City of Monash | Monash Council - MINUTES OF THE ......2013/07/30 · 1. Awards the Tender for...

0

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF

COUNCIL

HELD ON 30 JULY 2013

at 7.30 pm

Council Chambers 293 Springvale Road,

Glen Waverley

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF THE MONASH CITY COUNCIL HELD ON

30 JULY 2013

1

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF THE MONASH CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SPRINGVALE ROAD GLEN WAVERLEY

ON TUESDAY 30 JULY 2013 AT 7.30 PM.

PRESENT P Klisaris, G Lake, B Little, K Nolan, R Paterson, B Pontikis, T Zographos

: Councillors M Drieberg (Mayor), J Lo (Deputy Mayor), R Davies, S Dimopoulos,

APOLOGIES

:

Nil

DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST

Cr Klisaris – Item 1.5 (Vacation Care)

Cr Zographos – Item 5.7 (21 Thomas Street, Clayton)

MEETING HELD ON 25 JUNE 2013 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL

Moved Cr Lo, Seconded Cr Zographos

That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 25 June 2013, be taken as read and confirmed.

CARRIED

RECEPTION AND READING OF PETITIONS, JOINT LETTERS & MEMORIALS

The Mayor tabled a petition from Monash residents and other persons, objecting to the potential sale of Council’s aged care facilities at Monash Gardens, Mulgrave and Elizabeth Gardens, Burwood. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

The Mayor advised that 21 questions had been received relating to the Council’s Residential Aged Care and Retirement Living Portfolio. These questions were considered and responded to at the meeting. . A copy of the questions and the answers is appended to the minutes.


30 JULY 2013

2

At the conclusion of the time set aside for Public Question Time, a Procedural Motion was moved, as follows, to provide for the Council to continue to hear the questions submitted :

PROCEDURAL MOTION Moved Cr Lo, Seconded Cr Davies That Public Question Time be extended by 20 minutes

CARRIED

Public Question Time continued for the allocated additional 20 minutes.

OFFICERS’ REPORTS

1. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & SERVICES 1.1 PROVISION OF DELIVERED MEALS COMPONENT FOR HACC DELIVERED MEALS SERVICE Moved Cr Dimopoulos, Seconded Cr Little That Council

1. Awards the Tender for provision of Delivered Meals Component for Monash City Council HACC Delivered Meals Service Contract No. CF2013121, to I Cook Catering Aged Care Services Pty Ltd for a 3 year period with an estimated annual expenditure of $700,000 per annum (inclusive of GST) 2. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to sign and seal the contract documentation.

CARRIED 1.2 GOLF COURSE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS Moved Cr Dimopoulos, Seconded Cr Little

That Council tenders the management and operation of Glen Waverley and Oakleigh golf courses, offering a management agreement with tenure of 2 years.

CARRIED


30 JULY 2013

3

1.3 GENERATING EQUALITY AND RESPECT PROGRAM Moved Cr Little, Seconded Cr Lo

That Council notes the progress report for the ‘Generating Equality and Respect’ program and adopts the key messages of the program for social marketing and awareness raising activities.

Cr Zographos spoke in support of the motion, noting the work the Council had done with stakeholders and partners in the program and the methods and strategies that had been used to promote the program.

CARRIED 1.4 BABY BOOMER STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN 2010-2014 and POSITIVE AGEING ACTION PLAN

2010 – 2014: PROGRESS REPORT AND FUTURE POLICY RECOMMENDATION Moved Cr Zographos, Seconded Cr Nolan That Council:

1. Notes the progress and achievements during Year 3 of the ‘Baby Boomer Strategic Action Plan 2010 – 2014’ and ‘Positive Ageing Action Plan 2010 – 2014’; and

2. Endorses the integration of the Baby Boomer Strategic Action Plan and Positive Ageing Action Plan to form the Age Friendly Monash Plan 2014 – 2019 under the Council’s Access and Equity Framework 2013-17 commencing from 1 July 2014.

CARRIED 1.5 VACATION CARE PROGRAMS

NOTE: Cr Klisaris disclosed an indirect interest in this matter as an owner and operator of a child care centre in the municipality. He left the Chamber at 8.20 pm and returned at 8.22 pm, after the Council had concluded its deliberations and voting on the item.

Moved Cr Pontikis, Seconded Cr Little

That Council: 1. Notes that Council has reached in principle agreements with Glendal and

Parkhill Primary Schools in relation to the possible transfer of operations to a preferred vacation care service provider from January 2014 onwards, including agreement for the school premises to be made available for this purpose.


30 JULY 2013

4

2. Supports further discussions with Sussex Heights Primary School to

investigate options for continuing vacation care service provision onsite. 3. Undertakes consultation with families who have previously used Council’s

vacation care program to seek their feedback on a potential transfer of the program to providers with experience in out of school hours care.

4. Receives a further report in August 2013 that summarises the feedback from

families about this proposed change. The report will also include a proposed transition plan. After considering any community feedback and the transition plan, it is recommended that Council make a decision at the 27 August 2013 meeting as to whether to continue providing vacation care or to transition the program to other experienced providers of out of school hours care.

