9m. This exceeds the requirements of the Australian Standards and this can be considered satisfactory.

The applicant has provided swept path diagrams to demonstrate that ingress and egress is possible when accessing the garage from the Right of Way (R.O.W). The swept path diagrams the applicant has provided are not clearly defined on the plans and it is difficult to assess the plans due to this. The applicant is to revise the swept path diagrams to ensure they can be clearly seen on the plans.

The width of the R.O.W from the garage door to the fence on the south side is 3.1m. This is a concern as it suggests that the manoeuvre a vehicle has to make to enter, and in particular exit the garage, may be too tight due to this narrow width of the R.O.W. Vehicles are not to take more than one movement to enter and exit the garage, as this would impact the R.O.W function.

The plans submitted do not detail the proposed floor gradients of the entire parking area. The minimum gradient of the parking area shall be 1 in 100 (1.0%) for outdoor areas and 1 in 200 (0.5%) for covered areas to allow for adequate drainage as per AS 2890.1.

The revised plans that were submitted on 15 April 2014 were lodged in response to the ingress and egress concerns listed in the transport comments. The revised plans removed a car space which allows for additional maneuvering room. In this respect, the revised plans are considered to be satisfactory. It is noted that the change also results in a car parking dispensation being required. It is considered that an assessment on this aspect of the proposal can be made without a formal referral to Council’s Transport Department.

KEY ISSUES

Strategic Justification

The State Planning Policy Framework encourages higher density development and a range of dwelling types in areas that are well serviced by established physical and social infrastructure. The proposal is generally consistent with these policies as the site is located in a residential area that is within proximity of the public transport links, community services and commercial outlets located along Wattletree and Glenferrie Road to the east.

At a local level, the subject site forms part of a Substantial Change Area due to its immediate abuttal to a main road which features a tramline. Due to these policy directions, it is envisaged that Wattletree Road will accommodate increased densities and more prominent built form over time.

The Local Planning Policy Framework also encourages development that does not undermine the valued character of the City of Stonnington. It seeks to ensure that development is consistent with the surrounding neighbourhood character, makes a positive contribution to the host streetscape, does not cause unreasonable amenity detriment to other properties and is of a high design quality. An assessment against these key policy requirements will be explored through the following Clause 54 Assessment.

Neighbourhood Character and Detailed Design

Wattletree Road is predominately characterised by detached single or double frontage brick and weatherboard dwelings. The dwellings are typically single storey in height; however there are examples of two and three storey infill medium density residential development to the west.

Development along the southern side of the street reserve has occurred at varied setbacks, and there are examples of built form extending deep into the property allotments. In terms of

Page 15


vegetation, the dwellings in the area typically feature landscaped areas within their front and rear setbacks.

The proposed two storey contemporary dwelling is considered to be significantly different in design and form compared to the older dwellings that abut the site. The proposal features a first floor that will be visually prominent as it cantilevers over the ground floor street setback. The proposal features contemporary construction materials such as precast concrete panels, bronze plated steel fin panels, polycarbonate roof sheeting and timber. A two storey building featuring these materials will be noticeable when viewed against the single storey weatherboard cottages that characterise the majority of the street.

The neighbourhood character objective (Standard A1) requires an assessment against the existing or preferred neighbourhood character. Whilst the predominant character of Wattletree Road is derived from older single storey development, the land is well located from a strategic perspective (insofar as its proximity to public transport, services and facilities) and is not encumbered by heritage or neighbourhood character overlay controls that provide more prescriptive design guidance. Consequently, it is expected that over time Wattletree Road will redevelop to feature higher densities commensurate with what state and local policies envisage and encourage in well serviced inner city areas. It is also expected that new development will introduce a wider variety of architectural styles into this urban area. On this basis is it considered the proposed scale and contemporary design of the building is consistent with the preferred neighbourhood character.

As noted above in the ‘proposal’ section, it is unclear as to the proposed materials for the front cantilevered façade. The perspectives seem to indicate bronze steel, whereas the elevations show timber.

With reference to a proposal for timber, this is generally not a robust construction material - particularly on northern elevations - and can decline in appearance quickly. Should a planning permit issue, a planning permit condition will be included seeking the use of the bronze-coated steel fins (or an alternative resilient material) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Other aspects of the proposal, such as the depth to which the built form extends towards the rear of the property, the proposed site coverage, the overall height of the building and the proposed boundary to boundary development are considered to be consistent with the character of this inner city urban area.

The application does not seek permission for a front fence.

Site Layout and Building Massing

Street setback and Integration with the Street

A front setback of 11.081 to the northern wall of the ground living room is proposed. The first floor is setback 7.350m from the street.

80 Wattletree is setback 12.497m from the street and 76 Wattletree is setback 4.847m from the street. Therefore, the standard technically requires a setback of 8.672m, which the proposed setbacks do not comply with. Notwithstanding, the proposed setbacks are considered to be appropriate for the following reasons:

The existing dwelling is setback 6.248m from the street and thus also varies from what is technically required

The Standard requires such a large setback due to setback of 80 Wattletree Road. The setbacks on the southern side of Wattletree Road are varied.

Page 16


The proposed first floor sits at a similar setback to the high gabled and hipped roof forms along the street

Building Height Objective

The building height varies throughout the site due to the slight slope of the land. The maximum building height is 6.52m (RL 55.690) from the lowest natural ground point.

Site Coverage and Permeability

The proposed site coverage is 59.94%. The proposed permeability is 23.7%. These percentages comply with the requirements of Standard A5 and A6.

Energy Efficiency Protection

The proposed dwelling is orientated along a north-south access. Where possible, it features habitable rooms along its northern edge. Additionally, an area of private open space (the front courtyard) will receive direct northerly sun throughout the course of the day.

The proposed dwelling will not unreasonably reduce the energy efficiency of dwellings on adjoining allotments.

Significant Trees

The site does not feature any significant vegetation that will need to be cleared to allow for the proposed development. The proposal features small areas of landscaping within the rear and front setbacks. To increase the contribution that the landscaped area within the front setback makes to the public realm, it is considered appropriate to request the provision of a medium sized tree in the front setback. This will be achieved through a planning permit condition.

Whilst minimalistic, the remainder of the landscaping is considered to be adequate in light of the surrounding neighbourhood character.

It is noted that a landscape plan has been prepared in support of the development. Council’s Parks Department have had a chance to review the plan and are supportive of its endorsement.

Amenity Impacts

Side and Rear Setbacks

It is noted that the proposed boundary development will be assessed against below.

Eastern interface:

The walls located along the eastern side of the dwelling at ground and first floor are located a minimum of 1.5m from the property boundary. The first floor walls vary in height slightly due to the slope in the land, and feature heights of 6.520m to 5.753m. A review of the sections provided also illustrates that the proposal has been slightly excavated to keep the overall height of the development as low as possible.

At a setback of 1.5m, Standard A10 allows for a wall height of approximately 5.28m. Therefore, along the eastern interface, a slight non-compliance is proposed.

The proposal features a long slender first floor, and has been excavated to minimise overall wall heights. Moreover, due to its immediate abuttal with a main road that features a tram line, the

Page 17


subject site falls within a Substantial Change Area as nominated by Clause 21.05 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. Due to the development expectancy of Wattletree Road, the proposed variation is considered to be appropriate.

Western interface:

The walls located along the western side of the dwelling at ground and first floors are setback a minimum of 1.7m from the property boundary. The first floor walls vary in height slightly to due to the slope in the land, and feature heights of 5.76m and 5.472m. The setbacks along this interface comply with the requirements of Standard A10.

Walls on Boundaries

The proposal features boundary development along the eastern and western boundaries.

Along the eastern boundary, the proposed boundary wall length is 10.403 (excluding the wall located adjacent the neighbouring garage. The proposed maximum height of the wall is 3.161m. The proposed height and length of the wall along this interface comply with the requirements of Standard A11 (which requires a maximum average height of 3.2m and a maximum length of 17.24m)

Along the western property boundary, the proposed boundary wall length is 16.72m (excluding the 1.035m of the existing wall that is now technically a fence that abuts the courtyard). Due to the slope in the land, the wall height varies, and features a maximum of 3.288m. Both the length and height of the wall are nominally over what Standard A11 allows. Notwithstanding this, the walls are considered to be appropriate due as they will be located adjacent service areas of the abutting dwelling (76 Wattletree Road). It should be noted that the existing dwelling is also developed along this boundary.

Daylight to Windows

Due to the orientation of the allotment, no north facing windows will be impacted under the proposed conditions.

The dwelling to the east (80 Wattletree Road) features three habitable room windows that are orientated towards the subject site. These windows will be referred to as Window 1, 2 and 3 moving from the front of the dwelling towards the rear. A table exploring the impact on these windows with regard to the requirements of Standard A12 is listed below:

Adjacent wall height

Required Setback

Actual Setback Compliance

Window 1 Ground – N/AFirst – 5.6m 2.8m 3.059m YES

Window 2 Ground – 3.161mFirst – 5.5m

1.58m2.75m

1.473m2.973m

NOYES

Window 3 Ground – 3.02mFirst – 5.5m

1.51m2.75m

1.433m2.933m

NOYES

The proposed boundary walls cause a slight non-compliance along the eastern interface; however the first floor walls comply. The proposed non-compliance is considered to be minor given the development expectancy through this portion of Wattletree Road, and is therefore considered to be appropriate.

Page 18


The dwelling to the west of the site features habitable windows that face the subject site. Due to the setback at first floor of 1.7m (which is greater than the 1.5m setback along the eastern interface) and the window’s setbacks (which are a minimum of 1.457m from the property boundary) the minimum cumulative setback to these windows is 3.157m. At this setback, Standard A12 allows for a height of 6.314m. As the maximum height of the proposed first floor wall along the western side of the dwelling is 6.070m (which is less than 6.314m), it is considered that the proposed first floor complies with the requirements of Standard A12 along this interface.

At ground floor, the two northern most windows, and the southern-most window is located adjacent the proposed ground floor boundary wall. The northern portion of the wall which is adjacent the northern windows features a height of 3.223m, whilst the southern portion of the wall has a height of 3.288m. As these windows are located at a setback of less than 1.5m from the property boundary, a slight Standard A12 non-compliance has resulted. Under the existing conditions, the northern windows are located adjacent a masonry wall which features a height of 4.1m, therefore the proposed impact is considered to be appropriate.

Southern window is associated with a dual aspect room, therefore the impact is considered to be reasonable in this substantial change area.

Overshadowing Open Space

Under the proposed conditions, two properties will be affected by additional overshadowing throughout the day. These include:

The secluded private open space located to the rear of the dwelling to the west (76 Wattletree Road) will be impacted by additional shadow during the early morning hours. The additional shadow will clear shortly after 11am.

The secluded private open space located to the rear of the dwelling to the east (80 Wattletree Road) will be impacted by additional shadow during the late afternoon hours.

The overshadowing standard states:

‘where sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is reduced, at least 75 per cent, or 40 square metres with minimum dimension of 3 metres, whichever is the lesser area, of the secluded private open space should receive a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm on 22 September

If existing sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is less than the requirements of this standard, the amount of sunlight should not be further reduced’

Under the proposed conditions, the requirements of Standard A15 have not been satisfied as the areas adjoining dwellings do not feature 40sqm of unshadowed SPOS for a continuous period of 5 hours throughout the day. As such, the standard requires that these areas not be subject to any additional shadowing throughout the course of the day. It is considered that the benchmark that this standard sets can be difficult to achieve in an inner city urban setting, especially when it is applied to a narrow north-south orientated allotment which is encouraged to accommodate medium density development by state and local planning policies. As allotments develop in line with these policies it is considered almost inevitable that the amenity of the adjoining properties will be compromised to a certain degree.

In this instance, an assessment against the overshadowing objective is considered to be appropriate. The objective seeks ‘to ensure buildings do not significantly overshadow existing

Page 19


secluded private open space areas.’ The proposed conditions are considered to be compliant with this objective for the following reasons:

Whilst the SPOS located to the rear of 76 Wattletree is shadowed during the early morning hours, the area will not be subject to additional shadowing from shortly after 11am. A portion of the affected land is already shadowed under the existing conditions due to the existing dwelling on the subject site and the common boundary fence.

The majority of the shadow that is cast onto 80 Wattletree Road will fall on the service area located along the side of the dwelling. Whilst a minor amount of unshadowed land will be shadowed directly to the south of the dwelling at 3pm, the impact is considered to be appropriate given its strategic and physical setting.

Overlooking

The key assessment tool to determine unreasonable overlooking is the Overlooking Objective, including Standard A15. The standard provides a 9m 45 degree angle arc that determines unreasonable overlooking, and windows or balconies that are located in such a position must be screened to a height of 1.7m above finished floor level accordingly. The Standard does not apply to any overlooking issues from the proposed ground level as the existing and proposed fences will prevent any unreasonable overlooking issues.

A review of each interface of the development is below.

East:

Along the eastern interface four window panels are proposed to be unscreened. Three are associated with a non habitable walkway which is considered to be appropriate from an assessment perspective.

The southern-most window panel of the window associated with Bedroom 2 has not been screened. Due to the proximity of the secluded private open space located to the east of the site, this is considered to be unreasonable. Should a permit issue, a permit condition requiring screening to this window in accordance with the requirements of Standard A15 will be included.

West:

Along the western interface, the windows associated with Bedroom 1, the Laundry and a panel of the Master Bedroom window have been unscreened. The Master Bedroom window will provide views to the roof and the front setback of 76 Wattletree, which are not considered to be sensitive areas. Views from the windows of Bedroom 1 to the adjacent habitable room windows will be obstructed by the ground level boundary wall, and therefore do not need to be screened. The laundry is not a habitable room and does not need to be screened.

South:

The south facing window of Bedroom 2 will provide oblique views to the area of secluded private open space located to the rear of 76 Wattletree Road. Due to the common boundary fence, the views will be largely limited to the south-eastern corner of the area of secluded private open space. Views to this portion of the allotment are not considered to be unreasonable.

No overlooking within 9m will result to the property to the south (24 Egerton Road) due to the right-of-way that separates the properties.

Page 20


It is also noted that whilst the elevations suggest that certain windows have been screened, no information has been provided regarding the form and design of the screening. This will be required by a permit condition, should a planning permit issue.

On-Site Amenity and Facilities

Daylight to New Windows

All proposed habitable room windows will have access to daylight in accordance with the requirements of the standard.

Private Open Space (Including Solar Access)

The proposal features a garden and terrace within the front setback of the site. This area has a cumulative size of approximately 50sqm, which accords with the standards requirements.

The SPOS is well connected to the ground floor living area. The area is devoid of development along its northern edge and will receive direct daylight throughout the course of the day.

Whilst it is uncommon to see the front of a property used as secluded private open space, in this case it is considered to be a well conceived design outcome which will maximise the northern edge of the site. As the property abuts a main road, a higher front fence can be developed as-of-right in the future which would increase the privacy levels of the front garden and terrace.

Access and Traffic

The development features a carport along the southern edge of the site which is accessed via the right-of-way. Although the carport originally housed two vehicle spaces, Council’s Transport Department raised concerns regarding the ability to manoeuvre a second car out of the car port if the first space was occupied.

After a review by the permit applicant, the development was revised to only feature a single space carport to the rear which triggers the need for a car parking dispensation (a three bedroom dwelling features a statutory requirement of two spaces). The dispensation of a single space is considered to be appropriate as the site is located on Wattletree Road which features a tram line. The Dandenong Road tram routes are also within 300m walk of the site, and the Malvern Train Station is located nearby.

The applicant has provided swept path diagrams to indicate that cars are able to enter and exit the rear carport safely. The plans have also been updated to indicate that the minimum headroom at the access point is 2.2m which accords with the relevant Australian Standard.

It is noted that the plans do not specifically note the floor gradient for the parking area, however for a private dwelling with one on-site car park this is considered to be unnecessary.

Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD)

A response to Council’s WSUD policy (Clause 22.18 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme) has been provided in the form of a Melbourne Water STORM Rating Report. The report indicates that the proposed development will feature a rainwater tank with a capacity of 7387L, which achieves a STORM Rating of 107%. The basement plan indicates that the tank will be connected to the landscape watering system and internal plumbing of the dwelling.

This response is considered satisfactory.

Page 21


Human Rights Consideration

This application has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (including the Stonnington Planning Scheme), reviewed by the State Government and which complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

Objections

In response to the grounds of objection not already discussed in the report, the following comments are made:

Reduction in outlook often occurs when more intensive development occurs on a parcel of land that was previously underdeveloped. In this instance, the scale and massing of the proposal is considered to be worthy of support from an assessment perspective.

