Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting

Ordinary Council Meeting 18 September 2017

9 Council Reports

9.1 City Development

Strategic Planning

9.1.1 Strategic Planning Update

FILE NUMBER: SF10/90

SUMMARY

This report outlines progress with key strategic planning projects from March 2017 to date. The report recommends that this update report be acknowledged.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council acknowledge the report on progress of Strategic Planning projects.

background

Council’s Strategic Planning Unit undertakes a range of projects that respond to the strategic planning needs of Whitehorse, updates the Whitehorse Planning Scheme and manages projects to proactively plan for future improvement, development opportunities and protection of important features and places within the City.

DISCUSSION

The following is a summary of the current status of key projects being undertaken through the Strategic Planning Unit. The last update to Council was provided at its meeting on 20 March 2017.

Key planning scheme amendments and their status include:

C157 – Whitehorse Heritage Review 2012

The amendment proposed to introduce heritage overlays to 29 individual places and 3 precincts identified in the 2012 Whitehorse Heritage Review. Part 1 of the amendment was gazetted on 4 August 2016 with changes. Part 2 of the amendment comprising the former ATV-0 television studios in Forest Hill was deferred to allow further investigation into the Panel’s recommendations for this property, but was subsequently considered by Council at its meeting on 18 July 2016 where the heritage overlay was adopted for the site.

The Minister for Planning approved Amendment C157 Part 2 with changes, including reducing the extent of the Heritage Overlay to the three main buildings, the administrative block, studio block and scenery store of the former television studios as well as the transmission tower. The amendment was gazetted on 1 June 2017.

Amendment C175 – Box Hill Metropolitan Activity Centre Built Form Guidelines

The draft Box Hill Metropolitan Activity Centre Built Form Guidelines (the Guidelines) were prepared in response to the identified need to provide guidance on the built form and public realm in key areas of Box Hill. Amendment C175 proposes to implement the findings of the Guidelines by introducing a new Schedule 6 to the Design and Development Overlay and applying it to various precincts within the Activity Centre, rezoning various parcels of land as recommended in the Box Hill Transit City Activity Centre Structure Plan adopted in 2007 (the Structure Plan) and making minor changes to local planning policy to reference the Guidelines.

The draft Guidelines and Amendment C175 were exhibited from Thursday 16 February 2017 until Friday 17 March 2017.

At the meeting on 15 May 2017, Council resolved to request the Minister for Planning appoint an independent Planning Panel to consider the Amendment and the submissions received.

A Panel Hearing was convened at the Box Hill Town Hall from Monday 24 July 2017 until Friday 4 August 2017. The Panel must provide their report to Council within 40 business days after the last date of the Panel hearing, therefore it is expected that a Panel report will be received by no later than the first week in October 2017.

C182 – Rezoning at 217 – 233 Burwood Highway, Burwood East

The Amendment to rezone land at the north east and north west corners of Burwood Highway and Blackburn Road in Burwood East, from Residential Growth Zone (Schedule 2) to the Mixed Use Zone and to apply the Environmental Audit Overlay was gazetted on 22 June 2017.

Amendment C191 and C196 –Municipal Wide Significant Landscape Overlay

Trees are the most significant determinant of the character of the various areas within the City of Whitehorse, with tree canopy covering a significant proportion of the municipality. Council undertook a municipal-wide tree study, as a key initiative in the 2015/2016 budget. The Study investigated the importance of vegetation, in particular tree cover, to the municipality, examined the existing strategic framework for vegetation controls and scoped options to protect and enhance tree canopy, as development and future growth inevitably occurs over time.

At its meeting of 18 July 2016, Council resolved to adopt the Whitehorse Tree Study Final Options Report and seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit an amendment to the Whitehorse Planning Scheme to implement the recommendations from the Tree Study.

Amendment C191 seeks to implement the recommendations of the Whitehorse Tree Study by extending the Significant Landscape Overlay to all residential land in the municipality on an interim basis. The request for interim controls was lodged with the Minister for Planning in May 2017.

Amendment C196 seeks to implement the recommendations of the Whitehorse Tree Study by extending the Significant Landscape Overlay to all residential land in the municipality on a permanent basis. The request for permanent controls was lodged concurrently with Amendment C191.

Amendment C192 –119 Surrey Road, Blackburn

The Amendment concerns the sites at 119 Surrey Road and 150-152B Springfield Road, Blackburn and seeks to rezone the land from the General Residential Zone Schedule 1 to the Commercial 1 Zone, as well as apply Design and Development Overlay Schedule 4 and apply an Environmental Audit Overlay to 119 Surrey Road.

Exhibition of the amendment took place from 2 February until 3 March 2017 and two submissions were received.

At the meeting on 18 April 2017 Council resolved to request the appointment of an independent Planning Panel to consider the submissions received to the amendment. The Panel convened for the Amendment recommended that Amendment C192 be adopted as exhibited. At the meeting on 21 August 2017 Council resolved to adopt the amendment which has been submitted to the Minister for Planning for approval.

Amendment C193 – 289-291 Morack Road, Vermont South

The amendment applies to land at 289-291 Morack Road, Vermont South. The amendment seeks to:

· Rezone a part of the site that is currently designated as Commonwealth Land to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (Schedule 5);

· Rezone a part of the site that is currently designated as Commonwealth Land to the General Residential Zone (Schedule 5);

· Rezone a part of the existing Urban Floodway Zone land to the General Residential Zone – Schedule 5;

· Introduce and apply the Design and Development Overlay- Schedule 10; and

· Apply the Environmental Audit Overlay.

At the meeting on 26 June 2017, Council resolved to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit the amendment to the Whitehorse Planning Scheme. The amendment request was sent to the Minister for Planning on 30 June 2017 and authorisation was received on 8 September 2017, subject to conditions including that the General Residential Zone be applied across the whole site.

Amendment C194 – Combined Planning Scheme Amendment and Planning Permit for 517–521 Station Street and 2-8 Oxford Street, Box Hill

The Amendment is a combined planning permit application and planning scheme amendment under Section 96A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The amendment proposes to rezone the land at 517 and 519-521 Station Street Box Hill from the Public Use Zone to the Mixed Use Zone and rezone the land at 2-8 Oxford Street Box Hill from the Residential Growth Zone to the Mixed Use Zone. The amendment also proposes to introduce an Incorporated Document for 517 and 519-521 Station Street, Box Hill.

The draft planning permit for the 517 and 519-521 Station Street site is seeking the approval for building and works for the construction of buildings of up to 18 storeys including rooftop plant plus up to 3 levels of basement car parking. The proposal comprises retail premises, office, restricted recreational facility (gymnasium), medical centre, accommodation, serviced apartments, child care facility, a reduction in the standard requirements for car parking facilities and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1.

At the Council meeting on 20 February 2017, Council resolved to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit the amendment. The Amendment was on exhibition from 27 April until 29 May 2017 and 53 submissions, including one petition, were received. At the meeting on 17 July 2017 Council resolved to request the Minister for Planning appoint an independent Planning Panel to consider the Amendment and the submissions.

A panel hearing is scheduled for the week commencing 2 October 2017 at the Box Hill Town Hall.

Activity Centres

Officers continue to implement actions from adopted structure plans and urban design framework plans for activity centres in the municipality. A monitoring framework for implementation of the plans has also been established and is periodically updated.

Burwood Heights Activity Centre – Former Burwood East Brickworks Site

The Development Plan Overlay (DPO) that currently applies to the former brickworks site at 78 Middleborough Road, Burwood East requires that a development plan be prepared to Council’s satisfaction before planning permits can generally be granted for the development. The development plan is intended to guide future planning permit applications for each stage of this major development and assessment of those applications.

At its meeting on 18 July 2016, Council considered community comment and resolved to approve a development plan for the site, subject to conditions. A number of the conditions are yet to be satisfactorily addressed by the proponent, Frasers Property Australia, before the development plan can be endorsed. Council’s conditions relating to the suitability of open space and design outcomes for the Middleborough Road retail frontage are to be contested before VCAT by Frasers Property at a future hearing.

Parallel to this process, several planning permit applications have been lodged with Council for assessment. Applications must be generally in accordance with the approved development plan and are exempt from third party notification.

Subject to approval of planning permit applications, Frasers Property will progressively develop the site in stages commencing in 2017.

Box Hill Metropolitan Activity Centre (MAC)

Actions relating to the Box Hill MAC are aligned with the Box Hill Structure Plan and other strategic documents and include:

· Urban design, landscape and strategic planning advice on major developments;

· Engagement with relevant departments across the organisation and external stakeholders to progress the Structure Plan;

· Preparation of planning scheme amendments to progressively implement the Structure Plan and other strategies, such as Amendment C175 (refer above) to implement guidelines to give clearer direction on built form outcomes envisaged for precincts within the Structure Plan; and

· Undertaking further studies and guidelines to support implementation of the Structure Plan. Currently this includes:

o Preparation of Public Realm Treatment Guidelines for Box Hill to provide a strategic vision for treatment of the public realm in response to new development in areas of the MAC that are experiencing rapid change.

o Funding from the Victorian Planning Authority to investigate the potential to apply an infrastructure contributions scheme for development in the MAC.

Nunawading Activity Centre

In March 2016 Amendment C155 rezoned the former Daniel Robertson brickworks site at 56 – 74 Station Street, Nunawading from Industrial 1 Zone to Residential Growth Zone and Mixed Use Zone and introduced an Environmental Audit Overlay and the Development Plan Overlay (DPO) to the site. As required under the DPO, a development plan was lodged with Council for consideration. Parallel to consideration of the Development Plan, the proponent lodged an application for review with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to determine whether the development plan in its current form is acceptable for display, pursuant to the planning scheme.

Council resolved at its meeting on 15 May 2017 to support the Development Plan for the former Daniel Robertson brickworks site once a number of matters were addressed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

The Council resolution allowed for Officers to negotiate an agreed outcome with the proponent at a compulsory conference heard before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) on the 29 June 2017. Following the compulsory conference, The VCAT member ordered that the Development Plan was satisfactory and was approved subject to changes.

The proponent has amended the Development Plan in response to these orders and subsequently submitted the amended Development Plan to Council for endorsement of Stage One on 17 July 2017. Officers have reviewed and endorsed the amended plans.

Tally Ho Activity Centre

Amendment C110 introduced a Development Plan Overlay to the site at 104 – 168 Hawthorn Road, Forest Hill, known as the former ATV-0 television studios on 22 October 2015. The site is located immediately beyond the Tally Ho Activity Centre. As required under the DPO, the Forest Ridge Development Plan was lodged with Council for consideration on 3 October 2016 by 10 Consulting Group Pty Ltd. Officers subsequently reviewed and provided a request for further information, which was received in order to progress the matter to public display. At its meeting on 26 June 2017, Council resolved to display the Development Plan in order to consider comments from the community. The Development Plan was on public display from 17 July – 30 July 2017 and a total of 101 submissions were received. Consideration of the submissions is the subject of a separate report to Council. An application was lodged with VCAT on 15 August 2017 on behalf of the property owner (Bazem Pty Ltd) under Section 149 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for review of the Development Plan on the basis that Council has not made a decision within a reasonable period of time. A Practice Day Hearing before VCAT is scheduled for 22 September 2017 with the Hearing date set to commence on 1 November 2017.

Built Environment Awards Program (BEAP)

The Built Environment Awards Program advocates for good planning and design outcomes including building, landscape and urban design projects, and recognises the people who contribute towards them. The Program consists of an Awards event and Educational event on alternate years.

The Built Environment Awards were held at Deakin University on Wednesday 24 May 2017; Deakin University was the event sponsor. The Awards were well attended by approximately 90 people. Award categories represent development activity in Whitehorse and include:

- Single house project – New Dwelling

- Single house project – Renovated Dwelling

- Multi-residential project (unit, townhouse or apartment)

- Commercial or retail project

- Institutional project

- Landscape design project

- Heritage project

- Other awards include the Mayor’s Award, People’s Choice Award and the newly introduced Sustainability Award.

More information can be found at http://www.whitehorse.vic.gov.au/Built-Environment-Awards.html

Heritage

Heritage Assistance Fund:

The Fund provides grants up to $2,000 to eligible owners and occupiers to assist with the ongoing maintenance of their heritage properties. Applications for the 2017/2018 round of funding close on 8 September 2017 and will be considered by the Heritage Steering Committee in October 2017.

Heritage Adviser:

Council’s Heritage Advisor continues to provide specialist advice to the Strategic Planning Unit. Responsibilities of the Advisor include responding to planning application referrals from the Statutory Planning Unit, liaising with the community and other departments of Council on heritage matters, undertaking heritage investigations and helping to assess Heritage Assistance Fund applications.