CARRIED 1.6 CONSULTANCY SERVICES FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT OF STRATEGY FOR COUNCIL’S

RESIDENTIAL AGED CARE AND RETIREMENT LIVING PORTFOLIO Moved Cr Davies, Seconded Cr Little

That Council: 1. Appoints Sweett Group for the Project Management of the potential Divestment Strategy of Council’s Residential Aged Care and Retirement Living Portfolio Contract No. CF2013135. 2. Appoints Sweett Group to carry out the first component of this project for a sum of $120,000 inc GST. The first component entails project management to assist Council with the investigation of the market interest in purchasing elements of its residential aged care and retirement living portfolio through a public Expression of Interest process.

3. In the event that Council decides at its 29 October 2013 meeting to proceed to divestment, Council appoints Sweett Group to manage the sale process for a further sum of $235,000 inc. GST. 4. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to sign and seal the contract documentation. Cr Dimopoulos noted that the Council had not made a decision on the aged care and retirement living facilities and that this was an exploratory decision only. Cr Klisaris said that it was a difficult time for the community and he understood and appreciated the issues of concern. He added that the issue for the Council was


30 JULY 2013

5

not about money, but the continued delivery of the highest quality of care for the aged care residents. POINT OF ORDER Cr Davies called a Point of Order, stating that Cr Klisaris’ comments did not relate to the matter before the Council. The Mayor did not uphold the Point of Order, saying that Cr Klisaris’ comments related to the broader matter of the aged care facilities, that this item was connected to. Cr Klisaris said that any decision that the Council made would be in the best interests of the residents.

CARRIED 2. HUMAN RESOURCES

Nil 3. CORPORATE PLANNING & FINANCE

Nil 4. INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES 4.1 ANTI-SOCIAL DRIVING –DANDENONG ROAD, OAKLEIGH - MULGRAVE Moved Cr Zographos, Seconded Cr Pontikis

1. That the report providing an update on measures to deal with anti-social driving along Dandenong Road from Oakleigh to Mulgrave be noted. 2. That Council officers continue to work with VicRoads and Victoria Police to monitor and implement measures to discourage anti-social driving, including installation of ‘No U-turn’ restrictions and additional parking restrictions. Cr Zographos said that he was pleased that that this report had been submitted to Council. “Hoon” driving was putting the safety of the community at risk and the Council needed to contribute to the work done by the Victoria Police to address the problem.


30 JULY 2013

6

Cr Zographos noted that there was no quick solution to this problem and further work was needed. He thanked the Victoria Police, the local community and local Members of Parliament who had been working together on the matter. He added that he looked forward to further progress on the matter, in the future.

CARRIED 4.2 BRANDON PARK RESERVE STAGE 3B – RETARDING BASIN CIVIL WORKS Moved Cr Davies, Seconded Cr Drieberg

That Council approves the variation to the contract with Contek Constructions Pty Ltd, of $37,312 (GST exclusive) for the engagement of a specialist contractor to remove contaminated soil containing asbestos material uncovered during the Brandon Park Reserve Retarding Basin - Civil Works construction.

CARRIED 5. CITY DEVELOPMENT 5.1 1562-1564 DANDENONG ROAD HUNTINGDALE DEVELOPMENT O FTHREEE STORY

APARTMENTS Moved Cr Drieberg, Seconded Cr Dimopoulos

Council resolves to issue a Refusal to grant a Permit under the Monash Planning Scheme to the land described as 1562-1564 Dandenong Road Huntingdale, TPA/40065 for the development of a three storey apartment building comprising 22 apartments with basement car parking, subject to the following grounds:

1. The proposal is inconsistent with the Residential Development Policy and Residential Development and Character Policy at Clauses 21.04 and 22.01 of the Monash Planning Scheme.

2. The proposal does not adequately satisfy the objectives and design standards of Clause 55 of the Monash Planning Scheme with regard to Neighborhood Character, Building Height, Energy Efficiency, Landscaping, Access, Parking Location, Daylight to New Windows, Private Open Space, Solar Access to Open Space, Design Detail and Site Services.

3. The proposal is out of character with the existing development in the area in particular with regard to mass, bulk and scale.

4. The proposal would have a poor level of internal amenity for future residents

5. The proposal would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of surrounding land.


30 JULY 2013

7

6. The access creates an unacceptable level of conflict between vehicles and

pedestrians.

7. The basement layout does not provide for satisfactory provision of car parking.

CARRIED 5.2 1425 NORTH ROAD OAKLEIGH EAST – EXTENSION OF TIME Moved Cr Zographos, Seconded Cr Little

Council resolves to grant an Extension of Time to Planning Permit No. 35747 in respect of land described as 1425 North Road Oakleigh East, allowing the development of a double storey dwelling with associated car parking and landscaping pursuant to the provisions of Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Permit expiry dates extended as follows:

• The development is not commenced by 4 March 2014.

• The development is not completed before 4 March 2016.

CARRIED 5.3 416, 418 AND 420 FERNTREE GULLY ROAD NOTTING HILL – FIVE STOREY BUILDING Moved Cr Pontikis, Seconded Cr Dimopoulos

Council resolves to issue a Notice of Decision to grant a Permit under the Monash Planning Scheme to the land described as 416, 418 & 420 Ferntree Gully Road Notting Hill, TPA/41317 for the development of a five storey apartment building with basement car parking, and alteration (removal) of access to a road zone, subject to the following conditions: 1. Before the development starts, three copies of amended plans drawn to scale

and dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The submitted plans must clearly delineate and highlight any changes. When approved the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application, but modified to show:

a) The finished floor level of the basement reduced by 0.8m, with a consequential reduction in the overall height of the development;

b) The southern facade of the third floor setback a minimum of 14m from the southern boundary and the layout of Apartment 3-03 and 3-04 modified/consolidated accordingly;


