Agenda of Council Meeting - 10 July 2017 · Web viewMonday 10 July 2017 at 7pm Council Chamber,...

NOTICE PAPERMonday 10 July 2017 at 7pm

Council Chamber, Malvern Town Hall,(enter off Glenferrie Road, Malvern)

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.

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

Council MeetingNotice Paper

Monday 10 July 2017Order 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 26 JUNE 2017.........................................................5

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

e) Questions to Council from Members of the Public (Clause 424 of General Local Law 2008 (No 1)

f) Correspondence – (only if related to council business)g) Questions to Council Officers from Councillorsh) Tabling of Petitions and Joint Lettersi) Notices of Motion – No 1/2017j) Reports of Special and Other Committees; - Assembly of Councillors k) Reports by Delegates l) General Business

1. PLANNING PERMIT 0709/14 - 279 DOMAIN ROAD, SOUTH YARRA – S72 AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING PLANNING PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR ALTERATIONS TO THE ORIGINAL DESIGN INCLUDING CHANGES TO THE SETBACKS OF BALCONIES ALONG DOMAIN ROAD..................................................9

2. HERITAGE STRATEGY UPDATE......................................................................................................273. AMENDMENT C132 - LOCAL HERITAGE POLICY APPROVAL............................................................354. AMENDMENT C261 - PERMANENT HERITAGE PROTECTION FOR 2 VICTORIAN PLACES AND

AMENDMENT C260 - INTERIM HERITAGE PROTECTION FOR 60 INDIVIDUAL VICTORIAN PLACES.......435. AMENDMENT C248 - PERMANENT HERITAGE PROTECTION FOR 558 WAVERLEY ROAD,

MALVERN EAST - ADOPTION.........................................................................................................496. AMENDMENT C255 - HERITAGE PROTECTION FOR 221 BURKE ROAD, GLEN IRIS -

CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS................................................................................................537. AMENDMENT C257 - HERITAGE PROTECTION FOR 390 GLENFERRIE ROAD, MALVERN -

CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS................................................................................................598. AMENDMENTS C263 AND C264 - HERITAGE PROTECTION FOR 6 MONARO ROAD, KOOYONG .........639. PROPOSED NEW BUILDING REGULATIONS - SWIMMING POOL SAFETY............................................6910. OSBORNE STREET, SOUTH YARRA - TRAFFIC CONDITIONS............................................................7511. GENERAL SIR JOHN MONASH.......................................................................................................8312. PROPOSAL FOR THE AMENDMENT TO CAROLINE STREET SOUTH NAME...........................................8513. COMMUNITY GRANTS 2017-2018..............................................................................................87

m) Other General Business

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.

n) Urgent Businesso) Confidential Business

1. CITIZEN OF THE YEAR AWARDS 2017..........................................................................................93

ADOPTION AND CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

10 JULY 2017

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council confirms the Minutes of the Council Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 26 June 2017 and Minutes of the Confidential Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 26 June 2017 as an accurate record of the proceedings.

GENERAL BUSINESS10 JULY 2017

i) Notice of Motion

1. NOTICE OF MOTION NO 1/2017: CRS DAVIS, KLISARIS & ATWELL

Notice is hereby given of the intention to move the following motion at the Ordinary Meeting of Council to be held on 10 July 2017 at the Stonnington City Centre:

Indoor Stadium Feasibility StudyThat:Three possible alternate sites be subjected to a more rigorous assessment by an independent Consultancy that has professional expertise across a range of disciplines including master planning, urban planning and design and landscape architecture.

1. These sites include: - The Malvern Valley Golf Course- The Orrong-Romanis Indoor Centre- The Car Park opposite the East Malvern RSL Club site

2. A report be brought back to Council on 21 August 2017. (Council meeting six weeks after the meeting on 10 July 2017).

3. The community continue to be kept informed of the progress of this additional study through our website and social media.

4. It be noted that the feasibility study will simultaneously continue looking at the site within the Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park in preparation for a report to be brought back to Council no later than 30 November 2017.

Rationale

The scope of the Indoor Stadium Feasibility Study will be widened to incorporate a comprehensive, independent assessment of three alternate sites for the proposed indoor stadium.

In response to requests from members of the community in East Ward, Council will obtain independent professional advice on three additional locations.

Page 7


The following three sites will be considered for an indoor stadium development proposal. These sites are:

1. The Malvern Valley Golf Course2. The Orrong-Romanis Indoor Centre3. The Car Park opposite the East Malvern RSL site

While these sites were initially considered - as they were included in the list of 51 sites that Council previously investigated - it is now proposed to seek more detailed advice on their suitability.

This will require an independent assessment by professional consultants with relevant experience to provide a more detailed analysis of the suitability of these sites, in comparison to the recognised potential of the site at the Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park.

Background:

At the East Ward meeting on 19 April 2017, the consensus of those in attendance was that more information should be forthcoming about other possible sites for the indoor stadium and more detailed information be provided as to their suitability or otherwise.

This request has continued to be the theme of much correspondence Council has received and was again frequently highlighted at the recent community workshops.

In response to the concerns of the community, Council will therefore widen the scope of the feasibility study to provide a more thorough analysis of these sites.

Page 8


l) General Business

1. PLANNING PERMIT 0709/14 - 279 DOMAIN ROAD, SOUTH YARRA – S72 AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING PLANNING PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR ALTERATIONS TO THE ORIGINAL DESIGN INCLUDING CHANGES TO THE SETBACKS OF BALCONIES ALONG DOMAIN ROAD

Manager Statutory Planning: Alexandra Kastaniotis General Manager Planning & Amenity: Stuart Draffin

PURPOSE

For Council to consider a section 72 amendment to the approved plans and permit comprising further alterations and additions to the building including variations to the external balconies, street setbacks, addition of rear planters and internal reconfigurations at 279 Domain Road, South Yarra.

This item was deferred for one Council meeting cycle on 26 June 2017.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Planning & Property Partners Pty LtdWard: NorthZone: General Residential – Schedule 9Overlay: Design and Development Overlay – Schedule 1 (DDO1)Neighbourhood Precinct: Garden RiverDate lodged: 17 November 2016Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

63

Trigger for referral to Council:

More than 7 objections and building greater than four storeys

Number of objections: Eight (8)Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on 9 February 2017Officer Recommendation: Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant an Amended Planning

Permit

BACKGROUND

Planning Permit 709/14 was issued at the direction of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) on 12 September 2016 and allowed for the construction of a multi dwelling development in a General Residential Zone and Design and Development Overlay and a reduction in the car parking requirement.

The approval comprises a part four, part five storey apartment building to accommodate five dwellings. Four dwellings each have three bedrooms. The fifth dwelling occupies two storeys and has five bedrooms and a rooftop terrace. 13 car parking spaces are provided in a basement and a waiver has been sought for one visitor car parking space.

Page 9


Council supported the proposal subject to a number of conditions. Following the issue of the Notice of Decision, an appeal (s80) was lodged with VCAT by two objectors. The applicant also lodged an appeal against several conditions (s82) relating to the requirements to setback the terraces from Murphy Street and the setback of the first floor wall of the master bedroom in Apartment 1.1. The matter was heard by VCAT in August 2016 and the Tribunal directed that a permit be issued subject to a number of amended conditions as follows:

The Tribunal directs that Permit No. 0709/14 must contain the conditions set out in Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit 0709/14 issued by the responsible authority on 12 February 2016 with the following modifications:

(a) Condition 1b is deleted.

(b) A new Condition 1b is included as follows:

No door access directly from the master bedroom and study/bedroom from apartment G.2 to the east.

(c) A new Condition 1k is included as follows:

A notation stating “The natural surface level in the eastern setback retained”.

The Tribunal made comments on the street setback to Murphy Street and the importance of providing canopy trees within the front setback to prevent the corner from appearing overly crowded given the height of the building. This finding will be discussed in greater detail later in this assessment.

It is noted that endorsed plans have not been issued under this permit and MGS have been retained as the architects on this project.

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by MGS and are known as Drawing No’s: TP00 Rev D, TP02 Rev H, TP03 Rev H, TP04 Rev H, TP05 Rev H, TP06 Rev H, TP07 Rev H, TP08 Rev H, TP09 Rev H, TP10 Rev H, TP11 Rev H and Council date stamped 21 April 2017. These revised plans were submitted under Section 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and supersede those previously advertised in November 2016.

The following amendments are proposed to the approved building:

Basement Floor Plan - TP02

Reconfiguration and increase in basement footprint, generally along the western boundary including modified bin store, modified apartment 2 store and cellar, reduction and relocation of water tank area (tank capacity maintained), separation of storage area adjacent to car space 10 and 13.

No variation to the number of car parking spaces provided (a total of 13 spaces are provided).

Ground Floor Plan - TP03

Minor internal alteration to Apartment G.1 Modified master bedroom west facing window details.

Page 10


Alterations to the terrace area of G1, including larger chimney. Minor amendment to bathroom of Apartment G1. Location of AC condensers shown to the rear elevation. Removal of the splay along the north-west corner of the site. Increased width of the pedestrian path to the penthouse lobby from Murphy Street. Addition of a 4.8m wide fire booster cupboard along the Domain Road frontage. Relocated visitor bicycle parking space within the Domain Road front setback. Additional window on the eastern elevation to be screened to Standard B22

requirements. One additional opening shown to the rear south elevation. Internal reconfigurations to apartment layouts. Notations confirming existing crossover on Domain Road to be reinstated as kerb and

footpath. Notation confirming that the natural surface level along the eastern boundary is to be

retained.

First Floor Plan - TP04

Modified master bedroom west facing window Apartment 1.1 Modified internal arrangement of Apartment 1.1 Decreased terrace setback of Apartment 1.1 to 1.75m from Domain Road, previously

setback 2.53m from Domain Road. Decreased terrace setback of Apartment 1.2 to 2.08m to Domain Road, was previously

setback 2.89m from Domain Road. Reconfigured windows along the southern elevation, 1.7m high screens previously shown around the windows replaced with a 0.75m wide

planter box that runs along the length of the southern elevation with a 1.7m high screen to Standard B22 requirements along the full length of the planter. The screen is setback 2.25m from the southern boundary.

Location of AC condensers shown to the rear elevation. Additional window on the eastern elevation to be screened to Standard B22

requirements. Internal reconfigurations to apartment layouts.

Second Floor Plan - TP05

Modified internal arrangement for Apartment 2.1 Decreased terrace setback of 1.75m to Domain Road, previously setback 2.53m from

Domain Road. Decreased terrace setback of 2.08m for the guest bedroom to Domain Road, was

previously setback 2.89m from Domain Road. Planters added to the Domain Road terraces. Reconfigured windows along the southern elevation, 1.7m high screens previously shown around the windows replaced with a 0.4m - 1.6m

wide planter box that runs along the southern elevation with a continuous 1.7m high screen to Standard B22 requirements along the full length of the planter. The screen is setback from the southern boundary a minimum distance of 3.25m.


requirements. Internal reconfigurations to apartment layouts. The western wall of the family room in Apartment 2.1 pushed back 1m from Murphy

Street (no change in the balustrade setback).

Third Floor Plan - TP06

Page 11


Modified internal arrangement for Apartment 2.1. Decreased terrace setback to 1.75m to Domain Road and 2.08m to the terrace of the

master bedroom, previously setback 2.53m and 2.89m from Domain Road. Planters added to the Domain Road terraces. Reconfigured windows along the southern elevation. A new 0.9m wide planter to the south side of the building with a continuous 1.7m high

screen to Standard B22 requirements along the full length of the planter. The screen is setback from the southern boundary a minimum distance of 6.2m.

Introduction of windows (2) on the eastern elevation to be screened to Standard B22 requirements.

Internal reconfigurations to apartment layouts. The western wall of the living room pushed back 1m from Murphy Street (no change in

the balustrade setback).

Roof Plan – TP07

Alteration to the roof hatch access.

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is located on the south-east corner of Domain Road and Murphy Street, South Yarra. It has the following significant characteristics:

The site is regular in shape, with a frontage to Domain Road of 37.7 metres, a sideage to Murphy Street of 20.98 metres and an area of approximately 800 square metres.

There is a notable slope across the land downwards towards the north east and a maximum fall of 3.74m.

It is not constrained by any special features or encumbrances. The site is occupied by a single dwelling. East of the dwelling is a garden and separate carport. This area of the site has been

generally levelled, with steps provided down to Domain Road. The dwelling is setback from the site’s south boundary by around 1.7m. It is setback

from Domain Road by approximately 6m although the protruding garage is setback by only around 1.9m. The dwelling is setback from Murphy Street by around 3.9m.

There is vegetation on the site although no trees which would be categorised as ‘’significant’’.

The area has a wide mix of buildings, including a high proportion of three to six storey apartment buildings.

The site is conveniently located to Toorak Road and Chapel Street activity centres and has convenient access to public transport.

44 Murphy Street is located immediately south of the site and is developed with 18 townhouses around a central, shared access driveway. There are dwellings within this property with north facing windows and balconies orientated towards the subject site.

281 Domain Road is located immediately east of the site and is developed with a recently constructed, four storey (including basement) rendered dwelling. The dwelling is setback from the common boundary with the subject site by around 1.3m. There is a row of ground floor windows orientated towards the subject site as well as an obscured window at first floor level.

Previous Planning Application(s)

Page 12


A search of Council records indicates the following relevant planning applications, other than the permit currently being amended:

Planning Permit 419/10 was issued on 8 April 2011 and allows the redevelopment of around two-thirds for the site (essentially the western two-thirds) for a five storey apartment building over a basement. The permit remains current having been most recently extended on 20 March 2015, so that it expires if works do not commence by 8 April 2017. 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 before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has not yet started This approved building contains four dwellings.

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 11274 Folio 047 and no covenants or easements affect the land.

Planning Controls

Section 73(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 states that Sections 47 to 62 apply to an application to amend a permit as if the application were an application for a permit and any reference to a permit were a reference to the amendment to the permit.

Therefore, the amendments to the permit and plans are to be assessed against the relevant planning controls affecting the proposal.

Note: Only the changes to the approved proposal are considered as part of this application for amendment.

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

ZoneClause 32.08– General Residential Zone (Schedule 9)Pursuant to Clause 32.08-6 a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot. A development must meet the requirements of Clause 55. This does not apply to a development of five or more storeys, excluding a basement. An apartment development of five or more storeys, excluding a basement, must meet the requirements of Clause 58.

Clause 32.08-6 includes transition provisions, which confirms that Clause 58 does not apply to:

An application for an amendment of a permit under section 72 of the Act, if the original permit application was lodged before the approval date of Amendment VC136.

As the proposed building technically constitutes a five storey building, the Objectives and Standards of Clause 55 do not apply. Nonetheless, it is noted that Schedule 9 to the GRZ includes variations to Standard B8 (Site coverage), B13 (Landscaping), B17 (Side and rear setbacks) and B18 (Walls on boundaries) of Clause 55. It does not include a maximum building height.

Since the issue of the permit changes have been introduced to the General Residential Zone, specifically relating to the minimum garden area (35% of the site area), maximum building height (11m and 3 storeys) and the introduction of Clause 58. Importantly, as the

Page 13


permit issued prior to the introduction of the new provisions under VC110 and VC136 there are transitional provisions that apply and accrued rights are able to be retained.

Specially, Clause 32.08-14 (Transitional Provisions) notes that the minimum garden area requirement of Clause 32.08-4 and the maximum building height and number of storeys requirements of Clause 32.08-9 introduced by Amendment VC110 does not apply to:

A planning permit application for the construction or extension of a dwelling or residential building lodged before the approval date of Amendment VC110 (27 March 2017).

Overlay(s)Clause 43.02 - Design and Development Overlay (Schedule 1)Pursuant to Clause 43.02 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works. Schedule 1 (Royal Botanic Gardens), states that a permit is not required for a building or works to be constructed up to 12 metres in height. The height of the building is not being altered from that already approved therefore no further referral to the Royal Botanic Gardens is deemed necessary.

Particular ProvisionsClause 52.06 - Car ParkingThere are no proposed changes to the car parking provision from the plans previously approved.

Relevant Planning Policies

Clause 15 Built Environment Clause 16 Housing Clause 21.03 Vision Clause 21.05 Housing Clause 21.06 Built Environment and Heritage Clause 22.05 Environmentally Sustainable Development Clause 22.23 Neighbourhood Character Policy

Advertising

The application has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The initial advertising was carried out by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land (and by placing two signs on the site). The public notification of the application was completed satisfactorily.

The site is located in North Ward and objections from eight (8) different properties have been received. The concerns are summarised as follows:

Reduction in the number of car parking spaces Overshadowing impacts and visual bulk on the streetscape Acquisition of on-street car spaces Out of character with the area Building height Invasion of privacy Impacts during construction The proposal does not comply with Condition 1 and no conditions are sought to be

deleted Access gate between G.2 and Domain Road is inappropriate and removes landscaping

Page 14


Crossing to be removed from Domain Road to allow for 2 additional on-street parking spaces is inappropriate

Sections D and E removed from application materials is inappropriate Does not respect the neighbourhood character with regard to built form and landscaping Reduced setbacks will compromise landscaping Increased balconies will contribute to dominate building Traffic management issues

A Consultative Meeting was held on 9 February 2017. The meeting was attended by Councillors Chandler and Griffin, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer.

The meeting resulted in revised plans being lodged with Council that included corrections to setbacks and notations, as well as numerous other amendments. The plans were submitted under Section 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The further changes to the plans are summarised as follows:

Basement Level

Increased basement footprint to accommodate relocated cellar (on west side of the basement).

Ground Floor Level

Location of AC condensers shown to the rear elevation. Removal of the splay along the north-west corner of the site. Increased width of the pedestrian path to the penthouse lobby from Murphy Street. Addition of a 4.8m wide fire booster cupboard along the Domain Road frontage. Relocated visitor bicycle parking space within the Domain Road front setback. Additional window on the eastern elevation to be screened to Standard B22

requirements. One additional opening shown to the rear south elevation. Internal reconfigurations to apartment layouts. Notations confirming existing crossover on Domain Road to be reinstated as kerb and

footpath. Notation confirming that the natural surface level along the eastern boundary is to be

retained.

First Floor Level

Reconfigured windows along the southern elevation, 1.7m high screens previously shown around the windows replaced with a 0.75m wide

planter box that runs along the length of the southern elevation with a 1.7m high screen to Standard B22 requirements along the full length of the planter. The screen is setback 2.25m from the southern boundary.


requirements. Internal reconfigurations to apartment layouts.

Second Floor Level

Planters added to the Domain Road terraces. Reconfigured windows along the southern elevation,

Page 15


1.7m high screens previously shown around the windows replaced with a 0.4m - 1.6m wide planter box that runs along the southern elevation with a continuous 1.7m high screen to Standard B22 requirements along the full length of the planter. The screen is setback from the southern boundary a minimum distance of 3.25m.


requirements. Internal reconfigurations to apartment layouts. The western wall of the family room in Apartment 2.1 pushed back 1m from Murphy

Street (no change in the balustrade setback). Internal reconfigurations to the apartment layout.

Third Floor Level

Planters added to the Domain Road terraces. Reconfigured windows along the southern elevation, A new 0.9m wide planter to the south side of the building with a continuous 1.7m high

screen to Standard B22 requirements along the full length of the planter. The screen is setback from the southern boundary a minimum distance of 6.2m.

Introduction of windows (2) on the eastern elevation to be screened to Standard B22 requirements.