Other Major Projects

The Neighbourhood Project

The City of Whitehorse was selected as one of three metropolitan Councils as part of the Neighbourhood Project; a pilot project which is a practical program to make community-led placemaking easier for councils and communities. Led by CoDesign Studio with support from the Myer Foundation, it is part of the Resilient Melbourne Strategy and is a 12 month program of mentoring, training and funding to facilitate the delivery of three projects by the community.

Council, community leaders and the wider community collaborated to transform Council land into active spaces over the last two weeks of January with three community-led activations, these being: the Art Project, Front Lawn Festival and Greening the Mall.

The final stage of the project, to ‘evaluate and scale’ the activations, is underway and involves planning for long term change and looks at how community-led activation of spaces can be refined and replicated beyond the Neighbourhood Project pilot project.

As part of embedding the pilot project learnings into the organisation and creating a legacy, a project to review and refine Council’s processes around place activation and community-led placemaking is being undertaken. Using the remaining funds from the Neighbourhood Project a placemaking consultant, Village Well. has been engaged to work with Council to review and refine our processes in order to inspire, educate and provide a clear way forward for interested community members to initiate their placemaking ideas and work with Council in an efficient and streamlined way.

State Government Projects

Plan Melbourne Refresh

In March 2017, the Minister for Planning released the ‘refreshed’ metropolitan planning strategy, Plan Melbourne 2017 – 2050. Amendment VC134 gazetted on 31 March 2017 changed the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP) and all Planning Schemes in Victoria to introduce the new Metropolitan Planning Strategy and make corresponding updates to the State Planning Policy Framework. The Amendment also restructures Clause 11, to include policy-neutral updates and administrative changes and introduce new and updated incorporated and reference documents.

Plan Melbourne has a separate 5-year Implementation Plan. Preliminary meetings have taken place regarding a Land Use Framework Plan for the Eastern Region and Metropolitan Partnership Groups have been established.

More information about Plan Melbourne can be found on the State Government web site at: http://www.planmelbourne.vic.gov.au/home

Managing Residential Development Advisory Committee

The Minister for Planning appointed the Managing Residential Development Advisory Committee to consider the application of zones that provide for residential development (residential, commercial, mixed use etc). The Advisory Committee’s report was released on 11 March 2017 together with further reforms proposed to the residential zones which were implemented by Amendment VC110, gazetted on 27 March 2017. These changes included (amongst other things): introduction of “garden area” requirements, mandatory default maximum building heights in the Neighbourhood Residential and General Residential Zones; and removal of the two (2) dwelling limit per lot in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

Better Apartment Design Guidelines

On 13 April 2017, Amendment VC136 was gazetted to implement the Better Apartment Design Guidelines by introducing state-wide planning requirements for apartment developments.

Fast Track Government Land Service

The Fast Track Government Land (FTGL) Service is project managing two Box Hill Institute sites:

· 1000 Whitehorse Road (west of the Box Hill Town Hall), proposed to be rezoned to Commercial 1 Zone

· 16 – 18 Spring Street (adjoining and including part of the BHI Nelson Campus), proposed to be rezoned to the Mixed Use Zone and to apply a Development Plan Overlay

The FTGL process, to be managed by State government, is proposed to happen swiftly and will involve:

· A consultation period of 6 weeks (25 September – 3 November 2017) seeking submissions;

· An independent hearing conducted by the Government Land Standing Advisory Committee, scheduled for the week commencing 20 November 2017;

· A report by the Standing Advisory Committee in late December 2017 or late January 2018; and

· Subject to the Minister for Planning’s consideration of the Standing Advisory Committee report, an amendment under section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to implement the proposed planning controls.

Council can make a submission during the consultation period which will be the subject of a separate report to Council.

Healesville Freeway Reservation

The current state government gave an election undertaking for the Healesville Freeway corridor in Whitehorse to be open space. Land in the reserve that is currently owned by VicRoads is in the process of being transferred to the Crown and is proposed to be managed by Parks Victoria as open space. As part of this process, the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) has prepared a Concept Plan which was presented to the Stakeholder Reference Group on 14 March 2017. It is understood that following the land transfer, that Parks Victoria will undertake a Master Planning process for future establishment of the open space corridor.

Environmentally Sustainable Development

The Minister for Planning approved the Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD) Local Planning Policy for the Whitehorse, Moreland, Port Phillip, Stonnington, Banyule and Yarra Planning Schemes in November 2015 on an interim basis until 31 December 2017 or earlier if it is superseded by an equivalent provision at State level in the Victoria Planning Provisions. In the Minister's approval letter, it was specified that each council will be required to review the effectiveness of the policy in 12 months and provide a written report to the Department. DELWP has been liaising with the six councils on a framework to monitor and review the policy. In July 2017, the Minister advised that the ESD policies would be extended for 18 months. GC72, gazetted on 31 August 2017, extended the expiry of the ESD policies to 30 June 2019.

Bushfire Management Overlay

The current state government is preparing a bushfire mapping and policy update to planning schemes across the State. This project is a key element of the State Government’s commitment to implementing the recommendations of the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. In the Victorian planning system, the Bushfire Management Overlay (BMO) maps areas of Victoria that are at risk of extreme bushfire. When the State government amendment proceeds, properties in Whitehorse in the vicinity of the Mullum Mullum Creek corridor will have the BMO applied.

CONSULTATION

Community consultation is an integral part of all strategic planning projects. The level and type of consultation will be extensive and varied, depending on the nature and complexity of each project. While community consultation adds to the depth of projects it can also extend their timeframe in some instances.

This update report on strategic planning projects is prepared every six (6) months covering periods ending in March and September. This is followed by a summary in the Whitehorse News on a selection of projects of interest to the community.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

All of the projects require resources and funding for tasks including consultation, preparation, exhibition and consideration of amendments, consultant advice and investigations, including government processes e.g.: panel hearings etc. Typically, adequate funding for the projects is provided in the recurrent budget. However the 9 day panel hearing for Amendment C175 relating to the Box Hill Built Form Guidelines in July / August 2017, involving a three (3) member panel, is a significant cost burden for Council. At the time of writing this report, the full cost of the panel hearing was not known.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The undertaking of strategic planning projects is consistent with the Council Plan 2017 – 2021 in terms of project outcomes and the consultation involved.

conclusion

The report provides an update on key strategic planning projects. It is recommended that Council acknowledge the report.

Whitehorse City Council

Ordinary Council Meeting 18 September 2017

9.1.2 Forest Ridge Development Plan - 104-168 Hawthorn Road, Forest Hill

ATTACHMENT

SUMMARY

A Draft Development Plan has been submitted by 10 Consulting Group for the site at 104-168 Hawthorn Road, Forest Hill as required under the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, Development Plan Overlay that applies to the land. The Draft Plan for this strategically significant redevelopment site was placed on display for community comment and 101 submissions were received.

This report reviews the community feedback received, considers any outstanding matters and assesses the Development Plan. This report recommends that Council does not support the Draft Development Plan for 104-168 Hawthorn Road, Forest Hill.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That Council does not support the Development Plan for 104-168 Hawthorn Road, Forest Hill in its current form for the following reasons:

a) The proposal for six storey buildings is not in accordance with the Development Plan Overlay Schedule 5 which specifies building heights of up to four storeys.

b) The proposal does not satisfactorily address Local Planning Policies, namely Clause 22.03 Residential Development in the Whitehorse Planning Scheme in terms of: providing a positive contribution to the prevailing and preferred neighbourhood character; and sensitive integration with the surrounding Garden Suburban character precinct given proposed building setbacks, scale, height and lack of clarity about a commitment to landscaping.

c) A community infrastructure impact assessment has not been provided.

d) There is a lack of information regarding existing trees to be retained.

e) The Development Plan does not adequately detail the form and conditions of future use and development of the subject site.

f) There is no commitment for the new development to meet the Car Parking provisions of Clause 52.06 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme and a lack of consideration of the impact of the new development on existing car parking provided for the television studio.

g) An updated Traffic Impact Assessment is required to review the current conditions of the surrounding road network.

h) There is a lack of information on anticipated traffic volumes along Magnolia Drive and Tisane Avenue as a result of the proposed development and inconsistent information about connections proposed to these roads.

i) The applicant has not obtained the in-principle consent of VicRoads in relation to the impact of the proposal on the Springvale Road / Hawthorn Road intersection.

j) The Development Plan will adversely impact on views of the adjoining heritage place.

k) The provision of public open space does not meet the requirements of the schedule to Clause 52.01 and requires review to improve integration with Ansett Crescent Reserve.

2. Advise the proponent and all submitters of its decision.

background

10 Consulting Group lodged the Forest Ridge Development Plan for the former ATV-0 site in Forest Hill (refer Figure 1) as required under the Development Plan Overlay, Schedule 5 (DPO5) at Clause 43.04. If approved, the development plan will be used to guide future planning permit applications for each stage of the development and their assessment, and will exempt applications that generally comply with the development plan from the usual notice and review processes under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (‘the Act’).

The Development Plan was initially lodged with Council in October 2016. Following feedback from officers, revised Development Plans were lodged in March 2017 and subsequently in May 2017. At its meeting on 26 June 2017 Council resolved to place the updated Development Plan on display from 17 - 30 July 2017, satisfying the statutory 14 day comment period required under the Development Plan Overlay. 101 submissions (including one petition with 30 signatories) were received. The submissions are summarised in Attachment 4 and are reviewed below. The concept plan from the exhibited Development Plan is shown in Figure 2, and should be read in conjunction with the Draft Development Plan reports which comprise:

Development Plan Report (10 Consulting Group, May 2017), as shown in Attachment 1.

The Development Plan Report includes relevant background to the application with specialist inputs appended, including the following:

· Development Plan and Development Plan Guidelines – SJB Architects

· Movement Network and Conceptual Functional Layout Plans – GTA Consultants

· Landscape Concept Plans – SMEC

Supplementary Reports

· Attachment 2 -Forest Ridge -Development Plan Assessment -Transport Impact Assessment - GTA Consultants

· Attachment 3 – Former ATV 0 Television Studios - Heritage Advice –Bryce Raworth Pty Ltd.

Figure 1 – Subject Site

Figure 2 – Development Plan Concept

Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Proceedings

Following the display of the Development Plan the applicant has lodged an application under Section 149 of the Act to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). The appeal is in relation to the failure of the responsible authority to determine a matter required by the planning scheme within a reasonable timeframe which is specified in the Planning and Environment Regulations 2015 as 30 days.

The applicant has also requested that this matter be joined with the application for review of subdivision of the site into 8 ‘super lots’ (WH/2015/837) that is currently under review at VCAT. As of this report, VCAT has not responded to the applicant’s request to combine the matter.

DISCUSSION

The Forest Ridge Development Plan has been placed on display in accordance with item 1 of Council’s resolution on 26 June 2017 and as required under the DPO, schedule 5 of the planning scheme. A total of 101 submissions were received, including one petition with 30 signatories from residents primarily from Tisane Avenue and Magnolia Drive to the west of the Subject Site.

This report is in accordance with Item 2 of Council’s resolution on 26 June 2017 which states:

Request at the conclusion of the display period a further report be prepared and presented to Council on feedback received from the community.

Submissions

In the discussion below, a summary of the submissions is provided in themes. The submission reference numbers are included in brackets. Additionally, a summary of the submissions is shown in Attachment 4.

During the display period 87 submissions were received to the Development Plan. After the display period 13 submissions and 1 petition were received to the Development Plan. A total of 101 submissions were received. A map of submissions received in close proximity to the subject site can be seen below in Figure 3.

The submissions were received from local residents and landowners in the area. No submissions were received from public authorities or agencies.

Figure 3 – Location of Submitters

Support for the Development Plan

Two submissions provided some general agreement with components of the Development Plan. One submission (3) provided general support for the retail component of the Development Plan. The submitter was supportive of retail on Springvale Road, as they considered the area to be very poorly serviced by retail in the area.

Another submission (34) was supportive of using the fall of the land to mask building heights and provide better integration with the existing neighbouring properties.

Both of the above submissions also raised concerns with the Development Plan, which are included below.

Submissions raising concerns with the Development Plan

Twenty nine submissions did not indicate support or objection to the Development Plan. However, these submissions did raise a number of concerns. These concerns have been considered as part of the submission themes below.

Objection to the Development Plan

Seventy two submissions that were received were objecting to some, or all of the proposed Development Plan.

The submissions are discussed under the following broad themes.

· Consultation process

· Intensity of development

· Built Form and neighbourhood character

· Public transport and active transport

· Traffic and car parking

· Open space and infrastructure

· Heritage

· Other issues

Consultation process

Six submissions specifically raised issues with the public display process and/or the documents that were on display during the exhibition period.

Some submitters felt that the consultation process was inadequate (20) or that the timeframe for the public to provide comment was too short to review the Development Plan (52, 76 and 79).

One submitter (51) raised concerns that the owners on the estate were not informed of this development when they purchased their properties.

One submitter (33) stated that there is a feeling in the community of “development by stealth” with no consultation and a limited time to comment.