CONCLUSION

Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons:

The proposal satisfies the relevant provisions of the Stonnington Planning Scheme The development is compatible with the existing and preferred character of Wattletree

Road The development will not have unreasonable impact on the surrounding properties

ATTACHMENTS

1. PD - 0936-13 - 78 Wattletree Road Armadale - 1 of 1 Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 936/13 for the land located at 78 Wattletree Road Armadale be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for the construction of a new dwelling on a lot less than 500 square metres in area and a reduction in the car parking requirements subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development three (3) copies of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the revised plans (TP100, TP101, TP150, TP151, TP250, TP260, TP261, TP300, TP301, TP302, TP303, TP320, TP322, TP321, TP350, TP351, TP352, TP353, TP410, TP500, TP501, TP510) dated 15 April 2014 and the Occulus Landscape Report dated 19 February 2014 but modified to show:

a. Screening of the east facing window of Bedroom 2 in accordance with the requirements of Standard A15.

b. The northern first floor elevation to be clad in bronze-coated steel fins, as shown in the proposed perspectives, or a suitably robust alternative to the satisfaction of the Responsible

Page 22


Authority.

c. Details of the screening as shown on the elevations to a height of 1.7m above finished floor level to ensure compliance with Standard A15.

d. Any changes as required by condition 3.

All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and

works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason (unless the Stonnington Planning Scheme specifies that a permit is not required) without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a landscape plan to be prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The landscape plan must be generally in accordance with the advertised landscape plan (prepared by Oculus Council dated 19 February 2014) but modified to show:

a. A medium sized canopy tree in the front setback to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

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

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

7. A report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared in accordance with that report prior to a building permit being issued.

8. Prior to the occupation of the building, fixed privacy screens (not adhesive film) designed to limit overlooking as required by Standard A15 in accordance with the endorsed plans must be installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority thereafter for the life of the building.

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

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

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

Page 23


NOTES:

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

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

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

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

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

“Significant tree” means a tree:

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

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

c) listed on the Significant Tree Register.

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

Page 24


2 PLANNING PERMIT AMENDMENT 0049/10 - 24 HYSLOP PARADE, MALVERN EAST – SECONDARY CONSENT AMENDMENT APPLICATION TO THE APPROVED PLANS COMPRISING CHANGES TO THE LANDSCAPING AND DRIVEWAY

Acting Statutory Planning Manager: Gareth GaleGeneral Manager Planning & Development: Stuart Draffin

PURPOSE

For Council to consider a Secondary Consent Amendment Application to the approved plans comprising changes to the landscaping and driveway at 24 Hyslop Parade, Malvern East.

Executive Summary

Applicant: David OrlanskiWard: EastZone: Residential 1Overlay: NoneDate lodged: 30 January 2014Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

48

Trigger for referral to Council:

Councillor Call Up

Officer Recommendation: Approval of the Secondary Consent Amendment

BACKGROUND

History

Planning Application No. 49/10 was lodged with Council on 22 January 2010 for the construction of four double-storey dwellings at 24 Hyslop Parade, Malvern East. Council’s Planning Officers supported the application and a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit was issued on 31 August 2010. The owners of 22 Hyslop Parade applied to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) to review Council’s decision. By way of Order dated 9 May 2011, the Tribunal decided to affirm Council’s decision and directed that a permit be issued. Consequently, Permit No. 49/10 was issued on 19 May 2011.

Plans were endorsed on 24 October 2011 to form part of the permit. An amendment application was approved by Council under Secondary Consent on 6 July 2012. The amendment allowed for changes to the Tree Management Plan.

The approved development has been constructed and is now occupied. However, it is noted that there are a number of areas of non-compliance with the endorsed plans, such as the provision of landscaping and a non-permeable driveway. As a result, this amendment application seeks retrospective approval for the changes.

The Proposal

Page 25


The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Memla Pty Ltd and are known as File No.1062, Drawing No. LC Revision D Council date stamped 6th May 2014.

Key features of the proposal are:

Retrospective amendment to the plans to remove five (5) Bush Christmas shrubs lining the western fence line and replacement with three (3) Chinese Star Jasmine plants.

Retrospective amendment to the plans to remove seven (7) Veronica, Hebe plants lining the northern yard boundary of Unit 4 and replacement with three (3) Chinese Star Jasmine plants. A free standing structure has been nominated on the plans to allow the vegetation to grow along the property boundary. This structure has not been built on site and currently there is an existing structure attached to the neighbouring garage wall. The applicant has advised that the existing structure will be removed if this amendment application is supported.

The Capital Pear Tree will remain in the same location (i.e. north-western corner of the subject site) as the original landscape plan and is now proposed to be planted in a planter box. The planter box has not been built on site.

The remaining vegetation along the western property boundary including two (2) Lightwoods and four (4) Giant Hop Bushes will remain in the same location as the original landscape plan and are now proposed to be planted in various sized planter boxes. These planter boxes are built on site.

A step ladder is proposed up to the planter box containing the Capital Pear Tree to allow pedestrian access to the rear gate. The step ladder has not been built on site.

Minor variation to the planting along the northern perimeter adjacent to the master bedroom of Units 2 and 3 to remove fourteen (14) Dianella plants. Two (2) Swan Neck Agave plants will remain and be planted in pots.

Changes to the landscaping in the front setback of Unit 1 comprising the installation of paving and reduction in the number of ground covers.

Removal of the permeable paving to the driveway and replacement with charcoal concrete.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the western side of Hyslop Parade. The site has the following significant characteristics:

The land is zoned Residential 1 and is not affected by any Overlay. The site is regular in shape with a frontage of 16.15m, a depth of 36.58m and an overall

area of approximately 590.8sqm. The allotment contains four two storey dwellings built in response to the issue of Planning

Permit No.49/10, the subject of this amendment application. The site has a fall of approximately 3.65m from the rear north-west corner to the front

south east corner. The site contains some vegetation.

The surrounding area includes:

To the immediate west, the land is zoned Public Park and Recreation. The site comprises the Urban Forrest Reserve, a large area of landscaped public open space.

To the immediate north, east and west, the land is zoned Residential 1. To the south of the site, the adjoining property is developed with a single storey brick

dwelling with a pitched tiled roof. To the north of the site, the adjoining property is developed with a single storey brick

dwelling. Vehicle access to a garage in the rear yard area is provided alongside the

Page 26


common boundary with the subject site. The south facing wall of the garage is located alongside the common boundary, entirely within the parcel of land referred to as 22 Hyslop Parade. The garage wall interfaces with the secluded private open space area of the rear unit on the subject site.

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 11461 Folio 132 on Plan of Subdivision 706324N. No covenants or easements affect the land.

Planning Controls

Condition 2 of Planning Permit No. 49/10 states that ‘the development must be in accordance with the endorsed plans unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority.’

The applicant has sought secondary consent approval for the changes. The tests for deciding whether a development may be altered under a secondary consent provision are set down in Westpoint Corporation Pty Ltd v Moreland CC (Red Dot) [2005] VCAT 1049 and recently updated in Oz Property Group (Flemington) Pty Ltd v Moonee Valley CC (Red Dot) [2014] VCAT 397 when it was held that the following tests must be met:

Do not result in a transformation of the proposal Do not authorise something for which primary consent is required under the planning

scheme Is of no material consequence having regard to the purpose of the planning control under

which the permit was granted Is not contrary to a specific requirement as distinct from an authorisation within the permit,

which itself cannot be altered by consent.

An assessment of the proposal against these points is provided below under Key Issues.

Advertising

Although a number of complaints were received in relation to the non-compliances at 24 Hyslop Parade, the amendment application was not advertised as it was considered that no material consequence would result from the application.

Referrals

Councils Arborist has advised that the landscape plan prepared by Memla Pty Ltd and Council date stamped 6th May 2014 is suitable for endorsement.

KEY ISSUES

The applicant has sought Secondary Consent approval for a number of retrospective changes, including changes to the landscaping and the driveway. It is noted that the proposed plan is not a true reflection of the landscaping currently on site as detailed under the proposal. The applicant initially sought retrospective approval for the as-built landscaping. However the altered landscaping arrangement was raised as a potential concern at an early stage in the amendment process. For instance, the applicant originally sought to remove the Capital Pear Tree in the rear northwest corner of the site, which was not supported by Council’s Planning Officers. The applicant subsequently lodged revised plans dated 6th May 2014 showing the Capital Pear Tree reinstated in the original location within a planter box. Council’s Arborist has reviewed the proposed species, planter box details and associated soil volume and advised that the

Page 27


landscape plan Council date stamped 6th May 2014 is suitable for endorsement. Should the amendment be supported, the landscaping will be required to comply with the approved landscape plan.

An assessment of the proposal against the Westpoint Criteria is provided below. Whilst the revised landscape plan will result in some changes to the landscape treatment of the site, specifically at the rear western interface, it is considered that the effect of the proposed changes will not result in any impact to the neighbouring landowners materially different to that authorised under the approved landscape plan.

Is it a transformation?

No, the proposed amendment does not constitute a transformation of the proposal. The proposed changes are consistent with the permit which allows for a multi-unit residential development.

Does it authorise something that requires primary consent?

No, the proposal does not authorise something that requires primary consent. A permit was issued for a multi-unit residential development and the amendment proposes the same with a variation to the landscaping. There are no new permit triggers.

Will it have a ‘material’ consequential impact? (in regard to the purpose of the planning control under which the permit was granted)

No, the proposed amendments will not have consequential material impact as detailed under Planning Merits below and can therefore be assessed under this mechanism.

Is it contrary to a specific requirement within the permit?

No, the works are consistent with the permit preamble and conditions included within the permit. Importantly, it is noted that the amendment is not at odds with Condition 1(f) which required increased landscaping to the rear (west) boundary by increasing the landscaping strip to the west of the driveway and provision of canopy trees to the western boundary interface. Condition 1(k) also required the submission of a Landscape Plan. However, there were no specific requirements for what should be included in the landscape plan. Condition 8 requires the landscaping works to be completed on site, and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Planning Merits

The changes to the plans are considered in turn below:

Changes to the Landscaping along the Western Boundary

A key change to the landscaping treatment revolves around the western perimeter of the site. The endorsed plans show that the western boundary would be constructed with a 2 metre high paling fence, lined in part with five (5) Bush Christmas shrubs adjacent to a narrow path that is less than 2m in width. In ideal conditions, the Bush Christmas may grow up to 1.5m to 3m above ground level. However, given the narrow width of the planting area and the limited soil volume, there is no certainty as to whether the Bush Christmas shrubs would have grown to maturity to be visible above the 2 metre high fence line. The applicant also advised that during construction, issues arose requiring a drain in this area and subsequently a narrow planting area has been provided along the fence line. The applicant did not plant the Bush Christmas due to the limited soil

Page 28


volume and instead they have been replaced by three (3) Chinese Star Jasmine plants that will grow along the permitter of the fence line. Council’s Arborist has advised that Chinese Star Jasmine is a suitable species to ensure some greenery would appear above the fence line. In addition, the Capital Pear Tree (with a mature height of up to 15m) will remain in the rear northwest corner. Furthermore, the two Lightwoods (with a mature height of up to 10m) and four Giant Hop Bushes (with mature heights of up to 3m) will remain along the rear southwest corner. Given the above, it is considered the proposed changes to the landscaping arrangement along the western boundary would continue to provide an appropriate landscape setting to the rear of the development by virtue of the extent of canopy planting and other greenery appearing above the fence line, particularly when viewed from the rear Urban Forest.

Changes to the Landscaping along the Northern Boundary

The other main change to the landscaping treatment revolves around the western end of the northern boundary of the site. The endorsed plans show that the northern boundary would be constructed in part with a 2 metre high paling fence and in part bounded by the south facing garage wall of 22 Hyslop Parade. The endorsed landscape plan shows the provision of seven (7) Veronica Hebe plants lining this side yard that may grow to a mature height of 1.2m. The current amendment application seeks to replace these plants with three (3) Chinese Star Jasmine that will grow along the permitter of the fence line and provide some greenery above the fence line. On balance, it is considered that the Chinese Star Jasmine would be a suitable replacement species along the northern perimeter of the site because the original landscaping would not have been visible above the fence and the proposed planting will provide additional greenery to this interface.

It is also noted that a free standing structure has been nominated on the plans to allow the Chinese Star Jasmine to grow along the northern property boundary. This differs to the existing conditions on site, where a structure has been attached to the garage wall of 22 Hyslop Parade. Council does not regulate whether a structure is attached to such a wall, rather this is a civil matter. Since no evidence is provided to Council to confirm that the owners of 22 Hyslop Parade have consented to this structure being attached to their wall, the applicant has been requested to provide a free standing structure in this area not exceeding the height of the adjacent boundary fence and boundary wall. The applicant has made these changes to the plans and has advised that the current structure will be removed when this amendment application is approved. It is considered that a free standing structure, not exceeding the height of the adjacent boundary fence and boundary wall, will be a suitable response in order to ensure that there will be no impact to the neighbouring landowners materially different to that authorised under the original approval.

The amendment application also includes minor variations to the landscaping along the middle section of the northern boundary, adjacent to the master bedroom of Units 2 and 3. It is proposed to remove14 Dianella plants (which grow to a mature height of 0.6m). 2 Swan Neck Agave (which grow to a mature height of 0.9m) will still be provided in pots. This change is considered to be acceptable because the original landscaping would not have been visible above the fence line, and Units 2 and 3 are still provided with a garden bed for planting in this area.

Changes to the Landscaping in the Front Setback

With relation to the changes to the landscaping in the front setback of Unit 1, the changes are considered to be of a minor nature and will provide a landscape treatment to that originally proposed.

Page 29


Changes to the driveway

The endorsed plan shows permeable paving to the driveway. However, the driveway on site was constructed in charcoal concrete and therefore impermeable. Concrete driveways are not rare in this neighbourhood and therefore this change will not affect the character of this area. However, the increased impermeable surface will impact on the Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) performance of the development. The endorsed plans show that the development would achieve a 104% STORM rating by the installation of 6,200L water tanks. This rating will drop to around 74% if the driveway is impervious. Whilst this outcome is not ideal, it generally meets the objective of Council’s Stormwater Management Policy at Clause 22.18 for the following reasons:

The original application and the current amendment application were lodged prior to the introduction of Clause 22.18. As a result, it is considered appropriate to apply the policy with discretion.

Each dwelling is provided with a water tank that has a capacity ranging from 1,100L to 2,000L. The water tanks will help to reduce water runoff from the subject site.

Permeability of the subject site is still in compliance with Standard B9 of Clause 55 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. The pervious surface will allow storm water to infiltrate into the ground and mitigate water runoff from the subject site.

In light of the above, it is considered that the proposed amendment meets the objectives of Clause 22.18. However, it is important to make it clear that support of a lower STORM rating in this case should not be taken as general support of lower STORM rating (i.e. less than 100%) for other applications. As stated above, the original application and the amendment application were lodged before the incorporation of Clause 22.18 into the Stonnington Planning Scheme. In addition, water tanks have been installed on site. These are important factors that justify the exercise of the WSUD policy with discretion.

Conclusion

For all the reasons discussed above, it is considered that the proposed changes to the landscaping arrangement and driveway are of an inconsequential variation to meet the Westpoint criteria. Therefore, these changes can be supported under the secondary consent mechanism in the current form.

Human Rights Consideration

This application has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (including the Stonnington Planning Scheme), reviewed by the State Government and which complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

CONCLUSION

Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons:

The proposed changes to the landscaping arrangement will continue to provide an appropriate landscape setting.

The changes do not result in any impact to the neighbouring landowners materially different to that authorised under the original approval.

Page 30


ATTACHMENTS

1. PD - 0049-10 - 24 Hyslop Parade Malvern East - 1 of 1 Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That a Secondary Consent Amendment to Planning Permit No: 0049/10 for the land located at 24 Hyslop Parade, Malvern East be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for changes to the landscaping and driveway.

Endorsed Sheet 6 of 9 to be superseded by the Landscape Plan prepared by Memla Pty Ltd (Project No. 1062, Drawing No. LC Revision D) Council date stamped 6th May 2014

Page 31


3. CRANBOURNE-PAKENHAM RAILWAY CORRIDOR UPGRADE

Manager City Strategy: Susan Price General Manager Sustainable Future: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to update Council on the Cranbourne-Pakenham Railway Corridor Project which is being led by the Department of Planning, Transport and Local Infrastructure (DTPLI) and the Rail Transformation Consortium (RTC).

BACKGROUND

On 6 May 2014, the State Government announced it would allocate up to $2.5 billion to fund the necessary works to upgrade the Cranbourne-Pakenham Railway Corridor (see Attachment 1). The project is supported in the final version of ‘Plan Melbourne’, released on 19 May 2014, as part of the initiative 3.1.2 ‘Move towards a metro-style rail system’ (see Attachment 2).

The RTC is made up of rail network operators MTR Corporation and construction firms John Holland and UGL Rail Services and has put forward this project under the new unsolicited proposals guidelines.

Council Officers were briefed by DTPLI and RTC on 28 May 2014 in relation to the proposed works to increase the capacity of the Cranbourne-Pakenham Railway Corridor by 30 per cent. The project includes works to signalling and four railway stations within Stonnington.

DISCUSSION

Proposed Works

The RTC has provided a brief summary of the project and the works proposed in Stonington City Council these include:

25 new high-capacity trains to service the corridor. The trains are up to 15 metres longer and can carry 20% more passengers, up to 1,100 passengers in total. The trains will be able to brake and accelerate more quickly and will be configured as a single long vehicle to maximise space for passengers as opposed to two sets of three carriages as is the case for existing trains.