Internal reconfigurations to apartment layouts. The western wall of the living room pushed back 1m from Murphy Street (no change in

the balustrade setback). Internal reconfigurations to the apartment layout.

Roof Plan

Alteration to the roof hatch access.

The applicant has also noted in their cover letter to Council that there will be some changes to landscaping and fencing. However, the specific details have not been provided as part of the amended proposal. Updated fencing details will be required via conditions as will an updated landscape plan that must be the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

The revised plans were re-advertised in May 2017 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land. One (1) further objection from an existing objector to the south was received. The concerns raised include:

Further reduced setbacks to Domain Road; Garden area cutback on the Domain Road front; Addition of an entry gate that will further diminish garden area landscaping to the

east; Landscaping to southern boundary not shown; Incomplete plans to detail the proposed colour of the materials.

The above concerns have been considered throughout this assessment and several conditions have been imposed to address these items. The revised plans Council date stamped 21 April 2017 are the plans referred to throughout the assessment below.

Referrals

Urban Designer

Page 16


Council’s Urban Designer has reviewed the proposed changes and is not supportive of the reduced setbacks to Domain Road.

KEY ISSUES

Only the amendments to the original proposal can be considered within this report. The matters for assessment are discussed in turn below:

Changes to the Basement

In terms of the changes to the basement, the variations will be of no consequence to any property beyond the boundaries the subject site. The rearrangements will not affect the number of car spaces to be provided or the ability to access each space. The basement has been increased slightly along its western side and the increased section is now shown as the “cellar”. The main consideration with the increase in the basement is whether or not the variation will impact on the ability to plant canopy trees along the west side of the building.

The basement setback to the west will continue to vary between 2.2m and 4.9m which is sufficient space to provide meaningful in-ground landscaping. As such, the changes to the basement are acceptable and can be supported.

It is noted that the basement plan includes reference to two (2) new on-street car parks. On-street parking cannot be privatised and therefore, the reference to on-street parking on the basement plan is to be removed by way of a condition.

Ground Floor Changes to Domain Road

The three most notable changes at the ground floor level to Domain Road include the introduction of the fire booster cupboard, the removal of the corner splay at Murphy Street and the relocation of the visitor bicycle space from beside the front entry door to further to the east, adjacent to the vehicle crossover.

The relocation of the visitor bicycle space is considered to be acceptable. The location within the front garden setback towards the vehicle crossing is not ideal, however it will continue to be accessible for visitors to the building.

A fire booster cupboard now extends for a length of 4.8m along the Domain Road frontage at a height of 2.2m. The approved fence in this location has a height of 1.8m. The introduction of the fire booster will result in a slightly higher wall and although generally not an ideal outcome in terms of streetscape integration, it can be accepted subject to it being finished in a high quality complementary material that matches the building on the subject site.

Of more concern is the fact that the fire booster now occupies a 4.8m wide section of the front setback that was previously shown to be garden. The combined effect of reducing the garden area within the front setback and seeking to push the building closer to the street is problematic and should not be supported. The reduced setback will be discussed in greater detail below.

The removal of the corner splay to the north-west is also concerning and may adversely impact on pedestrian safety. It is unclear why the splay has been removed and it is also not clear what type of fencing is now proposed in this location. It is deemed that splays are needed for safety and they should not be removed without sufficient justification. In this case, no explanation has been provided and it does no benefit the development to remove it.

Page 17


Therefore, a condition will require that the splay be reinstated as shown on the plans advertised in November 2016.

Reduced Setbacks to Domain Road

The approved scheme proposes the balconies and part of the building (chimney) to be setback from Domain Road a minimum distance of between 2.53m and 2.89m (measured to the wall of the chimney and face of balconies). The setbacks are now proposed to be reduced by way of this amendment to a distance of 1.75m.

Existing street setbacks of buildings in Domain Road vary from zero to the west of Murphy Street, to nearly 6 metres directly to the east of the subject site. While there are examples of zero street setbacks to the west along Domain Road, these buildings are not of a commensurate scale to the building that is the subject of this amendment. Additionally, the length of frontages are less than the subject site, which has a considerable presence in Domain Road with a frontage length of approximately 37 metres.

The building at 4-5 storeys in height due to the slope in the land will be a dominant form in the street and the original decision found that on balance, the setbacks proposed (and required via conditions) ensure an appropriate urban design outcome that allows for some landscaping features to Domain Road to buffer the robust building. Condition 6b) of the permit as issued, requires that the landscape plan be amended for endorsement to allow for additional canopy trees to both street frontages. The amendments being sought will further reduce the available space along the Domain Road frontage for canopy trees which is not supported.

As a consequence of pushing the building closer to the street there will be a notable reduction in the opportunities for screening vegetation to Domain Road. As a result, it is considered that the building will present an excessive degree of visual bulk to the public realm. The changes that will push the built form to within 1.75m of the north boundary are deemed to exacerbate the visual dominance of the building. As a result of the scale of the form, the further reductions in setbacks do not integrate well into the streetscape of Domain Road and are not supported. A condition of approval will require that the Domain Road street setbacks be amended to match those of the original approval (as shown on plans submitted to Council 30 November 2015), being 2.53m and 2.89m (measured to the wall of the chimney and face of balconies).

It is further noted that there is no justification as to why the applicant cannot incorporate the amendments sought within the approved building envelope given the considerable size of the proposed apartments.

Changes to the Murphy Street Façade and Lobby Area

The changes to the west façade are less problematic as the building is not proposed to move any closer to Murphy Street than what has been previously approved by VCAT. The changes have come about as a result of rearranging the penthouse lobby and pushing the lift further west. The external wall of the lift will now align with the west facing terraces at Floor Levels 1, 2 and 3. The setback from the street will remain at 3.91m. This change will result in only a slight variation to how the building presents to the west; however the building will continue to be well articulated.

The change will not reduce any opportunities to establish meaningful landscaping and canopy trees to Murphy Street as was required by the VCAT decision:

Page 18


I am satisfied that condition 1a should be retained. I think the additional setback would provide additional space for canopy landscaping at the corner. Importantly, it would be consistent with the setback of the building on the opposite corner and prevent the corner appearing unduly enclosed or crowded by built form, given the height of the proposed building. I think retaining a corner that is spacious balances the robust built form along the street edges and enhances the public realm.

The introduction of some additional windows on this elevation raises no concerns as the windows are oriented towards Murphy Street and will not create new opportunities for overlooking into secluded private open space within 9 metres.

At the upper two levels the west wall of Apartment 2.1 has been pushed back 1m from the street to allow for an enlargement of the terrace. The change will not alter the location of the face of the terrace when viewed from Murphy Street.

Impacts on Landscaping

An updated landscape plan does not form part of this amendment application. The permit as issued requires the submission of a revised landscape plan that includes additional canopy trees to both street frontages. This will continue to be required. It is considered that this development must integrate a suitable landscape response that provides for enhanced on-site amenity for the residents and makes a meaningful contribution to the landscape character of the neighbourhood.

The property to the east has raised concerns with the introduction of a new gate providing access to the eastern side setback alongside Apartment G.2. At the VCAT hearing the adjoining property at 281 Domain Road raised concerns with overlooking from the east facing windows and private open space as a result of the difference in surface levels between the two properties. The VCAT Order P432/2016 & P715/2016 made the following findings:

70 With regard to possible overlooking, No.281 Domain Road has a ground floor level at 24.5 AHD. The ground floor of the proposed development would be at 26.0 AHD, approximately 1.5 metres higher than the review site. Mr Robins says the difference in natural ground level will enable residents in ground level dwelling G.2 to overlook the habitable rooms of No.281 Domain Road, particularly if a terrace is constructed adjacent to G.2 and with the same floor level extending to the fence. He says the doors should be deleted and the natural ground level on the eastern elevation should be retained. Mr Twite agrees and says the doors shown on the plan should be replaced with windows that are screened.

71 I accept their advice that the difference in the floor levels would create the possibility of overlooking and I agree that the matter can be readily resolved by including conditions on the permit.

Based on the previous VCAT decision which removed doors providing access to the eastern setback, it is reasonable to remove the gate now sought as part of this amendment as it may result in unreasonable overlooking. This will be addressed via conditions of any amended permit issued.

Page 19


The requirement to maintain the natural surface level within the eastern setback has been retained via a condition on the permit and a note is included on the plans. Amenity Impacts

The internal changes to the layouts will not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts on any adjoining property.

When considering amenity it is relevant to consider matters such as overshadowing, overlooking and visual bulk. Some guidance is found in relation to these matters in the Planning Scheme; however, at five storeys technically Clause 55 is not applicable to this application, however it remains a useful guide.

Visual Bulk to the South

There were some concerns raised by the adjoining properties to the south and east that the dimensions shown on the advertised plans dated November 2016, and particularly on Section A, had altered from those previously approved. These discrepancies have since been corrected on the revised plans received by Council 21 April 2017. While the rear wall setbacks remain the same, the plans have proposed the addition of new planters along the southern side of the building which encroach within the setbacks previously approved.

Although the planters and associated screens will result in built form sitting closer to the south than previously approved, the screens will have a maximum height of 1.7m and will not be higher than the existing southern boundary walls as approved. The Sections provided with the revised plans confirm that the screening and planters will continue to sit within the recommended side and rear setbacks as per Standard B17, as well as within the Standard B20 envelope (North Facing Windows Objective).

As proposed, the 1.7m high screens require a setback as required by Standard B17 of 1.1m at the first floor, 2.39m at the second floor and 5.29m at the third floor. In terms of Standard B20, the screens require a setback of 1.18m at the first floor, 3.28m at the second floor and 6.28m at the third floor level. The screens setbacks comply with these requirements. These measures suggest that the proposed impacts, including visual bulk will continue to be acceptable. This conclusion is assisted by the fact in ground landscaping can continue to be included along the south boundary.

Overlooking

While the windows to the south have been reconfigured; all new south facing windows are shown to be screened via a 1.7m continuous screen that will be to B22 Standard requirements. The screens will be integrated into the new planters also placed along the southern elevation. The proposed screening devices will ensure no unreasonable overlooking into an adjoining property.

On the eastern side of the building some windows have been reconfigured and some additional windows have been added. Again, all windows with an outlook to the east (including the Ground Floor Plan) have been shown to be screened with an external screen to 1.7m in height and to the B22 Standard requirements.

Overshadowing

The reduced setbacks to the southern boundary of the subject site will not result in any consequential overshadowing to the adjoining properties from that previously approved. The

Page 20


southern wall heights of the building are not proposed to change as a result of this amendment and the walls sit above the 1.7m screening devices.

Objections

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

Construction Impacts

Potential construction impacts cannot be considered at this time. These impacts will be addressed at the building permit stage.

Changes to car parking and acquisition of on-street parking

The applicant cannot acquire on-street parking for this development and there has been no change in the car parking provision as part of this amendment.

Landscaping details not shown

As no updated landscape plan has been provided, the landscaping details must be in accordance with the originally advertised landscape plan and updated to address the requirements of Condition 1 and 6.

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 some of the proposed amendments be supported subject to conditions for the following reasons:

The changes to the Murphy Street façade will not result in unreasonable visual bulk as meaningful landscaping can continue to be established within the setback deemed acceptable by VCAT (3.91m).

The introduction of the new planters and screening to the southern side of the building will not unreasonably impact on the adjoining properties.

The internal modifications will not result in any substantial change to the building and will not unreasonably impact on an adjoining property.

Subject to conditions, the proposed changes to the Domain Road frontage are acceptable.

Page 21


ATTACHMENTS

1. PA - 709-14 - 279 Domain Road South Yarra - Attachment 1 of 1 Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant an Amended Planning Permit 709/14 for the land located at 279 Domain Road, South Yarra be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for construction of a multi-dwelling development in a General Residential Zone and Design and Development Overlay and a reduction in the car parking requirements subject to the following amended condition:

1. Before the commencement of the development, one (1) electronic copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the application plans prepared by MGS Architects received by Council on 21 April 2017 but modified to show:

a) The western edges of the terraces facing Murphy Street at the First, Second and Third Floor Plan setback from Murphy Street by a minimum of 3.91m with consequential internal rearrangement. Each dwelling must still be provided with a primary balcony abutting their respective living room which is at least 8sqm in size with a minimum dimension of 1.6m.

b) No door access directly from the master bedroom and study/bedroom from apartment G.2 to the east.

c) The provision of 1.7m high screening to the ground floor east facing master bedroom and study / bedroom windows of Dwelling G.2 in accordance with Standard B22 of ResCode;

d) Dimensions for the sight distance triangles at the entry to the driveway and at the splay at the street intersection to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

e) The depth of the columns in the basement car park annotated on the plans.

f) A section provided showing the detail of the roof access, including its drainage.

g) Any ESD measures such as operable windows, water tanks (including drainage areas) and solar panels to ensure consistency with the Sustainable Management Plan required by Condition 4.

h) All mechanical plant and equipment, all equipment is to be fully screened.

i) Schedule of construction materials, external finishes and colours. The schedule must correspond with the elevations and identify all of the finishes used on the building.

j) A Waste Management Plan as per Condition 3, Sustainable Management Plan as per Condition 4 and Landscape Plan as per Condition 6.

k) A notation stating “The natural surface level in the eastern setback retained”.

Page 22


l) Balcony and chimney wall setbacks to Domain Road to be increased to 2.53m and 2.89m as shown on the architectural plans submitted to Council on 30 November 2015;

m) Basement level plan to remove reference to 2 new on-street car parks;n) Splay along the north-west corner of the subject site reinstated as per the

advertised plans Council date stamped 17 November 2016;o) Fire booster cupboard to be finished in a high quality complementary

material that matches the building on the subject site;p) Details of the screening devices to the south and east of the building

including the material and transparency;q) Removal of the new gate providing access to the eastern setback at the

ground floor level;r) Details of how the planters to the south of the building will be irrigated;s) Heights and materials of all fencing to be noted on the plans;

In the event than an Amended Permit is issued, the conditions will read as follows:

1. Before the commencement of the development, one (1) electronic copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the application plans prepared by MGS Architects received by Council on 21 April 2017 but modified to show:

a) The western edges of the terraces facing Murphy Street at the First, Second and Third Floor Plan setback from Murphy Street by a minimum of 3.91m with consequential internal rearrangement. Each dwelling must still be provided with a primary balcony abutting their respective living room which is at least 8sqm in size with a minimum dimension of 1.6m.

b) No door access directly from the master bedroom and study/bedroom from apartment G.2 to the east.

c) The provision of 1.7m high screening to the ground floor east facing master bedroom and study / bedroom windows of Dwelling G.2 in accordance with Standard B22 of ResCode;

d) Dimensions for the sight distance triangles at the entry to the driveway and at the splay at the street intersection to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

e) The depth of the columns in the basement car park annotated on the plans.

f) A section provided showing the detail of the roof access, including its drainage.

g) Any ESD measures such as operable windows, water tanks (including drainage areas) and solar panels to ensure consistency with the Sustainable Management Plan required by Condition 4.

h) All mechanical plant and equipment, all equipment is to be fully screened.

i) Schedule of construction materials, external finishes and colours. The

Page 23


schedule must correspond with the elevations and identify all of the finishes used on the building.

j) A Waste Management Plan as per Condition 3, Sustainable Management Plan as per Condition 4 and Landscape Plan as per Condition 6.

k) A notation stating “The natural surface level in the eastern setback retained”.

l) Balcony and chimney wall setbacks to Domain Road to be increased to 2.53m and 2.89m as shown on the architectural plans submitted to Council on 30 November 2015;

m) Basement level plan to remove reference to 2 new on-street car parks;n) Splay along the north-west corner of the subject site reinstated as per the

advertised plans Council date stamped 17 November 2016;o) Fire booster cupboard to be finished in a high quality complementary

material that matches the building on the subject site;p) Details of the screening devices to the south and east of the building

including the material and transparency;q) Removal of the new gate providing access to the eastern setback at the

ground floor level;r) Details of how the planters to the south of the building will be irrigated;s) Heights of all fencing to be noted on the plans;

2. The development must be in accordance with the endorsed plans unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Responsible Authority.

3. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must be generally in accordance with the Waste Management Plan prepared by Leigh Design Pty Ltd and dated 26 September 2014 updated to correspond to the final plans.

4. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans, a consolidated set of revised ESD Reports (to form a Sustainable Management Plan (SMP)) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon approval the SMP will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development must incorporate the sustainable design initiatives outlined in the SMP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The report must be generally in accordance with the ESD Reports which formed Section 8.3 of the advertised Town Planning but modified as follows:

a) To include updated information that refers to, and demonstrates compliance with, the current energy rating requirements of the BCA.

b) To identify an energy efficient lift system.c) To provide consistency between the submitted reports and the

application plans.d) To include water treatment mechanisms where water is collected from

trafficable surfaces.e) To include a commitment to develop a Building User Guide. f) To include a construction phase stormwater pollution reduction strategy.g) To include a specific construction and demolition phase waste

Page 24


minimisation target.

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

6. Before the development starts, a landscape plan to be prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The landscape plan must be generally in accordance with the advertised landscape plan but modified to show:

a) A paving extent which matches the extent shown on the architectural plans submitted on 30 November 2015.

b) Additional canopy tree planting within both street frontages including with space south of the pedestrian entry from Murphy Street.

c) Additional landscaping (volume and extent) within all setbacks to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

d) Landscaping proposed to be in situ notated. e) Soil volumes.f) Consistency with the architectural plans.

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

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

9. Prior to the occupation of the building, fixed privacy screens (not adhesive film) designed to limit overlooking as required by the relevant Standard B22 of Clause 55 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.

10. All plant and equipment (including air condition units) must be located or screened so as to not be visible from any of the surrounding footpaths and must be baffled so as to minimise the emission of unreasonable noise to the environment in accordance with the relevant regulations to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

Page 25


12. The level of the footpath adjoining the site must not be lowered or altered in any way to facilitate access to the site or for any other reason.

13. Before the development starts, a report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council. A drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in accordance with the report prior to a building permit being issued.

14. Prior to occupation of the building or commencement of use, the existing vehicular crossing made redundant by the building and works hereby permitted must be broken out and re-instated as standard footpath and kerb and channel at the permit holders cost to the approval and satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

15. 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.

16. The crossover must be constructed to Council’s Standard Vehicle Crossover Guidelines unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority.

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

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

permit.

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

NOTES:

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

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.

Page 26


2. HERITAGE STRATEGY UPDATE

Manager City Strategy: Susan Price General Manager Planning & Amenity: Stuart Draffin

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report to provide an annual update to Council on the implementation of the Heritage Strategy Action Plan.

BACKGROUND

Council prepared a Heritage Strategy Review and adopted a Heritage Strategy Action Plan (Action Plan) in December 2006. The Action Plan provides a framework for reviewing existing places and heritage citations and assessing new places. The Action Plan is structured around the following themes:

Governance

Assessment methodology

Data Management

Review existing citations

Assessment of new places

Planning Scheme implementation

Heritage management

Council Officers commenced implementing the Action Plan and reporting progress to Council in late 2006. Council was last updated about implementation of the Action Plan in June 2016.

DISCUSSION

A summary of the Action Plan implementation is included in Attachment 1. This Action Plan has seven key task areas. Detail associated with implementation of the updated Action Plan and the key task areas is discussed below.