Officer Response

The display of the Development Plan was undertaken in accordance with Clause 43.04 to the Whitehorse Planning Scheme and DPO5. This Clause sets out the requirements of the display of the Development Plan.

DPO5 states that “Before deciding whether to approve a development plan or a substantial amendment to an approved development plan, the responsible authority must first display the plan for public comment for a period of at least 14 days and must consider any comments received in response to display of the plan.” Council subsequently displayed the Development Plan from 17 July to 30 July 2017.

Display involved the direct notification, on 11 July 2017, of owners and occupiers of properties within the surrounding area, totalling 841 letters. The notification included a cover letter explaining the Development Plan and its display period as well as general information about the Development Plan proposal including proposed total dwellings and built form.

The letter also included a flyer outlining the Development Plan proposal which included the concept plan. The flyer was intended to give recipients of the letter a general understanding of the extent of the Development Plan and provided contact details of Council Officers to find further information or clarification if required.

Additionally, the flyer advised that for the duration of the display period copies of the Development Plan documents were available for viewing at Council’s Customer Service Centres and libraries in Whitehorse and on Council’s website. The website included all of the documentation associated with the Development Plan.

Public notices about the Development Plan were also published in the Whitehorse Leader on Monday 17 July 2017 and Monday 24 July 2017. The notices included information about the Development Plan, where to locate further information and how to make a submission.

Intensity of Development

Twenty one submissions raised issues and objections to the proposed intensity of the development with particular regard to the housing typology and number of dwellings.

Seventeen submissions (3, 6, 8, 14, 24, 41, 42, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56, 66, 71, 76, 77, 79, 82, 92) considered that the proposed number of dwellings and the Development Plan were excessive, unreasonable or an over development of the site.

One submission (26) commented that Council should further consider the development plan once information about total dwelling numbers and potential residents are firmed up and agreed on.

Two submissions (52, 73) outlined that the intensity of the development was not appropriate for the location and that such intensive development should be within walking distance of train stations or shopping centres.

Officer Response

The site is identified as a strategic redevelopment site in Clause 21.04 Strategic Directions of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme. It is considered that the site is of an area that can accommodate more intensive development than its surrounds. With careful planning, the site is large enough to sensitively manage interfaces, including an appropriate transition in building height across the site with lower scale development proposed to the more sensitive edges. However, Officers consider that changes to the Development Plan are needed to achieve suitable interfaces that respond to the preferred neighbourhood character of the area.

Additionally, the site is identified as an area of substantial change in Council’s Housing Strategy 2014. This category of housing change is aligned with the neighbourhood character statements prepared for each area as part of the Neighbourhood Character Study 2014. These statements and controls aim to direct housing growth across the municipality in a way which reflects the community’s neighbourhood character aspirations, while balancing the future housing needs of Whitehorse.

Built Form and Neighbourhood Character

Seventy five submissions(1-5, 9-13, 15, 18, 20-26, 28-32, 34-42, 44-50, 52-65, 67-80, 83, 84, 88, 89, 91-93, 99) raised concerns and objections with the proposed built form and how it responds to Neighbourhood Character. Additionally, concerns around building heights and neighbourhood character were raised in many of the phone calls and counter enquiries fielded by officers.

Fifty one of the above submissions were unhappy with the proposed building heights and considered these to be inappropriate for the area. Four submissions (34, 37, 48 and 89) considered that the building heights should be restricted to four storeys and submission (89) states that the DPO5 “provides for medium density up to 4 storeys. There is no explanation/justification for the 6 storey proposal”.

Seven of the submissions (3, 6, 12, 23, 24, 69, 84) all suggested that the highest built form on the site should be restricted to three storeys. Furthermore, ten submissions (23, 38, 40, 46, 47, 54, 56, 57, 65, and 80) suggested that the built form should not exceed two storeys in height. Submission (40) indicated that they would support the development if it were two storey houses and townhouses.

A number of submissions made comments in regard to the potential built form on the site. Four submission (24, 26, 76 and 77) raised concerns that the site will become a “ghetto”.

Twenty one submissions (12, 14, 15, 20, 24, 31, 32, 50, 52, 53, 56, 65, 68, 69, 70, 75, 77, 80, 84, 89, and 101) raised concerns that the Development Plan was not respectful, not in keeping or out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood. A number of these submissions considered this as they thought that the six storey built form was inappropriate and would detract from the existing character of the area. One of these submissions (20) went on to state “that vibe is open areas, parks, housing not in close proximity to each other”.

Seven submissions (1, 39, 42, 75, 96, 97 and 99) commented that the Development Plan will destroy, or result in a loss of amenity, integrity and character of the area and that many characteristics of the neighbourhood character and amenity could be improved. Submission (39) noted that abrupt tall buildings that will destroy the beautiful landscape. Five submissions (12, 25, 36, 37, and 47) commented that the proposed built form will impact on the view lines to the Dandenong Ranges.

Thirteen submissions (18, 20, 24, 29, 30, 36, 44, 49, 50, 53, 84, 88, 92 and 93) had concerns about overshadowing and/or stated that the heights should be reduced to prevent overshadowing and overlooking / impact on privacy of residential areas.

Three submissions (25, 34, and 47) raised concerns in regards to the Development Plan’s proposed interface treatments and the lack of transition to surrounding residential properties, particularly to the south and west. Submission (34) notes that the development exceeds anything in the surrounding area and submission (47) considers that the Development Plan pays no attention to a transitional building set back with 4 storey properties overlooking existing properties.

Officer response

Officers also seek good design outcomes from this site. Officers are concerned that the design response and built form guidelines in the Development Plan are ambiguous and do not provide enough guidance to assess future planning permit applications.

Officers acknowledge and agree in part with the concerns raised by a number of submitters in regard to the proposed built form on the site. Officers consider that the Development Plan does not adequately respond to the existing neighbourhood character in regard to the treatment of residential interfaces.

Officers agree with the submissions in regard to the Development Plan not providing adequate transitions down to a lower, domestic scale of 1 to 2 storeys at the site’s edges to complement adjoining neighbourhood character. Officers concur that this has not been adequately addressed through the conceptual plan and built form guidelines.

Additionally, officers acknowledge the submitter’s concerns in regard to the proposed six storey built forms and their extent in the Development Plan. Any development that is proposed to exceed the 13.5m discretionary height control of the RGZ2 requires significant justification. Officers consider that this strategic justification has not been addressed in the Development Plan, nor is there sufficient design guidance to ensure any amenity impacts can be contained within the site.

Public transport and Active transport

Thirteen submissions (20, 30, 32, 42, 43, 52, 54, 56, 57, 67, 70, 84, and 101) discussed public transport. A number of these submissions considered that the public transport network would not be able to cope with such an increase in population.

Seven submissions (8, 16, 19, 65, 75, 85 and 98) raised concerns with the proposal to accommodate active transport in the Development Plan. One submission (16) raised concerns that the Development Plan did not do enough to create connections to the existing surrounding cycling network to improve connections on a broader scale. While submission (65), questioned whether the lack of footpaths on both sides of the road was Disability Discrimination Act compliant.

Officer response

Officers recognise that public transport, and access to public transport, is an important element of the Development Plan. Officers acknowledge the residents’ concerns that the existing public transport network may be unable to cope with a significant influx of residents. However, Public Transport service provision is out of the remit of Council.

In regards to active transport, the Development Plan is required to provide a permeable network of streets and public spaces to support safe, convenient and amenable vehicular, pedestrian and cycling movement. Officers acknowledge submitters concerns regarding connections to the broader cycling network. The Development Plan shows connections to existing pedestrian and cycling routes, but does not provide any additional facilities beyond the site.

The Development Plan adequately creates a new shared pedestrian and bicycle link, which will complement the existing bicycle route along Hawthorn Road. A primary link will be provided to the south-east of the television building, connecting the community north of Hawthorn Road to the existing public open space on Ansett Crescent. A secondary link will increase permeability on the north-east side of the site, providing an alternative connection between Hawthorn Road and Magnolia Drive.

Traffic and car parking

Twenty seven submissions (2, 7, 9, 11, 12, 17, 23, 28, 29, 36, 41, 47, 50, 53, 56, 65, 66, 75, 80, 82, 84, 85, 87, 97, 98, 99 and 101) specifically mentioned car parking as an issue in the surrounding area.

Ten submissions (2, 11, 23, 29, 46, 56, 66, 84, 87 and 99) raised concerns that the development will not be able to contain its parking demand and this will spill over onto surrounding streets. Submission (9) considers that the streets should be wider to accommodate on street car parking. Submission (99) was concerned that insufficient parking space would adversely affect the amenity of surrounding properties through roadside parking on Magnolia Drive. Similarly, Submission (12) states that based on “the example of the previous development on the site, that the on street car parking is insufficient and there is not enough off road car parking for visitors”.

One submission (80) questions whether there would be adequate parking provided for the vehicles that would be realistically owned by 700 new residences and their visitors. Another submission (82) considers that Hawthorn Road should have parking restrictions included on both sides, as they thought it was likely Hawthorn Road would turn into a car park especially with visitors to the development area.

Seventy four submissions (3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57-65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99 and 101) specifically mentioned traffic, congestion or traffic safety from the Development as an issue.

Nineteen of these submissions were specifically concerned with an increase in traffic congestion in the area. Submission (95) was also concerned that there are a limited number of vehicle entrances/exits, which they considered would lead to significant risk and traffic congestion.

Eight of these submissions specifically raised safety concerns or questions as a result of the increased traffic movements from these developments. The petition (100) raised concerns about the detrimental impact of opening up Magnolia Drive and Tisane Avenue, with particular regard to the safety of children and the elderly and the access for emergency vehicles. Two submissions (41, 79) also shared concerns with the ability for emergency services to access the area and submission (65) questioned whether an independent road safety audit had been undertaken, as they considered that the parking widths and carriageways appeared to be too narrow.

One submission (79) states that “Springvale Road has an extraordinarily long green light-cycle at peak times so queueing in Hawthorn Road will be exacerbated”. Another submission (33) considered that Springvale Road was already at full capacity and could not handle any further traffic.

Two submissions (21, 70) raise concerns with the proposed roundabout on Hawthorn Road. Specifically, that the proposed roundabout at Echunga Close would generate traffic chaos and is totally unacceptable to the residents of Echunga Close.

One submission (24) stated that “There will be grid lock and bedlam on the streets and roads within and around this development”, while submission (11) raised concerns that traffic from the development wanting to travel in a south, west, or an easterly direction will be pushed onto secondary roads.

Officer response

Resident concerns about increased traffic and parking are acknowledged. The Development Plan Overlay requires that a detailed traffic assessment and management plan which addresses the impact of the development on the arterial and local road network, including any mitigation works required on the road network and associated funding responsibilities be submitted in support of the Development Plan.

A Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by GTA Consultants has been submitted in support of the Development Plan. In regard to the accuracy of traffic estimates, it is acknowledged that there are new developments in the area and that the GTA report has been based on an existing traffic volume movement assessment undertaken on the 26^th November 2013. Council’s Transport Engineers consider that an updated traffic volume movement assessment is required to be undertaken.

Council’s Transport Engineers have raised concerns that the sharp angles of intersections between local access roads within the estate may lead to future traffic safety and visibility concerns. They consider that an Independent Road Safety Audit will be required to ensure potential traffic safety concerns are addressed.

Mitigation measure works are proposed to the signalised intersection of Springvale and Hawthorn Roads. This will require the consent of VicRoads. The applicant has not provided any information that VicRoads provides this consent.

Officers acknowledge the concerns of the residents in relation to the provision of and the ability of the development to cater for its own car parking on site. The Traffic Impact Assessment prepared by GTA Consultants outlines that it is expected that the provision of off-street car parking for the new development would be dealt with under existing statutory planning mechanisms, including Clause 52.06 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme and associated decision guidelines. As such, matters relating to car parking for development sites would be considered on a case by case basis, at the time of planning permit applications for land use development. However, Officers are concerned that there is no statement in the development plan that car parking will meet all of the requirements of Clause 52.06. Officers consider that there should be commentary contained within the Development Plan that states car parking rates will meet all requirements of Clause 52.06.

Further, the Development Plan does not appear to have considered the impact of the Development Plan on land currently used for car parking associated with the continued operation of the existing television studio.

In relation to concerns for parking on Hawthorn Road, Officers do not consider it appropriate at this time to enforce a no stopping requirement. It is considered that Council cannot pre-empt how this road will be utilised for parking.

In response to the petition which requests that vehicles be restricted from accessing the development via Magnolia Drive and Tisane Avenue, Council’s Transport Engineers have indicated that they would not generally oppose vehicle access via these roads. However, the Transport Impact Assessment does not provide sufficient information on anticipated traffic volumes from the proposed development on these roads in order to assess any mitigation measures that may be needed. Further, there is contradictory information in the Development Plan and the Transport Impact Assessment about use of Tisane Avenue as a connection. These matters need to be clarified for officers to have a more informed position on the potential connection to Tisane Avenue and Magnolia Drive, and taking into account the intensity of residential development that may be proposed at this interface.