High-capacity signalling which relies upon on-board signalling as opposed to conventional fixed signalling along the rail corridor, to allow trains to run closer together and improve reliability. This will result in two new peak hour servers on the corridor to carry more than 4,500 passengers.

Works are required for new power substations and to run a communications network along track for new signalling to operate, and over time works will be required to remove the existing signalling system.

A new dedicated train maintenance depot at Pakenham East, removal of level crossings at Murrumbeena Road, Koornang Road, Clayton Road and Centre Road as well as newly rebuilt stations at Clayton, Murrumbeena and Carnegie.

South Yarra Station: extension of Platform 6 by 15 metres to the north is required to achieve Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliance and accommodate the

Page 33


extended trains. This involves extending the existing brick retaining wall along Yarra Street, and may result in requests for temporary full or part closure of Yarra Street. The proposed 15 metre platform extension is outside the Heritage Overlay and complies with the exemption for buildings and works in the Design and Development Overlay DDO7.

Hawksburn Station: removal of a retaining wall and garden bed (including trees) on the east end of Platform 4, required in order to achieve DDA compliance regarding platform width. Planning approval is required because the buildings and works are in the Heritage Overlay (HO137). The Overlay does not specify tree controls.

Armadale Station: removal of a garden bed and vegetation (including bluestone paving) on the south end of Platform 4, required in order to achieve DDA compliance regarding platform width. Planning approval is required because the buildings and works are in the Heritage Overlay (HO57). The Overlay does not specify tree controls.

Malvern Station: replacing the mirror at the north end of Platform 3 with a SPOT box with cameras, as is seen on other stations. Planning approval is required because the buildings and works are in the Heritage Overlay (HO103). The Overlay does not specify tree controls.

In Stonnington the project works occur in the rail corridor and the land is zoned Public Use Zone 4 – Transport. Planning approval is not required for the use or development of the land for a railway and associated development. Approval is only required where specified by another planning control such as a Heritage Overlay.

Where buildings are listed in the Victorian Heritage Register a separate permission is required from Heritage Victoria.

At this early stage with initial information available, concerns have not been raised by Council’s heritage advisor about changes to heritage fabric at the stations. South Yarra and Malvern Stations are part VHR listed. Further review will be undertaken in the next stages.

Officers have been advised that as this project is fully funded and proceeding ahead of the Melbourne Rail Link project, any planning will take into account proposed alignments of the Melbourne Rail Link project but construction will not coincide.

Timeline

The RTC advised that preferred Tenderers for design and construction will be selected by 15 August 2014 and contract is expected to be awarded by 30 September 2014. The RTC will provide a final price to State Government by 30 September 2014 and construction to commence before the end of 2014.

DTPLI have not finalised the timing, format and extent of consultation for the project. Officers have requested a minimum of eight weeks consultation is preferred, and the opportunity for the community to understand and feed into the proposals. DTPLI have advised that a letter updating the Council on the project will be forwarded shortly.

It is anticipated that construction on the Pakenham East Stabling Yard will commence in December 2014 and all other works from mid-2015 onwards. Works to the Stonnington

Page 34


section of the line and stations are expected in 2016-2017, with the project to be completed in 2019.

Where more detailed material is received, Council will review the material and may prepare a submission for a future Council meeting. Council officers have initially outlined Council’s intent to pursue improved services and an additional entrance to South Yarra station via Yarra Street given the extensive growth the area is accommodating. This would be further advocated as part of a future submission.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The Cranbourne-Pakenham Railway Corridor Project is supported in the final version of the Metropolitan Planning Strategy – ‘Plan Melbourne’.

Any works and development within Stonnington should take into account Council’s Planning Scheme including heritage policy, as well as Structure Planning.

Chapel reVision

South Yarra station is specifically cited as a Strategic Response Site within the Toorak Road Central South Yarra Sidings Neighbourhood Precinct Plan (NPP), which forms part of the draft Structure Plan.

The NPP identifies that there are Opportunities to improve access to the South Yarra Train Station as below:

Movement Opportunity RationalEncourage improvements to South Yarra Station including improved access from Toorak Road and Yarra Street.

This South Yarra Station is one of the most highly utilised stations in Stonnington. It is a premier interchange station and improved access is required to cater for patron numbers.

Advocate for a modal interchange at South Yarra station and real time information to provide a more efficient and effective public transport network.

Provide a tram/train interchange at South Yarra station with the latest technology in real time information.

Strategic Response Site RationalSouth Yarra Station: Advocate for new entries into the South Yarra Station.

Provide new entries into the South Yarra Station.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

The cost of the proposed works is funded by the State Government budget. No additional funding is expected to be required from Stonnington as a result of this project.

CONCLUSION

The State Government has recently announced the upgrade to the Cranbourne-Pakenham Rail Corridor to increase capacity which will result in some works to stations in Stonnington that require planning approval. Where more information is provided, and consultation is sought, officers will bring a report back to Council.


Page 35



ATTACHMENTS

1. 10-06-14 - Cranbourne-Pakenham Railway Corridor Project - Attachment 1 of 2

Excluded

2. 10-06-14 - Cranbourne-Pakenham Railway Corridor Project - Attachment 2 of 2

Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council notes the update on the Cranbourne-Pakenham Railway Corridor.

Page 36


4. AMENDMENT C177 – ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT– LOCAL PLANNING POLICY – CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PANEL AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT


PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the recommendations of the Panel and Advisory Committee on Amendment C177 – Environmentally Sustainable Development Local Planning Policy, and decide whether to adopt the amendment with or without changes.

BACKGROUND

The Cities of Stonnington, Banyule, Moreland, Port Phillip, Whitehorse and Yarra (the Joint Councils) have prepared planning scheme amendments to introduce a new Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) local policy into their respective planning schemes. For Stonnington, this is Amendment C177. The Amendment also includes changes to the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) to reference the local policy and a minor change to Clause 22 – Local Planning Policies, to include the local policy.

ExhibitionAmendment C177 was placed on public exhibition for one statutory month between 4 April and 6 May 2013. Exhibition included: Amendment documents available for viewing at Prahran Town Hall, Council’s website

and Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (DTPLI) website. Notice in the Stonnington Leader. Notice in the Government Gazette. Advertisement in the Leader encouraging residents to make a submission. Letters sent to Prescribed Authorities, Surrounding Councils, ESD consultants regularly

working in Stonnington, regular Stonnington Applicants, letters to specific stakeholders (which the other Councils were required to notify).

SubmissionsIn total, Council received eleven submissions. These were from other Councils, individuals, private sector organisations and peak bodies representing built environment stakeholders. Two submissions were in full support of the Amendment, three submissions objected to the Amendment, four submissions supported the intent of the Amendment but sought changes.

The other Councils received additional submissions that were not sent to Stonnington. These submissions were also considered in addition to Stonnington submissions at the Council Meeting on 22 July 2014.

At this meeting, Council resolved to (in summary): Request the Minister for Planning to appoint a Panel to hear all submissions and

consider the proposed Amendment. Note that the Minister for Planning had appointed a combined Panel and Advisory

Committee to consider the ESD Amendments of the Joint Councils. Note the Advisory Committee Terms of Reference. Advise the submitters to proposed Amendment C177 of Council’s decision. Refer all submissions and any late submissions to the combined Panel and Advisory

Committee. Adopt the Stonnington Sustainable Design Assessment in the Planning Process

(SDAPP) 10 Key Sustainable Buildings Categories Fact Sheet Suite and notes that it

Page 37


may be subject to change in the future, and allow delegation of those changes to be made by Officers.

Combined Panel and Advisory CommitteeOn 19 June 2013, Council received notification that the Minister for Planning had appointed a combined Panel and Advisory Committee (PAC) to consider the submissions and make recommendations on a Statewide approach to ESD.

The Hearing was held over six (6) days, between 25 November and 9 December 2013. The Panel members included Nick Wimbush (Chair), Ian Coles, Gaye McKenzie and Sue Porter.

The Joint Councils were represented by Juliet Forsyth (Barrister) and called four (4) expert witnesses and two (2) Council witnesses.

Submissions were also made by DTPLI, Building Designers Association of Victoria, Council Alliance for a Sustainable Built Environment, Housing Industry Association, Urbis, Colonial First State, Salta Properties, GIW Environmental Solutions, Australand Holdings, Ark Resources, Office of the Victorian Government Architect, Cities of Darebin, Kingston and Mornington Peninsula Shire Council.

DISCUSSION

The PAC Report was received by Council on 7 April 2014 (refer to Attachment 1). The Joint Councils publically released the Report concurrently on 17 April 2014. Stonnington Council sent letters to all C177 submitters advising them of the availability of the Report on Council’s website.

The PAC Report discusses the broader issues around sustainable development in the planning and building systems and detailed comments on the Amendments as exhibited by the Joint Councils.

In summary the PAC considers that a Statewide approach is the best way to facilitate the increased focus on sustainability. In the interim, the PAC is supportive of the six Amendments. The reports states on page 50:

The Committee acknowledges the Amendment Councils have developed these policies in response to a lack of a Statewide approach and are to be commended for their vision and commitment... even if a Statewide policy is introduced, local policies may still be appropriate where municipalities seek to ‘raise the bar higher’ either in specific locations, or where the community has higher sustainability expectations.

The Report outlines twenty-six (26) findings (listed a-z) on pages 101 to 102, including (but not limited to): The range of tools available is appropriate to assist in assessing the environmental

impact of residential and commercial development. There is a strong legislative and policy framework that supports the need for

sustainable development and which recognises that both planning and building have a significant role to play in achieving it.

Achieving sustainability in planning and development should be undertaken using the most efficient mechanisms to minimise cost to consumers and industry.

There is a role and a statutory obligation for planning to advance sustainability. Whilst the existing State Planning Policy Framework and Victoria Planning Provisions

provide a good starting point for the inclusion of sustainability, there are clear areas for improvement.

A Statewide approach to sustainability in planning would be the most effective way to achieve the greatest sustainability outcomes; however, there is still a potential role for local policies to play in achieving greater local sustainability outcomes.

Page 38


There is a clear need for an integrated planning and building approach to achieve sustainable outcomes.

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

The proposed Local Policies are unlikely to impose an unreasonable regulatory cost burden on applicants.

The approach to sustainability in planning schemes be further reviewed to provide a more coherent, strengthened approach to implementation. This should be based on a Statewide approach and include stronger, higher guidance in the State Planning Policy Framework and Clause 65, as a minimum, with consideration of a range of options.

The use of Local Policies until such time as a Statewide approach is developed should be supported, with the inclusion of a sunset clause.

The PAC also comments on the increasing success of Councils participating in the voluntary Sustainable Design Assessment in the Planning Process (SDAPP), and the need to move beyond being a voluntary initiative.

The Report gives ten (10) recommendations on page 103, including: Adopt Stonnington Planning Scheme Amendment C177 generally as exhibited with the

Local Policy wording as shown in Appendix D of this report [the PAC has recommended some changes to the wording of the exhibited policy including: changes for large non-residential development, the inclusion of a ‘Best Practice’ definition and changing the policy title to ‘Environmentally Sustainable Development’.

Including the Sustainable Design Assessment in the Planning Process (SDAPP) Fact Sheets in the local policies as reference documents.

The development of a single consistent set of Fact Sheets be considered by the Joint Councils and the Municipal Association of Victoria.

It should be noted that at the Hearing, the Joint Councils tabled an updated version of the local policy for consideration. The updates were recommended by the Joint Councils’ expert witnesses and Advocate and sought to clarify matters. The updates were generally consistent with Stonnington’s policy position (as expressed in the Council Report on 22 July 2013 that considered submissions).

The PAC used this version of the policy as the basis for its recommendations.

Recommended changes to the local policy wording - large non-residential development Colonial First State Global Asset Management Pty Ltd (Colonial) was represented at the PAC. While supporting the Amendments in principle, Colonial raised a number of concerns, particularly in relation to the threshold requirement for a Sustainability Management Plan (SMP) for large scale non-residential development, where an existing sustainability framework exists.

Colonial’s submission focused on Chadstone Shopping Centre which has an Incorporated Plan Overlay (IPO2). Attached to the IPO is an ESD Framework requiring that applications for permits for development of more than 5000sqm include a Sustainability Management Plan.

Colonial does not consider it reasonable, under the terms of the IPO and the approved ESD Framework for Stonnington, to require an SMP for an application to extend by less than 5000sqm.

In considering this issue the PAC found that if a shopping centre or other large non-residential development has in place an approved site specific sustainability framework, then it is reasonable that expansion or redevelopment within the framework need not be subject to the particular requirements of the ESD Policy.

Page 39


The PAC has recommended that the suggested text provided by Colonial be included in the local policies. This means that the application requirements of the local policy do not apply to alterations or extensions to existing non-residential developments over 20,000sqm gross floor area if an ESD plan or framework:

Has been approved by the Responsible Authority

Sets out environmental targets or performance standards for that development that have the capacity to satisfy the objectives of this policy; and

Set out specific ESD assessment requirements for future permit applications in respect of that development.

It is considered that there is very little to gain from pursuing the issue of ESD in relation to less than 5000 square metre developments, that pursuing this may have some impact on slowing down consideration of the main part of the amendment and that there are likely to be few instances where applications are made for less than 5000 square metres of floor space. This position is consistent with the views adopted by the other joint councils.

It is recommended that Council accepts the Panel’s recommendation on this matter given the strategic benefits of progressing Amendment C177 through to adoption and approval.

Legislative requirements In accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Council can choose to adopt the amendment without changes, adopt the amendment with changes or abandon the amendment.

If Council adopts the Amendment in a form contrary to the Panel recommendation, Council must give its reasons. Ultimately, it is the Minister who will approve the Amendment. Council needs to provide strong strategic justification for any variations from the Panel’s recommendations.

Adoption of Amendment C177 with changesIt is recommended that Council supports the PAC’s recommendations including the changes to the wording of the local policy.

Officers from the Joint Councils are recommending a consistent approach in supporting the PAC’s recommendations and adopting the Amendment with changes including minor wording changes to the local policy as recommended by the PAC.

Amendment C177 also includes updates to the MSS. Since exhibition of the Amendment and the combined Panel and Advisory Committee, a revised MSS has been introduced into the Stonnington Planning Scheme (via Amendment C161). This means that as part of Amendment C177, further changes are required to the MSS to align with its new format. The policy content for adoption is generally consistent with what was exhibited.

A minor change is also required to Clause 22 – Local Planning Policies since exhibition. The change is to update the title of the local policy.

Refer to Attachment 2 for a copy of the documents for adoption.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The Amendment is consistent with the environmental elements of the Council Plan 2013-2017.

It is also consistent with strategies contained in the MSS.


The costs of processing the Amendment have been included in the 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 Strategic Planning budget.

Page 40


Amendment C177 timeline:April 2013 May 2013 Nov/Dec 2013 June 2014 Aug 2014

Authorisation Exhibition Panel Adoption Approval

LEGAL ADVICE & IMPLICATIONS

The Amendment is consistent with policy direction in the Stonnington Planning Scheme. All affected parties have been given the opportunity to make submissions on the Amendment and be able to be heard by the PAC.

CONCLUSION

Amendment C177 proposes to introduce a new Clause 22.22 ESD Local Policy into the Planning Scheme and make minor changes to the MSS and Clause 22 – Local Planning Policies.

Stonnington is one of six Councils progressing ESD Amendments concurrently.

The Minister appointed a combined Panel and Advisory Committee (PAC) to consider submissions and the Amendments.

The PAC has recommended that Amendment C177 be adopted with changes to the wording of the local policy.

It is recommended that Council adopts Amendment C177 with changes as recommended by the PAC.

With the support of the PAC, Council is now well positioned to seek approval from the Minister for Planning, and pave the way for Statewide planning reform.



ATTACHMENTS

1. ATTACHMENT 1 of 2 - Amendment C177 Panel Report Excluded

2. ATTACHMENT 2 of 2 - Amendment C177 Documents for Adoption Excluded

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Notes the key findings and recommendations given in the Advisory Committee and Panel report in Attachment 1, dated 7 April 2014.

2. On considering the Advisory Committee and Panel report, adopts Amendment C177 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme in line with the recommendations made by the Panel and Advisory Committee (pursuant to Section 29(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987) as shown in Attachment 2.

3. Submits the adopted Amendment C177 to the Minister for Planning for approval in accordance with Section 31(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

4. Supports concurrent requests for approval by the Joint Councils which

Page 41


include the Cities of Stonnington, Banyule, Moreland, Port Phillip, Whitehorse and Yarra.

5. Advises all submitters of Council’s decision in relation to proposed Amendment

C177.

Page 42


5. PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENTS C199 & C201 - PERMANENT HERITAGE PROTECTION FOR 24 GRANGE ROAD, TOORAK - UPDATE


PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to update Council on the demolition application for 24 Grange Road Toorak and the status of the interim heritage request and permanent heritage control proposed for the property. The report also provides Council with a detailed history of the heritage significance of 24 Grange Road, Toorak, subsequent to the 5 May 2014 Council report.