GovernanceImplementation of the Action Plan has been overseen by a Steering Committee (comprising Council Officers and Council’s Heritage Advisors) with responsibility for recommending new priorities for investigation. A Reference Group comprising a Councillor, a representative from Stonnington’s History Centre, Council Officers and representatives from historical societies, Heritage Victoria and the National Trust also meets occasionally to provide feedback on heritage issues, priority for action, and broader input into the Heritage Strategy. The last meeting of the Reference Group was held in August 2013.

The Heritage Strategy is currently scheduled for a review over the next 12 months. This will comprise a review of the Heritage Strategy Action Plan. At this time Council will consider the appropriate governance structure for the implementation of a new Heritage Strategy.

Page 27


Assessment MethodologyCouncil Officers have reviewed the process and methodology for assessing heritage places and preparing heritage citations. Heritage studies and citations are prepared in accordance with ICOMOS Burra Charter (framework for Australian cultural heritage management), the HERCON criteria (national criteria to identify and manage heritage) and apply grading from Council’s Unified Grading System and Revised Grading Definitions (adopted in 2002).

Data Management The Action Plan aims to improve access to heritage data. Council has completed inputting data for all its heritage listed places into HERMES, a heritage database used by heritage advisers and Council Officers. This data was made publicly available via a user friendly web-based product called the Victorian Heritage Database (VHD) in 2016.

Data in both HERMES and the VHD is updated as new information becomes available. Review Existing Citations The Action Plan also identifies the need to review older heritage citations which have limited detail and/or lack a Statement of Significance. These older citations provide limited support for Council’s position on new development within the Heritage Overlay (HO), particularly at VCAT.

Heritage Citations will be periodically reviewed with highest priority being given to:

Precincts located in activity centres to inform structure planning.

Precincts with older citations.

Precincts experiencing development pressure.

Assessment of New Places and Planning Scheme ImplementationCouncil has had an ongoing commitment to protecting heritage. In the initial stages of the implementation of the Action Plan, Council commissioned a Precinct Gap Study in 2009 (refer 5.1 in the Action Plan) which recommended several precincts to be included in the HO. This provided the basis for the roll-out of planning scheme amendments to apply the HO to the precincts.

Attachment 2 provides a map showing the location of heritage precincts and individual places in the HO. In June 2016, 265 individual places and 82 precincts were included in the HO. Since then, 56 new individual places have been included, totalling 321 individually-significant places.

The map shows 59 precincts were included within the HO prior to the current Heritage Strategy and a further 23 new precincts (and 10 extensions to existing precincts) have been included since 2007 as part of the implementation of the current Heritage Strategy. The map also shows 56 of these places have been included in the HO since the previous Heritage Strategy Update in June 2016. Since the Strategy Update of June 2016, the following amendments have been approved and gazetted:

Amendment C183 (Heritage Places – Part 2) gazetted on 30 June 2016, allowed for the inclusion of 10 additional places such as bridges, and the Gardiner Railway Station signal box.

Amendment C233 (Individual HO Control) - was gazetted in April 2017, replacing the interim with permanent HO controls for one place at 878 High Street, Armadale.

Amendment C225 (Individual HO Control) - was gazetted in May 2017, replacing the interim with permanent HO controls for one place at 177 Kooyong Road, Toorak; and introducing permanent HO controls to three places at 179 and 181 Toorak Road and 63 Albany Street, Toorak.

Page 28


Amendment C238 (Individual HO Control) - was gazetted in June 2017, replacing the interim with permanent HO controls for one place at 29 & 31 Phoenix Street, South Yarra.

Amendment C222 was gazetted in June 2017 for the addition of 40 places to the heritage overlay from the Interwar Houses era.

The current stage of Council’s Heritage Strategy focuses on individual buildings not currently included within the HO with the Federation Houses Study in progress. The goal is to seek heritage controls for all A1 graded buildings and select A2 graded buildings (meeting or exceeding the threshold of local significance).

Since 2006, Council has maintained and refined information on potential individual places, derived from:

An analysis of theme gaps in the Thematic Environmental History (i.e. themes with no examples of places in the current HO or under-represented themes).

An analysis of places (graded A1 or A2) listed in former conservation studies and which are not currently in the HO.

Recommendations for additional places from historical societies, Council’s archives, Council Officers, the National Trust and other relevant sources.

These places have been sorted into themes with work undertaken in the following three stages:

Stage 1: Refinement of initial information based on a desktop survey and research.

Stage 2: Further investigation and identification of places with potential for inclusion in the HO.

Stage 3: Citations and planning scheme amendments to include identified places in the HO.

Table 1 below summarises recent work to identify and include new themes of individual places in the HO. This table shows amendments approved within the past five years and current work including exhibited amendments and current amendments and studies.

Given the large number of places involved in the Stage 2 and 3 studies for Federation and Victorian houses, these projects represent a significant workload both financially and from an Officer resource perspective.

Table 1: Summary of Investigation and Implementation of Individual Places Theme Number

of places

Status / Notes Stage

Hotels 6 C127 Gazetted January 2012 Complete

Churches and Halls 16 C135 Gazetted October 2012

Stables and Dairies 7 C145 Gazetted October 2012

Chimneys 2 C156 Gazetted May 2012

Shops 17 C158 Gazetted February 2013

Residential Flats 24 C163 Gazetted November 2013

Heritage Places (Part 1) 9 C183 (Part 1) Gazetted 14 January 2016

Heritage Places (Part 2) 10 C183 (Part 2) Gazetted 30 June 2016

Inter-war Houses 40 C222 Gazetted 15 June 2017 Complete

Victorian Houses 58 Amendment C249 (58 places) Exhibition Exhibition

Page 29


25 May to 26 June 2017

1 Amendment C233 (878 High Street, Armadale) Gazetted 6 April 2017

Complete

1 Amendment C238 (29 & 31 Phoenix Street, South Yarra) Gazetted 1 June 2017

Complete

1 Amendment C248 (558 Waverley Road, Malvern East) – Panel report received 31 May 2017

To be considered by Council

1 Amendment C243 (Lauriston Girls School –1034-1040 and 1076 Malvern Road, Armadale ) - Exhibition period finished 22 May 2017.

Report being prepared for Council to consider submissions.

Federation Houses 53 Stage 3 - Background Report and preparation of citations

Stage 3 (commenced)

1 Amendment C255 (221 Burke Road, Glen Iris) Exhibition period finished 21 April 2017.

Consideration of Submissions and appointment of Panel

1 Amendment C257 (390 Glenferrie Road, Malvern) Exhibition period finished 12 May 2017.

Consideration of Submissions and appointment of Panel

1 Amendment C243 (Lauriston Girls School – 1034-1040 and 1076 Malvern Road, Armadale) Exhibition period finished 22 May 2017.

Report being prepared for Council to consider submissions.

Post-war Houses and Flats

18 Not commenced Not commenced

Section 29A RequestsUnder Section 29A of the Building Act 1993 Council has the opportunity to review report and consent applications for demolition. If a place is considered to be significant, Council can request interim heritage protection from the Minister for Planning within 15 business days. When a HO is applied to an individual site it triggers a requirement for a planning permit for demolition and other buildings and works.

Over the last 12 months, 360 applications under Section 29A of the Building Act 1993 were received. Two of these requests resulted in requests for interim controls. Management of interim and permanent heritage controls arising from Section 29A requests is extremely resource intensive.

Interim Heritage Control Requests to the Minister for PlanningIn the past, when Council was progressing amendments to apply the HO on a permanent basis to precincts by grouping, interim controls were applied to the whole group to enable protection from demolition, to allow the full amendment process to apply permanent controls to run. This meant affected parties could lodge a submission to be considered by Council and an Independent Planning Panel (if required). More recently, the Minister for Planning has only considered applications for interim controls where a place is under imminent threat of demolition (ie, via a Section 29A request under the Building Act 1993).

As such, Council’s current practice is to request the Minister for Planning to apply interim heritage controls via a planning scheme Amendment only on heritage significant sites where they become under demonstrable threat of demolition. There are two ways this can happen - via a planning permit application proposing demolition or a Section 29A request under the Building Act 1993 for demolition consent.

Page 30


This is a particularly resource intensive process requiring coordination across Council Departments, and individual heritage amendments applying interim controls under short time frames. This also involves additional resources from the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) to consider these amendments on an individual basis.

As such, Officers consider that once a study is complete and Council is ready to apply permanent controls via a planning scheme amendment, Council should also seek the Minister for Planning to apply interim controls (with a sunset clause) while the amendment for permanent heritage protection is considered. It is considered this is the most transparent process and the most efficient use of resources, particularly in the context of the Victorian Government’s Smart Planning program which seeks to make the planning system more efficient.

Some (often substantial) resources will still be required to consider demolition requests on an individual basis in advance of a study being complete (such as the Federation Houses Study). It is not possible to determine the volume of these, however it often requires a reprioritisation within the City Strategy Unit in order to meet the short timeframes.

Table 2 summarises the location and status of recent interim heritage control requests, and their associated permanent control requests.

During the 2016/17 financial year, interim controls were requested for six (6) places. Of these, all six (6) requests for interim protection have been approved by the Minister (one with changes).

Table 2: Status of Recent requests for Interim Heritage Controls

Address Outcomes

29 & 31 Phoenix Street, South Yarra Interim controls Gazetted 25/08/16 (C237)

Permanent controls Gazetted 01/06/2017 (C238)

558 Waverley Road, Malvern East Interim controls Gazetted 02/03/17 (C247)

Permanent controls sought (C248) – Panel Report received 31 May 2017

221 Burke Road, Glen Iris Interim controls approved 16/06/17 (C254)

Permanent controls sought (C255) – Panel Hearing scheduled for July/August 2017, anticipated to be rescheduled to Sept 2017

390 Glenferrie Road, Malvern Interim controls approved 29/06/17 (C256)

Permanent controls sought (C257), Panel Hearing scheduled for September 2017

Lauriston Girls School, Armadale (Blairholme House & Sutherland House)

Interim controls approved with changes on 15/06/17 (C242)

Permanent controls sought (C243), Panel Hearing scheduled for September 2017

Heritage Policy and GuidelinesThe revised Heritage Policy proposes to strengthen Council’s policy position for assessing planning applications and VCAT submissions. Amendment C132 proposes to replace the existing Heritage Policy with a revised and more comprehensive Heritage policy at Clause 22.04. A Panel considered Amendment C132 in March 2017.

Page 31


The Panel Report was released in May 2017. Council is scheduled to consider adopting the updated Heritage Policy, and forwarding the Amendment to the Minister for Planning for approval in July 2017 (part of this Council Agenda paper).

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The implementation of Council’s adopted Heritage Strategy Action Plan is consistent with the following Council Plan Strategy:

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

It is also consistent with Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement Clause 21.06 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, which seeks to:

“Protect and enhance all places which are significant and contributory to the heritage values of the City of Stonnington.”

The Strategy is consistent with Council’s Local Heritage Policy at Clause 22.04 which seeks to:

“Recognise, conserve and enhance places in the City identified as having architectural, cultural or historic significance.”

“Celebrate the municipality’s heritage and diverse buildings by balancing its existing character with complementary and sustainable developments.”

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

Budget for implementing the Heritage Strategy Action Plan including general heritage advice, protection of heritage places and costs associated with the inclusion of a new heritage policy in the Planning Scheme have been included in Council’s City Strategy Unit operating budget for 2016/17 and 2017/18. It represents a significant allocation of resources for a thorough investigation of places of potential significance.

Staff resource requirements and costs of managing individual amendments where there is threat of demolition are significant, especially where opposing submissions are received, requiring the appointment of an independent Panel. Progressing full studies and planning scheme amendments for Federation and Victorian places have been resource intensive and have had to be balanced with other strategic planning priorities (such as responding to State Government projects, Activity Centre planning and implementing Strategies for Creating Open Space).

LEGAL ADVICE & IMPLICATIONS

All affected parties where heritage protection is proposed are given the opportunity to make submissions on amendments as part of the statutory exhibition period for planning scheme amendments. Where a submission on a proposed amendment remains unresolved, an independent Panel hearing will be requested.

CONCLUSION

Council has a strong history of investigating and protecting individual places and precincts with heritage significance. The Heritage Strategy Action Plan implementation is now focusing on investigating and advancing amendments to protect places considered to have individual heritage significance (by theme) and updating citations.

Page 32


HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION

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

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 of 2 - Heritage Strategy Excluded

2. Attachment 2 of 2 - Map Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Notes this progress report on the implementation of the Heritage Strategy Action

Plan.2. Reaffirms the commitment to heritage investigation for places of potential

individual significance by theme, but notes that where places of potential significance come under demonstrable threat of demolition, a resource reprioritisation may need to occur to meet the short timeframes.

3. Nominate interested Councillor representatives for the Heritage Reference Group.

4. Writes to the Minister for Planning to seek in principle support to apply the Heritage Overlay on an interim basis with a sunset clause where Council is progressing an amendment to apply the Heritage Overlay on a permanent basis.

Page 33


3. AMENDMENT C132 - LOCAL HERITAGE POLICY APPROVAL


PURPOSE The purpose of this report is for Council to:

Consider the recommendations of the Planning Panel on Amendment C132, and

Decide whether to adopt Amendment C132 with or without changes and request the Minister for Planning approve the Amendment.

BACKGROUND

On 19 October 2015, Council resolved to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit Amendment C132.

The Amendment proposes to replace the existing Clause 22.04 Local Heritage Policy with a new revised policy (Attachment 1) which includes definitions, policy objectives and application requirements for the different types of development within residential and commercial areas. The updated policy is more comprehensive than the existing policy and includes more specific policy direction with regards to acceptable development outcomes where a planning permit requirement is triggered by the Heritage Overlay (HO). Importantly, the revised policy also includes a new section on demolition.

The updated Policy is being introduced in association with changes to Clause 21.06 (Built environment and heritage) (Attachment 2) of the Municipal Strategic Statement and a revised and updated reference document - City of Stonnington Heritage Design Guidelines, July 2017 (Guidelines) (Attachment 3). As a reference document, the Guidelines provide background to specific decision guidelines in the Policy, and useful general advice to planning permit applicants.

The Amendment affects all land currently included in the Heritage Overlay of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. The Amendment does not propose to apply the Heritage Overlay to additional land and does not vary the Schedule to the Heritage Overlay.

Exhibition Formal exhibition of the Amendment took place from 23 June to 25 July 2016.

Notification and exhibition of the Amendment was carried out via the following measures:

Letters, including FAQ sheet sent to the owners and occupiers of all affected properties and prescribed authorities on 20 June 2016.

Notices placed in the Stonnington Leader on 21 June 2016 and the Government Gazette on 23 June 2016.

Full amendment documentation on the Department of Environment Land Water and Planning and Stonnington websites.

Page 35


Council also offered one-on-one meetings with Council Officers and the Heritage Consultant to all affected parties who wished to obtain more information on the Amendment.

Council received two submissions during exhibition of Amendment C132 (one objecting and one non-objecting from Public Transport Victoria).

At its meeting on 21 November 2016, Council resolved to request the Minister for Planning to appoint a Panel to consider the submissions. Council also adopted a position in support of exhibited Amendment C132, with minor changes to the wording relating to ‘services and equipment’.

Panel Hearing

A Panel Hearing to consider the one objecting submission was held on 15 March 2017. The Panel member was Cathie McRobert. Although the objecting submitter requested to be heard, the submitter did not appear at the Hearing.

Prior to the Panel Hearing, Council appointed Bryce Raworth, a heritage consultant as an expert witness to assess the exhibited Policy and the Guidelines against best practice heritage principles and procedures. As a result of Bryce Raworth’s review, minor refinements to the wording of the Policy were made and circulated to the Panel and the submitters prior to the Panel hearing to assist the Panel’s assessment. These were all in tracked changes for ease of reference.

DISCUSSION

Panel Report

The Panel Report (Attachment 4) was released on 12 April 2017. The Amendment C132 Panel Report addresses the issues raised in the objecting submission and evidence presented by Mr Bryce Raworth.

The Panel has recommended that the Amendment should be adopted as exhibited, subject some changes which are outlined below with Council’s proposed response.

Officer Response to Panel Recommendations

Recommendation 1:

1. Consider clarifying policy relating to ‘concealment’ sightline envelopes where the planning scheme provides for new development of significant scale that will have a presence in views from the street.

The Policy presented at the Panel Hearing included two sightline diagrams at Clause 22.04-4.4 (Additions and alterations). This Clause provides general policy with regards to additions and alternations to an existing heritage building then “drills down” to provide separate policy for suitable outcomes for residential and commercial extensions. Each section includes a sightline diagram.

Mr Raworth, in his expert evidence queried whether using sightline analysis as a tool to assess suitability of upper level extensions for all commercial development could be problematic, as follows:

Page 36


…”the reliance on sightline envelopes for commercial areas potentially brings the Amendment into conflict with Council’s strategic vision for major activity centres such as Chapel Street, where DDOs encourage tall development at comparatively modest setbacks from the street‐wall…”

In response to Mr Raworth’s expert evidence, the Panel considered the need to accommodate growth in established urban areas but noted this policy imperative does not mean that all other planning objectives must be dismissed. The Panel also noted the recent update to the State Planning Policy Framework at Clause 11.06‐4 (Place and identity) addresses the issue directly through the strategy “Recognise the value of heritage by carefully managing the ongoing processes of growth and change in the urban environment”.

The Panel also drew on Mr Raworth’s advice where he indicated in areas subject to Design and Development Overlay controls there has been an increasing acceptance of more visible upper storey elements, including outcomes that are in excess of that allowed by ‘sightline envelopes’.

Mr Raworth made the following statement in his written evidence:

“Sightline analysis, as proposed in Stonnington’s heritage policy, remains a useful tool for assessing upper storey additions to residential buildings. However, the reliance on sightline envelopes for commercial areas potentially brings the Amendment into conflict with Council’s strategic vision for major activity centres such as Chapel Street, where DDOs encourage tall development at comparatively modest setbacks from the street-wall.”

Ultimately the Panel has not agreed or disagreed with Mr Raworth’s assessment that the sightline may not be the best tool to assess the suitability of upper level setbacks for commercial development, but has highlighted the planning permit application assessment process requires the balancing of competing objectives where there are also other relevant policy considerations.

Level of visibility is dependent on the height of the existing heritage building and the width of the street. Given these factors, the Panel’s recommendation is suggesting Council may want to revise the Policy to allow scope for times where full concealment, as suggested by the sightline Diagram 1, is not always achievable nor in fact always the sought outcome in commercial areas, such as where a level of visibility may be considered appropriate.

The Panel concludes that:

Rather than dispensing with objectives to protect significant heritage objectives to meet urban growth imperatives, a balancing of objectives is required.

Where planning provides for new development of significant scale that will have a presence in views from the street, policy suggesting ‘concealment’ of new development should be clarified, however, the Panel is not in a position to specify the policy guidance in these circumstances.

In considering the advice from Council’s expert witness and the Panel’s recommendations, Officers have reviewed Diagram 1 and resolved to recommend its deletion from the policy, while continuing to maintain the intent of achieving a level of concealment that is contextually appropriate. This has been achieved by maintaining the performance based criteria within the policy and relocating the objective in E under the Diagram within the body of the policy. A, B and C from the Diagram are covered under All Areas of the policy. Other outcomes aimed for under Diagram 1 such as in F and G are a better fit and are more appropriately covered by other controls within the planning scheme.

Page 37


Requiring full concealment of upper level setbacks in commercial areas will result in a much lesser development density than envisaged in some of the Design and Development Overlay (DDO) controls and this will create a discord between the various applicable policies in the planning scheme.