Open space and infrastructure

Eleven submissions (9, 24, 25, 26, 41, 47, 65, 81, 82, 86, 92) specifically raised open space as an issue, of particular concern was whether enough open space had been provided and whether more should be included.

One submission (47) stated that “I and the rest of the existing residents (old residents) of the Forest Hill Estate maintain that this park [Ansett Crescent Reserve] was set aside for our use. This is the only park in the area and therefore is for the benefit of the ‘old residents’. The proposal does not cater for parkland for the ‘new residents’. I ask the Council to ask for a park the size of the current park in Ansett Crescent (or larger) to be set aside by developers.”

Another submission (26) raised concerns about the two proposed four storey buildings on either side of the proposed connection between the Ansett Crescent reserve and the proposed new public open space. The submitter stated “While we wholeheartedly agree with the expansion of the Ansett Crescent reserve, we believe a better alternative would be to expand the proposed new Public Open Space by omitting one of the proposed four storey buildings from the Development Plan, creating a better flow to the Ansett Crescent reserve and a visually more attractive, continuous open area.”

Fifteen submissions (26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 42, 66, 67, 68, 69, 83, 84 and 93) raised particular concerns over the Development’s impacts on a variety of supporting infrastructure matters including, but not limited to schools, shopping centres, medical centre and community infrastructure.

A further submission (66) raises concern about water supply stating “Being on the top of the hill water pressure along Hawthorn Road is already barely adequate and getting worse. … I would suggest extensive improvements in water infrastructure will be required.”

Officer response

An area of land measuring approximately 3,740sqm was set aside on the corner of Mahoneys Road and Hawthorn Road as a drainage and open space reserve containing a water detention area and parkland. The land, which is vested in Council, was provided as part of subdivision of the first stage of the Forest Ridge Estate totalling approximately 3.6 hectares of the broader ATV-0 site. A cash contribution was taken from the 13 lot subdivision of Stage 2.

While the Development Plan for Stage 3 of the estate appears to propose a contribution of 2,275 square metres of public open space that will form an extension to the existing Ansett Park, the Plan also refers to provision of 2.056 hectares of public open space. The proposed provision of open space therefore requires further clarification. Based on the lesser amount, the open space contribution from Stage 3 would be approximately 2.7% of the land area.

The provision of this open space therefore appears to be inconsistent with the requirement in the schedule to Clause 52.01 that requires a minimum contribution of 4% of land from strategic sites, with scope to negotiate a higher rate as part of a development plan. This site is nominated as a strategic redevelopment site in Clause 21.04 of the planning scheme and as a strategic site in the Whitehorse Open Space Strategy (2007). However, the guiding Public Open Space Contribution Policy at Clause 22.15 identifies a general preference for cash instead of land in the suburb of Forest Hill.

Council Officers consider that the approach to provision of open space for this site should be twofold. Officers broadly support the location of the open space proposed in the Stage 3 Development Plan. The open space will improve permeability through the site and add value to the existing Ansett Crescent Reserve by providing a connection to the north into the new development. However, width of the connection to Ansett Crescent Reserve could be more generous to result in a better dimension of the parkland and a cash amount and / or larger open space area should be negotiated to cater for the intensity of development proposed in this stage.

Officers acknowledge submitter’s concerns in regards to the impacts on infrastructure in the surrounding area. However, some of the submissions raise concerns with services that are outside the remit of Council. Importantly, Officers are concerned with the impact on Council’s community assets in the surrounding area. It has been noted that a community infrastructure assessment has been requested to demonstrate the Development’s impact on community infrastructure.

Heritage

Four submissions (12, 26, 47 and 82) raised concerns with the impact on the heritage building on the site or raised other matters in relation to heritage.

One submission (26) stated that “It seems pointless for Council to approve the Stage 1 residential development and related infrastructure when the use of the heritage buildings has not been defined. If the heritage buildings are also to be used for residential purposes, then the traffic predictions provided by the developer for Stage 1 are meaningless and should be discarded from any decision making by Council.”

Another submitter (47) believes that “The helipad area is of substantial cultural and historical significance and it should be preserved. It should be part of the existing heritage overlay.”

A further submission (82) raised concerns about obscuring the view of the heritage buildings and commented that “It is this very view of the complete building frontage from Hawthorn Road that makes it iconic to residents/the public. To hide the building behind multi storey residential buildings with a narrow view of part of the building from down a street is also disappointing.”

Officer response

Officers acknowledge the submitters concerns in regards to the Heritage building on the site. Officers share concerns that the surrounding built form may not be sympathetic to the significant heritage building, including obscuring the view of the buildings from Hawthorn Road. Officers do note that the helipads on the site were both taken into consideration when preparing the heritage citation for the site. However, these were not included by the Minister for Planning in approving the Heritage Overlay.

Other Issues

Eighteen submissions (10, 12, 13, 22, 26, 31, 32, 35, 42, 49, 51, 66, 71, 76, 78, 79, 88 and 97) were concerned that the development would have an impact on the property value of their property or the surrounding area.

Another submitter (35) is concerned about “the likelihood that this high density estate will gradually degenerate, through minimal upkeep, especially if properties are purchased for investment and leased” and that “surrounding properties will decline in desirability and hence value.”

Some submissions raised issues about potential property purchasers not being owner occupiers and this resulting in increased crime.

Officer response

There is no evidence that increased densities in a residential area contribute to a decrease in property values in surrounding residential areas. VCAT and its predecessors have generally found claims that a proposal will reduce property values are subjective, difficult to gauge and of no assistance to the determination of applications.

Concerns about a relationship between owner / occupancy and crime are not relevant to consideration of the Development Plan.

Officer Review of Development Plan

Referrals

Transport

The Development Plan has been reviewed by Council’s Transport Engineers, who consider that the Traffic Impact Assessment does not satisfactorily address their concerns. They consider outstanding matters to include, parking requirements, road widths, future safety audits, updated traffic volume assessment; clarification of access to adjoining residential areas and the consent of VicRoads for any impact mitigation required for arterial roads.

Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD)

Council’s ESD advisor considers the Development Plan to have insufficient information provided at this time, and that it does not demonstrate consistency with environmentally sustainable development (ESD) principles and is non-committal.

Open Space

The Development Plan has been reviewed by Council’s Open Space Planner and they are satisfied that an area of additional open space would add value to the estate and create permeability through the site. However, as noted above, this is a strategic site and further provision of open space as land and / or cash should be provided given the intensity of the development that is proposed under the Development Plan. Refinement of the dimensions of the proposed open space is also recommended to provide a better overall configuration to the parkland when combined with Ansett Crescent Reserve.

Urban Design

The proposal has been reviewed by Council’s urban design consultant, who considers the development plan and the development concept has a number of specific shortcomings. They have provided recommendations that should be responded to in a revised Development Plan under the following themes:

· Existing trees;

· Building envelopes;

· Street layout; on street parking;

· Setbacks;

· Building frontages;

· Building heights;

· Interfaces with existing surrounding development;

· Hawthorn Road frontage;

· Building height interfaces;

· Neighbourhood character; and

· Views to the front of the heritage building.

Heritage

Council’s Heritage Advisor has concerns in regard to how the proposed Development Plan will impact on the significant heritage place. With the gazettal of the Minister for Planning’s decision to reduce the extent of the proposed Heritage Overlay, there is concern that the proposed development of buildings up to four storeys in height in front of the studios will constrict the views of the significant heritage place in its original setting.

In addition, the Development Plan lacks detail as to how the proposed built form will be sympathetic to the heritage place.

Assessment against the Requirements of the Development Plan Overlay Schedule 5

The Development Plan has been assessed by officers against the requirements of the DPO5 and the relevant requirements of the Planning Scheme, and takes into account community comment received during display of the plan. In addition, the Decision Guidelines in Clause 65.01 have also been considered.

To be approved, the Development Plan needs to be to Council’s satisfaction. Importantly, upon review of the Development Plan, there are a number of concerns that officers consider the proponent ought to address for the Development Plan to satisfy Council. These matters are discussed against the requirements of the DPO5 below, many of which were raised with the applicant prior to lodgement:

Buildings and works

· A concept site layout plan which identifies land uses, building envelopes, road and movement networks, building heights, public open space and landscaping.

Officers consider that the concept site layout does not clearly identify land uses or building envelopes and proposes ambiguous site coverage across stages.

It is also noted that dwellings on individual lots of greater than 300 square metres do not trigger the need for a planning permit under the Residential Growth Zone. To address the concern about built form outcomes on lots of this size, it is proposed that mechanisms available during subdivision (such as section 173 agreements on title) be used to implement the intent of the Development Plan.

· Location of public open space areas.

The Development Plan adequately demonstrates the location of the proposed public open spaces, however further refinement of the dimensions of the proposed open space is recommended to provide a better overall configuration to the parkland when combined with Ansett Crescent Reserve. Further, as noted above, additional public open space contribution as land and / or cash should be provided given the status of the land as a strategic site and the intensity of the development that is proposed under the Development Plan.

· The stages in which the land is to be developed, including landscaping.

The Development Plan provides a staging plan. Officers consider that this staging plan satisfies the requirements of the DPO. However, it is considered that further clarity is needed regarding the proposed provision of landscaping.

· Medium density housing of up to 4 storeys located within the central portion of the site with building heights then transitioning down to a lower, domestic scale of 1 to 2 storeys at site edges to complement adjoining neighbourhood character. This provision does not apply to land fronting Springvale Road or land adjacent to public open space.

Officers consider that the Development Plan does not adequately respond to the requirement for building heights to provide sufficient transition down to a lower domestic scale of 1 to 2 storeys at the sites edges, which complements adjoining neighbourhood character. Further, taller built forms are more extensively represented across the site rather than being contained to the ‘central portion of the site’. Officers consider that the Development Plan is not consistent with Clause 22.03 Residential Development of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme in terms of ensuring that development contributes to the preferred neighbourhood character. In particular, the Garden Suburban Precinct 6 Guidelines state that “In Substantial Change Areas buildings should not exceed 4 storeys in height, and any third or fourth level should be designed to minimise impact on any adjoining residential property.”

Additionally, Officers consider that the response to the Development Plan has misinterpreted the extent to which the exemption from the provision for land fronting Springvale Road applies. The subject site has an 83m frontage to Springvale Road, with 45m remaining undeveloped following the recent 13 lot subdivision along the southern boundary of the subject land. The Development Plan shows that this frontage has a total depth of close to 200m and a total area of 15,140m². Officers consider that this response does not satisfy the intent of this provision relating to transitional building heights.

· Recognition of the potential for a more intense built form and active retail uses fronting Springvale Road.

Officers consider that the response to the Development Plan has interpreted the potential for a more intense built form to translate into an increase in height. Officers consider that this provision is in response to site coverage and intensity of use with respect to the potential for active retail uses fronting Springvale Road.

· Buildings that front Hawthorn Road designed and sited to provide a residential appearance and setback and support the landscape profile of this road with buildings addressing the street frontage and respecting the neighbourhood character.

Officers consider that the proposal has not provided for an adequate landscape profile to Hawthorn Road which respects the existing neighbourhood character.

· Buildings with frontage to the Hawthorn Road curve designed and sited to reinforce views along this corridor.

The Development Plan provides for buildings with frontage to Hawthorn Road with a curved design. However, Officers consider the proposed landscape setbacks are inadequate.

· Consideration of long and short range views along Springvale Road and panoramic views across the broader area.

The Development Plan has identified one “panoramic vista” broadly to the east and view lines north and south along Springvale Road. However, the Plan provides very general comment in relation to long and short range views along Springvale Road and panoramic views across the broader area rather than assessing how the taller forms in particular may impact on the landscape. As the site itself is part of the fabric of the broader area, officers consider that it is also reasonable for the Development Plan to properly assess view lines in relation to the heritage place / television studios within the scope of this Development Plan Overlay requirement.

Traffic and transport

· A detailed traffic assessment and traffic management plan addressing the impact of the development on the arterial and local road network, including any mitigation works required on the road network and associated funding responsibilities. The plan must show integration between existing and proposed roads, bicycle and pedestrian networks and integration with the public transport network.

The Development Plan has submitted a traffic impact assessment in support of the Development Plan. Officers consider that this report does not provide adequate information. Outstanding matters to be resolved include:

· A commitment to the car parking requirements of Clause 52.06 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme;

· A review of road widths in response to the proposed built form;

· future road safety audits as the indicative built form may lead to future traffic safety and visibility concerns;

· An updated traffic assessment which reflects the current conditions of the road network; and

· More information on anticipated traffic volumes along Magnolia Drive and Tisane Avenue as a result of the proposed development and clarification of connections proposed to these roads;

· A permeable network of streets and public spaces to support safe, convenient and amenable vehicular, pedestrian and cycling movement.