30 JULY 2013

8

c) Car parking layout and access in accordance with the design standards specified by Clause 52.06-8;

d) The provision of a minimum of 8 canopy trees within the landscaping buffer adjacent to the southern boundary;

e) Redundant vehicle crossings removed and reinstated with nature strip, kerb and channel;

f) The location and design of any required fire services, electricity supply, gas and water meter boxes discreetly located and/or screened to compliment the development.

g) Provision of a corner splay or area at least 50% clear of visual obstructions (or with a height of less than 1.2 metres) extending at least 2.0 metres long x 2.5 metres deep (within the property) from the edge of the exit lane of each vehicle crossing to provide a clear view of pedestrians on the footpath of the frontage road;

h) The proposed crossover to/basement access ramp to have a minimum 1.0m clearance from any vegetation within the nature strip.

2. Once the development has started it must be continued and completed to the

satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. 3. No goods must be stored or left exposed outside the building so as to be visible

from any public road or thoroughfare. 4. No bin or receptacle or any form of rubbish or refuse shall be allowed to remain

in view of the public and no odour shall be emitted from any receptacle so as to cause offence to persons outside the land.

5. Adequate provision shall be made for the storage and collection of garbage and

other solid wastes and these facilities are to be located on the site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6. Prior to the commencement of works on the site, the owner shall prepare a

Waste Management Plan for the collection and disposal of garbage and recyclables for all uses on the site by private contractor. The Waste Management Plan shall provide for: a) The method of collection of garbage and recyclables for uses; b) Designation of methods of collection including by private contractor; c) Appropriate areas of bin storage on site and areas for bin storage on

collection days; d) Measures to minimise the impact upon local amenity and on the operation,

management and maintenance of car parking areas; e) Litter management. A copy of this plan must be submitted to Council.


30 JULY 2013

9

7. Before the development starts, a construction management plan must be prepared and submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval. The plan must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Once approved, the plan must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The plan must address the following issues: a) measures to control noise, dust and water runoff; b) prevention of silt or other pollutants from entering into the Council’s

underground drainage system or road network; c) the location of where building materials are to be kept during construction; d) site security; e) maintenance of safe movements of vehicles to and from the site during the

construction phase; f) on-site parking of vehicles associated with construction of the

development; g) wash down areas for trucks and vehicles associated with construction

activities; h) cleaning and maintaining surrounding road surfaces; i) a requirement that construction works must only be carried out during the

following hours: • Monday to Friday (inclusive) – 7.00am to 6.00pm; • Saturday – 9.00am to 1.00pm; • Saturday – 1.00pm to 5.00pm (Only activities associated with the

erection of buildings. This does not include excavation or the use of heavy machinery.)

8. The construction works associated with the use/development and/or subdivision

hereby permitted must only be carried out during the following hours: • Monday to Friday (inclusive) – 7:00am to 6pm; • Saturday – 9am to 1pm; • Saturday – 1pm to 5pm (Only activities associated with the erection of

buildings. This does not include excavation or the use of heavy machinery); unless otherwise approved in writing by the Responsible Authority.

9. No equipment, services, architectural features or structures of any kind,

including telecommunication facilities, other than those shown on the endorsed plans shall be permitted above the roof level of the building unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Responsible Authority.

10. Disabled access to the building must be provided to the satisfaction of the

Responsible Authority. All work carried out to provide disabled access must be constructed in accordance with Australian Standards Design for Access and Mobility AS 1428.1.


30 JULY 2013

10

11. All common boundary fences are to be a minimum of 1.8 metres above the finished ground level to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The fence heights must be measured above the highest point on the subject or adjoining site, within 3 metres of the fence line.

12. A landscape plan prepared by a Landscape Architect or a suitably qualified or

experienced landscape designer, drawn to scale and dimensioned must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority prior to the commencement of any works. The plan must show the proposed landscape treatment of the site including:- • the location of all existing trees and other vegetation to be retained on site • provision of canopy trees with spreading crowns located throughout the

site including the major open space areas of the development • planting to soften the appearance of hard surface areas such as driveways

and other paved areas • a schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground cover, which will

include the size of all plants (at planting and at maturity), their location, botanical names and the location of all areas to be covered by grass, lawn, mulch or other surface material

• the location and details of all fencing • the extent of any cut, fill, embankments or retaining walls associated with

the landscape treatment of the site • details of all proposed hard surface materials including pathways, patio or

decked areas When approved the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.

13. Before the occupation of the buildings allowed by this permit, landscaping works

as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and then maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

14. Before the development starts, a site layout plan drawn to scale and

dimensioned must be approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must show a drainage scheme providing for the collection of stormwater within the site and for the conveying of the stormwater to the nominated point of discharge. The nominated point of discharge is the south-east corner of the property where the entire site’s stormwater must be collected and free drained via a pipe to the Council pit in the south-eastern corner of Ferntree Gully Road to Council Standards. A new pit is to be constructed if a pit does not exist or is not a standard Council pit. If the point of discharge cannot be located then notify Council’s Engineering Division immediately.


30 JULY 2013

11

15. All on-site stormwater is to be collected from hard surface areas and must not be

allowed to flow uncontrolled into adjoining properties. 16. Stormwater discharge is to be detained on site to the predevelopment level of

peak stormwater discharge. Approval of any detention system is required by the City of Monash, the Responsible Authority, prior to works commencing.