Further, the words in the Heritage Policy do not call for full concealment in all instances, rather, the policy encourages development to ‘adopt a visually recessive design where the heritage place remains the dominant visual element…. Respecting and having minimal impact on the significance of the heritage place, …[and to] present minimal bulk from oblique views”.

Therefore the full concealment indicated in Diagram 1 is potentially not in line with the written objectives of the policy. Deleting Diagram 1 does not preclude requiring full concealment in some instances, it just means that full concealment is not an expected outcome in all instances.

The deletion of Diagram 1 is not considered to weaken the policy as the Policy still aims to:

Ensure that all upper level additions and alterations:- Are set back behind the primary building volume.- Complement the height, scale and setbacks of any adjoining significant or

contributory buildings.- Result in storey heights to complement the alignment of the primary building

volume. - Are generally contained within an envelope created by projecting a sight line

from 1.7metres above ground level on the opposite side of the street- Present minimal bulk from oblique views.

As a consequence of the deletion of Diagram 1, Diagram 2, applying to residential development, is to be renumbered Diagram 1 within the Policy.

As a consequence of the deletion of Diagram 1, the definition of ‘Primary building volume’ has been updated to delete the words ‘presenting as a three dimensional form to the street’ and adding the words ‘For residential buildings, this generally equates to the front two rooms in depth, of the original building’ so that the definition in full is:

‘Primary building volume’ means the building fabric including the principal façade, roof form and chimneys. For residential buildings, this generally equates to the front two rooms in depth, of the original building.

This wording has been added for clarification and to eliminate ambiguity around the extent of building volume and addresses a gap with the deletion of Diagram 1 that illustrated the setbacks of the new works from the original building. It is also noted that the Heritage Guidelines contain diagrams to guide appropriate setbacks for both commercial and residential buildings.

Page 38


Recommendation 2:

The Panel’s second recommendation pertained to minor matters with relation to wording and drafting.

2. Revise the proposed Clause 22.04 Heritage policy as illustrated in Appendix A, including:

a) make post‐exhibition changes put forward by Council and in evidence from Mr Raworth (summarised in Table 1 of this [Panel] report and incorporated in Appendix A), unless inconsistent with specific changes recommended by the Panel.

The changes to the wording of the Policy are minor and largely based on Mr Raworth’s recommendations incorporated into the Policy circulated prior to the Panel hearing. These are minor changes to the expression of the Policy and have the effect of clarifying and strengthening the Policy to ensure the intended outcomes are achieved. These changes are tracked from the Exhibited version of the Policy and an explanation is provided within the comments bubble against each tracked change, as shown in Attachment 1.

b) edit the policy and consolidate provisions unless provisions only apply to specific areas.

The policy has been consolidated by the Panel in Attachment 1 of the Panel Report. However in doing this, a lot of the headings have been removed which serve to make the policy less easy to navigate and not as user-friendly. The loss of the headings means the flow and consistency of the Policy with the Heritage Guidelines is lost and the two documents can no longer be read side by side.

The Panel’s attempt at consolidation does remove some repetition and serves to reduce the length of the policy, however given the content is largely the same, officer recommendation is to keep the policy layout unchanged for ease of use and reference and consistency with the Heritage Guidelines.

The Guidelines will also need to be edited for consistency with the revised Heritage Policy.

c) refer to ‘services’ rather than ‘services normal to a dwelling’.

Although the Panel recommended the deletion of ‘Services normal to a dwelling’ in the exhibited Policy to only ‘Services’ as per the wording in recommendation 2c); Attachment 1 included with the Panel Report states ‘Domestic Services’ only in the heading but the Panel’s changes that follow on from that heading are clearly intended to apply this section of the Policy to both commercial and residential buildings.

Further, it is noted that the Services section is preceded by the heading ‘All Areas’ which infers it also applies to commercial buildings. Attachment 1 to this report has therefore been amended so that Clause 22.04-4.6 only refers to ‘Services’. The tracked changes version of the Policy, other than the deletion of ‘domestic’ from the heading, all align with the Panel’s changes in Attachment 1 of the Panel Report.

d) delete ‘side street’ from the definition of ‘principal façade’.

Page 39


This recommended change is supported as the Principal Façade by its plain English definition infers one face of the building. Principal Façade is defined in the Policy in Attachment 1 to this report as “the front elevation facing the main road’. The words “…and any side elevations facing side roads” have been deleted.

e) make consequential revisions to Diagrams 1 and 2.

This recommendation pertains to rear setbacks shown in Diagram 1. This diagram has been deleted and Diagram 2 has been renumbered. All relevant content contained within the deleted diagram has been retained in the Policy.

f) review the matters to be addressed in applications for new buildings in precincts to ensure that mimicry is not promoted.

On page 16 of the Panel Report, the Panel recommended that Council

“Align matters to be addressed in new buildings in precincts with the less detailed requirements for significant and contributory buildings. This should include deleting references to complementary detailing, finishes, colour schemes and fenestration, which could promote mimicry.”

This recommendation is not supported. It is considered that the reference to new buildings complementing adjacent significant or contributory places with regard to materials, detailing, finishes and colour schemes provides a framework to guide the consideration of new development. It is noted that Council’s Expert Heritage witness did not have any concerns that the drafting of the policy will result in mimicry. This view is supported by the following statement on page 9 of Mr Raworth’s Expert Evidence Report:

“Yarra’s heritage policy has similar objectives in encouraging new development that is respectful of the pattern, rhythm, orientation to the street, spatial characteristics, fenestration, roof form and materials.”

And “Stonnington’s proposed heritage policy generally aligns with the policies above in seeking to ensure that infill development complements adjacent heritage places with regard to issues such as height, street wall height, scale, mass, roof forms, fenestration, materials, detailing, finishes and colour schemes.”

Recommendation 3:

Lastly, the Panel recommended Council revise the City of Stonnington Heritage Design Guidelines to align with recommended changes to the proposed Clause 22.04 Heritage policy.

The content in the Guidelines is recommended to remain largely unchanged from post Exhibition, with the exception that Diagram 5 in the Guidelines, which is titled Diagram 1 in the Policy (recommended to be deleted) will remain, but with modifications.

The Heritage Guidelines are not identical in content to the Policy and are not meant to be. They support and inform the application of the Policy so the retention of this Diagram in the Guidelines, with modifications, is considered appropriate as it represents one appropriate way to construct upper level additions and alterations to commercial buildings.

Page 40


The Diagram will be amended to delete F, D and G from the Diagram and the Key below it. C will also be deleted from the Diagram and will be modified in the Key to read ‘Additional storeys above primary building volume height to be visually recessive.’ E in the Key will be updated to mirror the revised wording in the Policy.

As a result of the recommended tracked changes to the Policy, the order of some sections is different from the order of the Guidelines. For example, content regarding Ancillary Buildings has been included with Access and Car Parking in the Policy, while it has been retained under Additions and Alterations and also under New Buildings in the Guidelines. Within the Guidelines, Ancillary Buildings are accompanied by Figure 6 and 12 that contain diagrammatic information in relation to a number of other issues, not just location of ancillary buildings, such as building envelope for new additions and the building volume to be retained. For this reason, it is not considered appropriate to relocate content relating to Ancillary Buildings within the Guidelines.

Other changes to the Guidelines relate to updating the definition of ‘Primary Buildings Volume’, referring to ‘Services’ only rather than ‘Ancillary Services and Equipment’ and relocating the section in relation to Fences and Gates and Public Realm so they align with the order in the revised Policy. These changes are tracked and shown in Attachment 3.

Adoption of Amendment C132 with ChangesIt is recommended that Council adopts the Amendment with changes since exhibition. The changes are in line with some of the recommendations made by the Panel except as set out above.

Council is required to formally decide how to proceed with Amendment C132 within 40 business days of receiving the Panel Report (12 April 2017). An exemption from the need to comply with this requirement of Ministerial Direction No. 15 was sought on 31 May 2017 and exemption was granted by the Department of Environment Land Water & Planning.

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.

Ultimately, it is the Minister for Planning who will make the final decision on the Amendment.

Attachments 1, 2, 3 and 5 for the Amendment documents for adoption. Attachment 5 is an updated Clause 21.09 - Reference Documents.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Amendment C132 is consistent with the following Council Plan (2017-2021) strategy:

‘Preserve Stonnington’s heritage architecture and balance its existing character with complementary and sustainable development.’ It is also consistent with Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement Clause 21.06 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, which seeks to:



The costs associated with the preparation and processing of Amendment C132 have been included within the 2015/16 2017/2018 Strategic Planning Budget.

Page 41


The indicative timeframe for Amendment C132 is as follows:

Authorisation Exhibition Panel Adoption Ministerial ApprovalOctober 2015 June – July 2015 March 2017 July 2017 September 2017

The replacement of the existing local policy with a new updated version will not result in an increase in the number of planning applications for the Statutory Planning Department.


All affected parties have been given the opportunity to make submissions on Amendment C132 and have been afforded the opportunity to be heard by an independent Planning Panel.

CONCLUSION

The Amendment, as exhibited, proposes to replace and update the Heritage Policy at Clause 22.04 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

The Panel appointed to consider the one objecting and one non-objecting submission and the Amendment has recommended that Amendment C132 be adopted as exhibited subject to some changes.

It is recommended that Council adopts Amendment C132 with changes since exhibition. Variations from the Panel recommendations have been identified with justification.



1.ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 of 5 - Clause 22.04 - tracked changes version Excluded

2. Attachment 2 of 5 - Clause 21.06 Excluded

3. Attachment 3 of 5- Heritage Guidelines Excluded

4. Attachment 4 of 5 - Panel Report Excluded

5. Attachment 5 of 5 - Clause 21.09 Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Notes the public release of the Panel Report for Amendment C132.2. On considering the Panel Report, adopts Amendment C132 to the Stonnington

Planning Scheme, (pursuant to Section 29(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987) generally in accordance with the officer’s response as contained in this report and as outline in Attachment 1, 2, 3 and 5.

3. Submits the adopted Amendment C132 to the Minister for Planning for approval, in accordance with Section 31(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

4. Advises all submitters of Council’s decision in relation to Amendment C132.

Page 42


4. AMENDMENT C261 - PERMANENT HERITAGE PROTECTION FOR 2 VICTORIAN PLACES AND AMENDMENT C260 - INTERIM HERITAGE PROTECTION FOR 60 INDIVIDUAL VICTORIAN PLACES


PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for Council to:

note the findings of the revised Victorian Houses Heritage Study 2017.

request authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare Amendment C261 for permanent heritage protection for two Victorian places in the City of Stonnington (17-19 Ethel Street, Malvern; and 3 & 5 Avondale Road, Armadale).

request the Minister for Planning to apply interim heritage protection (Amendment C260) to sixty Victorian places in the City of Stonnington.

BACKGROUND

Council has a strong program of heritage investigation and protection with the current stage focusing on gaps in the Heritage Overlay (HO) of individual houses by era. Council has engaged heritage consultants Context Pty Ltd (Context) to undertake Stages 2 and 3 of the Victorian Houses Heritage Study (Study), which is now complete.

Amendment C261Amendment C261 seeks heritage protection for two Victorian places that were identified in Stage 1 of the Interwar Houses Study as requiring further investigation. Context found that two places (17-19 Ethel Street and 3 & 5 Avondale Road, Armadale) meet the threshold of high local significance and recommended them for protection in the HO.

Amendment C260Amendment C260 seeks interim heritage protection for 60 Victorian places. This includes the 58 Victorian places that are subject to Amendment C249 ‘Heritage protection for 58 Victorian places’ and the 2 Victorian places that are subject to Amendment C261 ‘Heritage protection for 2 Victorian places’.

A brief background to the amendments, Council’s Heritage Strategy and the Victorian Houses Heritage Study is provided in Attachment 1.

Amendment C249Amendment C249 proposes to apply the heritage overlay for 58 Victorian places across the municipality to implement the findings of the Victorian Houses Heritage Study. Exhibition closed on 26 June 2017. A report will be brought to Council following consideration of submissions to seek a position for Panel and to request an independent Planning Panel.

Interwar Houses Heritage StudyIn early 2017 Stage 1 of the Interwar Houses Study identified four sites as requiring further investigation as part of a future study of Victorian houses. Accordingly, Council requested Context to investigate the four places in light of their other work on Victorian houses.

Context confirmed that the four sites included houses from the Victorian era (1837 to 1901) and have therefore been added to the Victorian Houses Heritage Study (revised June 2017).

Page 43


Context also found that two of the four places (17-19 Ethel Street, Malvern and 3 & 5 Avondale Road, Armadale) meet the threshold of high local significance and recommended them for more detailed investigation (Stage 3 preparation of citations) and therefore prepared heritage citations for them (refer Attachment 2). This determined that the places are of local architectural and aesthetic significance, and recommends the places for inclusion in the HO on an individual basis.

The findings of the citations are summarised in the City of Stonnington Victorian Houses Heritage Study – Stage 3 Background Report (revised June 2017), to include the additional two places.

DISCUSSION

Amendment C261 - Proposed Permanent Individual Heritage Controls Council’s Heritage Consultant, Context has recommended two (2) Victorian places for permanent heritage protection in the Planning Scheme. No internal alteration controls, paint controls, tree controls or fence controls are recommended. Outbuilding controls are recommended for the stables at 3 Avondale Road, Armadale.

It is therefore proposed to pursue a Planning Scheme Amendment to include the two (2) places in the HO to implement the findings of the Victorian Houses Heritage Study (revised June 2017) (refer Attachment 3 for aerial photos and photos of the two places). The HO and associated Schedule is the principal mechanism by which a Municipality safeguards its heritage assets.

The City of Stonnington is committed to the retention and conservation of its heritage houses. The Amendment will deliver an outcome for the protection of houses of heritage value and significance in the municipality, consistent with the objectives of the planning scheme.

Justification for the application of blanket Interim Heritage ControlsDuring the C249 and C261 Amendment processes some Victorian houses of heritage significance may come under an immediate threat of partial or complete demolition that would affect the heritage integrity of the place. This will require Council to prepare amendment documents and seek Council endorsement to request the Minister to prepare an amendment for interim heritage protection. This is resource intensive as it requires an additional amendment to apply individual controls in an ad hoc basis, and in very tight timelines. This is also resource intensive for the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) to respond to each individual request for interim heritage controls.

Over the past two financial years (2015/16 and 2016/17) Council has applied for ten amendments for interim heritage controls (for 11 places) and 2 extensions of interim controls at a total cost of $29,741.30 in fees to DELWP. Of these requests, seven amendments were approved by the Minister, one amendment was approved with changes, and two of the requests are still pending a decision by the Minister. No requests for interim heritage controls have been refused in the past 2 financial years, although one amendment was approved with changes.

The Victorian Government’s Smart Planning program seeks to make the planning system more efficient. The inclusion of the sixty places in the HO via interim heritage protection will make more efficient use of Council and DELWP resources, eliminating duplication of process. This process was undertaken for a number of amendments which proposed the HO apply to precincts. For example the Minister for Planning approved interim heritage controls (via Amendment C116) for the Sorrett Avenue Precinct (HO396) and the Sutherland Road Precinct (HO397) while Amendment C117 (proposing the HO on a permanent basis) was progressed.

Page 44


If interim controls are introduced, as proposed in Amendment C260, interim protection will apply until the permanent amendments (C249 and C261) are finalised. In this interim period, the full provisions of the HO will apply. This will allow Council to manage and assess proposals for demolition and redevelopment that may otherwise undermine the heritage significance of the place. Applications will be assessed pursuant to the provisions of the HO and the owners will have the right of appeal to VCAT.

As such, endorsement is sought to request the Minister for Planning to intervene with a Ministerial Amendment by including the sixty places subject to Amendments C249 and C261 in the HO with interim heritage protection, until such time as consideration of applying the heritage overlay on a permanent basis is complete (via Amendments C249 and C261) (refer Attachment 4 for a list of the sixty places).

Amendment L47(D)After amalgamation of the cities of Prahran and Malvern, Amendment L47(D) was brought to Panel in the late 1990’s. There were eleven L47(D) Panel Hearings held between 18 August and 7 December 1999.

In April 2000, Council considered a Report on the recommendations of the Panel. At this meeting, Council resolved to invite the submitters to L47(D) to meet individually with Council to consider the merits of their properties being included in the HO, having regard to their individual circumstances.

On 19 June 2000, following these meetings with the objecting submitters, Council considered a Report on Amendment L47(D). This report addressed the contested properties that the Panel recommended for inclusion in the Stonnington Planning Scheme. Council subsequently resolved to abandon this part of the Amendment and not proceed with applying a HO to thirty places that received objecting submissions. Excluding those places from the Amendment was contrary to the Panel’s recommendations.

That Council report included seven places which have now been reassessed in the Victorian Houses Heritage Study. The place at 17-19 Ethel Street, Malvern is one of those places.

The L47(D) Panel Report recommended that all the seven places be included in the HO. The Panel Report considered that 17-19 Ethel Street, Malvern should be included in Amendment L47(D), stating:

“That No. 17 Ethel Street, Malvern, be included in Table 128-4 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, as set out in Amendment L47D.

That the Statement of Significance be amended in accordance with the points made in the preceding discussion and earlier discussion in Section 5. References to the relevant AHC criteria be amended, also taking account of the points made in the preceding discussion.”

The Victorian Houses Heritage Study has found that 17-19 Ethel Street, Malvern still meets the threshold of high local significance (A2 graded) and warrants individual protection as part of Amendment C261.

Next Steps – Exhibition of Amendment C261 Following a resolution from Council, advanced notice will be provided to the owners of the two places, with a letter and the relevant heritage citation.

Following authorisation, formal exhibition of Amendment C261 is proposed to commence in August 2017. Owners and occupiers, and adjacent properties will be notified of the proposed Amendment with a letter and accompanying FAQ sheet, and will be advised of how to make a submission. At the time of exhibition it is proposed to offer one to one consultations with affected owners and occupiers and Council’s heritage consultant.

Page 45


Exemption from Full Notice

It is recommended that Council request the Minister for Planning for an exemption from the requirement to give full notice (in a local newspaper) for Amendment C261 given it is site specific to two places and has no offsite amenity impacts. Regardless, it is proposed that notice be given to the directly affected landowners, occupiers, adjoining properties and prescribed authorities.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The proposed Amendments are consistent with the following Council Plan (2017-2021) strategy:

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



The proposed Amendments are also consistent with Council’s Local Heritage Policy at Clause 22.04. This seeks to:


The Amendments are consistent with Council’s Heritage Strategy (2006) and Heritage Strategy Action Plan which is currently focusing on the assessment of individual houses not included within the HO.


The financial cost and resourcing of heritage investigations and planning scheme amendments has been included in the budget of Council’s Strategic Planning Unit for 2017/2018.

Application of the HO to two places subject to Amendment C261 will potentially result in a minor increase in planning applications..

Amendments C249 and C261 may result in an increase in the number of Section 29A requests for demolition and accordingly an increase in the number of planning scheme amendments for individual properties, seeking interim heritage controls. This can be resource intensive within short timeframes for both Council and DELWP. Approval of Amendment C260 by the Minister for Planning would address this potential increase by considering it in a whole scale manner rather than an ad hoc basis.


July 2017August/ September 2017

November 2017 February

2018 May 2018Mid 2018

Authorisation Exhibition

Consideration of Submissions

Panel Hearing

Council Consideration

Ministerial Decision


All affected parties will be given the opportunity to make submissions on Amendment C261 and to be heard by an independent Planning Panel.