Officers consider that the network of streets requires further review.

Landscaping

· Provision of landscaped areas at the site’s edges, particularly along any interface with existing residential land.

Officers consider that the proposed landscaped areas at the site’s edges have not been adequately provided for. Greater setbacks, commitment to tree planting and a neighbourhood design response are required.

· Retention of existing vegetation where possible.

The Development Plan provides a landscape guideline which encourages the retention of existing trees of good health and structure where possible. However, makes no commitment or recommendations to implementing this guideline and does not include an arborist report to enable Council to assess the extent of trees proposed to be retained across the site.

Environmentally Sustainable Development

· Proposed design and building techniques that are consistent with environmentally sustainable development (ESD) principles.

The Development Plan provides for proposed design and building techniques that are consistent with environmentally sustainable development (ESD) principles. However, there is no commitment to achieving the objectives of Clause 22.10 Environmentally Sustainable Development of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme.

Other Considerations

Community Infrastructure

The proposed Development Plan estimates the potential for 1500-1800 new residents. Officers consider that this additional anticipated population warrants the provision of a community infrastructure assessment to determine the impacts on surrounding facilities and services, and the need for any additional community infrastructure.

With the lack of any community impact assessment being provided to Council, officers are unable to determine what potential impact the Development will have on community infrastructure. It is noted that such assessment is not currently a requirement of the DPO5.

Future Public Asset Responsibilities and Agreements

There are various agreements under section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 that may be required. Agreements may be needed in relation to responsibility for future public assets such as:

· Roads, traffic management and transport infrastructure;

· Public open space and related infrastructure;

· Stormwater management;

· Waste management;

· Street trees;

· Any new community infrastructure that may be needed;

· Staging (e.g.: delivery of key infrastructure and handover of responsibilities); and

· Maintenance agreements / Asset management.

The applicant has not detailed who will take on a number of asset management responsibilities. Decisions are yet to be made on future responsibility for any assets and infrastructure which requires detail on the development with future planning permit applications.

CONSULTATION

Officers attended pre-application meetings with the applicant where a number of the above concerns were raised.

As noted above, clause 3.0 of the DPO5 requires display of a development plan for public comment for a period of at least 14 days. Council must consider any comments received in response to display of the plan before making a decision whether to approve the plan.

The Development Plan for 104 – 168 Hawthorn Road, Forest Hill was placed on display as required under the DPO5. The Development Plan was placed on display from 17 July to 30 July 2017. The Development Plan was displayed by:

· Publishing a copy of the Development Plan on Council’s website;

· Making a copy of the Development Plan available for inspection, at Council’s service centres and the four municipal libraries;

· Publishing two advertisements in the Whitehorse Leader on 17 July and 24 July 2017; and

· Sending 841 letters and an information flyer to owners and occupiers in the surrounding area.

A total of 101 submissions were received and are discussed above. Following consideration of the community comment, Council can make a decision on the Development Plan.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Community consultation expenses will be recouped from the proponent.

To date, Council has required limited assistance from external consultants (e.g. Urban Design, ESD, Heritage and legal advice). Internal officer expertise has been committed from Departments across Council to review the development plan. Ongoing internal officer input will be required to finalise the development plan and to assess future planning, and building and works approvals, etc. Resourcing required for future planning permit approvals will be partly offset by notice exemptions in the Development Plan Overlay.

There will be future cost implications to Council if it assumes ownership and / or responsibility for future maintenance and management of any public infrastructure. This would include ongoing operational budget for maintenance and management of matters such as open space, roads, drains, lighting, street trees, and waste collection, as well as capital works into the future to improve and replace public assets. Further detail on the development during subsequent planning permit applications is needed for Council to estimate these costs.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The Council Plan 2017 - 2021 and relevant Council strategies have all informed Council’s approach to the future of this strategic development site.

The Development Plan is consistent with Strategic Direction 2 in the Council Plan which seeks to maintain and enhance our built environment to ensure a liveable and sustainable city. In particular Strategy 2.1.1 is our approach to Development which respects our natural and built environments and neighbourhood character while achieving a balanced approach to growth in accordance with relevant legislation.

Key policies in the Whitehorse Planning Scheme include:

· Clause 21.04 Strategic Directions includes the site as a Strategic Redevelopment Site;

· 21.06 Housing; and

· 22.03 Residential Development

· 22.15 Public Open Space Contribution

Conclusion

A development plan has been prepared by 10 Consulting Group Pty Ltd on behalf of Bazem Pty Ltd as required under Clause 43.04-1 of the DPO. Clause 3.0 of Schedule 5 to the DPO requires that the Development Plan be placed on display for public comment for a period of 14 days. Having placed the Development Plan on display, this report considers the community feedback received and assesses the Development Plan against the planning scheme requirements.

Officers consider that the Forest Ridge Development Plan does not satisfy the requirements of the DPO5 and should not be supported.

Attachment

1 Forest Ridge Development Plan - May 2017(2) ⇨

2 GTA Report, 240517 ⇨

3 Bryce Raworth s Heritage Advice ⇨

4 Summary of Submissions - Forest Ridge Development Plan ⇨

Whitehorse City Council

Ordinary Council Meeting 18 September 2017

9.1.5 Tender Evaluation Report (Contract PP 4924-2016) Panel of Providers for the Provision of Open Space, Play Space & Related Infrastructure Products and Services

SUMMARY

There is an allocation in Council’s capital works budget and operational budget each financial year for the upgrade, renewal and maintenance of a variety of open space, play space and related infrastructure.

This report is to consider the acceptance of a panel of providers for the provision of open space, play space and related infrastructure products and services. This is based on the recommendations received from the Municipal Association of Victoria, trading as MAV Procurement and as per the Schedule of Rates contained within its Contract PP4924-2016, which expires 31 January 2020 and may be extended to 31 January 2022 at the discretion of MAV Procurement and Council, and to consider the estimated expenditure over the life of the Contract.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Accept the recommendation from the Municipal Association of Victoria (ABN 24 326 561 315), trading as MAV Procurement and accept the following panel of approved providers for the provision of open space, play space and related infrastructure products and services on a Schedule of Rates basis as per Contract PP4924-2016 for the term of the contract up to 31 January 2020 which may be extended to 31 January 2022 at the discretion of MAV Procurement and Council:

· A_space Recreation Pty Ltd (ABN 817 791 142 90) trading as the A Space Recreation Trust of 3 Dalmore Drive, Scoresby VIC 3179

· Adventure Playgrounds Pty Ltd (ABN 28 120 543 259) trading as Adventure+ of 72 Latitude Boulevard, Thomastown VIC 3074

· Latchford Enterprises (Sales) Pty Ltd (ABN 83 128 732 623) trading as Allplay Equipment Australia of 56 Brunel Road, Seaford VIC 3198

· ASCO Open Space Pty Ltd (ABN 70 151 150 097) of 14-16 Enmore Street, North Geelong VIC 3215

· The Trustee for CCEP Australia Trust (ABN 40 436 695 521) trading as Consulting Coordination Australia Pty Ltd of U 101/437 Bourke Street, Surrey Hills NSW 2010

· CRS Creative Recreation Solutions (ABN 93 129 278 299) of 1/25 Durgadin Drive, Albion Park NSW 2527

· Durapol Pty Ltd (ABN 58 068 110 421) of 2/21-23 Daniel Street, Wetherill Park NSW 2164

· EP Draffin Manufacturing Pty Ltd (ABN 23 004 377 913) of 9 Edelmaier Street, Bayswater VIC 3153

· GR Design & Construct Pty Ltd (ABN 52 132 285 511) of 112 Salmon Street, Port Melbourne VIC 3207

· Kompan Playscape Pty Ltd (ABN 22 010 572 335) of 7 Prosperity Place, Geebung QLD 4034

· Landmark Products Ltd (ABN 99 112 000 843) of 55-57 Kabi Circuit, Deception Bay QLD 4508

· Moduplay Group Pty Ltd (ABN 40 131 937 669) of 17-19 Waverley Drive, Unanderra NSW 2526

· Plastic Protection Pty Ltd (ABN 88 004 660 495) trading as Omnitech Playgrounds of 123 Bamfrield Road, West Heidelberg VIC 3081

· Playground Centre Australia Pty Ltd (ABN 67 585 041 861) of 53 Taylor Street, Bulimba QLD 4171

· M & N Enterprises Pty Ltd (ABN 40 128 685 914) trading as Playscape Creations of 1/553 Boundary Road, Richlands QLD 4077

· Proludic Pty Ltd (ABN 49 146 036 937) of 16-18 Tepko Road, Terrey Hills NSW 2084

· Repeat Plastics Australia Pty Ltd (ABN 86 096 146 342) trading as Replas of 27 Titan Drive, Carrum Downs VIC 3201

· Rubbertough Industries Pty Ltd (ABN 72 105 354 710) of 10 Wills Street, Warragul VIC 3820

· Safe Play Systems Pty Ltd (ABN 97 059 617 006) trading as Forpark Australia of 24/21 Eugene Terrace, Ringwood VIC 3134

· The Trustee for Alter Reality Unit Trust (ABN 52 010 530 247) trading as Shade Living (VIC) Pty Ltd of 10/148 Chesterville Road, Cheltenham VIC 3192

· GR & PK Jensen Partnership (ABN 44 317 107 112) trading as StraBe Group of 92 Fallon Street, Albury NSW 2640

· Street Furniture Australia Pty Ltd (ABN 46 070 910 100) of N6 Regents Park Estate, Corner Regal Street and Commercial Drive, Regents Park NSW 2143

· Swanshore Pty Ltd (ABN 77 050 161 316) trading as Imagination Play of 8 Jasmin Close, Yarra Glen VIC 3775

· Terrain Group Pty Ltd (ABN 22 159 353 260) trading as ATF Terrain Trust of 4 Selgar Avenue, Clovelly Park SA 5042

· Playmakers Pty Ltd (ABN 19 010 572 764) trading as The Play Works of 92 Jigaws Street, Sumner QLD 4074

· UAP Australia Pty Ltd (ABN 48 123 113 468) 41 Holland Street, Northgate QLD 4013

· The Trustee for TR Family Trust (ABN 38 425 905 205) trading as Unisite Pty Ltd of 10 Maddison Court, Bundanerg QLD 4670

· Wagners CFT Manufacturing Pty Ltd (ABN 91 099 936 446) of 339 Anzac Avenue, Toowoomba QLD 4350

· WM Loud (Australia) Pty Ltd (ABN 53 005 711 222) of 15-17 Second Avenue, Sunshine VIC 3020

2. Accept additional providers that are added to Contract PP4924-2016 by MAV Procurement from time to time, as the Contract is refreshed.

3. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to award an extension of this contract, subject to a review of the individual Contractor’s performance and Council’s business needs, at the conclusion of the initial contract term.

BACKGROUND

Council is committed to providing high quality, public realm infrastructure as part of our built environment to support healthy, active and inclusive lifestyles within the City of Whitehorse.

The Municipal Association of Victoria, trading as MAV Procurement has undertaken a tender process to facilitate a contract that will provide participating Councils with access to high quality infrastructure for open space, play space and recreational infrastructure related products and services. The contract will deliver cost savings through a combined expenditure arrangement throughout its duration.

DISCUSSION

MAV Procurement advertised Contract PP4924-2016 on 6 August 2016. Tenders were closed on 30 August 2016, and a total of thirty-four (34) tenders were received. One (1) Tender was excluded from the evaluation process. Tenders were evaluated by MAV Procurement and a recommendation report was provided to Councils on 21 November 2016. The MAV Procurement tender process was similar to the process used by Council, and is in accordance with the tendering requirements of the Local Government Act 1989.

The tender panel consisted of a total of four (4) representatives from MAV Procurement and local government organisations. All participants involved signed a Conflict of Interest Declaration and Confidentiality Agreement prior to commencing the tender evaluation process.

The aim of the Contract is to:

· Engage Service Providers to provide value for money through a combined spend arrangement for Councils throughout Victoria and Tasmania.

· Provide competitive pricing for participating Councils.

· Provide a panel of Contractors to meet or exceed Councils requirements for good and services.

· Streamline and simplify the provision of such products and services.

· Provide a broad scope of products and services in four (4) categories including, but not limited to:

o (Category 1) Park, Playground and Fitness Equipment.

o (Category 2) Outdoor furniture, lighting and signage.

o (Category 3) Park and landscape structures.

o (Category 4) Associated Services.