BACKGROUND

This report is preceded by a report to Council on 5 May 2014, seeking a Council resolution to endorse a request to the Minister for Planning to seek interim heritage protection and obtain authorisation for permanent heritage protection for 24 Grange Road, Toorak. The timeline of events leading to this request is provided below:

On 16 April 2014, Council received a request under Section 29A of the Building Act 1992 for Report and Consent on Proposed Demolition for 24 Grange Road, Toorak. Under the demolition regulations, Council can suspend consideration of the application for demolition if it considers the building to be of heritage significance. This must be done by requesting the Minister for Planning to prepare an amendment to the Planning Scheme within 15 business days of the receipt of the application.

DTPLI has advised Council in the past that, given the intervention to introduce an interim control is an extraordinary use of the Minister’s powers, Council must demonstrate a sense of urgency and be willing to expedite a planning scheme amendment to introduce a permanent Heritage Overlay for this dwelling. The intention behind this is to balance the requirement for heritage protection with the obligation to provide natural justice to the owner of the place at 24 Grange Road, Toorak by ensuring that an amendment to introduce a permanent Heritage Overlay to the site is prepared and exhibited as soon as possible.

Council’s Heritage Advisor undertook an initial review of the heritage significance of the place and recommendations of previous studies. Council’s Heritage Advisor suggested that:

Council prepare documentation and seeks protection for the building under a Heritage Overlay on the basis of the existing Panel decision [L47D]. This is a building whose significance has been thoroughly tested and is not in doubt.

On 2 May 2014, Council wrote to the Minister for Planning to request preparation of an Amendment (C199) to include 24 Grange Road Toorak in a Heritage Overlay on an interim basis. On the 4 June 2014, Council received written advice from the Minister’s delegate that the request has been refused.

On 5 May 2014, Council considered a report on 24 Grange Road Toorak to endorse Amendment C199 to provide interim heritage protection and pursue Amendment C201 to provide permanent heritage protection for the subject site.

On 6 May 2014, Council suspended consideration of the Section 29A of the Building Act 1992 for Report and Consent on Proposed Demolition on the basis that Council was pursuing heritage controls for the site.

Page 43


Also, on 6 May 2014, Council wrote to the Minister for Planning to request authorisation to prepare Amendment C201 to introduce permanent heritage controls. Council commissioned Bryce Raworth Pty to prepare a citation for 24 Grange Road, Toorak. Council was advised on 16 May 2014 that Council may prepare the amendment ‘without authorisation’ after 20 May 2014.

On 14 May 2014, following receipt of Council’s decision to suspend consideration of the section 29A application, Council officers met with the prospective purchaser of the property, and their planning representative. At this meeting, officers agreed to further brief Council on the following:

The previous Council resolution of Amendment L47D.

The title particulars, highlighting the covenant details.

The structural integrity of the building (subject to receiving a structural report from the prospective purchaser.

A site meeting was undertaken on 19 May 2014, to inspect the internal condition of the building. Council’s heritage Advisors (Bryce Raworth and John Statham) and a Council Officer attended this inspection. Council has also received an objecting submission from the vendor (refer Attachment 1) who raises additional information in relation to historical Council reports that Officers have updated Council on.

On 26 May, Councillors were briefed on the full history of the site and requested that officers seek further independent heritage advice from a consultant that was not involved in the previous L47 Panel Hearing.

On 6 June 2014, Council received written advice from the Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (DTPLI), under delegation from the Minister for Planning, that the Council’s request for Ministerial intervention to apply interim heritage controls to 24 Grange Road, Toorak has been refused. The letter states:

“I am not satisfied that the building is so significant as to warrant the extraordinary use of the Minister’ s powers to intervene”.

On 17 June 2014, the building surveyor for 24 Grange Road was advised in writing that the suspension on consideration of the building application for demolition has been lifted.

DISCUSSION

Ministerial consideration of an interim Heritage Overlay requestDTPLI has verbally advised that a request to introduce an interim Heritage Overlay (following an application for demolition or redevelopment) is more likely to be supported where the protection of the building is currently being exhibited as part of a permanent planning scheme amendment to introduce heritage controls. The intervention to introduce an interim Heritage Overlay is to protect the integrity of the planning scheme amendment process until it can be dealt with by a Panel or Council. In refusing the request for interim heritage controls, the DTPLI’s letter referred to Council’s intentions to address the gap in heritage controls in terms of protection of interwar dwellings which includes the property at 24 Grange Road. Council is shortly to commence its heritage assessment of 50 interwar properties as part of an Interwar Houses Study. (See discussion below).

Section 29A Demolition RequestsSections 29A and 29B of the Building Act were introduced in 2000. These sections enable the suspension of certain applications for a building permit for demolition, pending an amendment to the planning scheme. This legislation was introduced as a safety-net to ‘stop

Page 44


the clock’ on a building permit for demolition until an assessment can be made as to whether a Heritage Overlay should be introduced.

In the case of 24 Grange Road, an interim request for heritage controls was sought and, demolition was then suspended. Once the interim request is determined, however, Council must advise the building surveyor “without delay” that the request has been refused or approved. The building surveyor was advised that the suspension of consideration of the demolition request has been lifted, in writing on 17 June 2014. This means that the building can now be demolished.

The remainder of this report provides the detailed planning history pertaining to 24 Grange Road, Toorak, in particular all relevant Council reports that refer to Amendment L47D as it relates to the heritage status of the place at 24 Grange Road. Within the time frame, officers have sought to retrieve all relevant planning reports that refer to this Amendment. This planning history will help to inform Council as to what the next steps should be in respect of Amendment C201.

Previous Council Resolution, 19 June 2000 – Amendment L47D Council has previously considered the application of an individual Heritage Overlay for the site at 24 Grange Road, Toorak through Amendment L47D.

Amendment L47D proposed 149 individual buildings assessed to have heritage significance, be included in the Stonnington Planning Scheme with a Heritage Overlay on a permanent basis. These properties were already included in a Heritage Overlay on an interim basis (via Amendment L58).

As part of exhibition, no objection was received by 40 owners of the above properties, and these were then included in the Heritage Overlay on a permanent basis.

For various reasons, a further 23 properties were excluded during consideration of the amendment. The remaining properties were included in two parts of the Amendment, Parts D and B, both of which were being separately considered by an independent panel.

The property at 24 Grange Road Toorak, was considered in Part D of the Amendment (L47D).

Panel Hearing for Amendment L47D – 24 Grange Road, Toorak The Amendment was referred to an independent Panel for consideration in March 2000. Two heritage consultants provided expert evidence to the Panel.

Mr Allan Willingham, heritage advisor, acting for the then property owner of 24 Grange Road Toorak was called to give expert evidence with regards to the merits of including the building in a Heritage Overlay.

The Panel report provides a summary of Mr Willingham’s evidence (refer Attachment 2) which noted the changes to the building’s original fabric arising from a major renovation undertaken in 1937. Mr Willingham also submitted recent photographs of the building, claiming that the building and the site were in a state of dilapidation and poor maintenance. In Summary, Mr Willingham’s evidence stated that the cultural heritage significance assessment supporting the inclusion of 24 Grange Road, Toorak in the Stonnington Planning Scheme, was been made without the benefit of detailed research, a thorough inspection and appraisal of the integrity of the existing building fabric, and a comparative analysis with buildings of similar style in the Melbourne area and in Stonnington.

In response to this evidence, Council’s heritage advisor (Bryce Raworth) put to the Panel that the changes to the building during c.1937 did not detract in any way from the significance of the building.

Page 45


Subsequently, the Panel recommended that No. 24 Grange Road, Toorak be included in Amendment L47D and that the Statement of Significance be amended to acknowledge the 1937 changes and their significance (refer Attachment 3 for L47D - Part 2).

Council Report for Amendment L47D – 17 April 2000A report taken to Council on 17 April 2000 (following receipt of the Panel report) considered the recommendations of the Panel. At this meeting, Council resolved to invite owners of properties in L47D to meet individually with Council, in accordance with resolution 2 dated 16 August 1999 which stated:

Council invites the owners of properties included in L47 to individually meet with the Council to review the panel report and consider the merits of the heritage listing having regard to the individual circumstances of the owner and the property. In this review the Council will have specific regard to wider issues that are not necessarily normally considered by a panel.

Following these meetings, Council considered a report on Amendment L47D on 19 June 2000. Council resolved to (in summary)

1. That the Council adopts Amendment L47 Part D – 2 in relation to the following properties... for inclusion in the existing Stonnington Planning Scheme and as proposed for inclusion in the Heritage Overlay to the new format planning scheme.

2. That the above Amendment L47 Part D – 2 is referred to the Minister for Planning for approval.

3. That the Council abandons the following properties from Amendment L47 Part D – 2... 24 Grange Rd Toorak.

4. That Council advises the submitters of the Council’s decision.

The full resolution is provided at Attachment 4, and includes the full list of properties considered by Council. Excluding 24 Grange Road Toorak from the Amendment was contrary to the Panel’s recommendation.

On 13 December 2000, Council wrote to all affected parties advising them that the Amendment had been approved and whether their land had been included in the Heritage Overlay.

The following advice was provided to the then owner of 24 Grange Road, Toorak.

The Minister’s approval, in effect, removes your property completely from the Heritage Overlay in the Planning Scheme, including its ‘interim protection’ classification, by way of Amendment L47D to the scheme. The heritage overlay designation has also been removed from the planning scheme maps.

The letter sent to the owner of 24 Grange Road, Toorak is included as Attachment 5.

Title particulars

Page 46


24 Grange Road Toorak is located on the corner of Grange Road and Trawalla Avenue. It comprises two lots identified on Certificate of Title as Lots 17 & 18 on PS9250 (Volume 4835 Folio 966834 and Volume 4835 Folio 966833 respectively).

The dwelling is located in the centre of the site, straddling both titles. Each title is affected by a covenant stating, in summary, that ‘only one dwelling may be erected on the said land’. This reduces future development potential while the covenant is in place.

It should be noted that officers do not normally provide information on covenants in consideration of heritage amendments as this is not a consideration for heritage protection.

Structural IntegrityThe prospective purchaser has provided recent photographs of the building (refer to Attachment 6) to officers and asserts that the building is not structurally sound. On his own accord, the prospective purchaser has advised that he is obtaining a structural report and will make this available to Council. This has not been received.

It should be noted that structural integrity is not a relevant planning criteria for determining heritage significance and inclusion into the Planning Scheme.

Heritage Citation for 24 Grange Road Toorak (prepared for Amendment C201) The original citation (undated) prepared for Amendment L47D stated that 24 Grange Road Toorak was of high regional significance and should be added to the schedule to the Heritage Overlay and nominated for inclusion on the Australian Heritage Commission list.

In response to the recent S29A request, Council engaged its heritage advisor to prepare a citation for the building. This citation has been prepared and completed following the site inspection on 14 May 2014. Refer to Attachment 7 for the Heritage Citation (2 June 2014). The citation confirms the initial advice and supports the heritage protection of the site.

Further Heritage Advice for 24 Grange Road Undertaken on behalf of the owner (vendor) 24 Grange Road, Toorak

Council has received a Heritage Review undertaken by heritage consultant John Briggs on behalf of the owners of 24 Grange Road, Toorak. The report review’s Allan Willingham’s evidence prepared for the L47 Panel hearing which does not support the proposed application of the Heritage Overlay. It is noted that the review does not consider the Panel’s findings in the L47D Panel report.

The John Briggs heritage Review is included as Attachment 8.

Heritage Advice on behalf of the prospective purchaser

Council has received additional Heritage advice undertaken by heritage consultants RBA Architects on behalf of the prospective purchaser of 24 Grange Road, Toorak. In conclusion, the advice received states that due to considerable alteration and deterioration of the constituent building fabric, that the building is not individually significant and does not warrant inclusion in a Heritage Overlay. The advice from RBA Architects forms Attachment 9.

Heritage assessment commissioned by Council

At the request of Councillors, officers commissioned a heritage advisor to undertake a subsequent investigation for the property at 24 Grange Road. Councillors requested advice from a heritage expert that was not involved historically with the L47 Panel hearing to provide an independent view. Officers commissioned heritage consultant Robyn Riddett from Athanauem consultants, who was able to undertake a site visit on Tuesday 4 June. Robyn’s citation forms Attachment 10 to this report. The citation recommends individual heritage protection for

Page 47


the subject site. Heritage Strategy Action Plan (2006)Following earlier criticism by Panels on heritage matters, Council prepared a heritage Strategy Action Plan which was adopted by Council in December 2006. The action plan followed the preparation of Council’s Thematic Environment History 2006 (TEH) and was designed to provide Council with a sound framework for a comprehensive and coordinated review of existing heritage places, the assessment of new places and subsequent implementation through heritage controls.

Council adopted a Final Precinct Gap Study in March 2009. This provided the basis for the roll-out of amendments to the Planning Scheme to include additional precincts in the Heritage Overlay. Since then, 33 new and extended residential precincts and five new and extended commercial precincts have been included with permanent heritage protection in the Planning Scheme.

The current state of Council’s Heritage Strategy addresses the issue of individual residential buildings not currently under the heritage overlay. Council intends to seek heritage controls for all A1 graded buildings in the Municipality and those A2 graded buildings meeting or exceeding the threshold of local significance. In implementing this part of its Heritage Strategy, Council has grouped individual buildings thematically, linking to themes contained in the Thematic Environmental History. Council has investigated several themes such as churches and halls, hotels, shops, and chimneys and progressed these to planning scheme amendments which are now complete.

Around 300 dwellings have been identified for review under the theme groups of Inter-war, Victorian, Federation and Post-war. Until these studies progress to planning scheme amendments there is an ongoing risk that some residential buildings of heritage significance may be lost.

Interwar Houses Study – Initial Study

The first Gap Study to be undertaken for residential dwellings is for the Interwar houses. An initial stage of the Interwar Study has been completed. A comprehensive preliminary list of interwar dwellings has been identified which establishes a reasonable prima facie case for heritage control. This list will form the basis of the next stages of the Study which will produce a refined list of dwellings and the preparation of citations and Statements of Significance to form the basis of heritage controls. Council will progress the next stage of this Study in the coming months. 24 Grange Road, Toorak has been identified on the Interwar Houses Study list. Once Council has completed the study and exhibits an amendment to protect the identified interwar houses, it is much more likely that the Minister will approve requests for interim protection of these dwellings if threatened by demolition. The rationale behind approving interim requests is to protect the integrity of the planning scheme amendment process until it can be dealt with by a Panel or council.

Previous Council Decisions on Heritage Protection of Individual Buildings

This review of 24 Grange Road has highlighted that a number of the dwellings identified on the preliminary list of the Interwar Study (as well as Victorian and Edwardian dwellings) have already been considered through previous Amendments and Panels (including L47D). These places (dwellings) may have been determined to fall below the threshold of local significance or, alternatively have been recommended for inclusion by a Panel and subsequently rejected by Council.

Given the progress Council has made in its Heritage Strategy Action Plan, it may be appropriate to reconsider these properties. In the instance that a s29a is lodged for a building on the preliminary list, Officers will continue to bring these before Council for consideration. Where time permits, this would be within the 15 days that Council has to consider a s29a,

Page 48


however Officers have delegation to pursue heritage controls via a planning scheme amendment. Where a report is not brought before Council within the 15 days, a report would still subsequently be brought to Council to consider and endorse Officer’s action.

Permanent Heritage Controls (Amendment C201)

Given that the interim request for heritage controls has been refused and suspension of the consideration of the demolition of 24 Grange Road has been lifted, the question for Council is whether or not to continue to pursue permanent heritage controls for the subject site given that the dwelling may be demolished.

Despite the Minister’s refusal, it is still considered that the dwelling is highly individualistic, significant and worthy of permanent protection in the planning scheme. The two detailed heritage assessments commissioned by Council confirm the building’s significance. It has been identified as standing out as being of high aesthetic character and unique in its design within a range of comparable dwellings.

Whilst Council is unable to prevent the potential demolition of the building, it is considered that there is still merit in pursuing the permanent heritage controls for the site pursuant to Amendment C201 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme. If the building is demolished, however, Amendment C201 could no longer be supported.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Amendment C199 and C201 are part of the Implementation of Council’s adopted Heritage Strategy Action Plan.

The Amendments are consistent with policy direction in Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement:

Protect and enhance all places which are significant and contributory to the heritage values of the City of Stonnington (Clause 21.06-10 – Objective 1)

Protect and reinforce Stonnington’s distinctive built form character, in particular identified places and precincts of heritage significance (Clause 21.06-1 – Objective 1.1)

The Amendments are consistent with the following liveability strategy in the Council Plan (2013-2017):

Preserve Stonnington’s heritage architecture and balance its existing character with complementary and sustainable development.


The financial cost of heritage investigations and planning scheme amendments has been included in the budget of Council’s Strategic Planning Unit for 2013/2014.


The owners of 24 Grange Road Toorak would be able to make submissions to Council during the exhibition process and then to an independent panel on the permanent planning controls via Amendment C201.

CONCLUSION

Further to the Council report on 5 June 2014 on 24 Grange Road Toorak, Officers agreed to further brief Council on the previous Council resolution of Amendment L47D, title particulars

Page 49


and structural integrity of the building as well as provide detailed heritage advice. Council has also been advised of the Minster’s decision to refuse Council’s request for interim heritage controls and the subsequent lifting of the suspension of consideration of the request for demolition. Having outlined these matters, it is recommended that Council continues to pursue permanent heritage protection for 24 Grange Road Toorak in line with the Council resolution of 5 May 2014.