Page 46


If interim controls are introduced, as proposed in Amendment C260, any application for development (including demolition) will be assessed pursuant to the provisions of the HO and the owners will have the right of appeal to VCAT.

Legal advice will be sought as required.

CONCLUSION

As part of Council’s Heritage Strategy Action Plan, detailed studies have been undertaken on potentially significant Victorian houses across the Municipality not currently protected under the HO.

It is recommended that Council requests authorisation to prepare Amendment C261 to apply permanent heritage protection to 17-19 Ethel Street, Malvern and 3 & 5 Avondale Road, Armadale.

It is also recommended that Council requests the Minister for Planning to prepare Amendment C260 to provide interim heritage protection to 60 places of heritage significance.

Furthermore, it is recommended that the interim controls have an expiry date of 11 October 2018. This will provide a timeframe in which to complete the C249 and C261 Amendment process which proposes to include sixty (60) places in the HO on a permanent basis.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 of 4 - Background to Amendments C260 & C261 Excluded

2. Attachment 2 of 4 - Citations Excluded

3. Attachment 3 of 4 - Aerial photographs and photos Excluded

4. Attachment 4 of 4 - List of Individual Victorian Places for Interim Heritage Protection

Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Requests that the Minister for Planning prepare Amendment C260 to the

Stonnington Planning Scheme in accordance with Section 8(1) (b) and 20 (4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, to provide interim heritage protection to sixty places subject to Amendments C249 and C261.

2. Applies to the Minister for Planning to obtain authorisation to prepare Amendment C261 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme in accordance with Section 9(3) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, to apply permanent heritage protection to 17-19 Ethel Street, Malvern; and 3 & 5 Avondale Road, Armadale.

3. Applies to the Minister under Section 20 (1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for an exemption from the requirement to give full notice under Section 19 (2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for Amendment C261.

4. Authorises Council officers to prepare Amendment C261 documents for authorisation and exhibition.

Page 47


5. Once authorisation is received, exhibit Amendment C261 in accordance with the Ministers requirements.

6. Advises the owners of properties subject to Amendments C260 and C261 of Council’s resolution.

Page 48


5. AMENDMENT C248 - PERMANENT HERITAGE PROTECTION FOR 558 WAVERLEY ROAD, MALVERN EAST - ADOPTION


PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider:

The recommendations of the Planning Panel for Amendment C248.

Adopting Amendment C248 with changes and requesting the Minister for Planning approve the Amendment.

BACKGROUND

Planning Permit Application 459/16 and Section 29A ApplicationOn 21 October 2016, Council issued a Notice of Refusal for a planning application (459/16) for demolition of the existing house and construction of a three storey multi-unit development in a General Residential Zone.

On 17 October 2016, Council received an application for Report and Consent (under section 29A of the Building Act 1993) for the proposed demolition of the place at 558 Waverley Road, Malvern East.

Due to the threat of demolition of the subject dwelling posed in the S29A request and the planning application 459/16, together with Context’s recommendation to pursue heritage protection on an individual basis; on 17 October 2016, Council resolved to request the Minister for Planning to prepare Amendment C247 to provide interim heritage protection to 558 Waverley Road, Malvern East. Council at the same time applied to the Minister for Planning for authorisation to prepare Amendment C248 to apply permanent heritage protection to the property.

Amendment C247Amendment C247 applying interim controls to 558 Waverley Road was approved and gazetted into the Stonnington Planning Scheme on 2 March 2017.

Amendment C248Amendment C248 seeks to introduce permanent heritage protection for a Victorian era building located at 558 Waverley Road, Malvern East.

On 28 October 2016, the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP), under delegation from the Minister for Planning, authorised the City of Stonnington as the planning authority to prepare Amendment C248. Exemption from full notice was granted.

An aerial photo, photo of the place and a historic photo are provided in Attachment 1.

ExhibitionAmendment C248 was placed on public exhibition from 17 November 2016 to 16 January 2017.

Notification and exhibition of Amendment C248 was carried out via the following measures:

Page 49


Letters, including Frequently Asked Questions sheet sent to the owner and occupier of 558 Waverley Road, Malvern East, and owners and occupiers of neighbouring properties.

Letters sent to prescribed authorities.

Notice placed in the Government Gazette on 17 November 2016.

Full amendment documentation on the DELWP and City of Stonnington websites.

Council offered one-on-one meetings with Council Officers and the Heritage Consultant if affected parties wished to obtain more information on the Amendment. After the consultation period, a Council Officer and Council’s heritage consultant met with the owner of the place to hear and discuss their concerns. The ownership of the property has subsequently changed.

As a result of formal exhibition, Council received one (1) late submission objecting to the Amendment.

Panel Hearing A Panel Hearing to consider the submission and the Amendment was held on 16 May 2017 at the City of Stonnington. The Panel member was Brett Davis (Chair). In addition to Council, one submitter appeared at the Hearing. Council called Natica Schmeder of Context Pty Ltd as an expert heritage witness.

The Panel undertook an accompanied site inspection on 16 May 2017 to view the building modifications and elements identified in the submission.

The Panel Report (Attachment 2) was received by Council on 31 May 2017 and released publicly within 28 days.

DISCUSSION

Panel ReportThe C248 Panel Report addresses the issues raised in the submission and expert evidence presented by Council’s witness Natica Schmeder of Context Pty Ltd.

Panel Conclusions and Recommendation

The Panel supported the Amendment and considers that 558 Waverley Road, Malvern East meets the threshold required to justify the application of the Heritage Overlay. The Panel concluded that:

- “the site satisfies the threshold of local heritage significance and should be included in the HO

- the comparative analysis presented a compelling case for listing, given the site is a rare and early surviving example in Malvern East of a nineteenth century farmhouse

- the revisions to the place citation proposed by Council and in expert evidence are

acceptable with some minor further changes.”

The Panel recommended that the Amendment be adopted as exhibited subject to minor revision to the Citation.

Officer recommendation

The revisions to the citation are supported, as presented at Panel. This is consistent with the expert evidence statement of Ms Natica Schmeder. The changes to the heritage citation presented at Panel reflect new information provided by the submitter about the intactness of the house and the loss of the stables.

Page 50


Adoption of AmendmentIt is recommended that the Amendment be adopted as exhibited, subject to revisions to the citation, as presented at Panel and consistent with the Panel’s recommendation (refer Attachments 3 and 4).

Council is required to formally decide how to proceed with Amendment C248 within 40 business days of receiving the Panel Report (by 27 July 2017), unless an exemption is sought. 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.

Ultimately, it is the Minister for Planning who will make the final decision on the Amendment.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The proposed Amendment is consistent with the following Council Plan (2017-2021) strategy:

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


‘Protect and enhance all places which are significant and contributory to the heritage values of the City of Stonnington.'

The proposed Amendment is also consistent with Council’s Local Heritage Policy at Clause 22.04. This seeks to:

‘Recognise, conserve and enhance places in the City identified as having architectural, cultural or historic significance.’

The Amendment is consistent with Council’s Heritage Strategy Review (2006) and Heritage Strategy Action Plan which is currently focusing on the assessment of individual houses not included within the Heritage Overlay.


The financial cost of heritage investigations and planning scheme amendments has been included in the budget of Council’s Strategic Planning Unit for 2017/2018.


October 2016November 2016 – January 2017

May 2017 July 2017 September 2017

Authorisation Exhibition Panel Council Adoption

Ministerial Approval


All affected parties have been given the opportunity to make submissions on Amendment C248 and have been able to be heard by an independent Planning Panel.

CONCLUSION

Amendment C248 proposes to apply an individual heritage control to one place of heritage significance not currently included in the Heritage Overlay.

Page 51


The Panel Report on Amendment C248 supports the Amendment and recommends that it be adopted, as exhibited, subject to changes to the Citation, as presented at Panel and in accordance with the Panel’s recommendation.

It is recommended that Council adopts Amendment C248 as exhibited, subject to the revisions to the citation, in accordance with the Panel’s recommendations as set out within this report.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 of 4 - Aerial Photo & Photos of 558 Waverley Road, Malvern East

Excluded

2. Attachment 2 of 4 - C248 Panel Report - 558 Waverley Road, Malvern East Excluded

3. Attachment 3 of 4 - Citation Excluded

4. Attachment 4 of 4 - HO Map Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Notes the public release of the Panel Report for Amendment C248.2. On considering the Panel Report, adopts Amendment C248 to the Stonnington

Planning Scheme, as exhibited with revisions to the Citation, (pursuant to Section 29(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987), as outlined in Attachments 3 and 4.

3. Submits the adopted Amendment C248 to the Minister for Planning for approval, in accordance with Section 31(1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

4. Advises the submitters of Council’s decision in relation to Amendment C248.

Page 52


6. AMENDMENT C255 - HERITAGE PROTECTION FOR 221 BURKE ROAD, GLEN IRIS - CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS


PURPOSE


the submissions received on Amendment C255.

a response to the submissions received.

whether to request the Minister for Planning to appoint an independent Panel to consider the submissions.

This item was deferred for one Council meeting cycle on 26 June 2017.

BACKGROUND

Council has a strong programme of heritage investigation and protection with the current stage focusing on gaps in the heritage overlay of individual houses by era. This property forms part of the Federation Houses Heritage Study group. As a result of a Section 29A request under the Building Act 1993 seeking consent to demolish and a planning application for development of the site (reliant on demolition of the existing dwelling), a detailed citation was prepared by heritage consultants, GJM Heritage Pty Ltd. The citation recommends individual heritage protection for the site.

On 6 February 2017 Council determined to:

request the Minister for Planning to prepare Amendment C254 to provide interim heritage protection to 221 Burke Road, Glen Iris; and

apply to the Minister for Planning to obtain authorisation to prepare Amendment C255 to apply permanent heritage protection, and to exhibit the Amendment.

A brief background to the Amendment and Council’s heritage strategy is provided in Attachment 1.

Amendment C254 – Interim Heritage ProtectionAmendment C254 ‘Interim Heritage Protection for 221 Burke Road, Glen Iris’ was approved, under delegation from the Minister for Planning on 16 June 2017. Gazettal of Amendment C254 is expected to be occur in the coming weeks.

Amendment C255 - ExhibitionAmendment C255 seeks to introduce permanent heritage protection for a Federation era building located at 221 Burke Road, Glen Iris. An aerial photo and photographs of the building are provided in Attachment 2.

Following authorisation, Amendment C255 was placed on public exhibition from 16 March 2017 to 21 April 2017.


Letters, including a Frequently Asked Questions sheet sent to the owner and occupier of 221 Burke Road, Glen Iris and adjoining owners and occupiers.

Letters sent to prescribed authorities.

Page 53


Notice placed in the Government Gazette on 16 March 2017.

Full amendment documentation on the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) and City of Stonnington websites.

Council offered one-on-one meetings with Council Officers and the Heritage Consultant if affected parties wished to obtain more information on the Amendment. No parties took Council up on this offer.

DISCUSSION

Council received twelve (12) submissions (ten supporting, two objecting) to the Amendment, including one late submission received after the exhibition period closed.

The supporting submissions identified that the Amendment will preserve a place which is the work of Architect Robert Haddon, “a prominent and highly influential Melbourne architect”, and that the place displays unique characteristics of Haddon’s work. Supporting submissions also noted that the property retains the majority of its original form and detailing, containing elements that contribute to the local aesthetic and historical significance of the place, such as the house’s original external form, materials and detailing; the house’s high level of integrity to its original design and the original garage.

Supporting submissions consider that the place contributes to making Glen Iris a desirable place to live and that applying a Heritage Overlay (HO) will support and retain the existing neighbourhood character and streetscape.

Two submissions raised objections regarding the potential heritage significance, level of intactness of the place, economic impact and previous consideration of 221 Burke Road, Glen Iris for heritage protection. A more detailed response to specific issues is provided in the table at Attachment 3. This includes consideration (where relevant) by Council’s Heritage Consultant, who upon reviewing the submissions, has reaffirmed the aesthetic and historical significance of the place at 221 Burke Road, Glen Iris proposed for inclusion in the HO.

The key issues raised in the submissions requesting changes, and proposed Council response to these issues, are outlined below.

Key Issues Raised in the SubmissionsHeritage issues

Issue Summary:

Submission 11 questions the extent of Architect Robert Haddon’s involvement in both the original design and the as built structure. Submissions 11 and 12 consider that Haddon’s involvement is not sufficiently significant to warrant the application of the HO.

Submissions 11 and 12 also question the level of intactness of the building.

Submission 12 states that if the HO is to be applied, that the extent of the HO should be reduced and the citation amended.

Officer Response:

Regarding the extent of Haddon’s involvement, Council’s Heritage Consultant noted:

“The original drawings of the house indicate his (Haddon’s) hand in the design. Both the original design and the as built structure clearly illustrate his design principles. Subsequent use of the house by Haddon to illustrate his design principles demonstrates both his input in, and his satisfaction with, the design.”

Regarding the level of intactness of the house and heritage significance of the place, Council’s Heritage Consultant noted that many of the changes are minor or not visible and do not impact on the heritage significance of the place. In particular it was noted that ‘The place

Page 54


is important as a highly original example rather than a typical example, and this strengthens its significance…’

Regarding Submitter 12’s suggestion that if the HO is to be applied, that the extent of the HO should be reduced and citation amended, Council’s Heritage Consultant noted that:

“Internal controls are not recommended – as such, only the external form and detailing is proposed to be managed through the HO. As supported by guidance in PPN1, ‘the Heritage Overlay applies to both the listed heritage item and its associated land. It is usually important to include land surrounding a building, structure, tree or feature of importance to ensure that any development, including subdivision, does not adversely affect the setting, context or significance of the heritage item’. It is appropriate to include the whole title boundary in the HO.”

No change to the Amendment or citation is proposed or recommended.

Amendment L47(D) and HERCON Criteria

Issue Summary:

Submission 11 stated that an Independent Panel Report in 2000 determined that the place does not meet the threshold for local significance for inclusion in the HO, and that the heritage citation and heritage assessment criteria has not changed since that time. Submission 11 also questions the reason for having Panel hearings if subsequent Ministers and Council staff are not bound by those decisions.

Officer Response:

Following receipt of the Panel Report in 2000, Council resolved to invite submitters to L47(D) to meet individually with Council to discuss the merit of their properties being included in the Heritage Overlay.

The Panel at that time recommended that 221 Burke Road not be included in Amendment L47(D).

On 19 June 2000, Council considered a Report on Amendment L47(D) and resolved to abandon those places which were not supported by the Panel to give some certainty to the owners of how Council would consider the objections (refer Attachment 4).

The Panel Report was 17 years ago and heritage assessments have changed during this time. Council commissioned a Stonnington Thematic History in 2006 (updated in 2009) which is a summary of the human use and impact upon the landscape in the years from the time of the arrival of the first indigenous inhabitants. It is organised into themes providing a context to assist the identification of heritage places that illustrate the rich natural and cultural history of the municipality. Council’s Heritage Strategy was reviewed in 2006 and an Action Plan was developed. The current stage of the Action Plan is the assessment of buildings not currently included within the HO with potential individual heritage significance. The aim is to seek heritage controls for all A1 and A2 graded buildings by theme. The house at 221 Burke Road, Glen Iris was identified in Stage 2 of the Federation Houses Heritage Study which is part of a broader study on gaps in the heritage overlay of Federation Houses. It has been assessed as being of high local aesthetic and historical significance and warranting heritage protection in the HO.

Council’s Heritage Consultant noted:

“The heritage citation has substantially changed with the 2017 citation providing a detailed assessment of the place, and including information not included in the 2000 citation.”


Economic impacts

Page 55


Issue Summary:

Submission 11 notes that the Amendment is causing financial damage to the submitter and that Council offers no justification in the citation or correspondence for causing financial damage.

Officer Response:

Property values and private financial costs are outside the scope of this Amendment.

There is no evidence to suggest that the application of a HO to a property reduces property value. The personal financial impact of inclusion of an owner’s property in the HO is not relevant when considering if the HO should apply.

Independent planning panels have repeatedly advised that such issues are not material considerations in the consideration of applying the heritage overlay – a position supported by Practice Notes and numerous VCAT decisions.


GRZ7 Zoning

Issue Summary:

Submission 11 questions why at the time that the area along Burke Road was rezoned to GRZ7 that 221 Burke Road was not excluded from the GRZ7 zoning.

Officer Response:

Council used criteria within the State Government Practice Note 78 and its MSS to guide the application of the residential zones. Generally, this criteria focused on the suitability of areas (such as neighbourhood character and heritage precincts) rather than individual sites. Individual HOs were not singled out in this process.


Next Steps If Council is not prepared to vary the Amendment to address the issues raised in the submissions and it intends to continue with the amendment process it must refer the submissions to a Planning Panel for review.

In accordance with Ministerial Direction No. 15, Council must request the appointment of a Panel under Part 8 of the Act within 40 business days of the closing date of submissions (by 20 June 2017) unless an extension of time is sought by Council in line with established protocols. Prior to exhibition, pre-set panel dates were arranged for July 2017. Given the number of submissions and noting Council received a late submission (on 18 May 2017), an exemption from these timeframes has been sought. The panel dates will need to be revised and confirmed.

On receipt of the Panel report for Amendment C255, a report will be prepared for Council to consider the Panel's recommendations for final consideration of the Amendment.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS




Page 56


‘Protect and enhance all places which are significant and contributory to the heritage values of the City of Stonnington.'



The Amendment is consistent with Council’s Heritage Strategy (2006) and Heritage Strategy Action Plan which is currently focusing on the assessment of individual houses not currently included within the Heritage Overlay.



February 2017

March to April 2017

June 2017 August 2017

September/ October 2017

Late 2017

Authorisation Exhibition

Consideration of Submissions

Panel Hearing


Ministerial Consideration

The financial cost and resourcing of heritage investigations and planning scheme amendments has been included in the operating budget of Council’s Strategic Planning Unit for 2016/2017 and 2017/2018.

Investigations into potential heritage places site by site when they become under threat of demolition are resource intensive within short timeframes. Coordination is required across Departments including Statutory Planning, Building, Strategic Planning and Council’s Heritage Advisor. However, as the Federation Houses group has not yet progressed to the Amendment stage as part of the Heritage Strategy Action Plan, this is the only manner in which to proceed for this place at 221 Burke Road, Glen Iris. Application of the Heritage Overlay to 221 Burke Road, Glen Iris is not expected to result in a significant increase in planning permit applications.


All affected parties have been given the opportunity to make submissions on Amendment C255 and will be heard by an independent Planning Panel. Legal advice will be sought as required.

CONCLUSION

Amendment C255 proposes to apply an individual heritage control to one place of heritage significance at 221 Burke Road, Glen Iris not currently included in the Heritage Overlay.

Exhibition of Amendment C255 is complete and Council received twelve submissions in response to the Amendment. On considering the issues raised in the submissions, no changes to the Amendment are proposed.

If Council is not prepared to vary the Amendment to address the issues raised in the submissions and intends to continue with the Amendment it must refer the submissions to a Planning Panel for consideration.

It is proposed that Council’s position to Panel will be based on the response to the submissions outlined in this report and attachments.