17. Before the development permitted is completed, areas set aside for parked

vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be: (a) constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority; (b) properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with the

plans; (c) surfaced with an all-weather sealcoat to the satisfaction of the Responsible

Authority; (d) drained, maintained and not used for any other purpose to the satisfaction

of the Responsible Authority; (e) line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes to the

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

18. The layout of the development shall follow the Design Standards for car parking

set out in Clause 52.06-8 of the Monash Planning Scheme as detailed below: a) Accessway to provide at least 2.1m headroom beneath overhead

obstructions. b) Driveway gradient to be no steeper than 1 in 10 (10%) within 5 metres of

the frontage to ensure safety for pedestrians and vehicles. c) Minimum requirements for parking space dimensions to be in accordance

with Table 2. d) Clearance to car parking spaces to be in accordance with Diagram 1 in

relation to the placement of a wall, fence, column, tree, tree guard or any other structure that abuts a car space.

19. Resident and visitor car parking is to be provided on the subject land in

accordance with the requirements of Clause 52.06 of the Monash Planning Scheme. Visitor car parking spaces must be clearly marked and allocated within common property upon any future subdivision of the development.

20. Bicycle parking facilities shall generally follow the design and signage

requirements set out in Clause 52.34 of the Monash Planning Scheme. Melbourne Water Conditions (ref: 222490)


30 JULY 2013

12

21. No polluted and/or sediment laden run-off is to be discharged directly or indirectly into Melbourne Water’s drains or watercourses.

22. Local drainage must be made to the satisfaction of Council. 23. This permit will expire in accordance with section 68 of the Planning and

Environment Act 1987, if one of the following circumstances applies: • The development is not started before 2 years from the date of issue. • The development is not completed before 4 years from the date of issue. In accordance with section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the responsible authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires, or within three months afterwards.

NOTES- 1. Building approval must be obtained prior to the commencement of the above

approved works. 2. Building Permit approval for this development must take into consideration the

location of future subdivision boundaries and their compliance with the Fire Separation Provisions of the Building Code of Australia, including Separating Walls and Openings near Boundaries, as well as the requirements of the Building Regulations.

3. Any new drainage connections onto a Council easement drain / work within the

road reserve requires the approval of the City of Monash’s Engineering Division prior to the works commencing. Three copies of the plans (A3-A1 size) for the drainage works must be submitted to and approved by the Engineering Division. The plans are to show sufficient information to determine that the drainage works will meet all drainage conditions of the permit.

4. Engineering permits must be obtained for new or altered vehicle crossings and

for connections to Councils drains / Council pits / kerb & channel and these works are to be inspected by Council (telephone 9518 3690).

5. Detention system requirements for the property are as follows:

• Minimum storage = 16.15 cubic metres • Maximum discharge rate = 18.17 litres per second • Minimum orifice diameter if using orifice pit = 90mm, otherwise install a

Phillips multi cell or similar to control outflow. 6. An on site detention system for storm events up to the 1% AEP event to be

retained on site for the basement carpark.

7. A Licensed Surveyor or Civil Engineer (who is a Registered Building Practitioner) must certify that the stormwater detention system including all levels, pits, pipes


30 JULY 2013

13

and storage volumes is constructed in accordance with the approved plans. The certifier’s registration number must be included on the certificate.

8. In the event that any parking restrictions are introduced in the surrounding area,

residents of the development will not be issued with parking permits. Cr Paterson said that she had visited the site and spoken to the local community regarding the proposal. She stated that she was opposed to the proposal as she considered it an over-development of the site and recommended an amendment to refuse the application. Cr Davies said that he had visited the site and considered it an over-development. He would therefore vote against the proposal. Following a request for clarification on Cr Paterson’s position, from Cr Lo, there was discussion on whether Cr Paterson was seeking an amendment or a refusal. Cr Paterson advised that she was seeking a refusal of the application. Cr Paterson informed the Council that she would vote against approval of the application. Cr Zographos commented that clarification was required regarding the process for amendments. In response to a request from Cr Dimopoulos, the Director City Development provided Council with details of the setbacks for each of the levels (floors) of the proposed development. Cr Dimopoulos said that more substantial reasons for refusal of the application would be needed than those provided by Crs Paterson and Davies. Cr Dimopoulos noted that the site was at the intersection of 2 major roads. He added that the Council would need to develop a detailed narrative for Notting Hill, identifying the areas that could be developed and those to be protected.

Cr Dimopoulos further added that if Council did not support developments like this on the major arterial roads, it would lose credibility when it came time to argue to VCAT and the State Government against inappropriate development in the heart of Notting Hill, which is characterised by single and double storey dwellings.

Cr Dimopoulos also noted that there could be a problem with parking congestion for this proposal. He asked that residents inform him if it becomes a problem and he would advocate for a change to parking arrangements in the streets adjoining this development. The Director City Development advised that 58 parking spaces were required and these had been provided for in the application. However, if the Council


30 JULY 2013

14

introduced a residents’ parking scheme in the surrounding streets, residents of the development would not be issued with parking permits. Cr Lo said that he supported the proposal, noting that it was at the intersection of 2 main roads and that high density housing already existed in the vicinity of the site. He noted that there was a housing shortage in Notting Hill.