ATTACHMENTS

1. 23-06-14 - C199 and C201 - Attach 1 of 10 Excluded










RECOMMENDATIONThat Council reaffirms its resolution of 5 May 2014 in pursuing permanent heritage protection for 24 Grange Road, Toorak.

Page 50


6. BURKE ROAD GLEN IRIS LEVEL CROSSING REMOVAL - RAIL UNDER


PURPOSEThe purpose of this report is to update Council on recent activities regarding the State Government (VicRoads) Burke Road Level Crossing project.

BACKGROUNDOn 16 December 2013, VicRoads briefed Council in relation to two options that had been put forward for the Burke Road level crossing as part of their business case to Government. The two options were rail under road and road over rail. Council endorsed the rail under road option as their preferred option and wrote to the Minister for Public Transport and the Minister for Roads to express Council’s preferred option.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

In preparing their business case VicRoads consulted with the local community and sought feedback through an online survey and three (3) community information sessions. 834 people completed the survey and 143 people partially completed the survey. The community information sessions were held at St Andrew’s Uniting Church Parish Hall at 1560 Malvern Road, Glen Iris. The table below details when the sessions were held and how many people attended.

Date Time AttendanceWednesday 6 November 2013

2-4pm 150+

Wednesday 6 November 2013

6-8pm 150+

Saturday 9 November 2013 9am-12noon 105

The key findings of VicRoads consultation were:

99% (976 people) of survey respondents thought the level crossing should be removed

25% (239 people) of survey respondents lived within 400 metres of the level crossing

22% of the survey respondents attended the Community Information Sessions

87.5% (855 people) of the survey respondents supported the rail under option with development opportunities with 60.6% supporting the rail under option with no development opportunities and 30.6% supported the road over option.

DISCUSSIONOn 2 May 2014, the Treasurer and the Minister for Public Transport announced that the State Government would fully fund the removal of the level crossing at Burke Road, Glen Iris in the 2014-2015 Victoria Budget (see Attachment 1). The State Government has committed to having this level crossing removed by mid 2017. Construction is anticipated to occur between August and April with VicRoads to confirm whether this will be 2015/16 or 2016/17 once their procurement process is complete later in 2014. Construction typically takes 12 months.

Page 51


The removal of the level crossing will be achieved by a rail under road solution. This is Council’s preferred option and advocated position.

VicRoads has provided a functional layout plan for discussion with Council (see Attachment 2) which show:

Lowering the rail line below Burke Road Constructing a new station, concourse and platforms west of Burke Road with

access via stairs and lifts Creating a new forecourt at the entrance to the station on the corner of Burke Road

and Carroll Crescent Consolidating three tram stops into one centre island platform stop opposite the new

station entrance Constructing a new station car park, which will provide the existing number of

spaces as a minimum.

VicRoads have advised Council that as part of developing the business case for the level crossing project, potential “Value Capture” development sites within the project area have been identified (see Attachment 2), to help the State Government offset the overall costs of the project.

The approval of the proposed “Value Capture” development sites will be separate to the VicRoads level crossing project. VicRoads has recognised that the “Value Capture” development sites will be subject to Council approval (including planning permission). VicRoads has committed to work closely with Council to obtain the necessary approvals for these sites.

Council Officers recently met with VicRoads to discuss the level crossing project and requested VicRoads to give a briefing to Council.

Given the prominence of these future development sites, Council officers are commissioning a consultant to prepare an Urban Design Framework (UDF) to help guide development in the area. It will also be used to help VicRoads inform their design brief for the level crossing removal. The key objectives of the UDF are to:

Provide guidance on public and private interfaces with the level crossing project incorporating the new Gardiner station

Reflect the communities desired character and amenity for the area Guide desired built form and development outcomes Assist with the assessment of development applications and improve planning

certainty.

As VicRoads is looking to commence procurement for the design consultant and construction contractor in September 2014, Council has an opportunity provide input into this process.

It is intended that targeted consultation will be undertaken to inform a draft UDF. It is anticipated that a draft UDF will be prepared by the end of July 2014 and will be presented to Council.

POLICY IMPLICATIONSThe Burke Road Level Crossing Removal Project is supported in the final version of the Metropolitan Planning Strategy – Plan Melbourne.

Any development in the area should take into account Council’s recently approved residential zones for the area.

Page 52


FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONSThe Victorian Government announced full funding in the 2014-2015 Victorian Budget to remove the Burke Road Level Crossing using a rail under solution.

The engagement of a consultant to prepare the UDF and the use of internal resources associated with providing advice and responding to VicRoads queries is included in the 2013/ 2014 and 2014/15 Strategic Planning Budget.

CONCLUSIONIt is important that Council continues to work closely with VicRoads and outline its preferred position for the area through the UDF in order to achieve appropriate outcomes for this small Neighbourhood Activity Centre through the Burke Road Level Crossing Removal Project.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Ministerial Media Release Excluded

2. Attachment 2 - Burke Road Level Crossing Removal

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council notes the update on the Burke Road Level Crossing Removal Project.

Page 53


7. RETURN OF GENERAL REVALUATION 2014

City Valuer: Peter Fitzgerald Manager Governance & Corporate Support: Fabienne ThewlisGeneral Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to return the General Revaluation of all rateable properties within the City of Stonnington in accordance with Section 11 of the Valuation of Land Act 1960. A General Valuation must be returned to Council every two years to satisfy the requirements of the Local Government Act 1989 in order to raise general rates on rateable land within a Council’s municipal district.

BACKGROUND

The valuations contained in the General Valuation Report represent the statutory value of every rateable property as at 1 January 2014. The General Rate for the year commencing 1 July 2014 will be levied based on these values.

Pursuant to Section 13DA(1) & (2) of the Valuation of Land Act 1960, Mr Peter John Fitzgerald, Council’s Valuer, was appointed to be responsible for undertaking the General Revaluation. While in-house Valuations Unit staff has carried out the greater majority of the task, a contract valuations firm has been used to do some sections.

In accordance with the Valuation of Land Act 1960 the Council’s Valuer has made a Statutory Declaration confirming that the valuation is the final and complete return of all rateable properties as at level of date 1 January 2014. The Statutory Declaration is Attachment One.

DISCUSSION

The aggregate of the statutory valuations, as returned, is summarised in the following table with a comparison to the previous 2012 valuation.

* Stonnington levies its rates upon the Capital Improved Value (CIV), which is the value of the land and buildings combined.

* Net Annual Value (NAV) is a notional rental value of all properties in the municipality (or in relation to residential properties, 5% of the CIV).

Page 55

2012 Levels of Value

2014 Levels of Value

% Increase

33,364,992,800 35,456,825,022 6.27%

59,005,060,000 61,365,105,022 4.00%

3,012,274,595 3,135,838,641 4.10%

1,020,655 1,061,478 4.00%55,811 Rateable Assessments Average Capital Improved Value per assessment =

Total Land Value (Site Value)

Total Land & Buildings (Capital Improved Value)*

Total Notional Rental Value (Net Annual Value)*


The overall increase in the Capital Improved Value of 4.00% is the change over two years since the previous (ie.2012) valuation. This fairly modest increase is the overall outcome of a slight downward trend earlier in 2012 followed by general overall increase later in the cycle including through the 1 January 2014 relevant date. As a general rule higher valued properties, particularly those priced over $3 million, showed higher increases relative to the average. Land values experienced a greater rate of increase (average 6.27%) with the market for development parcels in particular showing strength. Flats, units, town houses and villas increased at a lower rate than the traditional house and land.

A more detailed statistical breakdown of the average movements in value is in the table below.

(Percentages shown in the table above represent the average of the average change in each category.)

There were only one or two significant standouts. Noteworthy characteristics of price movements in the 2014 Revaluation include:

Student Accommodation units decrease significantly (i.e. – 9%) Chapel Street was somewhat variable with some minor increases but the properties

in the $2 million plus range previously commanding big rents decreasing in value The prime retail shopping strips generally saw low or negative growth with High St

Armadale, Glenferrie Rd Malvern, Greville St and Commercial Rd Prahran being most affected. Tenant vacancies generally reflected these trends

Toorak Rd, South Yarra retail and Toorak Village retail also saw slight decreases on average

Secondary retail strips on average fared better than primary strips Chadstone Shopping Centre showed a very slight total decrease in value Although with some variability, development sites on the whole have increased in

value and more recent sales indicating continuing strength.

Significantly however, there are no substantial movements in the rate burden as a result of the 2014 General Revaluation.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Statutory Declaration Return of Valuation Attachment 1 of 1 Excluded

Page 56

Suburb Average % Change

in CIV

No. of propertie

s

Average % Change

in CIV

No. of propertie

s

Average %

Change in CIV

No. of propertie

s

Armadale 5.76% 5,113 6.37% 4,579 0.54% 534 Glen Iris 4.50% 4,244 4.57% 4,038 3.10% 206

Malvern/Kooyong 4.45% 5,539 5.25% 4,713 -0.13% 826 Malvern East 4.93% 9,075 5.08% 8,589 2.39% 486

Prahran 2.62% 7,999 2.62% 7,028 2.65% 971 South Yarra 3.14% 13,749 3.83% 11,608 -0.58% 2,141

Toorak 2.64% 7,525 2.72% 7,106 1.42% 419 Windsor 3.63% 4,008 3.52% 3,623 4.66% 385

Chadstone SC 7.74% 564 - 564 Total 3.82% 57,816 4.11% 51,284 1.54% 6,532

All Rateable Commercial OnlyResidential Only


RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. receives and adopts the valuations as tabled as the statutory assessment of

all rateable property within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1989 in the City of Stonnington, on which the General Rate for the year commencing 1 July 2014 will be based;

2. notes that in accordance with the provisions of Section 13DH of the Valuation of Land Act 1960 the Valuation has been returned;

3. notes that a statutory declaration has been signed by Mr Peter Fitzgerald, the Valuer for the City of Stonnington confirming that the valuation is the final and complete return of all rateable properties as at level of date 1 January 2014 and that an entry be made in the minutes of the meeting reflecting that the above statutory declaration has been made.

Page 57


8. COUNCIL PLAN 2013-2017 YEAR 1 - BUDGET ACTIVITIES QUARTERLY REPORT, QUARTER 3

Manager Communications & Community Planning: Matt Clear General Manager Sustainable Future: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to inform Council about the progress of Council’s annual budget activities during quarter three.

BACKGROUND

Progress on the achievement of Council’s budget activities is reported three times a year – initially, after the first six months, then quarterly until the end of year. Once approved by Council, the reports are placed on the Stonnington website.

Achievement reportingBudget activities reports are colour coded using a ‘traffic light’ system, to show progress against quarterly targets. This achievement target increases each quarter (e.g. the target is 50% in quarter two, increasing to 75% in quarter three and 100% in quarter four).

An activity is considered ‘on track’ when achieving 75% or more of this quarterly target.

DISCUSSION

Budget Activities Progress Quarter ThreeDuring the third quarter of 2013/14, budget activities have shown steady progress, with the majority achieving their targets.

Below, is a summary of the progress of all 245 budget activities:

205 activities (84%) are on track, having achieved 75% or more of the expected delivery status for this time of year.

39 activities (16%) have achieved between 10-74% of target. The majority of these activities will achieve 100% completion by end of year.

One activity (0.4%) has achieved between 0-10% of targeted performance and will not be commenced this year due to a focus on other priorities. It will commence in 2014/2015.

212 activities (87%) are forecast to be 100% complete by end of year.

By year-end, 227 (93%) activities are expected to achieve 75-100% completion.

The reasons for some activities achieving less than 100% by end of year include: a need for further community consultation, being on hold pending changes to State and Federal government funding or policies, and the complexity of negotiations with external agencies.

Please refer to Attachment 1 for a copy of the Annual Budget Activities Quarter 3 report, showing the completion status of all activities.

Page 59


Budget Activity E 2.10 Reworded

Budget Activity E 2.10 has been reworded for clarity, following a request by Council on 24 March 2014. The changes are detailed below:

Activity Measure

New wording

Prepare a strategy for the management and improvement of Council's open space assets.

Preparation of the Strategy.

Previous wording

Prepare an Open Space Strategy to guide management and improvement of Council's open space assets. Adoption of Strategy.

CONCLUSION

During the third quarter of 2013/14, the majority of budget activities have shown steady progress towards the end of year target of 100% completion, with most achieving their quarter three targets.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Budget Activities 2013-2014 Quarter 3 Attachment 1 of 1 Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council receives the status report on the progress of budget activities for Quarter 3.

Page 60


9. UNION STREET RESERVE - SHADE SAILS

Parks Coordinator: Peter Murray General Manager, City Works: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

To consider concerns raised by the Friends of Union Street Park (FOUSP) Committee, regarding the installation of shade sails over the playground and swings in Union Street Reserve, currently being installed so as to provide sun protection to the users of those facilities.

BACKGROUND

The Stonnington Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan cites that Australia has one of the highest rates of skin cancer in the world, mostly caused by exposure to ultra violet (UV) radiation in sunlight. The Plan goes on to say that Eye damage can also occur from exposure to high levels of UV radiation.

In recognition of the health risks of UV exposure, Council in the preparation of the 2012/13 budget introduced a new program of $50k p.a. to fund the installation of shade sails over playgrounds.

In preparing a program for installation of shade sails staff have prioritised those facilities that are known to be of high use and/or where there is a history of community interest. The program has been in operation for 2 years. Under the first year of the program (12/13) a shade sail was erected at the Phoenix Park playground. (Refer photo images, Attachment 1)

The play facilities at the Union St Reserve are very popular and heavily used. Over the past 5 years there has been significant interest demonstrated for installation of shade sails over the play equipment including;

a petition to Council bearing over 50 signatures (2009),

2 letters from the Federal Member for Higgins on behalf of residents raising the ‘issue of inadequate sun protection over the play area’ (2010),

correspondence on behalf of the ‘Humpty Dumpty Play Group’ requesting a shade sail over the ‘big Union Street play area’ (2011),

correspondence from other residents (2013, 2014) asking Council to consider installing shade sails in playgrounds generally.

Given the high usage of the play areas and the demonstrated history of community interest the Union Street Reserve was prioritised for treatment in the second year of the program (Attachments 2 and 3).

In terms of the implementation of the project at the Reserve, steel uprights (11) have been erected around the main play area, the shade sail has not been erected. Steel uprights and a shade sail are also to be erected over the swing area, site work has not commenced at this location. (Refer photo image, Attachment 4)

Council has received correspondence (emails) from the Friends of Union Street Park (FOUSP) Committee Convenor stating that ‘our understanding was that shade sails were NOT going to be constructed in the playground’ and citing minutes of a meeting with the Federal Member for Higgins of 24 November 2010.

(There is no correspondence or documentation to this effect on the Stonnington City Council records management system). Correspondence from the Convenor of 15 May 2014 advises

Page 61


‘It should be noted that there is NO SUPPORT FOR THIS PROJECT from the Friends of Union Street Park (FOUSP) or any residents that we know’. Emails have also been received from 2 other FOUSP members regarding the project, raising various concerns. The primary concerns expressed by the FOUSP are summarised as follows;

no specific community consultation

reference to an earlier agreement 3.5 (years ago) between the FOUSP and the Federal Minister for Higgins stating that ‘our understanding was that shade sails were NOT going to be constructed in the playground’

questioning whether there was any ‘evidence based research suggesting that shade sails would be a good idea for this playground’

questioning ‘why no communication with FOUSP on this proposal’

No other correspondence has been received raising concerns regarding the sails.

This matter was subsequently raised by Councillor Ullin at the Council Meeting of 19 May 2014, and a further report was requested on the project. Given the concerns raised and the request for a further report, works have been put on hold.

DISCUSSION

Given the evidence around skin cancer and sun exposure, Council introduced a program in the preparation of the 2012/13 budget for installation of shade sails in playgrounds. The program is prioritised having regard to the degree of usage and demonstrated community interest.

There is a great deal of literature supporting the provision of shade over playgrounds which also supports Council’s program. Some of the more relevant local references include;

The Victorian Department of Health, Skin Cancer Prevention Framework 2013 – 2017 which refers to the contribution of Councils to skin cancer prevention through avenues including ‘the provision of shade in public recreational places’.

The Cancer Council Victoria, 2013, Sunsmart Shade Guidelines which promotes the benefits of shade as the best way to provide maximum protection against UV radiation.

Play Australia Guidelines 2014 – which promote the use of shade in playgrounds

Royal Childrens Hospital – Child Safety Handbook (Edition 5) which promotes the use of shade including ‘temporary/permanent shade structures in the places where your child plays’

Other well regarded industry standards such as the publication from the Office for Recreation and Sport SA (2007) the ‘Playground Manual’ states ‘Provision should be made in playgrounds for sun protection for both users of the play equipment and caregivers, and recommends ‘constructing purpose built shade structures over the equipment or erecting shelters adjacent to equipment as a refuge for users or caregivers’ where other sources of shade are not available.