Page 57



ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 of 4 - Background to Amendment C255 Excluded

2. Attachment 2 of 4 - Aerial photograph and photographs of 221 Burke Road, Glen Iris

Excluded

3. Attachment 3 of 4 - Response to Submissions Excluded

4. Attachment 4 of 4 - Amendment L47D - Letter & Council Report (17 April 2000)

Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Requests the Minister for Planning appoint a Panel pursuant to Section 23 of the

Planning and Environment Act 1987 to hear the submissions and consider proposed Amendment C255 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

2. In its submission to the Panel Hearing, adopts a position in support of Amendment C255, generally in accordance with the Officer's response to the submissions as contained in this report and Attachment 3.

3. Refers the submissions and any late submissions received prior to the Directions Hearing affecting Amendment C255 to the Panel appointed to consider Amendment C255.

4. Advises the submitters to proposed Amendment C255 of Council’s decision.

Page 58


7. AMENDMENT C257 - HERITAGE PROTECTION FOR 390 GLENFERRIE ROAD, MALVERN - CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS


PURPOSE


the submissions received on Amendment C257.

a response to the submissions received.

whether to request the Minister for Planning to appoint an independent Panel to consider the submissions which cannot be resolved.

BACKGROUND

Council has a strong programme of heritage investigation and protection with the current stage focusing on gaps in the Heritage Overlay (HO) of individual houses by era. Council has engaged heritage consultants GJM Heritage and Purcell (GJM Heritage) to undertake Stages 2 and 3 of the Federation Houses Heritage Study, which has significantly progressed. 390 Glenferrie Road, Malvern falls into this study as it is a building from the Federation era (c1890-c1918) (refer Attachment 1 for an aerial photo and photos of the subject site).

A planning application (748/16) for the development of multiple dwellings at 390 Glenferrie Road, Malvern was submitted to Council on 15 August 2016. This application proposes the complete demolition of the existing dwelling on the site. On 31 January 2017 Council issued a Notice of Refusal for the planning application. The proponent lodged an appeal to VCAT and a hearing was set for 3 July 2017. The VCAT Hearing has been adjourned and the matter is set down for an administrative mention on or not before 4 November 2017 (after the Panel Report for Amendment C257 is scheduled to be released).

On the basis of the demolition proposal and the potential significance identified in the early stages of the Federation Houses Heritage Study, GJM Heritage prepared a heritage citation for 390 Glenferrie Road, Malvern in January 2017. This determined that the place is of local aesthetic significance, and recommended the place for inclusion in the HO on an individual basis.

On 20 February 2017, Council resolved to request the Minister for Planning to prepare Amendment C256 to provide interim heritage protection to 390 Glenferrie Road, Malvern, and to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare Amendment C257 to apply permanent heritage protection to the subject site.

On 3 March 2017, Council was granted authorisation to prepare Amendment C257. Council were also exempted from the requirement to give full notice of the Amendment.

A brief background to the Amendment, Council’s Heritage Strategy, Federation Houses Heritage Study and Planning Application is provided in Attachment 2.

Amendment C256 – Interim Heritage ProtectionAmendment C256 ‘Interim Heritage Protection for 390 Glenferrie Road, Malvern’ was approved, under delegation from the Minister for Planning on 29 June 2017. Gazettal of Amendment C256 is expected to occur in the coming weeks.

Amendment C257 - Exhibition

Page 59


Formal exhibition of the Amendment took place from 6 April to 12 May 2017.


Letters including the heritage citation and a Frequently Asked Questions sheet were sent to the owners and occupiers of 390 Glenferrie Road, Malvern and neighbouring owners and occupiers.

Letters were sent to prescribed authorities and stakeholders.

Notice was placed in the Government Gazette on 6 April 2017.

Full amendment documentation on the DELWP and City of Stonnington websites.

Council offered one-on-one meetings with Council Officers and its heritage consultant if affected parties wished to obtain more information on the Amendment. No parties took Council up on this offer.

DISCUSSION

As a result of exhibition, Council received two (2) submissions (one supporting, one objecting) to the Amendment.

The supporting submission (Submission 1) considers that the property is a place with heritage significance and should be protected as a heritage place under the HO.

The objecting submission (Submission 2) raised concerns on the appropriateness and timing of applying interim and permanent heritage controls to the land. It mentions the Amendment’s impact on the planning permit application and also the prejudice it causes to the owner of 390 Glenferrie Road and other similar properties included in the HO. The submission questions the timing of the finalised heritage citation and the absence of a comparative heritage analysis. Finally, the submission considers that there are other heritage recognition approaches that could be used rather than the preservation of the building through a HO.

Officer Response to Submission 2:

The heritage significance of 390 Glenferrie Road, Malvern and the basis for interim and permanent heritage controls (Amendments C256 and C257) are demonstrated in the heritage citation prepared by GJM Heritage in January 2017. This citation was prepared in response to the demolition proposal and because the house was identified in the early stages of the Federation Houses Heritage Study.

The citation contains a comparative analysis and confirms that 390 Glenferrie Road, Malvern satisfies the local heritage significance threshold when compared against other similar places in the HO and in the Federation Houses Heritage Study.

In regards to other heritage recognition approaches, GJM Heritage has advised that “the unique aesthetic values of 390 Glenferrie Road are embodied in the built fabric of the place... It is therefore incorrect to conclude that the significance of the place can be appropriately recognised through its demolition.”

In regards to the planning permit application, it is noted that this is a separate process to the Planning Scheme Amendment process. VCAT will consider an appeal of Council’s Notice of Refusal against relevant planning policy and provisions.

A more detailed response to submissions is provided in Attachment 3.


Next Steps

Page 60


If Council is not prepared to vary the Amendment to address the issues raised in the submissions and it intends to continue with the amendment process it must refer the submissions to an independent Planning Panel for review.

In accordance with Ministerial Direction No. 15, Council must request the appointment of a Panel under Part 8 of the Act within 40 business days of the closing date of submissions (by 10 July 2017) unless an extension of time is sought by Council.

In accordance with Panels Victoria convention pre-set panel dates for a directions hearing and panel hearing were arranged prior to exhibition. The following dates have been set, pending Council’s resolution:

Directions Hearing: week commencing 7 August 2017

Panel Hearing: week commencing 4 September 2017

On receipt of the Panel report for Amendment C257, a report will be prepared for Council to consider the Panel's recommendations for final consideration of the Amendment prior to lodgement with the Minister for Planning for approval.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS



The proposed Amendment is consistent with Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement Clause 21.06 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, which seeks to:

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).



The Amendment is consistent with Council’s Heritage Strategy (2006) and Heritage Strategy Action Plan which is currently focusing on the assessment of individual houses not currently included within the heritage overlay.


The financial cost and resourcing of heritage investigations and planning scheme amendments has been included in the budget of Council’s Strategic Planning Unit for 2016/17 and 2017/18.

Investigations into potential heritage places site by site when they come under threat of demolition are resource intensive within short timeframes. Coordination is required across Departments including Statutory Planning, Building, Strategic Planning and Council’s Heritage Advisor. However, as the Federation Houses group has not yet progressed to the Amendment stage as part of the Heritage Strategy Action Plan, this is the only manner Council can seek protection for 390 Glenferrie Road, Malvern. Application of the Heritage Overlay to 390 Glenferrie Road, Malvern is not expected to result in a significant increase in planning permit application numbers.


Page 61


March 2017 April to May 2017 June 2017 September

2017 Late 2017 Early 2018

Authorisation Exhibition Consideration of Submissions

Panel Hearing


Ministerial Consideration


All affected parties have been given the opportunity to make submissions on Amendment C257 and will be heard by an independent Planning Panel. Legal advice will be sought as required.

CONCLUSION

Amendment C257 proposes to apply an individual heritage control to one place of heritage significance at 390 Glenferrie Road, Malvern not currently included in the Heritage Overlay.

Exhibition of Amendment C257 is complete and Council received two submissions in response to the Amendment. On considering the issues raised in the submissions, no changes to the Amendment are proposed.

If Council is not prepared to vary the Amendment to address the issues raised in the submissions and intends to continue with the Amendment it must refer the submissions to a Planning Panel for consideration.

It is proposed that Council’s position to Panel will be based on the response to the submissions outlined in this report and attachments.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 of 3 - Aerial photograph and photos Excluded

2. Attachment 2 of 3 - Background to Amendment C257 Excluded

3. Attachment 3 of 3 - Response to Submissions Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Requests the Minister for Planning appoint a Panel pursuant to Section 23 of the

Planning and Environment Act 1987 to hear the submissions and consider proposed Amendment C257 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

2. In its submission to the Panel Hearing, adopts a position in support of Amendment C257, generally in accordance with the Officer's response to the submissions as contained in this report and Attachment 3.

3. Refers the submissions and any late submissions received prior to the Directions Hearing affecting Amendment C257 to the Panel appointed to consider Amendment C257.

4. Advises the submitters to proposed Amendment C257 of Council’s decision.

Page 62


8. AMENDMENTS C263 AND C264 - HERITAGE PROTECTION FOR 6 MONARO ROAD, KOOYONG


PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to:

Seek Council endorsement to request the Minister for Planning to apply interim heritage controls (Amendment C263) to 6 Monaro Road, Kooyong.

Seek Council endorsement to request authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare Amendment C264 for permanent heritage protection to 6 Monaro Road, Kooyong.

BACKGROUND

Heritage StrategyIn December 2006, Council undertook a Heritage Strategy Review and adopted a Heritage Strategy Action Plan (Action Plan). The Action Plan provides a framework for reviewing existing houses and heritage citations and assessing new houses.

The current stage of the Action Plan is the assessment of buildings not currently included within the Heritage Overlay (HO) with potential individual heritage significance. The aim is to seek heritage controls for all A1 graded buildings and A2 graded buildings (meeting or exceeding the threshold of local significance).

In implementing this part of the Action Plan, Council has grouped potentially significant buildings thematically. Since 2012 the thematic groups Hotels (6 places), Churches and Halls (16 places), Stables and Dairies (7 places), Chimneys (2 Places), Shops (17 places), Residential Flats (24 places) and Interwar Houses (40 places) have been protected under the HO. ‘Victorian Houses’ forms another thematic group and is currently being progressed through a planning scheme amendment by Council via Amendment C249.

Council is undertaking investigations for the Federation houses thematic group; however is not yet in a position to progress an amendment to the planning scheme for the whole group. The building at 6 Monaro Road, Kooyong falls within the ‘Federation Houses’ thematic group.

Federation Houses Heritage StudyCouncil has engaged GJM Heritage and Purcell (GJM Heritage) to undertake Stages 2 and 3 of the Federation Houses Heritage Study, which has significantly progressed. 6 Monaro Road, Kooyong falls into this study as it is a building from the Federation era (c.1890 – c.1918). Stage 3 includes the preparation of heritage citations.

During fieldwork, the consultants identified 6 Monaro Road as a place for which assessment would benefit from an onsite inspection. On 20 February 2017, Council wrote to the owner to request an external site inspection of the property as part of the field work for the Federation Houses Heritage Study.

On 5 May 2017, Council Officers received a phone call from the owner, advising that the house is falling down and needs to be demolished. The owner offered for Officers and Council’s heritage advisors to inspect the site. The external site inspection was undertaken

Page 63


on 10 May 2017. The site visit confirmed for the heritage advisors that the place is of heritage significance.

Consequently GJM Heritage finalised the citation (refer Attachment 1) for 6 Monaro Road, Kooyong, which has determined that the place is of local architectural and aesthetic significance to the City of Stonnington, and recommends the place for inclusion in the Heritage Overlay on an individual basis.

The citation identifies 6 Monaro Road, Kooyong as a single-storey detached villa of the Federation era, built in 1906 and set on a corner allotment within a mature garden. The citation states that the place is significant because it is a:

“…fine and representative example of a Federation house. The house strongly reflects the Federation Queen Anne architectural style popular in the first decade of the twentieth century in Kooyong and across Melbourne more broadly. The corner composition, with complex roof forms, strong diagonal emphasis and projecting gabled bays, and architectural elements and materials, including tall chimneys, roughcast render gables with curvilinear half-timbering, timber verandah fretworkand gable end brackets, are typical of the style. The use of quality materials and elaborate detailing imparts a sense of grandeur and demonstrates the status of the owner in wealthy established areas such as Kooyong in the early twentieth century (Criterion D).

‘Glen Loeman’, 6 Monaro Road, Kooyong is a carefully designed and well-resolved example of a Federation house on a corner site. The strong diagonal composition, emphasised by the corner verandah and gablet, projecting gable-end bays, timber decoration, and Art Nouveau-inspired detailing present a picturesque composition of this architectural style (Criterion E).”

On 19 June 2017, Council Officers advised the owner that the findings from the heritage consultant were that it found the place to be significant and were recommending the heritage overlay apply to the site with a report expected to be considered by Council on the Federation Houses Study and a planning scheme amendment to apply the heritage overlay in September 2017.

6 Monaro Road, Kooyong – Section 29A Application for Report and Consent for Demolition On 29 June 2017, Council received an application under Section 29A of the Building Act 1993 for report and consent for demolition of the house at 6 Monaro Road, Kooyong.

A Heritage Overlay does not currently apply to the house at 6 Monaro Road, Kooyong. When S29A applications are received for demolition, Council has 15 business days to determine if it considers a building has potential heritage value.

Consistent with previous communications regarding Council’s heritage investigations at 6 Monaro Road, Kooyong, the owner was advised on 4 July 2017 that a report would be brought to Council to consider applying the heritage overlay within the 15 business days that Council has to consider the section 29A demolition request they lodged. The owner was also advised that submissions could be made to Council regarding the proposed application of the heritage overlay through the planning scheme amendment process.

Page 64


DISCUSSION

Interim Heritage Protection (Amendment C263)

Based on the advice from GJM Heritage and Purcell (GJM Heritage), it is recommended that Council requests the Minister for Planning to intervene with a Ministerial Amendment by including 6 Monaro Road, Kooyong in the Heritage Overlay with interim heritage protection.

The Department of Environment Land Water and Planning (DELWP) has previously advised Council that intervention to introduce an interim control is an extraordinary use of the Minister's powers. Therefore, a heritage place must be under an immediate and real threat to warrant such intervention, and Council must be willing to expedite a planning scheme amendment to introduce permanent heritage controls for a place subject to interim controls.

Permanent Heritage Protection (Amendment C264)In line with DELWP advice, permanent heritage controls are also being progressed via Amendment C264. The intention behind this is to balance the requirement for heritage protection with the obligation to provide natural justice to the owners by ensuring that an Amendment to introduce permanent heritage controls is progressed as soon as possible. Consequently, it is also recommended that Council prepare Amendment C264 to apply permanent individual heritage controls to 6 Monaro Road, Kooyong. This will enable this place to be considered in advance of a future Planning Scheme Amendment to protect the larger group of individually significant places identified in the Federation Houses Study.

A report on the potentially significant places identified in the Federation Houses Study is scheduled to be brought to Council later in the year.

Exemption from full noticeIt is recommended that Council also seeks endorsement to request the Minister for Planning for an exemption from the requirement to give full notice (in a local newspaper) given the Amendment is site specific and has no offsite amenity impacts. Regardless, it is proposed that notice be given to the directly affected landowner, occupier, adjoining properties and prescribed authorities.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The proposed 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 proposed amendments are consistent with the following liveability strategy in the Council Plan (2017-2021):

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

The proposed amendments are also consistent with Council’s Local Heritage Policy at Clause 22.04. This seeks to:


The Amendments are consistent with Council’s Heritage Strategy (2006) and Heritage Strategy Action Plan which is currently focusing on the assessment of individual houses not included within the HO.

Page 65



The financial cost of heritage investigations and planning scheme amendments has been included in the budget of Council’s Strategic Planning Unit for 2017/2018.

The indicative timeframe for Amendment C264 (permanent controls) is shown in the table below. This is subject to Council receiving authorisation by the end of July 2017.

July 2017 August 2017 February 2018 / April 2018 June 2018

Authorisation Exhibition Panel Adoption Approval

Investigations into potential heritage places that are under threat of demolition are resource intensive within short timeframes. Coordination is required across Departments including Statutory Planning, Building, Strategic Planning and Council’s Heritage Advisor. However, as Federation houses has not yet progressed to the amendment stage as part of the Heritage Strategy Action Plan, this is the only manner in which to proceed for this place at 6 Monaro Road, Kooyong.


If interim controls are introduced, the owners have the right for the application for development (including demolition) to be assessed pursuant to the provisions of the Heritage Overlay and also rights of appeal to VCAT.

The owners would be able to make a submission to an independent Panel on the permanent planning controls via Amendment C264.

CONCLUSION

Given that the place at 6 Monaro Road, Kooyong is under threat of demolition (by virtue of the S29A demolition request), it is recommended that Council requests the Minister for Planning prepare Amendment C263 to provide interim heritage protection.

It is also recommended that Council requests authorisation to prepare an amendment to apply permanent heritage controls for 6 Monaro Road, Kooyong (Amendment C264).

Furthermore, it is recommended that the interim controls have an expiry date of June 2018. This will provide a timeframe in which to complete the C264 Amendment process which proposes to include 6 Monaro Road, Kooyong in the Heritage Overlay on a permanent basis.

A decision on the interim and permanent heritage protection must be made at this Council meeting in order for Council to suspend consideration of the demolition request under Section 29A of the Building Act 1993. Council has 15 business days to make a decision (by 20 July 2017).



ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - 6 Monaro Road Kooyong Heritage Citation Excluded

Page 66


RECOMMENDATIONIn light of the threat of demolition of the dwelling at 6 Monaro Road, Kooyong proposed in the Section 29A application for report and consent; and Council’s heritage consultant’s recommendation to pursue heritage protection on an individual basis, it is recommended that Council:1. Requests that the Minister for Planning prepare Amendment C263 to the

Stonnington Planning Scheme in accordance with Section 8 (1) (b) and 20 (4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, to provide interim heritage protection to 6 Monaro Road, Kooyong.

2. Applies to the Minister for Planning to obtain authorisation to prepare Amendment C264 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme in accordance with Section 9 (3) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, to apply permanent heritage protection to 6 Monaro Road, Kooyong.

3. Applies to the Minister under Section 20 (1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for an exemption from the requirement to give full notice under Section 19 (2) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for Amendment C264.

4. Authorises Council officers to prepare Amendment C264 documents for authorisation and exhibition.

5. Once authorisation is received, exhibit Amendment C264 in accordance with the Ministers requirements.

6. Advises the owners of 6 Monaro Road, Kooyong of Council’s resolution.

Page 67


9. PROPOSED NEW BUILDING REGULATIONS - SWIMMING POOL SAFETY

Manager Building and Local Law Services: Madeleine Grove General Manager Planning & Amenity: Stuart Draffin

PURPOSE

The purpose of this Report is to advise Council of proposed new building regulations to retro-fit swimming pools and spas installed before 2010, with a higher standard of safety fencing. The Report also recommends that Council make a submission to the State Government prior to the deadline of 18 July.

BACKGROUND

Since 1991, new pools and spas have been required to have child-resistant barriers as part of the building permit process. The standard of fencing must comply with the Building Code of Australia and is determined by the relevant building surveyor (RBS) as to whether it complies with the Australian Standard for pool fencing or meets alternative measures deemed suitable by the RBS to prevent unattended small children accessing the pool or spa area.

In 1994 the State Government required that all older (pre 1991) pools were to be retro-fitted with pool barriers, although the requirements for these older pools were not as stringent as for new pools and were to be implemented by the owner of the property. Between 1994 and 2000 Council ran a special pro-active program, creating a database of all known pools, disseminating information, auditing and enforcing requirements for pre 1991 pools.