CARRIED 5.4 392 & 394 SPRINGVALE ROAD AND 1 KIRSTINA ROAD GLEN WAVERLEY – TEN

DWELLINGS Moved Cr Zographos, Seconded Cr Drieberg

Council resolves to advise VCAT at the hearing that Council would have refused to grant a Permit under the Monash Planning Scheme to the land described as 392 & 394 Springvale Road and 1 Kirstina Road Glen Waverley, TPA/40791 for the development of ten (10) dwellings with associated car parking and landscaping, subject to the following grounds if an appeal against failure had not been made: 1. The proposal is not consistent with Council’s Residential Development and

Character Policy set out at Clause 22.01 of the Monash Planning Scheme. 2. The proposal does not adequately satisfy the objectives and design standards of

Clause 55 (ResCode) of the Monash Planning Scheme with particular regard to neighbourhood character; design detail; side and rear setbacks; private open space; and landscaping.

3. The proposed development is out of character with the existing development in

the area with particular regard to bulk, mass and scale. 4. The proposed development is not appropriate for the locality in regards to its

adverse impact on the streetscape and general neighbourhood character. 5. The proposal is an overdevelopment and an inappropriate design response.

CARRIED 5.5 163 CARNISH ROAD CLAYTON – 30 DOUBLE STOREY DWELLINGS Moved Cr Pontikis, Seconded Cr Dimopoulos

Council resolves to issue a Refusal to grant a Permit under the Monash Planning Scheme to the land described as 163 Carinish Clayton, TPA/41502 for the development of 30 double storey dwellings, subject to the following grounds;


30 JULY 2013

15

8. The proposal is inconsistent with the Residential Development Policy and Residential Development and Character Policy, and Tree Conservation Policy at Clauses 21.04, 22.01 and 22.05 of the Monash Planning Scheme.

9. The proposal does not satisfy the private open space requirements specified in the Schedule to the Residential 1 Zone being Clause 32.01 of the Monash Planning Scheme.

10. The proposal does not adequately satisfy the objectives and design standards of Clause 55 of the Monash Planning Scheme with regard to Neighbourhood Character, Street Setback, Energy Efficiency, Landscaping, Vehicle Access, Private Open Space, Internal Amenity, Internal Views and Design Detail.

11. The car parking layout does not provide for satisfactory vehicle movement and

inadequate provision is made for vehicles to exit the site in a forwards direction. 12. The proposed development is not appropriate for the locality in regards to its

adverse impact on the streetscape and general neighbourhood character.

13. The proposal is out of character with the existing development in the area with particular regard to bulk and mass.

14. The proposal would have a poor level of internal amenity for future residents. 15. The proposal is an overdevelopment and an inappropriate design response.

CARRIED 5.6 21 THOMAS STREET CLAYTON – EXTENSION OF TIME

NOTE: Cr Zographos disclosed an indirect interest in this matter as the property concerned had previously been owned by his family. He left the Chamber at 8.45 pm and returned at 8.47 pm, after the Council had concluded its deliberations and voting on the item.

Moved Cr Pontikis, Seconded Cr Drieberg

Council resolves to issue an Extension of Time to Planning Permit No. TPA/35562 in respect of the land described as 21 Thomas Street, Clayton VIC 3168 for the development of the land for three double storey dwellings, pursuant to the provisions of Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Permit expiry dates extended as follows: • The development is not started before 15 May 2015. • The development is not completed before 15 May 2017.


30 JULY 2013

16

CARRIED 5.7 DOMESTIC ANIMAL MANAGEMENT PLAN 2013-2017 Moved Cr Lo, Seconded Cr Little

That Council approves the Domestic Animal Management Plan 2013-2017. CARRIED 5.8 TOWN PLANNING SCHEDULES Moved Cr Little, Seconded Cr Lo

That the report containing the Town Planning Schedules be noted.

CARRIED 5.9 RESULTS OF 2013 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY SATISFACTION SURVEY Moved Cr Nolan, Seconded Cr Lo

That Council notes the findings of the 2013 Local Government Community Satisfaction Survey for Monash, including the recommended actions for Council in response to these results.

CARRIED 6 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S REPORTS 6.1 ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS RECORDS

Moved Cr Davies, Seconded Cr Nolan

That Council notes the Assembly of Council records submitted as part of the requirements of the Local Government Act 1989, as amended by the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment Act 2010.

CARRIED 6.2 APPOINTMENT OF COUNCILLOR REPRESENTATIVES TO COUNCIL AND EXTERNAL

BODIES Moved Cr Nolan, Seconded Cr Drieberg


30 JULY 2013

17

That the Council determines to make the following Councillor appointments to the bodies listed below:

- Monash Enterprise Centre Ltd Board – Cr Paterson - Economic Development Forum – Cr Davies - Mayor’s Community Awards Advisory Committee – Cr Paterson - Friends of Damper Creek Reserve – Cr Little - Friends of Scotchmans Creek & Valley Reserve Inc – Cr Paterson

In response to a question from Cr Zographos, Cr Little clarified that he was not resigning from the Positive Ageing Reference Group, but his professional commitments over the next few months would preclude him from attending the Group’s meetings. The Mayor noted that the first paragraph of Officer’s Report would be corrected, to delete reference to the appointment of a Councillor to the Reference Group.

CARRIED 6.3 PUBLIC LIABILITY, PRODUCTS LIABILITY AND PROFESSIONAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE

SERVICES Moved Cr Klisaris, Seconded Cr Pontikis

That Council renews its membership of the mutual liability insurance scheme with MAV Insurance, Liability Mutual Insurance, for the period 30 June 2013 to 30 June 2014, for the sum of $470,472.00(GST exclusive).