The tender panel recommended that the tenders received from the following suppliers were capable to meet local Council requirements, allowing local Councils a sound panel from which to supply the provision of open space, play space and related recreational equipment, outdoor furniture, signage and various infrastructure products and services:

· A_space Recreation Pty Ltd (ABN 817 791 142 90) trading as the A Space Recreation Trust of 3 Dalmore Drive, Scoresby VIC 3179

· Adventure Playgrounds Pty Ltd (ABN 28 120 543 259) trading as Adventure+ of 72 Latitude Boulevard, Thomastown VIC 3074

· Latchford Enterprises (Sales) Pty Ltd (ABN 83 128 732 623) trading as Allplay Equipment Australia of 56 Brunel Road, Seaford VIC 3198

· ASCO Open Space Pty Ltd (ABN 70 151 150 097) of 14-16 Enmore Street, North Geelong VIC 3215

· The Trustee for CCEP Australia Trust (ABN 40 436 695 521) trading as Consulting Coordination Australia Pty Ltd of U 101/437 Bourke Street, Surrey Hills NSW 2010

· CRS Creative Recreation Solutions (ABN 93 129 278 299) of 1/25 Durgadin Drive, Albion Park NSW 2527

· Durapol Pty Ltd (ABN 58 068 110 421) of 2/21-23 Daniel Street, Wetherill Park NSW 2164

· EP Draffin Manufacturing Pty Ltd (ABN 23 004 377 913) of 9 Edelmaier Street, Bayswater VIC 3153

· GR Design & Construct Pty Ltd (ABN 52 132 285 511) of 112 Salmon Street, Port Melbourne VIC 3207

· Kompan Playscape Pty Ltd (ABN 22 010 572 335) of 7 Prosperity Place, Geebung QLD 4034

· Landmark Products Ltd (ABN 99 112 000 843) of 55-57 Kabi Circuit, Deception Bay QLD 4508

· Moduplay Group Pty Ltd (ABN 40 131 937 669) of 17-19 Waverley Drive, Unanderra NSW 2526

· Plastic Protection Pty Ltd (ABN 88 004 660 495) trading as Omnitech Playgrounds of 123 Bamfrield Road, West Heidelberg VIC 3081

· Playground Centre Australia Pty Ltd (ABN 67 585 041 861) of 53 Taylor Street, Bulimba QLD 4171

· M & N Enterprises Pty Ltd (ABN 40 128 685 914) trading as Playscape Creations of 1/553 Boundary Road, Richlands QLD 4077

· Proludic Pty Ltd (ABN 49 146 036 937) of 16-18 Tepko Road, Terrey Hills NSW 2084

· Repeat Plastics Australia Pty Ltd (ABN 86 096 146 342) trading as Replas of 27 Titan Drive, Carrum Downs VIC 3201

· Rubbertough Industries Pty Ltd (ABN 72 105 354 710) of 10 Wills Street, Warragul VIC 3820

· Safe Play Systems Pty Ltd (ABN 97 059 617 006) trading as Forpark Australia of 24/21 Eugene Terrace, Ringwood VIC 3134

· The Trustee for Alter Reality Unit Trust (ABN 52 010 530 247) trading as Shade Living (VIC) Pty Ltd of 10/148 Chesterville Road, Cheltenham VIC 3192

· GR & PK Jensen Partnership (ABN 44 317 107 112) trading as StraBe Group of 92 Fallon Street, Albury NSW 2640

· Street Furniture Australia Pty Ltd (ABN 46 070 910 100) of N6 Regents Park Estate, Corner Regal Street and Commercial Drive, Regents Park NSW 2143

· Swanshore Pty Ltd (ABN 77 050 161 316) trading as Imagination Play of 8 Jasmin Close, Yarra Glen VIC 3775

· Terrain Group Pty Ltd (ABN 22 159 353 260) trading as ATF Terrain Trust of 4 Selgar Avenue, Clovelly Park SA 5042

· Playmakers Pty Ltd (ABN 19 010 572 764) trading as The Play Works of 92 Jigaws Street, Sumner QLD 4074

· UAP Australia Pty Ltd (ABN 48 123 113 468) 41 Holland Street, Northgate QLD 4013

· The Trustee for TR Family Trust (ABN 38 425 905 205) trading as Unisite Pty Ltd of 10 Maddison Court, Bundanerg QLD 4670

· Wagners CFT Manufacturing Pty Ltd (ABN 91 099 936 446) of 339 Anzac Avenue, Toowoomba QLD 4350

· WM Loud (Australia) Pty Ltd (ABN 53 005 711 222) of 15-17 Second Avenue, Sunshine VIC 3020

It is recommended that Council accept the recommendations from MAV Procurement to appoint the listed panel of suppliers to provide the best value for money for the provision of open space, play space and related infrastructure products and services.

CONSULTATION

MAV Procurement consulted with thirty-five (35) Victorian Councils and, Local Government Association of Tasmania (LGAT) consulted with twenty-nine (29) Tasmanian Councils throughout the Development, Tendering and Awarding of Contract PP4924-2016.

Whitehorse City Council submitted an Expression of Interest in the Tender and was updated at key points throughout the process.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Council has no obligation to spend any set amount under the contract. The contract for each supplier is between MAV Procurement and the supplier, with the purchasing arrangements for Council being though MAV Procurement.

The decision regarding what type of open space, playground equipment and recreational products are purchased and from which suppliers will be made when these products and services are required, typically during the concept and detailed design phases of various capital works projects delivered by Council, and for maintenance requirements. There may be a need to use different products and services from different suppliers over the period of the Contract depending on project requirements and availability of stock.

Appointing a panel of suppliers will ensure that Council can maximise cost effectiveness and provide flexibility for project design and delivery.

The total estimated expenditure under this contract up to the end of contract or up to 31 January 2020 is $576,000 including GST. The contract provides an option to extend the Standing Offer for two (2) additional periods of one (1) years. The expenditure will increase to approximately $960,000 including GST if the options to extend the contract a further 2 years are exercised.

The costs incurred under the contract will be charged to the capital works budget for play space renewal and relevant recurrent operating budgets for open space and play space maintenance.

Whitehorse City Council

Ordinary Council Meeting 18 September 2017

9.2 Infrastructure

9.2.1 Review of Asset Management Policy

SUMMARY

Council’s Asset Management Policy is required to be reviewed in accordance with the requirements of the National Asset Management Assessment Framework and the expiration provisions of the existing Policy. A revised Asset Management Policy has been developed to continue to provide guidance and direction on asset management. Adoption of the revised Asset Management Policy demonstrates Council’s ongoing commitment to best practice asset management.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopt the amended Asset Management Policy to continue to provide guidance and direction for the management of assets in the City of Whitehorse.

background

Council’s asset base represents a significant investment made over many generations and provides for the social, environmental and economic values of the community. The asset replacement cost now totals $1.32 billion excluding land. Stewardship of community assets is a core Council function and these assets support the delivery of necessary services and provide facilities to the community. Millions of dollars are spent annually managing and maintaining assets and it is important that Council continue to implement high-level management skills, practices and systems to ensure that services are delivered economically and sustainably. To optimise the management of these assets, Council will need to continue to implement a best practice asset management framework. This framework extends from Council’s Asset Management Policy and Strategy to Asset Management Plans and Information Systems. The framework is being implemented by the Asset Management Steering Committee (AMSC), which was established in August 2006 and comprises staff representatives from all divisions of Council.

Council’s first Asset Management Policy, adopted in August 2006, was reviewed and updated in 2009, 2011, and 2014. The Policy has now been reviewed by the AMSC as required by the expiry provisions of the Policy. The AMSC has determined that some amendments are now required to the Policy to ensure Council’s asset management objectives align with current organisational objectives, and to set an appropriate strategic direction for the continuous improvement of asset management practices at Council. The revised Policy has been reviewed in accordance with National Asset Management Assessment Framework.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of the Asset Management Policy is to steer Council’s overall strategic direction for asset management. This Policy sets the organisational objectives for asset management and links these objectives to objectives listed in the Council Vision and the Council Plan. A ‘whole of organisation’ approach to asset management is the basis of the Policy and builds on the solid asset management fundamentals established at Council. There are requirements in the Policy to achieve the continual improvement goals to:

· Ensure sustainable management via the development of cost effective asset management strategies for the long term

· Maintain a whole of organisation approach using best practice asset management

· Adopt a life-cycle asset management approach, incorporating life cycle costing into capital investment decisions

· Ensure adjustments to operational budgets are considered at the time decisions are taken to acquire, renew, expand, upgrade or create an asset

· Have a consistent practice for the assessment of capital investment proposals

· Give priority to asset renewal (including upgrade as appropriate) when making capital investment decisions

· Maintain and update Asset Management Plans for each asset class

· Provide defined levels of service to guide capital investment decision making

· Monitor and report asset management performance

· Apply a risk managed approach to asset management

· Progressively align Council’s Asset Management Practices with the International ISO Asset Management Standards, the National Asset Management Assessment Framework and the Municipal Association of Victoria’s STEP Program

The proposed amendments to the Asset Management Policy seek to continue Council’s commitment to comprehensive and effective asset management practices as articulated in the Council Plan. Proposed amendments to the Asset Management Policy are shaded in the Draft Policy shown as Appendix A to this report.

The key amendments and the rationale are:

· Inclusion of a vision statement in the Asset Management Policy.

· Updating of statements that link the Asset Policy with objectives in the Council Vision 2013-2023 and the new Council Plan 2017-2021

· Simplifying of policy statements relating to the maintenance of Asset Management Plans and Asset Management Systems

· Simplifying of definitions relating to Levels of Service and Asset Management Strategy

· Transferral of statements from the Organisational Context section to the more relevant Responsibilities and Relationships section

· Inclusion of a statement that a session on Asset Management will be held for Councillors following the start of every Council Election cycle.

· Inclusion of minor changes to the responsibilities for Council and the Executive Management Team

· Inclusion of modified responsibilities to the AMSC

· Updating of the Related Legislation, Policy and Plans section

· Simplifying of the Audit and Review section

· Reset the Policy revision date to June 2021

The AMSC will continue to oversee the implementation Council’s Asset Management Policy and the improvement of asset management practices within the organisation.

CONSULTATION

Consultation for the review of Council’s Asset Management Policy has been undertaken through the ASMC and was endorsed by the AMSC. The Policy has been reviewed against the Human Rights Charter checklist and found to be Human Rights compliant.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Capital funding provision to progress the continued development and enhancement of Councils Asset Management System has been included in Council’s 10 Year Capital Works Program.

Any other asset management improvement initiative requiring capital or operational funding will be submitted to Council for consideration as part of the annual budgeting process.

APPENDIX A

CITY OF WHITEHORSE - ASSET MANAGEMENT POLICY

Purpose

The purpose of this policy is to outline what is required at the City of Whitehorse (Council) to ensure comprehensive and effective asset management practices are developed and utilised across all asset classes. This policy is linked with the Asset Management Strategy.

Background and Organisational Context

Council’s asset network represents a significant investment, made over many generations and provides the foundation for the social, environmental and economic values of the community. Management of these assets is a core Council function. Millions of dollars are spent annually managing and maintaining infrastructure and it is important that Council employs high-level management skills and practices to ensure that services are delivered economically and sustainably.

Scope

This Policy applies to all assets owned, controlled, managed and/or maintained by Council.

Policy

Vision

As custodians of community assets, Council will provide assets to enable a healthy, vibrant, prosperous and sustainable community.

A key strategic direction of the Council Vision 2013-2023 is to ‘maintain and enhance our built environment to ensure a livable and sustainable city’.

The Council Plan also identifies the following strategies which relate to this policy:

· 2.1.4 Maintain, renew and sustainably invest in our community infrastructure that is relevant, modern and accessible, and can accommodate multi-purpose usage

· 2.1.5 Maintain, enhance and create shared community spaces that promote the neighbourhood character and provide a safe and enjoyable meeting place for everyone

· 2.1.6 Provide and maintain an infrastructure network that meets the needs of development growth whilst supporting residents, businesses and visitors in their daily activities

· 4.1.1 Continue to ensure financial sustainability and continue business improvement programs

Objectives

· To ensure sustainable management of assets by applying Best Appropriate Practice in Asset Management including the use of suitable asset management systems as it applies to the different asset classes.

· To share the responsibility for asset management across all Divisions of Council and to use a coordinated approach for the management of all assets.

· To give priority to asset renewal (including upgrade as appropriate) when making capital investment decisions thereby ensuring Council’s existing assets are properly managed to provide acceptable levels of service.

· To adopt a life-cycle asset management approach, incorporating life cycle costing into capital investment decisions.

· To maintain and regularly update Asset Management Plans for each asset class that informs long term financial planning, and reflect community expected levels of service standards.

· To report Council asset expenditure in a manner which can identify operational, maintenance, renewal, upgrade, expansion and new expenditure

· To ensure adjustments to operational budgets are considered at the time decisions are taken to acquire, create, expand or upgrade of an asset. To ensure that adequate funding adjustments are identified and implemented when changes are made to level of service standards.

· To develop effective and affordable preventative maintenance programs aimed at minimising life cycle costs and maximising the service potential of assets.