The Australian Standard AS4486 refers to shade/sun protection, its importance, and how it might be achieved with shade structures.

A number of Municipalities throughout Victoria have introduced policies and programs supporting the provision of shade protection including shade sails over playgrounds.

Council’s program for installation of shade sails is consistent with current recommended practice, and consistent with the practices of other municipalities throughout Victoria (and the rest of Australia).

Page 62


In terms of the Union Street Park, there is a lack of shade cover for the playground all year round. Some canopy trees have been planted in the vicinity of the playground, with a view to providing canopy shade cover in the long term. There is a short to medium term issue with shade cover this is particularly evident over the summer months, where use of the playground may be impacted during certain parts of the day.

Having regard to the concerns raised by the FOUSP, Council could consider a number of options for the project;

1. Request a broad based consultation be undertaken with the community and the users of the playground so as to establish the current level of support for the installation of the shade sails, the FOUSP members would be surveyed as part of the consultation. Council would then proceed based on the consultation results.

2. Accept the community interest demonstrated to date is sufficient, and give consideration to proceeding with the project as proposed. This option could include consultation with FOUSP to establish if any actions could be undertaken within reason with the current installation to ameliorate some of the concerns raised e.g. consideration could be given to painting the poles.

3. Take the view that the objective of shading the playground in the long term could be achieved by canopy cover, but that the shade sails be accepted as a short/medium term option until the canopy cover can be achieved. As such, Council could proceed as per option 2 above including consultation with the FOUSP and propose to reinforce the existing shade tree planting with a view to reviewing the need for the shade structure in the medium/long term once the canopy shade has been established.

4. Abandon the project, and remove the existing poles.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

There is strong policy support in the Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan to protect the health and wellbeing of children while using the playground.


Council has included an ongoing program of $50k p.a. for installation of shade sails in playgrounds.

The current installation was subject to a competitive procurement process, and will be delivered within the above allocation. The contract involves the installation of poles and sails over the existing playground and swing area.

Given that the project has been delayed the Contractor is entitled to claim for prolongation. Further if the project is abandoned Council will be obligated to pay the bulk of the original contract sum. There would also be significant costs incurred for any option involving removal of the existing steel poles and reinstatement of the disturbed areas.


There are existing contractual obligations as outlined above.

CONCLUSION

Having regard to the evidence around skin cancer and sun exposure, Council introduced a program in the preparation of the 2012/13 budget for installation of shade sails in

Page 63


playgrounds. The program for installation of shade sails is prioritised having regard to the degree of usage and demonstrated community interest.

This program is well supported by current literature including the Australian Standards which promote the provision sun protection for both users of the play equipment and caregivers and cite the construction of shade structures as an option where other sources of shade are not available. The provision of shade structures over playgrounds is common practice in local government with a number of municipalities throughout Victoria implementing similar programs.

The rationale for prioritising the Union Street Reserve playground(s) is that it is a very popular playground and there has been a history of public approaches to Council to install a shade sail at this location including a petition, letters from the Federal Minister for Higgins, and other resident letters over the last 5 years.

The FOUSP have raised issues with the project as outlined above.

It is proposed that Council proceed with the installation as proposed but that the FOUSP be contacted to establish whether there are any actions that could reasonably be undertaken to ameliorate their concerns with the installation.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Union Street - Shade Sails (Attachment 1 - 3) Excluded

2. Installation of Poles - Union Street, Shade Sails (Attach 4) Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat:

1. The installation of the shade sail structures at the Union St Playground proceed as proposed.

2. Council Officers contact the FOUSP to establish whether there are any actions that could be undertaken within reason to ameliorate their concerns with the installation.

Page 64


10. AGED CARE REFORM

Manager Aged, Diversity, Health & Animal Management: Penny Pavlou General Manager Social Development: Connie Gibbons

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the proposed reforms to the Home and Community Care (HACC) program.

BACKGROUND

The HACC program has been in operation across Australia since the mid 1980s. The aim of the program is to provide in-home and community support services to older people, people with disabilities and their carers, to enable them to live independently within their own homes and the community.

The HACC program is jointly funded by the Commonwealth Government and state governments and is currently administered through the Victorian Department of Health. The program is not fully funded and in Victoria, local governments also contribute funds to the program. Local governments in Victoria contribute between 20% and 40% of the program budgets, totalling approximately $100 million per year.

Council provides a range of HACC services including assessment, home care, personal care, respite care, meals services and planned activity groups. Stonnington Council also provides additional services for older people that are not funded through the HACC program. Stonnington’s Community Support Program provides a comprehensive community activity program and a community transport service.

The 2013/14 HACC Operating Budget (below) encompasses income from government funding as well as client fees. Expenditure includes both direct and indirect cost for providing HACC services. However, the costs do not include any management and administration costs above coordinator level. Approximately 2,200 older and disabled Stonnington residents receive services through the HACC program.

2013/14 Stonnington HACC Services Operating Budget

Government funding

Client/resident contributions

Income Total

$3,504,872

$699,605

$4,204,477

Expenditure $6,372,707

Cost to Council $2,168,230

DISCUSSION

In 2012, the Commonwealth Government announced that it would take full responsibility Australia-wide for the funding and administrative responsibility for HACC services for people who are 65 and older under the new Commonwealth Home Support Program (CHSP). The state governments will maintain responsibility for services for people under 65 years. This new program has already commenced with a limited roll-out in a number of states.

Until recently, the Victorian Government was reluctant to sign up to the new arrangements due to the significant role that local governments play in the planning, coordination, funding and delivery of services across Victoria. It has been acknowledged by both governments

Page 65


that the Victorian service delivery model has many benefits for older Victorians that are not available in other states. This includes face–to-face initial assessments and reviews of services, home based occupational health and safety checks. The recent development of the Active Service Model promotes wellness and restorative care where older people are encouraged to participate and to be involved in decisions about their care, wellness and connections to the community. Local governments in Victoria also provide highly trained direct care workers in the delivery of services to older Victorians. In other states, assessments are undertaken via telephone which diminishes the ability to understand the care needs of older people and HACC services are not provided by local governments, but by a diverse range of providers with no consistent delivery standards.

However, in May 2013 the Victorian Government agreed to shift the administrative responsibilities of the HACC program to the Commonwealth. The decision was made to support the introduction of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), which will commence rollout from July 2016 and is currently in development with a pilot program being run in Victoria (Geelong).

From July 2015, Victorian local governments will continue to provide existing services and levels, but under two service agreements: one with the Commonwealth for people 65 and over for the delivery of the CHSP and another agreement with the State Government for those less under 65. In supporting these shifts, the two levels of government have stated that they will work together to preserve the strengths of the Victorian HACC system, although it is unclear what form this will take.

The Commonwealth Government has acknowledged that the current Victorian HACC program has many strengths and benefits. They have also acknowledged that Victorian local governments contribute over $100 million per annum to the provision of HACC services across the State. Any changes to the current program that cause local governments to reduce their contributions will reduce the quantity and quality of services provided to older Victorians.

Analysis of the funding splits to reflect the two proposed service agreements commenced in March 2014. Local governments have been advised that funding will be provided at current levels for three years from July 2015. Negotiation of funding agreements will take place in the second half of 2014, in preparation for the commencement of the new CHSP in July 2015.

The Commonwealth Government has stated that is intends to develop the new CHSP in collaboration with major stakeholders. It recently released a discussion paper for public comment. While this paper details the objectives of the program and outlines the key directions for the new service system, it leaves many questions unanswered. Key questions for Stonnington include:

What will the proposed regional assessment services look like, how will they be funded and who will run them? If local governments, will they be required to tender for the funding?

Following the initial three-year funding period, will there be a contestable process for the local governments and other services providers to apply for the funding to provide services to the community?

If the services are tendered through a contestable process, will local governments be required to form partnerships with other local governments to tender for a regional service?

What system will be put in place to support people under 65?

Will the standardisation of fees and charges across the country affect income levels?

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Page 66


Changes to the current HACC program are expected to take place from July 2015. A service agreement will be negotiated with the Commonwealth Government for an initial three-year period at a similar funding level as received currently, with an additional agreement with the State Government for the provision of HACC services to people under 65.

It is unknown how the program will be funded following the initial three-year period (July 2018).



CONCLUSION

The HACC program has been in operation across Australia since the mid-1980s. The program is currently jointly funded by the Commonwealth Government and state governments across Australia and is administered in Victoria by the Department of Health. The program is not fully funded and most local governments, including Stonnington, also contribute funds to the program. Through this program, Council provides a range of in-home and community-based services to older people, people with disabilities and their carers to enable them to live independently within their own homes and the community.

In 2012 the Commonwealth Government announced that it would take full funding and administrative responsibility for HACC services for people 65 years and older under the new Commonwealth Home Support Program (CHSP). The Victorian Government will continue to fund and manage services for younger people under 65. This change will take effect from July 2015.

Many aspects of the new service system are still to be clarified and Officers will inform Council once further information becomes available.

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council notes the report.

Page 67


11. MARKET STREET CAR PARK, SOUTH YARRA – PROPOSED PERMANENT CLOSURE TO THROUGH TRAFFIC

Traffic and Parking Coordinator: Peter Kyrkylis Manager Transport & Parking: Ian McLauchlanGeneral Manager, City Works: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

To advise Councillors of a submission received from the Prahran Market Board to permanently close the Market Street Car Park, South Yarra to through traffic and seek approval to consult on a permanent proposal.

BACKGROUND

Correspondence addressed to the CEO dated 26 February 2014 was received from the Prahran Market Board (PMB) seeking support to permanently close the Market Street Car Park to through traffic between Elizabeth Street and Market Street at the rear of the market.

Documents submitted as part of the application are attached for Councillors’ information.

The proposal is to close the subject section of the Market Street Car Park to through traffic by a sliding barrier gate which would be activated by either swipe card and/or key pad code by traders and delivery vehicles on normal market days. Pedestrian and cyclist access to the area would be prohibited.

The Market Street car park is on freehold title owned by Council and occupied by the Prahran Market (there is no specific reservation over the portion of the title). While the Car Park has been open for the passage of traffic for at least 30 years (except for closures during works) it is not listed as a public road on Council’s Road Register. However the land has been gazetted to bring it under the enforcement provisions of the Road Safety Act for parking restriction/enforcement purposes.

Furthermore, previous legal advice from Maddocks dated 12 January 2014 regarding the status of the car park indicated “The Car park comprises freehold land owned by Council, a part of which is a constructed bitumen laneway used for public access and which constitutes a ‘road’ within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1989 (1989 Act). The car park connects to Market Street which is also a road within the meaning of the 1989 Act (Refer to aerial photo below).

Page 69


Motorists, pedestrians, traders, shop occupiers currently use the Market Street Car Park to access the rear of their properties as well as a through route between Elizabeth Street and Commercial Road. There are three (3) disabled parking bays near Elizabeth Street, the southern section is mainly used by Prahran Market traders to park their trucks/vans and also conduct some deliveries.

Recently this section was temporarily closed to enable the erection of temporary stalls and marquees by the fruit and vegetable traders during the refurbishment of the Prahran Market.

To exercise Council's power to implement the short term closure arrangement, Council relied upon clause 10(1)(a) of the 1989 Act to block the passage of vehicles within that part of the Car park which constitutes a 'road' . Based on independent legal advice, the exercise of the power pursuant to clause 10(1)(a) of the 1989 Act was not subject to Council's compliance with Section 223 (the public notification provisions) of the 1989 Act.

The Market’s proposal dated 26 February 2014 seeking support for the permanent closure of this area contends that the same stance should be adopted here. In other words rely on clause 10(1)(a) of the 1989 Act only and do not require to comply with Section 223 i.e. that no S223 process following a public notice would be needed for the permanent closure of the roadway, albeit via some sort of gated arrangement.

Page 70


DISCUSSION

Council’s in-house legal Counsel, considered the references to various sections of the LGA and its schedules by The Market and advised that they can’t just be transferred across as the permanent closure is a very different proposal to the temporary closure. As the proposal involves a gated arrangement to permanently block or restrict the passage of through traffic (an arrangement that has been in place to the general public for decades), a consultation process under provisions of S223 of the Local Government Act would be required.

Even if the status of the road is unclear, undertaking the S223 process is the most conservative approach regarding consultation and unlikely to be challenged on the decision if the S223 process was taken.

The S223 process involves issuing a public notice in a newspaper generally circulating in the municipal district, advising of the proposal and seeking submissions. Persons making a submission are given the opportunity to present their submission verbally before Council, or a Committee of Council convened for the purpose of hearing submissions.

The public notice must allow 28 days minimum before the closure of submissions and it is accepted practice to also advise those property occupiers in the vicinity considered to be directly affected in writing of the proposal as well. Any notice of the date/time of the meeting convened to hear submissions, must be reasonable and this is generally taken to be 14 days.

Under the provisions of the Local Government Act, where road closures to through traffic are being consulted to the community under the provisions of S223 of the Act, a report from VicRoads is required to be considered. The views of the Police, Fire Brigade and Ambulance Service (Emergency Authority) will also be sought.

Traffic and Car parking Implications of Closure

Before Council establishes a position on the closure it would be prudent to undertake a traffic and parking impact assessment of the area.

There are a suite of surveys that would be undertaken to gauge the extent on traffic and parking management issues that may arise from the proposal to close Market Street Car Park.

Based on past experience, a proportion of the objectors are likely to be abutting traders that may have parking impacted in front of their business (ie ALDI Supermarket) or Commercial Road traders that have set delivery routes over the years to the rear of Commercial Road shops.

However given that this section was closed for a period to accommodate the market refurbishment it could be argued that this proposal has been tested already so the abutting traders would have some understanding of the potential issues that may arise.

Page 71


POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The Council Plan 20013/17 Environmental strategy states that Council will “support the shift towards the use of sustainable transport options”.

In addition, a Chapel Street Master Plan objective is to define and establish village squares as well connected pedestrian friendly gathering points. One of the design principles is to improve links, accessibility, permeability and walk ability.

The closure of Market Street Car Park would reduce pedestrian permeability and connectivity to both (and not limited too) the proposed Prahran Village Square (currently known as the Cato Street Car park), Grattan Gardens and the Prahran railway station for both local residents surrounding the Prahran Market and those parking in the Elizabeth street car park and walking to these locations (Refer to aerial map below).


Council’s in-house legal Counsel has provided advice indicating that

“a gated closure may amount to a ‘disposal’ and would require Council to provide a public notice and invite submissions.

Page 72


Given the longstanding continuing access made available over decades to pedestrians, vehicles, traders, shop occupiers, etc, who would be effected by this gated access proposal, I would expect that, should Council wish to consider the Market’s proposal, it would want to widely advertise the application which may well result in a section 223 process being required.

An extensive public advertising process of any such proposal would I believe be appropriate and one which would necessarily invite submissions”.

As stated earlier, undertaking the S223 process is the most conservative approach regarding consultation and unlikely to be challenged on Council’s decision if the S223 process was taken.

CONCLUSION

The Prahran Market Board has made a request to permanently close Market Car Park, South Yarra to through traffic.

The traffic and parking impacts of the proposed closure need to be quantified.

This area was closed during the Market refurbishment, so it has been tested and abutting property occupiers would have an understanding of what the implications may be.

The Market are of the opinion that the permanent closure of this area is subject to 10(1)(a) of the 1989 Act only and does not require to comply with Section 223.

As the proposal involves a permanent gated arrangement to block or restrict the passage of through traffic, a consultation process under provisions of S223 of the Local Government Act it would be the appropriate consultation approach in this instance.

Therefore, if Council wishes to support the request from the Prahran Market Board for the permanent closure of Market Car Park further, it would require exhibiting the proposal and seeking submissions in accordance with procedures of S223 of the Local Government Act



ATTACHMENTS

1. (Attachment 1) WarrenRobertsletterMarketlaneclosure_25022014 Excluded

2. (Attachment 2) Traffic Works Risk Assessment report on Market Lane Excluded

3. (Attachment 3) Typical Roller Gate photo Excluded

4. (Attachment 4) Survey Plan Market Lane Excluded

5. (Attachment 5) O'Brien Report Disabled Bays Excluded

Page 73


RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Commence the statutory procedures under S223 of the Local Government Act to

consult the community on a proposal to permanently close Market Car Park, South Yarra to through traffic between Elizabeth Street and Market Street

2. All relevant traffic and parking surveys are undertaken to assist with the assessment of this matter.

3. All property occupiers and owners, abutting Market Street Car Park and Market Street, be advised of the decision and invited to make a submission on the proposal.

Page 74


12. REPLACEMENT OF SOUTH YARRA TO ST KILDA WATER MAIN

Infrastructure Works Engineer: James Edmond Manager Major Projects & Property Improvements: Steve Morrell

PURPOSE

To advise Council of the proposal by Melbourne Water to replace/upgrade a portion of the South Yarra to St Kilda water main and that part of the water main replacement works will occur within the Stonnington local street network.

BACKGROUND

Melbourne Water is intending to replace a 2.6 kilometre section of an old wrought iron water main in the district, part of which is located in the City of Stonnington. Detailed design has been completed for the construction of the new water main from Alexandra Avenue, South Yarra to Barkly Street, St Kilda.