CARRIED


30 JULY 2013

18

6.4 CONTRACT FOR THE PROVISION OF CATERING SERVICES TO THE CITY OF MONASH Moved Cr Pontikis, Seconded Cr Davies

That Council: 1. Appoints the following suppliers to a panel for the provision of Catering

Services to the City of Monash for a three (3) year term with options for extension of two (2) x one (1) year periods for the schedule of rates submitted with their respective tenders (Estimated annual expenditure of $147,000 GST inclusive):

Waverley Industries Ltd Chefscene Pty Ltd Adrienne Neilson Catering 2. Authorises the Chief Executive Officer to execute the contract agreement,

and at her discretion, to approve the extension options in the contract, subject to satisfactory performance.

Cr Lo said that he was pleased to see that the Council was engaging with Waverley Industries, via this contract, noting that it was a local business that had been in the municipality for many years.

CARRIED 6.5 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES

Moved Cr Dimopoulos, Seconded Cr Klisaris

That Council: 1. Approves the attendance of the Manager Urban Design & Architecture at

the International Walk21 Conference in Munich from 10 to 13 September 2013 and that it meet the costs of accommodation and registration; and

2. Approves the attendance of the Director, Infrastructure on a Municipal Engineering Foundation Victoria scholarship overseas group study tour to USA, Canada and UK from 17 August to 6 September 2013 including a conference to be held in Chicago from 25 to 28 August 2013 at no cost to Council.


30 JULY 2013

19

CARRIED

7 COMMITTEE REPORTS 7.1 STRATEGIC INTERNAL AUDIT PLAN 2013/14-2015/16 UPDATE

Moved Cr Drieberg, Seconded Cr Lo

That Council approves the 2013/14 update of the Strategic Internal Audit Plan 2013/14 – 2015/16 (Update).

CARRIED 8. NOTICES OF MOTION

8.1 DISCRETIONARY FUND APPLICATIONS

Moved Cr Drieberg, Seconded Cr Davies

That Council resolves to approve the following application for funding from the Discretionary Fund:

APPLICANT PURPOSE AMOUNT APPROVED

Monash University Islamic Society

Donation towards Ramadan Iftar events on 5 August 2013

$500

Mulgrave Girl Guides

Donation towards 50th anniversary celebrations on 18 August 2013

$550

CARRIED

8.2 REPORT ON NATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT CONFERENCE Moved Cr Klisaris, Seconded Cr Dimopoulos

That Council receives the report by Councillors on their attendance at the National General Assembly of Local Government, held from 16 to 19 June 2013.

CARRIED

9. URGENT BUSINESS Nil


30 JULY 2013

20

10. COUNCILLORS’ REPORTS

10.1 Cr Zographos informed the Council of his participation in the recent MAV-

conducted Councillors’ Development weekend, at Creswick. He said that he participated in the workshops offered, particularly those with a focus on finance and he would seek to put this knowledge to good use for the Monash community, in his role as a Councillor.

10.2 Cr Dimopoulos congratulated Cr Lake on his pre-selection by the Australian Labor

Party as its candidate for the seat of Hotham, in the 2013 Federal election. He noted that over the 13.5 years Cr Lake had served as a Councillor, he had made a significant contribution to the municipality and the Council and would leave a big legacy.

10.3 Cr Lake said that he would resign from Council, should he be elected to the seat of

Hotham, but took nothing for granted. He added that he had enjoyed his 13.5 years on Council and would address the Council, at its next Ordinary meeting regarding his time as a Councillor with Monash.

10.4 Cr Zographos congratulated Cr Lake on his pre-selection by the Australian Labor

Party as its candidate for the 2013 Federal election, for the seat of Hotham. He said that it was important that young people were encouraged to take part in civic life and the democratic process.

11. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS Nil

12. MATTERS OF COUNCIL IMPORTANCE Nil

13. CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS

Moved Cr Lo, Seconded Cr Pontikis That as there is a matter that relates to a contractual matter, the meeting be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions of Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989.

CARRIED


30 JULY 2013

21

Upon the Council’s return to Open Council, the Mayor declared the meeting closed at 9.18 pm.

MAYOR: ......................................…………

DATED THIS ............................... DAY OF ............................... 2013


30 JULY 2013

22

RESPONSES TO PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 1. Question: Sandra Hermann

With your statement in the 25 June budget that there will be no sale of public assets, could you please explain why the council has asked for expressions of interest in regards to the sale of a) Monash Gardens land, bed licences, low and high care facilities and independent living units, and b) Elizabeth Gardens bed licences. Council Response: Council is yet to decide whether to sell the land, business and assets associated with the aged care facilities and independent living units at Monash Gardens and the business and assets at Elizabeth Gardens. As Council has not made a decision to proceed with a sale, it would have been inappropriate to pre-empt an outcome in the 2013/14 budget. 2. Question: Libby Hillman

The Council Budget states that $386K will be spent on refurbishment in 2013/14.Why did the Councillors agree to the refurbishment of these facilities in the open meeting of Council on 25 June but decide to ask for Expressions of Interest to sell these aged facilities and services in the closed meeting of Council on the same night? Council Response: We have allocated $386,000 in this year’s budget so the facilities can continue to be maintained to an acceptable standard for as long as they are in our ownership. Regardless of any decisions that may be made in the future, Council has a responsibility to our residents to ensure the facilities are kept well maintained. 3. Question: Jillian Fraser

Capital works plan does not mention proposed sale: Why has no business case for this action been presented to the community either here or elsewhere? Council Response: No decision has been made on the sale of the Aged Care facilities and therefore the Council budget reflects ongoing business in residential aged care.