· To apply appropriate risk management principles and practices to protect employees, contractors, property and the community.

· To continue to maintain an integrated Asset Management System to ensure a common asset data set is available for strategic, operational and financial reporting purposes.

· To progressively align Council’s Asset Management Practices with the International Asset Management Standards; ISO55000, ISO55001, ISO55002, the National Asset Management Assessment Framework and The Municipal Association of Victoria’s STEP Program.

Organisational Commitment

This policy does not exist in isolation and is set within the context provided by the Council Vision 2013 -2023, the Council Plan, the Strategic Resource Plan and other Plans, Policies and Strategies. Council has made a commitment to support and achieve sustainable asset management practices in its Council Plan. This Policy supports Council’s commitment towards a Total Asset Management philosophy having regard to competing demands from the community.

Definitions

Asset – A physical asset, with a lifespan of 12 months or more, that is owned or managed by Council, enables services to be provided, and/or enables Council to meet its corporate objectives.

Asset Management – Council’s asset management is the combination of management, financial, economic and technical practices applied to physical assets. The goal of asset management is to continually meet the prescribed levels of service in the most cost effective and sustainable manner through the management of assets for current and future generations.

Level of Service – The defined service quality for a particular activity or service area against which service performance may be measured. Community and technical service levels can relate to quality, quantity, reliability, responsiveness, environmental acceptability and costs of providing the service.

Asset Management Framework – The overarching asset management framework which comprises the Asset Management Policy, Asset Management Strategy, Asset Management Plans and Asset Management Information System.

Asset Management Strategy – An Asset Management Strategy is a short to medium term strategy for the implementation and documentation of improved asset management practices, plans, processes and procedures within an organisation.

Policy Implementation

Council’s vision and goals for Asset Management are to be achieved through the continued implementation of Council’s Asset Management Framework (shown as figure 1). The Asset Management Steering Committee is responsible for the implementation, monitoring and review of the Asset Management Framework.

Figure 1. City of Whitehorse Corporate Asset Management Framework

The integration of Council’s Asset Management Policy, Strategy, AM Plans and Integrated Asset Information System

Responsibilities and Relationships

Council’s commitment to asset management will be demonstrated by the provision of appropriate employee, executive and Councillor resources, training and awareness programs as identified within Council’s Performance Appraisal and Development Program (PADP) and executive training initiatives. A session on Asset Management will be held for Councillors following the start of every Council Election cycle.

Employees that are assigned asset management responsibilities will be required to demonstrate a clear understanding and commitment to asset management principles via the Performance Appraisal and Development Program. Employee position descriptions should incorporate asset management responsibilities.

Asset management responsibilities for key stakeholders are summarised below:

Council

· To act as custodians for community assets and set corporate asset management vision and policy

· To provide sufficient resources to maintain community assets in the municipal district

· To approve Council Plans Annual Budgets and Strategic Resource Plans

· To set levels of service, risk and cost standards

· To approve the funding of asset lifecycle costs changes in the financial year after the completion of capital works via the adopted budget process.

Chief Executive Officer / Executive Management Team

· Lead responsible asset management practices to the organisation, Councillors and the community

· To implement the improvements identified in Council’s Asset Management Strategy with the agreed resources and to review performance

· To foster and support a multi-disciplinary Asset Management Steering Committee

· To ensure that accurate and reliable information is presented to Council for optimal decision-making purposes

· To integrate Asset Management Policies, Asset Management Strategies & Asset Management Plans into the corporate governance framework

· To implement lifecycle cost changes as approved by Council

· To ensure employees are appropriately trained and skilled to perform the required asset management functions

Asset Management Steering Committee

· To develop corporate policies, strategies and guidelines with respect to best appropriate asset management practice

· To review and monitor the preparation and implementation of the Asset Management Policy, Asset Management Strategy and individual Asset Management Plans for the major asset classes

· To promote good asset management practices throughout Council

· To monitor and report on the performance of the annual Capital Works Program

· To ensure the integration of asset management documents and data management practices within the corporate governance framework.

· To ensure that Council’s asset management improvement program is developed, implemented and monitored in accordance with the MAV STEP Program and the National Asset Management Framework

· To oversee, review and monitor the implementation of Council’s Asset Management System (IPS)

· To increase awareness of life cycle asset management within the organisation and the benefits of adopting a formal approach to asset management.

· To monitor and evaluate asset management practice and the implementation of the asset management strategy

· To review and endorse the long term renewal demand forecasts for consideration by the Capital Works Steering Committee

· To review the Asset Management Roles and Responsibilities Matrix and its implications on the Strategic Resource Plan

· To advise Council and the Executive Management Team on asset management issues, improvements actions and priorities

Departmental Asset Management Roles and Responsibilities

This Policy identifies that every Asset Type must have the necessary asset accountability roles associated with its management. These roles are included in Council’s Asset Management Roles and Responsibilities Matrix.

The roles are the Service Manager, Operations Manager, Design Manager, Construction/ Acquisition Manager, Maintenance Manager, Renewal Manager, Disposal Manager and Asset Data Manager.

The following guiding principles apply to departmental asset management roles and responsibilities:

1. Every asset is to be actively managed in accordance with the Asset Management Roles and Responsibilities Matrix

2. Roles and responsibilities will be clearly defined with no duplication or ambiguity

3. Once built or acquired a consistent approach will be used for the management of like assets irrespective of location

4. Asset renewal/disposal decisions will involve those who manage, use and maintain the asset

5. Ongoing maintenance responsibility will be clearly identified at asset handover (completion/purchase)

6. Provide advice on appropriate lifecycle cost changes for consideration as part of the capital works budget approval process

Related Legislation, Policy and Plans

· Local Government Act 1989

· Local Government (Planning and Reporting) Regulations 2014

· Road Management Act 2004

· Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006

· Whitehorse Council Vision 2013-2023

· Council Plan 2016-2020

· Risk Management Policy

· Accounting for Property, Infrastructure, Plant and Equipment Policy

· Major Community Infrastructure Projects Policy

· Asset Management Roles and Responsibilities Matrix

Monitoring and Review Procedures

The Asset Management Steering Committee will monitor the policy in terms of operational and service needs, along with expectations, corporate goals and targets. Compliance with this policy will also be reviewed on an ongoing basis and the policy shall be amended if it is no longer deemed relevant. The policy formalises the framework of asset management practices which have been implemented over the past decade and clarifies the roles and responsibilities.

The Asset Management Policy is to be reviewed by June 2021

Group	Responsibility
Major Projects Councillor Reference Group (MPCRG)	Strategic oversight of Council program of projects
EMT (EMT)	Directs and resources Council projects. Selects PCG members.
Project Control Group (PCG)	Manages implementation of approved project. Provides advice and direction for project team. Manages communication and stakeholder strategy
Project Working Group (PWG)	As required advisory consultative groups of internal and external stakeholders

Whitehorse City Council

Ordinary Council Meeting 18 September 2017

9.4.3 Delegated Decisions July 2017

SUMMARY

The following activity was undertaken by officers under delegated authority during July 2017.

RECOMMENDATION

That the report of decisions made by officers under Instruments of Delegation for the month of July 2017 be noted.

DELEGATION	FUNCTION	Number for July 2016	Number for July 2017
Planning and Environment Act 1987	Delegated Decisions	124	109
Planning and Environment Act 1987	Strategic Planning Decisions	Nil	Nil
Telecommunications Act 1997		Nil	Nil
Subdivision Act 1988		25	22
Gaming Control Act 1991		Nil	Nil
Building Act 1993	Dispensations & Applications to Building Control Commission	79	74
Liquor Control Reform Act 1998	Objections and Prosecutions	1	1
Food Act 1984	Food Act Orders	6	11
Public Health & Wellbeing Act 2008	Improvement / Prohibition Notices	Nil	5
Local Government Act 1989	Temporary Road Closures	18	3
Other Delegations	CEO Signed Contracts between $150,000 - $500,000	Nil	1
	Property Sales and Leases	10	6
	Documents to which Council seal affixed	1	1
	Vendor Payments	1245	1083
	Parking Amendments	22	16
	Parking Infringements written off (not able to be collected)	228	318

DELEGATED DECISIONS MADE ON PLANNING APPLICATIONS JULY 2017

All decisions are the subject of conditions which may in some circumstances alter the use of development approved, or specific grounds of refusal is an application is not supported.

Appl No.	Dec. Date	Decision	Street Address	Ward	Proposed Use or Development	Application Type
WH/2017/173	20-07-17	Application Lapsed	4 Nielsen Ave, Nunawading	Springfield	Development of two (2) double storey dwellings	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2017/273	27-07-17	Application Lapsed	BLDG 7/25-37 Chapman St, Blackburn North	Central	Use of land for place of worship & place of assembly, consturct buildings and works (mezzanine and associated alterations) and permission to provide some car parking on another site	Industrial
WH/2017/320	17-07-17	Application Lapsed	7 Marlborough St, Mont Albert	Elgar	Buildings and works (pool house) ancillary to a dwelling	Heritage
WH/2016/19	26-07-17	Delegate Approval - S72 Amendment	30 Pine St, Surrey Hills	Riversdale	To demolish existing dwelling and to construct two new double storey dwellings with double garages	Permit Amendment
WH/2014/141	14-07-17	Delegate Approval - S72 Amendment	49 Strabane Ave, Mont AlbertNorth	Elgar	Amendment to plans endorsed under WH/2014/141 to include a front fence and to vary the landscaping plan	Permit Amendment
WH/2016/245	17-07-17	Delegate Approval - S72 Amendment	9 Reid St, Box Hill North	Elgar	2 unit development	Permit Amendment

Appl No.	Dec. Date	Decision	Street Address	Ward	Proposed Use or Development	Application Type
WH/2016/310	03-07-17	Delegate Approval - S72 Amendment	1 Clarke St, Blackburn	Central	Alterations & additions to an existing building including part demolition of a heritage building, removal of one tree and restoration/removal of a fence	Permit Amendment
WH/2016/327	14-07-17	Delegate Approval - S72 Amendment	1 Main St, Box Hill	Elgar	Buildings and works (comprising an internal mezzanine level) and the provision of a canopy within a Road Zone, use of land for the sale and consumption of liquor, display of advertising signs and reduction in standard car parking requirements	Liquor Licence
WH/2014/451	18-07-17	Delegate Approval - S72 Amendment	11 Aspinall Rd, Box Hill North	Elgar	Construction of two double storey dwellings	Permit Amendment
WH/2010/762	24-07-17	Delegate Approval - S72 Amendment	2/5-7 Diana Drv, Blackburn North	Central	Amendment to Planning Permit WH/2010/762 (issued for buildings and works associated with an additional two offices at first floor level; two dwellings; and a waiver of the car parking requirements), for the waiver of the standard car parking requirements associated with a medical centre (dental clinic) use.	Permit Amendment

Appl No.	Dec. Date	Decision	Street Address	Ward	Proposed Use or Development	Application Type
WH/2016/785	26-07-17	Delegate Approval - S72 Amendment	37 Boondara Rd, Mont AlbertNorth	Elgar	Construction of three double storey dwellings	Permit Amendment
WH/2015/1021	19-07-17	Delegate Approval - S72 Amendment	17 Dorothy St, Burwood East	Riversdale	Construction two (2) double storey dwellings	Permit Amendment
WH/2017/7	13-07-17	Delegate NOD Issued	36 Pickford St, Burwood East	Morack	Construction of two (2) double storey dwellings	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2017/61	17-07-17	Delegate NOD Issued	31 Glen Rd, Mitcham	Springfield	Construction of two (2) dwellings on a lot.	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2017/72	19-07-17	Delegate NOD Issued	40 Hamel St, Box Hill South	Riversdale	Construction of two (2) double storey dwellings	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2017/190	31-07-17	Delegate NOD Issued	2 Ovens St, Box Hill North	Elgar	Construction of two (2) double storey dwellings	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2013/266	21-07-17	Delegate NOD Issued	10 Arna St, Blackburn	Central	Amendment to Planning Permit WH/2013/266 under Section 178 of the Planning and Environment Act, issued for the construction of a double storey dwelling to the rear of the existing dwelling, for the construction of a double storey dwelling on Lot 1	Permit Amendment
WH/2016/930	26-07-17	Delegate NOD Issued	20 Rochdale Drv, Burwood East	Riversdale	Construction of two double storey dwellings	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2016/969	04-07-17	Delegate NOD Issued	11 Summit Rd, Burwood	Riversdale	The development of three double storey dwellings	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2016/992	26-07-17	Delegate NOD Issued	16 Trent Crt, Burwood East	Riversdale	The construction of a double storey dwelling to the rear of an existing double storey dwelling	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2016/1043	19-07-17	Delegate NOD Issued	12 Bonview Cres, Burwood East	Riversdale	Dual Occupancy	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2016/1083	28-07-17	Delegate NOD Issued	7 Cumming St, Burwood	Riversdale	Construction of two double storey dwellings	Multiple Dwellings
Appl No.	Dec. Date	Decision	Street Address	Ward	Proposed Use or Development	Application Type
WH/2016/1107	17-07-17	Delegate NOD Issued	1/229 Burwood Hwy, Burwood East	Morack	Construction of a three storey apartment building and alteration of access to a road in a road zone category 1	Business
WH/2016/1170	28-07-17	Delegate NOD Issued	38 Kenmare St, Mont Albert	Elgar	Construction of two (2) dwellings on a lot	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2017/8	03-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	1 Nash Rd, Box Hill South	Riversdale	Construction of two (2) double storey dwellings on a lot	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2017/91	20-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	109/645-647 Burwood Hwy, Vermont South	Morack	Advertising Signs	Advertising Sign
WH/2017/98	28-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	6 Sherman St, Forest Hill	Morack	Construction of second (double storey) dwelling	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2017/101	17-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	51 Gardenia St, Blackburn	Central	Removal of trees (10) in a Significant Landscape Overlay	Special Landscape Area
WH/2017/131	13-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	6 Douglas Ave, Box Hill South	Riversdale	Construction of two double storey dwellings	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2016/137	03-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	275-277 Burwood Hwy, Burwood East	Morack	Construction of a four storey building for 33 dwellings and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2017/138	10-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	34 Williamson Rd, Mont AlbertNorth	Elgar	Removal of five (5) trees in a Vegetation Protection Overlay	Vegetation Protection Overlay
WH/2017/146	04-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	988 Canterbury Rd, Box Hill South	Riversdale	64 lot subdivision in 3 stages	Subdivision