The original water main, nearing the end of its safe service life, was installed in the mid-1880’s and is one of Melbourne’s oldest operational water mains. The main currently runs along the centre of Punt Road.

This is an important project, continuing Melbourne Water’s investment in the timely renewal of essential infrastructure so it can continue delivering safe, healthy drinking water to approximately 97,000 properties, along with reducing the risk of service failures impacting the community and the Stonnington municipality. The project will result in the renewal of an ageing infrastructure that is experiencing high levels of internal corrosion.

CONSULTATION

In 2009, Melbourne Water met with representatives from the project’s key stakeholders including the Cities of Port Phillip, Stonnington and Melbourne; VicRoads, Yarra Trams, Parks Victoria and South East Water to scope options for renewing the water main.

The feedback and input from these organisations informed the development of a proposed alignment for Melbourne Water to progress.

In 2011/12, Melbourne Water commenced functional design and undertook a number of investigations along the proposed alignment.

In 2013/14 Melbourne Water re-engaged key stakeholders on the proposed alignment to complete detailed design, seeking input on construction methodology and mitigation of impacts. Engagement with select local community stakeholders including local schools also commenced.

The final alignment runs parallel with Punt Road and includes residential streets in South Yarra and Prahran as well as the north east corner of Fawkner Park and a small section in Barkly Street. An alignment map is included in the attached Community Information flyer.

Melbourne Water engaged all key stakeholders with current design drawings, including having sought input on construction methodology and mitigation impacts. They have developed a comprehensive Communications and Engagement Plan and will continue to work with the chosen construction partner and the City of Stonnington in order to minimise impacts on the community during these works.

FURTHER CONSULTATION

Page 75


Melbourne Water will continue to implement its Communications and Engagement Plan, with broad community engagement planned to begin in early June.

Community information sessions will be held in the week commencing Monday 23 June, and meetings will continue with key local stakeholders.

The key focus of the upcoming engagement is to provide the community and other key stakeholders, including the City of Stonnington, with opportunities to find out more about the project and its timelines, understand the likely impacts and mitigation measures, and provide any concerns or feedback they may have.

Melbourne Water has established a dedicated project 1800 number and email address, and is currently developing an animation and project webpage to support community engagement activities pre and during construction.

Melbourne Water will work closely with their construction partner to ensure key stakeholders, including Council and the community, continue to be engaged throughout the project construction period to ensure our stakeholders remain informed on its progress, have opportunities to provide feedback and any potential issues are resolved in a timely and collaborative manner.

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM & DESCRIPTION OF WORKS

Melbourne Water called for tenders at the end of 2013 and anticipates awarding the construction contract in July 2014.

Preliminary construction activity to confirm the location of services is expected to commence in late August/early September 2014. Water main construction is expected to commence in late September/early October 2014 and take approximately a year to complete.

Works in Stonnington will commence at Moffat Street approximately late November 2014 and continue along Moffat Street, Affleck Street, across Commercial Road to Alfred Street, and terminating at the intersection of Athol Street. The alignment will then recommence at Kent Street, just before Raleigh Street, along Raleigh Street and terminating at Punt Road intersection by approximately end of March 2015. (see attached plan)

There will be main replacement works along a small section of Punt Road, between Spring Gardens and Moffat Street around June 2015.

To reduce impacts on the community, works will be staged as smaller sections along the alignment.

Boring (a low impact tunnelling technique) and open trench construction methods will be used to complete the project. The different construction methods will accommodate the varying area of works and ground type, as well as to minimise impacts to the environment, residents, traffic and public transport routes.

Melbourne Water will complete reinstatement of roads and other impacted assets to Council’s requirements. Melbourne Water will resurface all roads along the alignment of the water main through the city of Stonnington.

Street trees compromised by the water main renewal works will be replaced by Melbourne Water. Melbourne Water will pay Stonnington Council for these trees and two years watering maintenance according to Stonnington arborist’s estimate. The trees will be added to Council’s scheduled street tree replacement program.

PROJECT IMPACTS

Melbourne Water will work with their stakeholders, including Council, and their construction partner to minimise construction impacts and inconvenience to the community to the best of their ability, and will openly communicate expected construction impacts to the community.

The following is a brief summary of the likely project impacts on the community and how Melbourne Water plans to mitigate these issues:

Page 76


Changed traffic conditions: Melbourne Water will need to temporarily close sections of roads along the alignment during construction. The road closures will mainly be during daytime work hours only, shifting along the alignment as the construction area (work front) shifts. Melbourne Water and its construction partner will work with Council in finalising traffic management plans and communicating traffic impacts to the community. Pedestrian access to properties will be maintained at all times.

Temporary loss of on-street car parking: Some car parking spots will be temporarily impacted. Vehicles will be unable to park within the construction area once traffic management is in place for the day. A number of car parking spots will also be impacted overnight. Melbourne Water and their construction partner will work with Council to best manage these impacts as part of traffic management plans to be approved. Melbourne Water will also work with their construction partner to ensure appropriate notification is provided to impacted community as the work front (and impact) shifts along the alignment.

Temporary disruption to garbage collection: Garbage trucks will be unable to enter the shifting construction area once traffic management is in place for the day. Melbourne Water will work with their construction partner and Council to ensure this impact can be managed appropriately.

24 hour and night time works: While the majority of work will be completed during normal working hours, some 24 hour and night time works will be required. Construction of the main in Punt Road and decommissioning of the old pipe will require night works. Connection of the main at the corner of Athol Street and Affleck Street may require closure of the intersection for up to one week. This has been discussed with Council officers and a detailed Traffic Management Plan will be prepared and approved before the intersection is closed. Other 24 hour and night works may also be required to minimise prolonged impacts to the community at certain locations. Melbourne Water will provide more information on these works and any further 24 hour or night time works on finalisation of the delivery program once a construction partner has been chosen. Melbourne Water will communicate extended work hours to the community in a timely manner.

Services: Depending on the location of services there is a possibility that temporary localised interruptions to sewerage and gas supplies may occur. Water supply will be maintained throughout construction, and if necessary, via temporary supply pipes.

Dust, noise, and vibration: Construction dust, noise and minor vibration are typical construction impacts. Melbourne Water will work with their construction partner to minimise impacts to local residents as much as possible, and ensure appropriate mitigation measures are in place. Works will comply with EPA’s Noise Control Guidelines.

Road reinstatement: To reduce impacts on the community, works will be staged as smaller sections along the alignment. Melbourne Water will complete reinstatement of roads and other impacted assets to Council’s requirements. Any open cut trenching and affected

Page 77


assets will be reinstated fully and roads will be fully re-sheeted once works are complete.

Vegetation removal: Melbourne Water has consulted with Council’s arborist to ensure vegetation impacts are kept to a minimum. A total of 7 street trees (located within kerb outstands) are affected by the proposed renewal works and will need to be removed. Council’s arborist has assessed vegetation impacts and has recommended replacement trees of 100L mature nursery stock. Melbourne Water will fund the purchase, installation, and irrigate the 7 new trees for 2 years in order for them to establish in their new location.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The works as proposed are necessary as part of Melbourne Water’s ongoing asset management program to assure delivery of potable water supplies.


There will be no financial cost to the City of Stonnington. Council will be consulted to assist Melbourne Water to ensure the works run smoothly and to minimise the impact to residents. Council assets disturbed by the works will be reinstated in accordance with Council standards.

LEGAL ADVICE AND IMPLICATIONS

Nil.

CONCLUSION

Melbourne Water are proposing to replace/upgrade a portion of the South Yarra to St Kilda water main. A portion of the proposed alignment is located within the local street network in the City of Stonnington.

The City of Stonnington and Melbourne Water will continue to work with key stakeholders and the community to understand all impacts and identify practical mitigation measures.

Melbourne Water will start implementing its communications and engagement plan later in the year following stakeholder consultation.

The City of Stonnington and Melbourne Water remain fully committed to ensure community awareness and understanding of the project, including alignment, timing and impacts minimisation. Melbourne Water will be establishing dedicated and multiple communication channels for community and stakeholders to contact them.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Community Information Flyer - Melbourne Water - water main replacement Attachment 1 of 1

Excluded

Page 78


RECOMMENDATIONThat:1. The proposed Melbourne Water - water main replacement works along Punt

Road, including associated works in the Stonnington local street network be noted.

Page 79


13. WINTER ARTS FESTIVAL: GLOW

Manager Economic & Cultural Development: Francesca Valmorbida General Manager Sustainable Future: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to update Council on planning for the inaugural Winter Arts Festival planned for August 14 – 24, 2014 named Glow, and seek endorsement of the program.

BACKGROUND

The Winter Arts Festival Feasibility Study commissioned in May 2010 identified a Winter Arts Festival as an opportunity to engage Stonnington residents and visitors in the local arts. A Festival was also an opportunity for the City of Stonnington to promote the municipality’s businesses, retailers and organisations and encourage economic activity during the more traditionally quiet winter period. Stonnington’s support for the Winter Arts Festival is envisioned to benefit local business traders through the increased profile of the Council through this event.

There is a great opportunity to establish the festival as a unique stand-alone event on Melbourne’s events calendar, and to build on the program in future years so it becomes a destination event for both locals and visitors alike.

DISCUSSION

Council Officers have created a draft program with family appeal in mind but that primarily focuses on the 18-45 year old demographic and a night-time series of events. The main features of Exxopolis Luminarium, the Shot in the Dark Photographic exhibition, Comedy Club and most ticketed performances aim to attract adult audiences to Chapel Street and other key precincts such as Toorak Village, Toorak Road South Yarra, and Glenferrie Road in the evening who will be encouraged to take up dining packages and other entertainment offerings.

Main Features

Key Feature: Exxopolis Luminarium

It is proposed that UK Company Architects of Air together with Melbourne based Insite Arts will present the spectacular warren of colour Exxopolis Luminarium. All ages can delight in the dynamic light filled voids as the journey through the labyrinth structure unfolds. Specially for Glow the Exxopolis will be lit each evening until 9pm and be the platform for all kinds of performance.

In a unique offering, the City of Stonnington has identified an opportunity to invite all local primary schools to enjoy this City of wonder free of charge from 10am to 12 noon daily. This colour wonderland can inspire storytelling, visual artists, musicians, scientists, and mathematicians.

Open to the public from 12noon daily for parents/carers and toddlers who can peacefully enjoy the special colours and spaces of the air filled structure along with tertiary students who often have time during the working week to explore this city.

The early evening viewing times will be preferential for young families, and once the sun goes down the huge floodlights will be powered up to provide a night time Exxopolis experience for teenagers and adults.

Page 81


Performances within the Luminarium and the option to be able to experience the Luminarium after dark make this a unique experience.

Proposed locations: Jam Factory Rooftop Carpark, Safeway Carpark Roof, Sunken Oval Princes Gardens or Como Park North (NB. Council Officers aim to place this attraction amongst a retail area with the most desirable locations listed first, and the contingency destination being Como

Park North. Planning Permits are being submitted for the use of these areas.

Date: 14 – 24 August

Ticket: $15 entry.

Other significant Stonnington produced events include:

Arts Burst: Chapel Street Prahran and Windsor

A host of street activity over one weekend. Acrobatics on a forklift by Kage, Born in a Taxi return with street lampoonery, and the students from National Institute of Circus Arts (NICA) surprise and entertain with pop-up performances. Melbourne Polytechnic come out to perform in cafes along Chapel Street, lighting students transform the campus, and the augmented reality photographic exhibition Shot in the Dark will engage pedestrians.

Road Trip: The Loft, Chapel Off Chapel

Comedy commandoes Damian Callinan and Gavin Baskerville localise material to create a site specific show like none other.

Glow Comedy Club: Functions on Chapel, Chapel St, Prahran

Presented in association with the Melbourne International Comedy Festival Functions on Chapel will become Stonnington’s first Comedy Club with Food and beverages available.

Flicks ‘n’ Feasts: Market Lane, Prahran

A trial of the market concept with a feast of film and food; Kung Fu - Dim Sum, Spaghetti Western - Pizza, Bollywood - Curry, Godzilla - Sushi, Mexican Rancheras - Enchiladas.

The above key events will be leveraged to draw attention to the wider program which have been listed on the attachment. They are highly promotable and feature Stonnington as a cultured and multi-dimensional City which is community focussed, fun and dynamic.

Marketing StrategyA comprehensive marketing strategy is proposed to ensure the festival gains the appropriate media attention and is delivered to the target audience. The marketing strategy will help develop appropriate branding, the leveraging of social media and provide opportunity for businesses to maximise this opportunity, and is essential to the success and recognition of the event this year and in the future.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Page 82


The proposed festival provides a diverse program throughout the municipality across the visual and performing arts and provides opportunities for local artists, writers, performers and traders to participate directly and indirectly. The program reinforces the Community Strategy cited in the 2013-2017 Council Plan whereby Stonnington continues to “strengthen the quality and enhance the use of our facilities, amenities and open space” as well as the following Prosperity Strategies:

Promote Stonnington as a premier retail and visitor destination.

Promote activities that support and develop local business with a focus on neighbourhood retailers.

Develop relationships with key business stakeholders to foster opportunities that will provide positive outcomes for the community, including social justice and equity.

Improve the quality of Stonnington's retail precincts to match the aspirations of being a premier retail and visitor destination.

Continue to develop strategic partnerships to deliver economic and community benefit.

Support the continued viability of the retail sector and other businesses to adapt to changing macro-economic trends.

The program highlight is not only visually spectacular and encourages audiences to linger in the City through on-site advance ticket sales, it also offers the ability to engage local primary school students in creative thinking as never before by providing free access to Exxopolis Luminarium during the school term.


The proposed program falls within the budget allocated in 2013/14 and 2014/15 and has been created with a conservative income providing a profit margin of $14,614.

The income is based on a box office achievement of 50% for most ticketed events. The budget for the main attraction Luminarium, provides for a weekday capacity of 10% from 12 noon to 4pm due to the event being held during the school calendar, and a 60% box office from the hours of 4pm to 9pm. The weekend estimates also provide for 60% attendance to mitigate against the effect of any unfavorable weather conditions.


A review of the sponsorship agreement in the development of partnerships to support the festival financially would be sought.

CONCLUSION

The proposed winter arts festival is a wonderful opportunity for the City of Stonnington to create an event that will engage the community, promote local arts and venues and elevate the municipality’s image within a larger metropolitan area.

The proposed festival model has enormous potential for expansion being set within a framework that will nurture the organic growth of the festival and result in a truly unique and

Page 83


distinct event. The festival has the ability to immediately create strong ties between local organisations, promote awareness of these organisations and lead to a stronger arts community within the City of Stonnington. It will provide an impetus for artists and organisations to contribute work to the festival and result in coverage for participating organisations. The festival will also provide fledgling and established arts organisations with much needed advertising and promotion of their activities under the banner of a respected winter arts festival.

It has been established that a winter arts festival will contribute to the area’s economy providing a much needed lift for business in an otherwise quiet period as well as providing an impetus for increased community activity. Businesses and participating venues will benefit from the activity created from the festival and this has the opportunity to deliver greater long term pedestrian traffic to the business activity centre.

The winter arts festival will provide Council with exposure as a proactive and productive organisation that is dedicated in its pursuit of a cultured and cosmopolitan environment and recognised for its support of local businesses.

In the long term it is envisioned that the winter arts festival will grow into a sustainable and enduring event that showcases the best of the areas art and culture and continually promotes the area as a unique, community minded and cosmopolitan environment.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Stonnington GLOW program - attachment 1 of 1 Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council endorses the program of the inaugural winter arts festival GLOW.

Page 84


14. MIDSUMMA FESTIVAL SUPPORT


PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider supporting the Midsumma Festival.

BACKGROUND

Midsumma is Melbourne’s annual GLBTI Celebration, and is a federation of arts and cultural events spread over 85 different venues throughout Melbourne and Regional Victoria. The Festival is presented over three weeks from mid January to February and, having been held annually since 1988, is a significant attraction on the Melbourne events calendar. Midsumma is funded through both the private and public sectors.

Midsumma Festival brings a diverse mix of artists and performers together under a single umbrella for an impassioned celebration and innovative presentation of arts and culture. The Festival program is made up of a wide range of events and activities including visual art, theatre, spoken word, cabaret, film, live music, sport, social events and public forums.

Offering a diverse, exciting and relevant program, Midsumma continues to attract a broad and ever-evolving audience to Melbourne and Victoria who participate and attend festival events, and are concentrated over several municipal councils including: City of Melbourne, City of Yarra, City of Maribyrnong, City of Moreland, City of Port Phillip, City of Darebin and Hobsons Bay City Council. The opening event ‘Carnival’ included speeches from The Hon Dr Napthine (Minister for Racing and Minister for Regional Cities), The Hon Heidi Victoria (Minister for the Arts, Women’s Affairs and Consumer Affairs), The Hon Lord Mayor of Melbourne Robert Doyle as well as representatives from NAB, Telstra, IBM, Yarra Trams, Hobsons Bay City Council and City of Maribyrnong.