30 JULY 2013

23

4. Question: Carol Friday

Why was the aged care bed licenses asset value reduced from $7,590,000 to zero between 2011 and 2012? Council Response: In 2011, the Auditor General directed Victorian Councils who owned aged care facilities to value bed licences at a cost rather than as an asset. This was due to what the Auditor General called the lack of an ‘active market’ for bed licences. 5. Question: David Hornby

If Elizabeth Gardens and Monash gardens are sold, what will the fully funded Aged residential facilities upgrade reserve of $7,310,000 be used for? Council Response: Council has not decided what it would do with the Aged Care Reserve in the event that

Council decides to proceed with a sale. 6. Question: Sue Muir

If Elizabeth and Monash Gardens are sold, is any of the fully funded aged residential facilities upgrade reserve of $7,310,000 targeted to be used to reduce the councils unfunded superannuation liability or will it remain committed to Aged Care? Council Response: There are no plans to use the Aged Care Reserve to offset the impact of paying the

superannuation liability. Council has not decided what it would do with the Aged Care Reserve in the event that

Council decides to proceed with a sale. 7. Question: Michelle Cole

How does Council justify seeking to sell aged care resources when it costs ratepayers so little? Council Response: The total costs of providing the services, including capital expenditure which is not included in the figures you have quoted, was budgeted at about $487,000 last financial year and is budgeted at $753,000 this financial year. The yearly cost of providing the service is not the reason Council has decided to seek Expressions of Interest. Council accepts these yearly costs are part and parcel of providing these services to the community. The issue we are grappling with is that the facilities will need major redevelopments in coming years so they can continue to meet community expectations. To fund such redevelopments, Council would need to take on significant debt/ and or impose rate increases on the community. For this reason, Council is considering whether there may be a better way for Council to seek secure residential aged care services in and around the municipality of the City of Monash in the future.


30 JULY 2013

24

8. Question: Murray Nicholas

How can ‘business as usual’ be Monash Councillors pursuing a path which will severely compromise the care of our vulnerable citizens, in the last stage of their life, by relocating them from the Monash and Elizabeth Gardens - a place they now call home where they are cared for by staff many consider them family? Council Response: The term ‘business as usual’ means that nothing has changed in relation to the day to day operations of residential aged care at Monash Gardens and Elizabeth Gardens. The same high level of care is being provided to residents today as it was a month ago, before Council announced it would be seeking Expressions of Interest. We appreciate the concerns of families that residents may be relocated. However it is premature to assume that residents will need to be relocated. A new provider could continue to provide services at Monash Gardens and Elizabeth Gardens. These are all matters that will be investigated as a part of the Expression of Interest process. 9. Question: Kerry Bainbridge Why would Council consider divesting itself of more than 180 employees who provide outstanding care to the most vulnerable members of our community? Council Response: We value our staff highly and they are being provided with support throughout this process. It is not an easy decision we have made to seek Expressions of Interest and we will continue to care for and support our staff throughout this process, regardless of the outcome. 10. Question: Jacki Barnes How can Council possibly achieve this stronger sense of community, fostered in local areas, when this could mean a round trip of up to 70 km to visit parents/spouses or friends? Council Response: Council hasn’t decided yet whether to proceed with a sale. We will decide whether to proceed with a sale at our October meeting. If Council does identify a quality provider, our aim is that the bed licences remain in Monash, or close by. We have made the location of the beds one of the non-financial criteria on which we will evaluate bids from providers, if we decide to sell. 11. Question: Andrew Powell What specific personal experience has Sweett Group demonstrated of being responsible for placing and caring for a family member in aged care opposed to having worked in the Aged Care Sector? Council Response: Sweett Group has not been appointed at this stage. However, as you will see in the Council report to tonight’s meeting, an evaluation panel of Council staff has recommended that Council appoint the Sweett Group for the project management of the Expression of Interest process. If they are appointed and Council decides on 29 October to proceed to sale, Sweett Group will project manage that process also. The Sweett Group team have been industry leaders in residential aged care projects for more than 26 years. They have worked extensively in the local government and not for