From 1 May 2010 the ‘default’ standard for new pools was tightened to prohibit doors and windows being used as part of the barrier, as had previously been allowed under Australian Standards. This effectively created three benchmarks for pool barriers (1) the pre 1991 simple regulation standard, (2) the post 1991 Australian Standard (3) the post 2010 Australian Standard.

Requirements for pool barriers have been implemented across Australia by each State and Territory and involve varying and inconsistent control systems. For example, Queensland has a licencing system and New South Wales requires a pool safety certificate whenever a property is sold.

Since the introduction of pool safety measures the rates of child drownings have fallen significantly. However an average of four children still die each year from drowning in Victoria, with around half being from swimming pools (baths, dams etc making up the other cases).

Council has a broad duty to ‘administer and enforce’ statutory building measures within its jurisdiction under the Local Government and the Building Acts. As the obligation to install and maintain barriers rests with the owner of the property, the resources devoted by Council to this function are at the discretion of Council. There are estimated to be approximately 6000 pools and spas in Stonnington. The current Council process to address pool safety under the Building Act involves a reactive policy.

Under present arrangements, the Municipal Building Surveyor will investigate and respond to all complaints and concerns referred, whether from external or internal sources. As a result,

Page 69


approximately 5 to 10 pools are checked per month. The levels of compliance with pool barrier requirements are generally found to be very low, a factor also experienced by other councils and well known to the State Government.

Press reports of a recent Coronial finding into a child drowning in 2015 in Melton South advised that ‘it was the fourth time in five years that the coroner had called for pool safety reform’. In the Melton case, a two year old boy, living in very poor circumstances in a squalid sub-leased property, was found unresponsive in the swimming pool to the side of the house, the gate to the area wide open.

The Coroner made special mention in her finding that earlier Coronial recommendations in 2014 had been conveyed to the State Government but had not resulted in any action. These included recommendations that pools be required to be inspected every three years, owners compulsorily register their pool in a central database, rental properties be required to have a certificate of compliance for pool safety when rented and that there be a uniform set of requirements for pool fencing, irrespective of date of construction.

The State Government responded that these matters would be taken into account during the drafting of new regulations to replace the Building Regulations 2006, a process that is currently underway.

In response to the Coroner’s report into the Melton South case in May this year, the Minister for Planning made a number of announcements to the press, including that there would be 'radical' changes to pool fencing’. Subsequent officer enquiries, seeking specifics of the review alluded to by the Minister in May, failed to elicit further information or details.

The release of draft new Building Regulations as part of the State Government ‘sunset review’ of the Building Regulations 2006 has clarified what is now proposed for pools and spas in Victoria, as follows:

It proposes that, from 1 October 2020, a pool constructed before 1 May 2010 must have a barrier that:

(a) complies with AS 1926.1—2012 Swimming Pool Safety—Part 1: Safety barriers for swimming pools, as issued from time to time and AS 1926.2—2007 Swimming Pool Safety—Part 2: Location of fencing for private swimming pools, as issued from time to time; or

(b) was approved in a building permit issued after 1 May 2010.

It should be noted that the release of the draft Building Regulations was not directly communicated to Council or the Municipal Building Surveyor (MBS). The MBS only became aware of the existence of the call for comments though an email from an MBS at another council who ‘stumbled’ across the “Building Regulations Sunset Review” on the DELWP website. It is worthwhile noting that even the website of the Victorian Building Authority (VBA) does not link to this webpage. Given that the Regulatory Impact Statement has a deadline of 18 July 2017 for comment, the lack of communication by the State Government (RIS) to councils is disappointing and concerning (and it is assumed there will be other potentially interested parties affected).

Proposed Changes

The draft regulations propose that pools and spas constructed before 1 May 2010 are to be retrofitted to comply with the current Australian Standard (AS1926.2), i.e. to have pool barriers all around, without the option of doors or windows being part of the barrier, by the end of 2020. This will effectively mean that all pools and spas (regardless of when constructed) will largely be brought into line with the highest standard possible by 2020.

Page 70


For pools and spas constructed before 1991, this will be the third upgrade required since 1991. For most pools constructed since 1994 (the majority of these permits are issued by private building surveyors), this will mean re-fitting new barriers to a higher standard.

Property owners who do not already have a complete fence around their pool or spa will be required to obtain a building permit for the new barriers, which may be through a private building surveyor or the Municipal Building Surveyor. This will come with financial impost, around $1,000 for the permit process, and around $3,000 for the pool fence itself. It is anticipated that most pool owners will voluntarily comply, however implementation may require motivation through publicity of the necessary requirements and the threat of penalties for non-compliance.

Roles and Responsibilities

As with the previous upgrades, the proposed requirements will impose statutory obligations (with the sanction of criminal offences) on owners of pools and spas. Local government will have a duty to administer and enforce the new requirements through policy and procedure at the discretion of each authority, based on resources to be devoted to this role.

As the proposed deadline for compliance is 2020, it is suggested that the lead-in process for Council up to this date should involve distribution of information and education. Should the proposed provision be enacted, from 1 October 2020, owners who do not comply will be in breach and an audit function can be commenced at or around this time. It should be encouraged, however, that owners of pools and spas commence upgrading as soon as possible.

Past changes to pool requirements have required a full time Officer with administrative support to enable sampling, pro-active inspection and follow-up. Such a level of oversight may not be necessary with respect to the draft proposal, however, due to the fact that a building permit will be required for each upgrade. Under previous retrofitting requirements this was not necessarily the case as door and window alterations do not require building permits whereas new pool fences do.

The first step for Council will be to have a database of all known pool and spas installed before 1 May 2010. Council already has a database of pre 1991 pools and spas and this can be supplemented from Council’s building permit and approval data for the intervening time. It is possible that the new database will not list every pool as the descriptions of works on building permits, particularly from private building surveyors, can be brief and contain missing information, for example a ‘house alteration’ may include a new pool without being listed. The Victorian Building Authority may be able to assist in this regard, as it has collected significant statistical data of all building permits in Victoria for many years.

DISCUSSION

Positive Aspects of Proposed Changes and Potential Weaknesses

When pool fencing was first introduced in 1991 there were views that the State should not impose statutory controls on matters that relate to parental supervision. The legislation for compulsory pool barriers for new pools in 1991 and for older pools since 1994 has, however resulted in a significant fall in the number of drownings and near drownings in Victoria (with similar effect across Australia). The proposed State intervention into strengthening pool safety through regulation, to protect innocent children, is therefore considered to be justified and appropriate.

Page 71


The introduction of retrofitting requirements in 1994 deliberately allowed a two tier system of barrier types in recognition of the financial implications to owners of older pools and that clearances around older pools may not be sufficient for a conventional pool fence. From its inception, this was regarded as problematic because (1) to know which standard applies means knowing whether or not the pool was approved before or after 8 April 1991 and (2) the wording of the regulation requires the owner to identify the parameters of the ‘part of the allotment containing the pool or spa’, which may vary according to who makes this decision.

Regardless of the above, the causes of most drownings since the introduction of mandatory barriers have not been shortcomings of the regulations per se, but lack of maintenance or the modification and/or removal of safety measures. For example, in the Coroner’s findings with relation to the Melton South case, the gate found open had been earlier inspected and made to comply by the Melton City Council Municipal Building Surveyor, yet the fence had been damaged and left to deteriorate by the occupiers, making it ineffective.

Any change in requirements of the type of pool/spa barrier may not necessarily improve an occupier’s willingness to ensure maintenance, however a pool fence that is well-made and can be easily recognised as a pool barrier, should reduce the need for maintenance and be a psychological trigger that there is a hazard (more obvious than a self-closing door).

It is noted that the proposed new regulation actions only one of the four 2014 Coroner’s recommendations (the others being mandatory registration, periodic inspection for all pools and compulsory checking for rented properties). ). Although improvement of the physical pool barrier is to be welcomed, it is considered that the Coroner’s recommendation that real estate agents must ensure that pool and spa barriers are provided and in working order for rental properties, should also be made law. Lessees rely on landlords to provide safe and complying pool barriers, however, the absence of personal checking and direct involvement by the landlord could lead to a reduced accountability and increased risk to child safety. In the Melton South case, the Coroner had doubts that the pool barriers had been adequately checked by the Real Estate Agent responsible for the property.

In terms of the deadline for compliance, (1 October 2020) it is assumed the Government has made allowance for owners to save funds and/or consider whether to keep their pool, re-landscape etc. In one sense, any proclamation of an impending higher standard also places owners on notice that they will eventually have to upgrade and it is likely many will start sooner rather than later.

After this date, all pools/spas constructed before 1 May 2010 are to be retrofitted to comply with the current Australian Standard (AS1926.2), i.e. to have pool barriers all around. The 2010 date is when the Australian Standard for pool fencing was updated to prohibit doors opening to the pool area from being included as a pool barrier. In essence, this means that from the end of 2020, all pools will be required to be fully enclosed with a physical pool fence.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Should the new swimming pool/spa requirement be enacted, Council will need an administrative and enforcement policy to meet its obligations under the Building Act. The likelihood will be, that most building permits will be issued by private building surveyors but that the motivation for property owners to obtain a permit will be an enforcement responsibility of Council.


In order for Council to implement the proposed regulatory changes by October 2020, it is anticipated that Council will need to develop a database of all pools installed before 2010 (a

Page 72


Swimming Pool Register) and double checking that each one has a building permit for the required upgraded barriers. Such a register could equally be developed by the Victorian Building Authority (VBA), which holds databases of all building permits and types of buildings approved in Victoria. Given that there are three years before the deadline for requirements, this issue is yet to be settled.

With respect to any enquiries, concerns or complaints about the reasons for the upgraded pool barrier requirements, it is recommended that the State Government should have a contact hotline, by telephone and internet, to respond to members of the public. As the State Government is responsible for the state-wide changes, it is more appropriate that the State Government, rather than Council, provide the relevant information, complaints and general community feedback.

LEGAL ADVICE AND IMPLICATIONS

Due to the short notice of the announcement of the Draft Building Regulations 2017, no legal advice has been obtained on the implications of the proposal.

CONCLUSION

The proposed pool safety upgrade requirements have merit by creating a more uniform standard for pool and spa safety barriers than presently exists, and as such it is proposed that Council support this regulatory change as the safety and protection of children should be paramount.

It should be noted however, that Stonnington pool and spa owners will need to meet the cost of upgrading pool barriers and this may be the subject of community disquiet and debate.

Council will seek to remain informed of the passage of this proposed change to the building regulations affecting swimming pools and spas, as the detail becomes available.

It is proposed that Officers make a submission to DELWP on behalf of Council, supporting the proposed new pool provisions on the basis of child safety but highlight Council’s disappointment about the lack of notice of the proposal and impact on Council’s ability to provide a more detailed response to this important issue.

It is also proposed that the submission highlight the cost impacts to the community and concerns regarding the anticipated cost to Council of implementation, both now and in the future, should any more stringent administrative measures be required as a result of future regulatory change proposals.

Furthermore, it is proposed that Council requests that the DEWLP establish a community hotline to provide information and respond to community concerns and complaints regarding the change to swimming pool safety regulations, prior to, during and following the 1 October 2020 implementation date.

Finally, it is proposed that, as part of the submission, Council recommends that the new regulations require real estate agents to include mandatory inspection audits of swimming pool and spa pool safety barriers as part of rental property condition reports, in line with the Coroner’s recommendation.

Page 73




RECOMMENDATIONSThat Council:1. Notes the Report on the proposed new provisions of the draft Building

Regulations 2017, with relation to swimming pool safety.2. Has a submission to the State Government by 18 July 2017 in support of the

proposed regulatory changes that proposes that, from 1 October 2020, a pool constructed before 1 May 2010 must have a barrier that:(c) complies with AS 1926.1—2012 Swimming Pool Safety—Part 1: Safety

barriers for swimming pools, as issued from time to time and AS 1926.2—2007 Swimming Pool Safety—Part 2: Location of fencing for private swimming pools, as issued from time to time; or

(d) was approved in a building permit issued after 1 May 2010.3. Expresses disappointment regarding the poor communication and short

timeframe for submissions and the impact on Council’s ability to provide a more detailed response to this important issue.

4. Highlights the cost impacts to the community and concerns regarding the anticipated cost to Council of implementation, both now and in the future, should any more stringent administrative measures be required as a result of future regulatory change proposals.

5. Requests that the Department of Environment, Water, Land and Planning (DELWP), establishes a community hotline to provide information and respond to community concerns and complaints regarding the change to swimming pool safety regulations, prior to, during and following the 1 October 2020 implementation date.

6. Recommends to the Department of Environment, Water, Land and Planning (DELWP), that the new regulations require real estate agents to include mandatory inspection audits of swimming pool and spa pool safety barriers as part of rental property condition reports, in line with the Coroner’s recommendation.

Page 74


10. OSBORNE STREET, SOUTH YARRA - TRAFFIC CONDITIONS

Traffic Engineer: Jordan AllanTraffic and Parking Coordinator: Peter Kyrkylis Manager Transport & Parking: Ian McLauchlanGeneral Manager Assets & Services: Simon Thomas

Councillor Briefing at its meeting on 29 May 2017 resolved that the matter be deferred to the meeting to be held on 13 June 2017.

PURPOSE

To seek approval to retain the existing two-way flow arrangement on Osborne Street, South Yarra between Fawkner Street and Argo Street, and to seek approval to consult residents with a proposal to alter the on-street parking arrangement in the same section of the street.

BACKGROUND

At the Council meeting of 6 February 2017, the following was minuted:

Cr Chandler tabled a multi-signatured letter from 6 residents regarding the parking and traffic flow in Osborne Street South Yarra between Fawkner and Argo Streets which is a two-way street with staggered parking while other sections of the street has better traffic management in place. The residents outline a number of options for Council to consider to try and resolve this issue. He asked that a report come back to Council on this matter.

This report seeks to address the above. Osborne Street is a local street aligned generally north-south from Toorak Road to Commercial Road. The street is broken into three sections at intersections with cross streets.

The northern section, between Toorak Road and Fawkner Street, has a wide alignment with on-street parking on both sides. There are two “blister island” traffic treatments designed to slow traffic. There are residential properties on the west side and the rail reserve on the east side, except at the very north end which has commercial properties on both sides. This section of the street has two-way flow.

The central section, between Fawkner Street and Argo Street, has a carriageway width of approximately 7.0m to 7.2m and parking on one side of the street only. The parking is on the east side for the northern part, and switches to the west side for the southern part. At the location of the parking side switch is a road narrowing treatment which was installed prior to the year 1995. This section of the street has two-way flow.

There was a proposal in the year 2000 to remove the road narrowing and install two road hump treatments in this central section, but this did not proceed.

The southern section, between Argo Street and Commercial Road, has a carriageway width of approximately 6.9m and parking on the west side of the street only. This section of the street has one-way flow southbound.

The section which is the subject of the resident enquiry is the central section. The central section layout is shown below.

Page 75


The submission from residents was signed by seven residents representing seven properties in the subject area.

The submission from residents of the central section of Osborne Street states that they feel the narrow width is not suitable for two-way traffic and parked vehicles, and that this causes congestion in peak periods.

The submission states a number of concerns with the current arrangement, such as safety getting in and out of parked vehicles, noise caused when vehicles in opposite directions do not want to yield, and that on occasion parked cars have been damaged by cars trying to pass each other.

Page 76


The submission also states that some parking is expected to be lost in the near future as a result of a new townhouse development with additional driveways, and that parking is generally very limited, made worse by the building activity.

The submission proposes that changing the side of the street that the parking occurs, further restricting the parking, and making the street one-way would assist with these issues.

Importantly, the submission concludes with the following summation:

“We need to have these issues resolved before there is a more serious incident in the street and to enable residents and their visitors to park safely within a reasonable distance of their residence.”

The VicRoads Crashstats database shows that there have been no casualty crashes in the central section of Osborne Street in the last five years. A review on site confirms that vehicles travelling in opposite directions need to slow down to pass, and possibly even fully pull over to allow an oncoming vehicle to pass. However, this is appropriate for a local street, and occurs in many streets throughout the municipality.

It should be noted that this narrow width and requirement to slow to pass or even pull over has a calming effect on traffic.

DISCUSSION

The submission outlines traffic issues, and parking issues. Each will be discussed below separately.

Traffic Concern

The submission notes that the carriageway width in the central section of Osborne Street is narrow, and that this creates problems with two-way traffic flow.

The central section is narrower than the northern section of Osborne Street, which allows simultaneous two-way flow, and is marginally wider than the southern section of the Osborne Street which is subject to one-way flow.

A number of the local streets in the area are already subject to one-way flow, as part of widespread traffic management implemented more than 25 years ago. The central section of Osborne Street was maintained as the key two-way flow local street however, as it provides an important local connection between the railway overpass on Argo Street and the northern portion of the local area bounded by Argo Street/Punt Road/Toorak Road/Sandringham Rail Line. As a consequence of this local importance, it carries high volumes of traffic (at a count in 2010, approximately 5,000 vehicles per day).

Page 77


The parking was previously all located on one side of the street, but this was adjusted prior to 2001 to a staggered arrangement, with a 2-way/1-lane slow point located mid-block where the parking switches sides. This arrangement is designed to provide a calming effect, breaking up the straight line visibility along the street. The narrow layout of the street and the need to yield to oncoming traffic at the slow point means that vehicles naturally travel more slowly along the street.

Converting the street to one-way as requested in the submission would have a significant impact on the wider local community.

If one-way northbound was adopted, then due to existing one-way street layouts there would be no way to travel through the local street network from Fawkner Street (or any streets to the north) to any location south. Due to the existing one-way flow, traffic could use Peter Street to go south, and via Nicholson Street, and Moore Street to Argo Street, but could not travel to the bridge over the rail line, and would need to travel further south to Commercial Road. This would generate extra traffic in these local streets, and would necessitate arterial road use for local residents. . This is unlikely to be tenable.

One-way flow southbound would be consistent with the direction of travel in the southern section of Osborne Street. However, any vehicles travelling north and using the Argo Street bridge would then use Moore Street, Nicholson Street, and Peter Street to reach Fawkner Street (and local streets beyond). All of Moore Street, Nicholson Street, and Peter Street are narrow streets with parking on both sides, and would not be suitable for the additional traffic.

Page 78


Whilst altering the flow to one-way (and limiting access to the Argo Street bridge) may remove some rat-run traffic, it would also remove a local connection to the Prahran Market and the shopping precinct.

In addition, with the removal of the conflict, traffic speeds would be expected to increase in the subject section of Osborne Street.

Parking Concern

The submission from residents highlights some concerns with the existing on-street parking, specifically that it is well utilised, and that some parking will be lost when the new townhouses are completed.

At present there are approximately 16 publicly available parking opportunities available on-street in the central section, based on the kerb lengths available. Some additional parking may occur when smaller vehicles park together, or when vehicles are parked over driveways by the property occupier. The current on-street parking arrangement is shown in Attachment 1.

The new townhouses currently under construction are located on the east side of the street in the section where parking is on the east side, and based on the plans submitted will result in the loss of 3 on-street parking opportunities when the new driveways are installed (for a post-townhouse total of 13 on-street opportunities). The post-townhouse on-street parking arrangement is shown in Attachment 2.

Both attachments show an area at the north end of the section of the street (near Fawkner Street) which is restricted to allow use by the George Gahan Centre. This parking is regularly used, and will need to be retained on-street regardless of future arrangements.