Growing in popularity each year, Midsumma is positioned and identified globally as one of the top five gay and lesbian arts and cultural festivals, along with New York, San Francisco, Vancouver and Singapore. As such, Midsumma serves to identify Melbourne as a culturally sophisticated city and strengthens Melbourne’s national and international profile as an artistically vibrant and invigorated city.

156,000 people attended Midsumma Festival in 2014, an increase of 24,000 from the previous year. Midsumma 2014 noted that audiences were primarily from metropolitan Melbourne (74%) and Victorian attendees accounted for 90% of the total attendance. Midsumma 2014 made a financial profit, which has enabled organisers to develop the program in advance of the 2015 event, Midsumma’s 27th anniversary Festival.

Midsumma Festival Inc is a not-for-profit association with one full time office staff member, governed by a volunteer Board of Management which is elected by membership. The festival team expands considerably in the lead up to the festival with contractors and a base of over 160 volunteers contributing to its success.

Since launched by the Gay Business Association in 1988, Midsumma has grown to become Victoria’s premier GLBTI (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender and intersex people) arts and culture festival, with little funding, and a small team of dedicated volunteers.

The introduction of ‘Carnival’ at Alexandra Gardens and Pride March in St Kilda in 1996 strengthened Midsumma’s position as a key Melbourne event, and in 2008 the Festival became the cultural partner of the inaugural Asia/Pacific Outgames.

Page 85


In 2014, 39,000 copies of the Midsumma printed program guide were distributed across QLD, NSW, VIC with specific concentration areas of Metropolitan Melbourne. The partnership with Yarra Trams was a feature of the Midsumma outdoor marketing campaign, with one third of the fleet showcasing Midsumma ‘tram faces’ and distributing event brochures and posters from November 2013 to February 2014.

New in 2014, was the partnership with Mr Moto which saw 1,000 café posters printed and distributed across greater Melbourne, as well as at the Midsumma Launch event. Last year media partners included: Star Observer; MCV; LOTL; JOY94.9FM; DNA; Manhunt; and Same Same, who provided the Festival with in-kind advertising both in print and online. The total value of this support alone was in excess of $60,000.

The 2014 www.midsumma.org.au had 102,691 unique visitors and 4,435 people downloaded the Midsumma iPhone/ iPad APP, which is an increase on the 3,745 people who download the Festival 2013 APP. Social media accounted for a large portion of promotions, with 11,146 likes on Facebook and 2,800 followers on Twitter. Midsumma have advised that their successful marketing strategy will be replicated in 2015, with a publicist working full time in the lead up to the event.

Current Midsumma sponsors include - City of Melbourne as the Major Partner, plus: Arts Victoria, Tourism Victoria, National Australia Bank, Yarra Trams, IBM, ManHunt, Telstra, Crown Metropol Melbourne, Hobsons Bay City Council, Go West, Maribyrnong City Council, Maribyrnong Festival City, Star Observer, SameSame.com.au, JoyFM.

DISCUSSION

ABS Census data provides some basic comparative statistics, which indicates, among Melbourne municipalities, City of Stonnington has the fifth largest recorded number of same-sex resident couples (2.7%), after Yarra (4.4%), Port Phillip (3.9%), Melbourne (3.8%) and Maribyrnong (2.8%).

While it is widely acknowledged that there is a large, younger GLBTI community residing in Stonnington, we also know that Stonnington is home to many older people who are GLBTI. Research found that older GLBTI people are less likely to access mainstream health and human services. Council’s Aged Services Unit undertook a process in 2011 to ensure Council’s services are inclusive, friendly and accessible to older GLBTI residents. This included the development of a communication, consultation and service promotion strategy, and a number of professional development and education programs for Aged Services staff with an aim to increasing awareness.

As part of this program, Aged Services submitted an Expression of Interest to be considered for the pilot of the Rainbow Tick audit program. The Rainbow Tick is an accreditation program developed by Gay and Lesbian Health Victoria in partnership with Quality Improvement and Community Services Accreditation (QICSA), with funding from the Victorian Department of Health, to determine the extent to which the organisation or service meets the needs of GLBTI consumers.

Stonnington Aged Services is one of six organisations (and the only local government organisation) selected to be audited in the pilot program http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/news-and-information/media-releases/media-releases-2012/rainbow-tick-pilot-program/.

The outcome of the successful audit is the awarding of one of the first Rainbow Ticks in Victoria. Not only does this ensure Stonnington’s GLBTI consumers have access to reliable and quality services, it also provides Council and the Aged Services Unit recognition of the City’s commitment and achievement in this area.

Page 86


The cash and in-kind support of the Midsumma Festival would assist in the development of the Festival’s brand, its association with Stonnington and further demonstrate the City’s commitment to GLBTI demographic. The proposed program for the City of Stonnington aims to provide leveraging opportunities for the traders, cultural opportunities for local residents, as well as create a GLBTI focus in the area at a time when a great proportion of families in Stonnington are on holidays. Council Officers would look to maximise Midsumma’s relationship with government tourism bodies and support and develop opportunities for the interstate and international tourists throughout the City.

The Australian Same-Sex Dancesport Championships attracts local and international participants and is Australia’s most renowned and largest Same-Sex Dancesport competition, and Melbourne’s only competition. Typically held in St Kilda Town Hall which is booked out on the desired date of 31 January 2015, Midsumma contacted Council Officers to determine the City’s interest in supporting the event by way of providing the use of the Malvern Town Hall free of charge.

The 27th Midsumma Festival will run from Sunday 18 January to Sunday 8 February, 2015. There is opportunity to expand the Sunset Sounds Concerts (currently proposed for 4th, 11th, 18th January 2015) and program the concert on the 18th January as well as an additional concert on 1st February in collaboration with Midsumma and locate these two successive events in Victoria Gardens. This concert series has potential to grow young adult audiences due to the summer holiday dates, and a Midsumma program would complement the aim to attract this demographic.

City of Stonnington proposed support to Midsumma FestivalIn-kind$ 2,500 - Australian Same-Sex Dancesport Championships - waive hire fee of Malvern Town Hall

$ N/A - Greville Street Market with a Midsumma Focus and potentially include Midsumma sponsors the Cullen Hotel in a food and entertainment offering

$ N/A - Work with Precinct Coordinators to strategically leverage for economic benefit

$ N/A - Make available Princes Gardens boards for a Midsumma commissioned artwork

$ 1,800 - Chapel Off Chapel Gallery rental fee for Midsumma curated exhibition

$ 4,300 - Total In-Kind Funding

Cash$20,000 - An additional concert programmed with Midsumma in Victoria Gardens$ 6,600 - Rainbow lighting on Prahran Town Hall façade$ 1,500 - Banners on the front of Malvern Town Hall$ 4,500 - Painting of Chapel Off Chapel pyramids, Production and Presentation of Flags and signage throughout Stonnington$ 432 - Midsumma Program listing fee

$33,032 - Total Cash

$37,332 - Total cash and in-kind contribution

Page 87


This program has the added benefit of supporting commercial activity currently proposed for Chapel Off Chapel which includes three bookings from theatre companies:

Loving Repeating – 2 week hire at Chapel Off Chapel $5,000 + GST per week The Altruists – 1 week hire at Loft $3,500 + GST per week Dolly Diamond – 2 days hire at Loft $1,500 + GST

Midsumma Festival would bill the City of Stonnington as a Major Partner for this level of support alongside sponsors such as Arts Victoria and the City of Port Phillip. The Stonnington logo would be featured on all printed matter including posters and printed guides, as well as on each page of the Midsumma website. There is also an opportunity for branding at the program launch as well as presentation opportunities at the Stonnington Council events.

In addition to the full time staff member, Midsumma appoints a dedicated Projects Officer to collaboratively program events with partners in the lead up to the launch. There is potential for City of Stonnington traders to promote regular GLBTI events through the Festival program such as The Railway Hotel Windsor Sunday afternoon sessions.

Support of the annual Midsumma Festival would be a welcome addition to the City of Stonnington calendar of community and cultural events as it celebrates and confirms Council’s inclusion of a diverse population. The City of Stonnington is a preferred home to a significant number of Melbourne’s gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender and intersex (GLBTI) people.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The support of Midsumma Festival directly upholds the values of three pillars of the Council Plan 2013-2017; namely Community, Liveability and Prosperity.

Council’s commitment to Community would be demonstrated by support of the event which would highlight the importance it places on social justice and equity and the delivery of support and services which advance a fair and just community.

Sponsorship of Midsumma Festival further contributes to the City of Stonnington’s pillar Liveability as the event recognises the area’s ‘diverse culture through programs and activities that observe traditions and heritage’.

The values of the Prosperity strategy which aims to develop ‘strategic partnerships to deliver economic and community benefit’ would be upheld as this event would be leveraged to benefit both the business and entertainment sectors

The Stonnington Aged Services have created a statement of Commitment that states:

Stonnington Aged Services is committed to providing services to all eligible residents in a fair and equitable manner. We recognise and consider the needs of our diverse community including (but not limited to) cultural diversity, sexual and gender diversity, age, health, socio-economic status, faith and spirituality, and those of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background when planning and delivering our services.

The mission statement demonstrates the City of Stonnington’s awareness and support of the GLBTI community.


Page 88


It is proposed the City of Stonnington provides the following towards Midsumma: $33,032 cash $4,300 in-kind funding is identified Total - $37,332

The budget total for the support of the 2015 Midsumma Festival would be drawn from the 2014/2015 Cultural Development budget and include $22,000 set aside for the 2014 Fringe Festival which will not proceed in August.


A review of the sponsorship agreement will be undertaken.

CONCLUSION

Stonnington’s cash and in-kind support of the Midsumma Festival would have a positive outcome for both the residential and business communities and further demonstrate Council’s commitment to a vibrant, cultural and inclusive City.


This recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.Do not delete this line

ATTACHMENTS

1. Midsumma Festival Guide - attachment 1 of 2 Excluded

2. Show Us Your Pride - Midsumma Festival 2015 - Project Plan - attachment 2 of 2

Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council support Midsumma Festival in 2015 by both in-kind and cash totalling $37,332.

Page 89


15. WINDSOR SQUARE - PUBLIC ART PROPOSAL


PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present the public artwork concept developed by artist Peter D Cole for Windsor Plaza and obtain approval for his design to be implemented.

BACKGROUND

The area around Windsor Station is currently being redeveloped as a public space, currently known as Windsor Plaza. Stage One is focussed on the Southern Plaza and will include new paving, furniture, landscaping and lighting.

To complement the design of Windsor Plaza, a brief was developed for an artist to design an integrated, site specific public artwork. This brief was informed by a number of Policies and Strategies concerning Public Art and Public Space. The Arts Acquisition Panel and Officers researched significant artists for this site specific commission and agreed established senior sculptor Peter D. Cole would deliver a substantial and well integrated artwork for the new fence along the south side of the Windsor train station.

Peter D. Cole ranks as one of Australia's senior and most renowned contemporary sculptors. Graphic, spatially relevant and refined, his aesthetic vision is illustrated through his accomplished and diverse artistic practice as a sculptor, watercolourist and draughtsman. Cole's work observes and recognises the boundaries of modern life without limiting its scale or its scope.

Cole is the recipient of the Australian National Trust Heritage Award (1996), the Australian Institute of Landscape Architecture Award of Merit (1995). His work is prominent in many public spaces and corporate collections throughout Australia, including Parliament House, Canberra, and the National Gallery of Australia

On 16 December 2013 Council endorsed the Art Acquisition Panel’s recommendation of Peter D Cole as the artist for the Windsor Plaza public art project.

DISCUSSION

Peter’s concept, informed by his prior experience with public art and sculpture, has since been designed and developed including consultation with Officers from Urban Design, Infrastructure Maintenance, and Landscape Architecture, as well as Cultural Development and Events. The final stage is to have the design supported by Council.

Peter’s rationale, an edited version of which appears below, states:

The Windsor Plaza location is a dynamic conglomerate of signs, shops, and architecture; a hive of cultures and activities used and experienced by locals and commuters. Through words and images the artwork ‘That’s Life’ for Windsor Plaza narrates the daily lives and transient activities of the people who live, work or commute to Windsor: live, love, work, think, talk, eat, sleep. The artwork also contains literal references to the locale of Windsor and its history: Paterson’s Cakes, the Windsor Telephone Exchange, and the reinvention of Aspro by George Nicholas in Windsor in 1915.

The concept was developed to appeal to a broad audience through both its universal and local perspective both during the day as well as at night.

Page 91


To support the recommendation, Attachments 1- 5 contain further detail including:

Attachment 1: Artwork Rationale (in full)

Attachment 2: Design Proposal

Attachment 3: Historical Icons

Attachment 4: Notes on Historical Icons

Attachment 5: Windsor Plaza Sculpture Collage

The artwork has been designed so as to minimise surface areas for tagging and graffiti and has a sloped base which prevents the placement of litter. The artwork will be fabricated from painted aluminium, a robust material appropriate to long-term outdoor exposure, and will be treated with a two-pack graffiti-resistant coating, recommended by the Contract Coordinator for Graffiti at Urban Maintenance Systems (UMS) and the Local Laws Officer responsible for graffiti. The sculpture will be illuminated at night with LED lighting so as to have both a lively daytime and vivid night time impact.

Stonnington’s Art Acquisitions Panel members have considered the proposal. One member is new and is yet to attend a meeting. The two current panel members who recommended Peter D Cole for this proposal have commented:

Peter D Cole is a highly esteemed and experienced contemporary Australia artist whose work is elegant and dynamic and has a substantial track record of high quality public artworks. Cole’s proposal addresses the Windsor site as a placemaker, a precinct in which people can pause, rest and meet, and a transitional zone for commuters. It is a carefully composed abstracted streetscape echoing the character of nearby Chapel Street as well as local history. This work will be a significant addition to Stonnington’s Collection. Charlotte Day, Director, Monash University Museum of Art:

As we hoped, Peter D Cole's design articulates the designated streetscape and history of the location in a thoughtful, playful, and engaging manner. I particularly like the way he references histories that are no longer visible, such as Paterson's cakes and Aspro. The size, colour and use of materials are all suitable for the purpose to which they are employed. In all, I think this will make a valuable contribution as part of Stonnington's ongoing commitment to art in the public domain and support of visual art and artists. Dr Rebecca Coates, curator and writer, lecturer, Art History and Art Curatorship, University of Melbourne:

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The Art in the Public Domain Policy 2013-2015 guides the commissioning of contemporary artworks by professional artists which are site specific, innovative, high quality, and that integrate sympathetically with their environment. This commission for Windsor Plaza aligns directly with the Art in the Public Domain Policy due to the Artist Brief being developed with direct reference to this Policy. This has ensured the artwork has been conceived with the exact site in mind and designed to integrate with its neighbourhood and environment. That Council has previously supported the selection of Peter D Cole as the artist guaranteed a high calibre experienced professional with 40 years industry practice was engaged for this task.

This commission is set to deliver on several goals of the Arts and Cultural Strategy 2011-15, in particular Creative Spaces, in which Council aims to ‘enliven public spaces with arts and cultural activities’ through acts that contribute to placemaking such as integrating creative aspects to civic developments.

With the inclusion of the Peter D Cole public art commission at Windsor Plaza, Council is successfully realising a ‘whole-of-Council approach to significant public projects

Page 92


and...developments’. Commissioning a senior artist to deliver a quality public sculpture which acts as tool for social engagement and civic pride addresses the Liveability strategy of the Council Pan 2013-17, which states Council ‘will continue to improve, maintain and provide safe, accessible and attractive public places and streets’ . It can also be seen to meet the goal of Leadership and Advocacy, where Council seeks ‘to celebrate, advocate and champion arts and culture in the community’.

To this end the commission was further guided by Stonnington’s Pubic Realm Strategy 2010 which states ‘Public art can contribute to the public realm more comprehensively when the artwork or art program is integrated with the values and design of [the] public spaces [in which they are situated]’.

Finally, the proposal to enliven the Windsor Plaza station fence with a site specific sculpture by Peter D Cole meets the second point of the Vision Arts and Cultural Strategy 2011-15 which is for Stonnington to be a creative city where ‘arts and culture surprises, delights and engages the community and beyond’.


This commission has been allocated $70,000 and is accommodated within the 2013/14 budgets for Economic and Cultural Development.

CONCLUSIONPeter D Cole was nominated by the Art Acquisitions Panel and endorsed by Council as a worthy and appropriately experienced professional artist to address the brief for this commission. The concept proposed addresses the brief which was informed by several Council policies and strategies and has been refined in collaboration with Council Officers to include historical and contemporary reference points of life in Windsor. The artist has fulfilled the brief successfully with a well developed site specific concept that integrates fittingly with its environment.



ATTACHMENTS

1. PDCole_ Windsor Square Design Proposal Attachment 1 of 5 Excluded

2. PDCole_Windsor Square Artwork Rationale Attachment 2 of 5 Excluded

3. PDCole_Windsor Square Historical Icons Attachment 3 of 5 Excluded

4. PDCole_Notes on HIstorical Icons for Windsor Square Attachment 4 of 5 Excluded

5. Windsor Plaza Sculpture Collage - attachment 5 of 5 Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council endorses artist Peter D Cole’s public artwork in Attachment 1 design for implementation at Windsor Plaza.

Page 93