30 JULY 2013

25

profit residential aged care sectors. They have experience in assessing and implementing strategies that ensure the needs of residents, staff and families are held paramount. 12. Question: Jill Wagg Why has Monash Council engaged in NO community consultation with the residents, their carer, or the wider community, on the potential sale of assets of Monash and Elizabeth Gardens, which belong to the entire Monash community? Council Response: Council has consulted with residents of the facilities and their families. We initially held seven meetings with residents and families, and there have been follow up meetings with families. We have recorded all of the comments made at these meetings, in follow up emails and letters from families, and on facebook. All of this feedback will be considered by Council as part of its decision-making on whether to proceed with a sale. We have also informed the wider community of our intention to seek Expressions of Interest via the Monash Bulletin community newsletter and on the homepage of Council’s website. In addition, Council placed an advertisement in the Waverley Leader newspaper asking for submissions from the community on the proposed sale of land. The submissions received on the proposed sale of land will be considered at a Council Committee meeting on 3 September. Council will consider these submissions prior to making a decision on whether to proceed with a sale. 13. Question: Cheryl Ashley Why have Councillors proceeded to seek expressions of interest without engaging in any form of community consultation? Council Response: Council has consulted with residents of the facilities and their families. We initially held seven meetings with residents and families, and there have been follow up meetings with families. We have recorded all of the comments made at these meetings, in follow up emails and letters from families, and on facebook. All of this feedback will be considered by Council as part of its decision-making on whether to proceed with a sale. We have also informed the wider community of our intention to seek Expressions of Interest via the Monash Bulletin community newsletter and on the homepage of Council’s website. In addition, Council placed an advertisement in the Waverley Leader newspaper asking for submissions from the community on the proposed sale of land. The submissions received on the proposed sale of land will be considered at a Council Committee meeting on 3 September. Council will consider these submissions prior to making a decision on whether to proceed with a sale. 14. Question: Susie Weir How does Monash’s very young council expect to understand the needs via consultants over those who have had this responsibility? Council Response: When it comes to making decisions, the Councillors at Monash consider the diverse needs of all members of our local community. We are conscious of the differing needs in our


30 JULY 2013

26

community and of the need to make decisions that are in the best interests of our community. 15. Question: Gayle Nicholas As Council is already demonstrating a lack of fortitude to lead the way toward ‘optimum health and wellbeing’, but pursing a path toward lower standards how will you demonstrate to electors your fulfilment of this local council responsibility? Council Response: Council will only consider selling to specialist aged care providers who are able to meet or exceed care and facility standards. 16. Question: Georgia Prattis The Living Longer Living Better aims for an integrated aged care model. Council’s decision to provide community based care minus residential aged care goes against the reform direction. Will council stop all sell off activities and develop a holistic solution for its people? Council Response: The ‘Living Longer Living Better’ policy framework does not state that Councils should provide residential aged care. There are a number of other providers in Monash who also meet this need. Council does meet regularly with a broad range of aged care service providers to plan for the changing needs and expectations of our ageing community. 17. Question: Gladys Mack Why would Council seek to divest itself of residential aged care services at Monash Gardens and Elizabeth Gardens when they contribute to such a sense of community? Council Response: The issue we are grappling with is that the facilities will need major redevelopments in coming years so they can continue to meet community expectations. To fund such redevelopments, Council would need to take on significant debt/ and or impose rate increases on the community. For this reason, Council is considering whether there may be a better way for Council to see k secure residential aged care services in and around the municipality of the City of Monash in the future. 18. Question: Laura Facci Can Council guarantee that, a new provider will not put ‘profit’ above ‘well-being’ by squeezing more people into a building with no soul, perhaps on the same site? Council Response: The reason that Council has decided to explore the market through an Expression of Interest process is so that we can investigate and consider the commitment that potential providers have to quality and care. It is these considerations that Council will be keen to understand in determining if we do proceed with a sale. The issue we are grappling with is that the facilities will need major redevelopments in coming years so they can continue to meet community expectations. To fund such redevelopments, Council would need to take on significant debt/ and or impose rate increases on the community. For this reason, Council is considering whether there may be a better way for Council to see k secure residential aged care services in and around the municipality of the City of Monash in the future.


30 JULY 2013

27

19. Question: Frank Jennings Why, by embarking on tender for sale process, of their Monash and Elizabeth Gardens facilities, without prior consultation, is the Monash Council contravening these facilities ‘Charter of Residents Rights and Responsibilities’ that state “each resident has the right to be consulted on, and to choose to have input into, decisions about living arrangements of the residential care service?” Council Response: Council consistently abides by the terms of the ‘Charter of Residents Rights and Responsibilities’. Every resident was provided personally with a letter to notify them of the Council decision to seek Expressions of Interest. Every resident was invited to meetings to discuss this decision. Senior Council staff are visiting the facilities regularly to reassure residents and to answer any questions or concerns they may have. 20. Question: Fulvio Facci Council states that resident agreements are secure and that the terms will bind any buyer and that changes can only be made if the resident agrees. The fact remains that there is a legal Residency Agreement between the provider being ‘The City of Monash’ and the resident. Council is obviously asking for a change if a new provider is to come in. If the resident does not agree and this also applies to the existing agreement, what will happen to the resident? Council Response: Resident’s care arrangements are protected (by law) under their Residence Agreement, regardless of the outcome of any potential sale. Therefore, existing agreements would require any new provider to honour the current terms. Any changes to a Residence Agreement may only occur if the resident, or their power of attorney, agrees. 21. Question: Linda Hornby Monash Councillors provided less than 24 hours notice of an information session to inform Residents, their carers and staff of Monash and Elizabeth Gardens that a tender was going out in August, for a new Service Provider. What time frame has the Council in place for the eviction of residents if the land and bed licences are sold? Council Response: Council invited residents and families to meetings at short notice as we were keen for people to be able to discuss the matter with us promptly so we could allay as many concerns as possible. We appreciate it was difficult for some people to make these meetings at short notice and we have made ourselves available at other times to meet with those people. The needs of residents and their families are paramount and Council will not be party to any resident evictions. If we decide to proceed with a sale, one of the non-financial criteria that we will judge bidders against is that the transition process would be open and respectful of the interests of residents, their families and staff.

City of Monash | Monash Council - MINUTES OF THE ......2013/07/30 · 1. Awards the Tender for...

Documents

Transcript of City of Monash | Monash Council - MINUTES OF THE ......2013/07/30 · 1. Awards the Tender for...