A concept has been developed to alter the side of the street on which parking currently occurs. Based on the lengths of kerbs available, it appears that up to 19 on-street parking opportunities would be available under the revised arrangement, which is shown in Attachment 3.

This option requires the removal of island treatment on the east side of Osborne Street, which is shown in the photograph below. Without the removal of this treatment, only 18 opportunities would be available. The treatment in question has shrubs within, but no mature trees.

Page 79


An alternative response, considering the concerns raised regarding getting into and out of parked cars, and the alleged property damage caused by vehicle scrapes, would be to remove all on-street parking in this section of Osborne Street. This would result in the loss of 16 current on-street parking opportunities, noting that a further 3 spaces are projected to be lost through the creation of new driveways for the townhouse development.

This would address the concerns in the submission of difficulty getting into and out of parked vehicles, the noise caused by vehicles coming to a stop as a result of not yielding, and damage to parked vehicles. It would not, however, improve the provision of parking. It would also require the removal of both slow-point treatments.

The parking in the central section of Osborne Street is subject to 2-HOUR restrictions operating 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday, and 9am to 1pm Saturday. The parking in the immediate area is subject to similar restrictions.

The southern section of Osborne Street has 2-HOUR parking operating 9am to Midnight Monday to Saturday, and the northern section is subject to 1-HOUR restrictions operating at a range of times. Fawkner Street near Osborne Street has a mixture of 4-HOUR and 2-HOUR restrictions. Argo Street near Osborne Street has 2-HOUR restrictions.

The above indicates that the parking in the central section of Osborne Street is similarly restricted to the nearby streets.

The submission suggests that combinations of permit and time restrictions could be used, with a range of days and times. This does not provide specifics, but ranges of days, times, and restriction types is generally avoided as it is confusing.

Summary

Page 80


The issues raised in the submission, being traffic concerns and parking concerns, are interrelated. The traffic concern could be resolved by removing the parking, but this would not improve access to parking (and may increase speeds).

Further restricting the parking (for example to include PERMIT ZONE) would improve parking access for residents, but would not alter the traffic conditions.

The suggestion in the submission to make the street one-way would impact a large segment of the community, and would benefit a relatively small number of residents.

In considering these outcomes together, it is recommended that two-way flow be maintained, that the parking layout be altered, as shown in Attachment 3. It is recommended that a proposal be prepared to make this change, for consultation with residents.

It is also recommended that the proposal include the option to restrict the on-street parking to PERMIT ZONE either operating from 9am to Midnight all days, or at all times on all days, is recommended.

CONCLUSION

Due to the impact on the wider local community of implementing changes to the traffic flow on Osborne Street, South Yarra it is recommended that two-way flow be maintained.

It is however recommended that consultation occur with local residents on a proposal to change the layout of the parking on the street, and to alter the existing 2-HOUR parking restrictions to PERMIT ZONE restrictions, with extended hours of operation, being 9am to Midnight all days, or at all times on all days.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Current On-Street Parking Conditions Excluded

2. Attachment 2 - On-Street Parking Conditions Post-Townhouse Development

Excluded

3. Attachment 3 - Parking Side Switch Concept Excluded

Page 81


RECOMMENDATIONThat:1. The existing two-way traffic flow arrangement on Osborne Street, South Yarra

between Fawkner Street and Argo Street be retained;2. Abutting property occupiers of Osborne Street, South Yarra between Fawkner

Street and Argo Street be consulted regarding the proposal to alter the layout of the parking generally in accordance with Attachment 3 (including the removal of the outstand on the east side of the street) and to install PERMIT ZONE restrictions operating from 9am to Midnight all days or operating at all times on all days, replacing the existing 2-HOUR parking restrictions;

3. The lead signatory of the multi-signatory letter be notified accordingly.

Page 82


11. GENERAL SIR JOHN MONASH

Manager Governance & Corporate Services: Fabienne Thewlis General Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to support the campaign to have General Sir John Monash GCMG KCB VD promoted to the rank of Field Marshall by 11 November 2018.

BACKGROUND

A saluting Monash Council has been established with the specific objective of achieving the posthumous promotion of General Sir John Monash GCMG KCB VD to the rank of Field Marshall. (see www.salutingmonash.org.au)

DISCUSSIONAs outlined on this site “As a salute to all members of the AIF in World War I and as a salute to Australia’s greatest General and an extraordinary citizen, steps be taken to provide for the posthumous promotion of General Sir John Monash one step in rank to the rank of Field Marshal, effective 11 November 1930, exactly one year after he eventually became a General, in accord with the Blamey precedent, where Blamey was placed on active service for one day to allow his Field Marshal promotion to proceed.”

Monash would be the fourth person, and only the second Australian-born person, to hold this rank. The movement is led by Tim Fischer, former Australian Deputy Prime Minister and author of the book, Maestro John Monash: Australia's Greatest Citizen General, and supported by other Australian Members of Parliament including the Hon. Josh Frydenberg Member for Kooyong and Minister for the Environment and Energy and Cathy McGowan AO, Member for Indi. According to Tim Fischer, Monash was denied promotion during his life due to discrimination, including as a result of his German-Jewish ancestry and his status as a reservist rather than professional soldier.1

Should Council be supportive of this proposal it is recommended that letters of support be sent to local Federal Members of Parliament and Senators on both sides. It is also suggested that individuals and small delegations could also take this up with their local Federal parliamentarians at certain times of the year such as early February at the start of the parliamentary sitting year, April as it is the month of ANZAC, July as in the Month of the anniversary of the Battle of Hamel and November as in the month of Remembrance or Armistice Day. Council may also write to the local RSLs promoting such recognition.

The life and achievements of General Sir John Monash GCMG KCB VD have been written about and recognised through:

The naming of the City of Monash The Monash Freeway John Monash Scholarships John Monash Science School Town of Monash in South Australia Monash Medical Centre Suburb of Monash in Canberra

Page 83

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathy_McGowan_(politician)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Frydenberg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deputy_Prime_Minister_of_Australia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Fischer


POLICY IMPLICATIONS

This proposal does not impact on any Council policies.


Any proposed support can be accommodated in Council’s budget.

CONCLUSION

There is no impediment to supporting this campaign for deserved recognition of an extraordinary Australian.



RECOMMENDATIONThat Council support the campaign to have General Sir John Monash GCMG KCB VD promoted to the rank of Field Marshall by:1. Sending a letter of support to the Saluting Monash Council;

2. Sending letters of support to local Federal Members of Parliament.

1. Nicholson, Brendan (29 July 2016). "John Monash should be promoted to Field Marshal, says Tim Fischer". Retrieved 13 November 2016 – via The Australian.

Page 84

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/john-monash-should-be-promoted-to-field-marshal-says-tim-fischer/news-story/0c086c5a6ac63f06c67228d9f9187dba

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/john-monash-should-be-promoted-to-field-marshal-says-tim-fischer/news-story/0c086c5a6ac63f06c67228d9f9187dba


12. PROPOSAL FOR THE AMENDMENT TO CAROLINE STREET SOUTH NAME

Manager Governance & Corporate Services: Fabienne Thewlis General Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to review the responses on the survey regarding the possible removal of the word South from the street name Caroline Street South, South Yarra, following receipt of further information.

BACKGROUND

Council has been approached by a resident of Caroline Street South asking if there is a need for the South to remain on the name of the street given that the numbering continues over Toorak Road along Caroline Street.

This can be a sensitive matter as some people are quite wedded to the name of the street they live in.

A Confidential report went to the meeting of Council on 20 February 2017 to determine whether to proceed or not. Council resolved as follows:

That Council:1. seek the views of the residents/ratepayers of Caroline Street South and Caroline

Street;2. seek the views of the wider community by advertising the proposal after

notification of the Caroline Street South and Caroline Street residents/ratepayers; and

3. a further report come back to Council with the results of the community consultation.

A report on the outcome of the consultation was considered at the meeting of Council held on 29 May 2017 and, following Councillor contact from the proposer of the name amendment, the following resolution was passed:

That Council defer consideration of the proposal to amend the Caroline Street South name for three meeting cycles.

DISCUSSIONSince that deferral the proponent has been actively contacting residents of Caroline Street South as follows:

Doorknocked Signatures

Total properties 46

Building site, vacant house, other

6

Occupied properties 40 34 28 (100% support -

being Owners and

Tenants)

Flats at one block not available

Page 85


The comments received were for over-whelming support for the proposal among the residents the proponent spoke to with such comments as:“It’s great that someone is actually doing something about this”“Supportive as the street name is confusing and have had trouble with deliveries in the past” “good luck with this” and “thank you for the effort you have put into this – good luck”

The proponent noted that they have not made contact with the residents of Caroline Street north of Toorak Road as the name change does not affect them and the majority of the street is apartments. Comments received by Council in respect to this section of the street that did not support the proposal were that the houses, not the housing stock, are not similar. This is not an argument that is considered by the Office of Geographic Names – it looks to the numbering which is consecutive along the entire length of the street, and it is still the same suburb – that is South Yarra and not what they define as “vanity addressing”.

The information gathered above aligns with the feedback from Council’s own survey when 25.5% of the respondents from Caroline Street South were in support.

As outlined in the previous report to Council the results from the survey of properties in both Caroline Street South and Caroline Street are as follows:

Total No. Properties

Analysis of Respondents Type Vote

Owner/

occupier

Occupier/

renter

Non-resident owner

House Unit Yes No No reply

Caroline Street South

51

Plus 2 SCC

11 0 6 32

(62.7%)

18

(35.3%)

13 (25.5%)

4 (7.8%)

34 (66.7%)

Caroline Street

415 60 2 56 47

(11.3%)

368

(88.7%)

81 (19.5%

35 (8.4%)

299 (72%)

Totals 466

Plus 2 SCC

71 2 62 79 386 94 (20.2%)

39 (8.4%)

333 (71.5%)

No submissions were received from the external advertising on this subject.

While there was a good response of 28.6% to the Council survey, of this 20.17% were in support but overall with almost 72% not responding. If this is broken down to just Caroline Street South the support is 22.5% with 66.7% not responding. However the results of subsequent door to door in Caroline Street South has found support is 100% of respondents.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Should Council resolve to proceed with this amendment to the street name then the matter will be referred to the Office of Geographic Names (OGN), together with the material gathered from the survey and other responses. The OGN if it considers the change will then advertise the proposal in the Government Gazette and also seek input from the community for or against. If there is no overwhelming lack of support received for the proposal the OGN will finalise the process and formally change the name on the register. Should residents wish to object there is further opportunity when it is advertised by the OGN prior to final adoption.


This is funded within existing resources.

Page 86


CONCLUSION

While the Office of Geographic Names is supportive of losing the word South from street names when it is continuous in alignment, street numbering and still in the same suburb, community support for such a request must be demonstrated. The additional results from the affected residents show this support from the affected properties. The lack of response from the external advertising and 71.5% of those surveyed by Council can be an indicator of lack of interest either way. While Caroline Street north of Toorak Road was surveyed the properties are not affected and there is no devaluation of these properties by such name change.



RECOMMENDATIONA. That Council

1. proceed with the amendment of the street name Caroline Street South to Caroline Street South Yarra

2. The Registrar of Geographic Names be advised of the decision.

3. The affected properties be advised of the decision.

B. That Council, subject to confirmation of the amendment to the street name from the Office of Geographic Names:

1. place an advertisement in the Stonnington Leader in the ‘Public Notices’ section, and on Council website, advising of the decision.

2. notify the following bodies of this decision:

Melways Publishing Pty Ltd Melbourne Water Address Management Metropolitan Fire Brigade The Divisional Returning Officer Boral Energy 21 Universal Press Metropolitan Ambulance Service State Electoral Office Victoria Commissioner of Land Tax Telstra Australia Post Office of Geographical Names Prahran Historical Society Vic Roads – Metropolitan South Eastern Region City Power United Energy

3. organise and install the street signage for the re-named Street.

13. COMMUNITY GRANTS 2017-2018

Page 87


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

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to assist Council in determining on community grants, both cash and in-kind, to a wide range of groups within the Stonnington Community.

BACKGROUND

The Community Grants Program was developed to maximise partnership opportunities with a wide range of community groups to develop activities and provide services which are not available through Federal, State or private funding sources.

The objectives of the Community Grants Program are to:

Maintain a Community Grants Program to assist community organisations in the delivery of services and activities that are not available through Federal, State or private funding resources.

Work in cooperation with residents and community groups to provide responsive, high quality services and facilities.

Provide community services that minimise social isolation and build community identification.

Ensure Council facilities are utilised by community organisations and that their requirements are met.

Promote equality and wellbeing for all members of the Stonnington community.

Enhance the health of the community through the provision of services and partnerships.

Support Stonnington’s diverse culture through programs and activities that observe traditions and heritage.

In preparing this report, the assessment has taken into account a balance of interests given the variety of community groups requesting Council’s support, the number of Stonnington residents who are members as well as each group’s financial position.

In accordance with an audit recommendation Council has used the Smarty Grants online program to manage the community grants process which was first used in 2015/16 financial year. Applications were received from 174 community groups/organisations for over 350 funding requests which initially totalled over $ 1,169,504 in cash requests. Officers have assessed each application and have made recommendations as per Attachment One. Not all applications meet the criteria and have either been recommended for refusal or reduced while still making every effort to distribute the available funds in a fair and equitable manner.

Page 88


Categories of Community grants available in 2017/2018

General Programs Financial assistance toward programs and services.

Use of Council Facilities -In-Kind:

Subsidised use of Council’s service and facilities: Use of Council Halls/meeting rooms Use of Council bus(s)

Service Agreements: This category encompasses key organisations within Stonnington which provide a range of ongoing services, which without regular commitment from Council would make it difficult for the organisations to run their services. In circumstances where an applicant can demonstrate a need to receive ongoing assistance, Council may agree to extend assistance for a total period of up to three (3) years.

DISCUSSION

Applications were initially assessed by Council Officers on the basis of the eligibility and assessment criteria outlined in the “Community Grants Program Guidelines” supplied to each applicant, together with a review of previous funding, before passing recommendations to the Council for further consideration.

A detailed listing of individual applications from Community groups is included in Attachment One.

Friendship Agreement between Sub-District Baguia and the CouncilCouncil has had an on going relationship with the Stonnington community group Friends of Baguia Inc. since 2004 including cash funding and in kind use of Council venues for meetings and fundraising events. The Stonnington community group, Friends of Baguia Inc was formed to ‘foster friendship, support and cross-cultural exchange at a grassroots level’. In 2014 this friendship was re-affirmed by Council for a further five years. It was agreed that funding for any cooperative exercises will be considered on a case by case basis and the present agreement does not imply or signify financial commitment by any parties. A copy of this agreement is attached as Attachment Two.

For this financial year the Stonnington community group, Friends of Baguia Inc have submitted a community grants application for the following projects. These requests (see below) are also shown in Attachment One.

Application Number

Project Description Cash requested

In kind requested

Cash recommended

In kind recommended

CG2017-180083

Computer Training Program

$8,200 $5,000

CG2017-180082

High School Scholarship Program

$3,240 $3,240

CG2017-180081

Kindergarten Program

$4,600 $4,600

CG2017-180073

University Scholarship

$3,600 $3,600

CG2017-180081

Use of Malvern Library Meeting

$192 $192

Page 89


Room for meetings

CG2017-180073

One use of the Malvern Town Hall for fundraising event

$3,140 $2,355 (group to pay 25% of total fee being $785)

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Council Officer recommendations for the cash and in-kind grants applications and total funding available under the 2017/18 budget are as follows:

Financial Recommendations for discussion

Cash 2017/18 budget

Recommended Cash grants 17/18 $607,148

Budget 2017/18 $644,892

Uncommitted cash $ 37,744

In kind (Venue waiver & Council bus use)

In Kind venue recommendation $523,411

In Kind Council Bus recommendation $ 26,505

Total in kind recommendation $549,916

Budget 2017/18 $470,775

Recommended in kind budget overcommitted ($ 79,141)

Total 2017/18 Budget $1,115,667

Total cash and In-kind recommendations $1,157,064

Recommended budget Over commitment ($ 41,398)

Additional Hire cost to be paid by community group to Council (cash contribution to income)

$ 27,335

A outlined above, the recommendation is $607,148 for the cash allocation and $549,916 for the in kind allocation. All recommended applications are for a one year funding allocation.

In assessing the 2017/18 applications Officers have endeavoured to balance out the provision of existing services while also providing for new services/programs. The cash recommendation is an increase of 4.2% on the 2016/17 grants. This will not necessarily maintain some funds in anticipation of possible grant requests during the year as the in-kind recommendations propose an over-expenditure.

The in-kind applications have increased significantly. Officers are recommending an increase of 24.17% compared to 2016/17 to accommodate these services in venues that are almost at capacity, with the same applying to transport services being an increase of 6.8% to 2016/17.

Page 90


Given the above Officers initial recommendations for the community grants as outlined above are over committed by $41,398.

Cash and in kind funding has been recommended for projects that benefit people from disadvantaged backgrounds, increase community participation and support the health, wellbeing and connectedness of Stonnington residents.

Council is cognizant of the ability for some services to contribute to the hire of venues and these have been identified in the Attachment One with a recommendation to charge a 25% fee for hire of the venue for community groups with Council to fund in-kind 75% of the fee. For any predominantly commercial program this is 50%.

With the anticipated changes to services and funding during 2017/18 as part of the NDIS and HACCPYP reforms, Council will not be a specialist funded agency whereas many of the people in the groups and/or the service providers will have access to funds through their programs. A full review of the community grants program will need to be undertaken over the next 6-9 months as significant changes to the program will need to be considered prior to the next grant application period.


These applications have been assessed and recommendations made that are in keeping with the principles of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

Attachments

1. Community Grants 2017-2018 Attachment 1 of 2 A3 Attachment Circulated separately

2. Friendship Agreement between Sub-District Baguia and the City of Stonnington Attachment 2 of 2

Excluded

Page 91


RECOMMENDATION A

1. That the Council adopt the recommendations from Council Officers for the 2017/2018 Community Grants Program as shown in (Attachment One) totalling: $ 607,148 Cash (GST exclusive); and $ 532,206 In kind (GST exclusive)which excludes items in which Councillors have declared conflicts of interest as follows.

Item No Group Cash In-KindCG2017-180011

Very Special Kids $17,710

2. That Council by approving the in-kind grants acknowledge an over expenditure of the 2017/2018 approved Council Budget.

3. That Council approve to charge a percentage for hire of venues to identified groups as outlined in Attachment One

4. That Council conduct a review of the community grants categories and criteria prior to the 2018/19 grant application period.

RECOMMENDATION BThat the Council adopt the recommendations from Council Officers for the 2017/2018 Community Grants Program for the following item in which certain Councillors have declared conflicts of interest as outlined below and shown in Attachment One)

Item No Group Cash In-Kind

CG2017-180011

Very Special Kids $17,710

which brings the total of Community Grants to $607,148 Cash (GST exclusive) and $549,916 in kind.

Page 92

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS10 JULY 2017

o) Confidential

1. CITIZEN OF THE YEAR AWARDS 2017Civic Support Officer: Judy HoganConfidential report circulated separately.

Page 93

Agenda of Council Meeting - 10 July 2017 · Web viewMonday 10 July 2017 at 7pm Council Chamber,...

Documents

Transcript of Agenda of Council Meeting - 10 July 2017 · Web viewMonday 10 July 2017 at 7pm Council Chamber,...