Appl No.	Dec. Date	Decision	Street Address	Ward	Proposed Use or Development	Application Type
WH/2017/152	27-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	17 Blackburn Rd, Blackburn	Central	The construction of buildings and works to the existing shop, and the display of business identification signage (including two internally illuminated signs)	Advertising Sign
WH/2017/153	17-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	1 Leonard St, Burwood	Riversdale	Construction of two double storey dwellings and access to a Road Zone Category 1	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2017/174	26-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	18 Corrigan St, Burwood	Riversdale	Construction of one new double storey dwelling to the rear of existing dwelling.	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2017/177	21-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	182-186 Surrey Rd, Blackburn	Central	Replacement and alteration of awnings at front of cafe	Business
WH/2017/208	27-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	59 Nicholson St, Nunawading	Springfield	Construction of two (2) new dwellings	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2017/267	11-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	37 Deep Creek Rd, Mitcham	Springfield	Four (4) lot subdivision	Subdivision
WH/2017/289	26-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	2/13 Wickham Ave, Forest Hill	Springfield	Verandah exceeding 3m in height	Single Dwelling < 300m2
WH/2017/302	20-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	8 Cherry Orchard Rise Box Hill North	Elgar	Two (2) lot subdivision	Subdivision
WH/2017/322	26-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	744 Station St, Box Hill	Elgar	Eight (8) lot subdivision	Subdivision
WH/2017/342	21-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	10 Hamilton Ave, Blackburn	Central	Four (4) lot subdivision	Subdivision
WH/2017/343	26-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	37 Holland Rd, Blackburn South	Central	Three (3) lot subdivision	Subdivision
WH/2017/348	26-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	220 Middleborough Rd, Blackburn South	Central	Four (4) business identification signs on hoarding	Advertising Sign
WH/2017/351	26-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	15 Ashley St, Box Hill North	Elgar	Three (3) lot subdivision	Subdivision

Appl No.	Dec. Date	Decision	Street Address	Ward	Proposed Use or Development	Application Type
WH/2017/355	26-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	64 Broughton Rd, Surrey Hills	Riversdale	Three (3) lot subdivision	Subdivision
WH/2016/361	28-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	3 Alexander St, Mitcham	Springfield	Construction of second (double storey) dwelling	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2017/367	30-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	26/155-221 Warrigal Rd, Burwood	Riversdale	Enclose existing roofed area of a retirement unit to create a sun room	Single Dwelling < 300m2
WH/2017/383	28-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	60 Main St, Blackburn	Central	Three (3) lot subdivision	Subdivision
WH/2017/392	27-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	1171 Riversdale Rd, Box Hill South	Riversdale	Construction of rear verandah and deck	Single Dwelling < 300m2
WH/2017/396	04-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	30 Halls Pde, Mitcham	Springfield	Move front door and build enclosed patio	Single Dwelling < 300m2
WH/2017/397	27-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	21 Ferguson St, Mitcham	Springfield	Remove 3 trees and prune others	Vegetation Protection Overlay
WH/2017/411	28-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	27 Canterbury Rd, Blackburn	Central	Four (4) lot subdivision	Subdivision
WH/2017/427	28-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	15 Neville St, Box Hill South	Riversdale	Two (2) lot subdivision	Subdivision
WH/2017/429	21-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	13 Linlithgow St, Mitcham	Springfield	Two (2) lot subdivision	VicSmart - Subdivision
WH/2016/431	27-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	285-301 Warrigal Rd, Burwood	Riversdale	The display of business identification signage (internally illuminated)	Advertising Sign
WH/2017/445	21-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	21 Barkly Trc, Mitcham	Springfield	Six (6) lot subdivision	Subdivision
WH/2017/453	28-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	101-107 Whitehorse Rd, Blackburn	Central	Display of business identification and internally illuminated signage	Advertising Sign
WH/2017/470	28-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	75 Box Hill Cres, Mont AlbertNorth	Elgar	Construction of a front fence in a Special Building Overlay	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2017/482	31-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	172-210 Burwood Hwy, Burwood East	Riversdale	Use of land for the sale and consumption of liquor in association with an existing food and drink premises	Liquor Licence
Appl No.	Dec. Date	Decision	Street Address	Ward	Proposed Use or Development	Application Type
WH/2017/500	26-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	4 Dalmor Ave, Mitcham	Springfield	Removal of large tree at the front of our property	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2016/503	03-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	26 Melrose St, Mont AlbertNorth	Elgar	Construction of two dwellings on a lot	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2017/513	21-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	3 Albany Cres, Surrey Hills	Elgar	Proposed crossing in heritage area and new front fence	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2017/518	24-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	43 Jeffery St, Blackburn	Central	Garage - extending garage for storage of campervan or vehicle	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2017/532	27-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	38 Albert Cres, Surrey Hills	Elgar	Buildings and works in the form of external alterations, the relocation of the driveway and crossover and the construction of a swimming pool and associated safety fencing in a Heritage Overlay in accordance with the endorsed plans.	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2016/542	03-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	1 Shaun Ave, Blackburn South	Riversdale	Construction of a double storey dwelling at the rear of the existing dwelling	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2017/544	27-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	1/56 Laburnum St, Blackburn	Central	Front fence of 1.8m in an SLO (replacing existing fence)	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2017/545	26-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	20 Linum St, Blackburn	Central	Removal of one tree	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2017/547	28-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	33 Albany Cres, Surrey Hills	Elgar	Construction of a front fence	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2017/556	28-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	10 Carween Ave, Mitcham	Springfield	Two (2) lot subdivision	VicSmart - Subdivision
WH/2016/564	03-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	140 Thames St, Box Hill North	Elgar	Construction of eight triple storey dwellings	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2016/586	17-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	2 Richard St, Box Hill North	Elgar	Construction of two (2) double storey dwellings	Multiple Dwellings
Appl No.	Dec. Date	Decision	Street Address	Ward	Proposed Use or Development	Application Type
WH/2016/587	24-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	29 Karen St, Box Hill North	Elgar	The construction of five (5) double storey dwellings	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2016/675	31-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	44 Ellingworth Pde, Box Hill	Elgar	Alterations and additions to the existing building to provide additional floor area at ground level	Business
WH/2016/746	10-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	1098 Whitehorse Rd, Box Hill	Elgar	Construction of seven three storey dwellings, reduction in car parking and alteration of access to a road in a road zone, Category 1	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2016/771	24-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	436 Canterbury Rd, Forest Hill	Morack	Construction of one two storey dwelling to the rear of existing dwelling and access to Road Zone Category 1.	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2016/823	03-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	88 Shafer Rd, Blackburn North	Central	Two (2) double storey dwellings.	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2016/905	03-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	10 Killara St, Box Hill North	Elgar	Construction of two double storey dwellings	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2016/929	03-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	8 Sherwood Rd, Surrey Hills	Riversdale	Construction of two (2) attached double storey dwellings	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2016/934	21-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	13 Trawool St, Box Hill North	Elgar	Buildings and works to extend the existing building to two storeys, comprising one office and one dwelling	Business
WH/2016/952	17-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	40 Clifton St, Blackburn	Central	The construction of buildings and works associated with a double storey dwelling under the Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 2	Special Landscape Area

Appl No.	Dec. Date	Decision	Street Address	Ward	Proposed Use or Development	Application Type
WH/2016/975	26-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	14 Esta St, Blackburn North	Central	The construction of two double storey dwellings	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2015/988	17-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	45 Great Western Drv, Vermont South	Morack	Construction of two double storey dwellings	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2016/1030	24-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	79 Elgar Rd, Burwood	Riversdale	Use of land for a Residential building (student accommodation)	Residential (Other)
WH/2016/1044	03-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	54 Dunlavin Rd, Nunawading	Springfield	3 x new two storey dwellings each with garage	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2016/1046	03-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	2 Norma Rd, Forest Hill	Morack	Two double storey detached dwellings on the lot	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2016/1057	10-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	1 Blackwood Crt, Nunawading	Springfield	Construction of three dwellings on a lot	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2016/1067	20-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	12 Jenner St, Blackburn South	Riversdale	The construction of two (2) double storey dwellings	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2016/1081	13-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	4 Hill St, Blackburn	Central	Construction of dwelling additions and tree removal	Special Landscape Area
WH/2016/1089	17-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	8 Jeffery St, Blackburn	Central	Buildings and works to extend a dwelling (carport, upper floor, decking and in-ground swimming pool) and removal of one tree.	Special Landscape Area
WH/2016/1111	24-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	4 Donald St, Blackburn South	Central	Construction of three dwellings	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2015/1133	03-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	20 Briggs St, Mont AlbertNorth	Elgar	The construction of one (1) double storey and one (1) triple storey dwelling, and the subdivision of land into two (2) lots	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2016/1141	28-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	50-52 Livingstone Rd, Vermont South	Morack	Use and Development of the land for a child care centre	Child Care Centre
WH/2016/1171	17-07-17	Delegate Permit Issued	27 Harrison St, Mitcham	Springfield	Construction of two dwellings	Multiple Dwellings

Appl No.	Dec. Date	Decision	Street Address	Ward	Proposed Use or Development	Application Type
WH/2017/82	27-07-17	Delegate Refusal Issued	219 Canterbury Rd, Blackburn	Central	Construction of two double storey dwellings, removal of (12) trees in SLO2 and alteration to access to a Road Zone Category 1	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2017/97	17-07-17	Delegate Refusal Issued	32 Eley Rd, Burwood	Riversdale	Constuction of two semi-detached double storey dwellings	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2017/169	24-07-17	Delegate Refusal Issued	150 Central Rd, Nunawading	Springfield	Buildings and works for the construction of two (2) double storey dwellings	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2017/224	26-07-17	Delegate Refusal Issued	34 Williamson Rd, Mont AlbertNorth	Elgar	Construction of two double storey dwellings	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2017/294	27-07-17	Delegate Refusal Issued	15 Brazeel St, Blackburn South	Central	Construction of two double storey dwellings	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2016/958	13-07-17	Delegate Refusal Issued	7 Costello St, Mont AlbertNorth	Elgar	Building and works to construct two double storey dwellings	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2016/970	27-07-17	Delegate Refusal Issued	13 Howard St, Box Hill	Elgar	The construction of six (6) dwellings contained within an attached four (4) storey built form, including an at-grade basement carpark	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2016/986	18-07-17	Delegate Refusal Issued	505 Middleborough Rd, Box Hill North	Elgar	Construction of 6 dwellings and alteration to access from a road zone category 1	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2016/1110	03-07-17	Delegate Refusal Issued	29 Albion Rd, Box Hill	Elgar	Construction of nine townhouses with basement carparking & partial demoltion & restoration of the rear of the existing heritage dwelling	Multiple Dwellings

Appl No.	Dec. Date	Decision	Street Address	Ward	Proposed Use or Development	Application Type
WH/2016/1158	25-07-17	Delegate Refusal Issued	29 Laurel Grv, NorthBlackburn	Central	Additions and alterations to a dwelling and removal of trees	Special Landscape Area
WH/2017/215	21-07-17	No Permit Required	3 Blenheim Ave, Mont Albert	Elgar	Construction of a storage shed	Residential (Other)
WH/2017/451	06-07-17	No Permit Required	949 Whitehorse Rd, Box Hill	Elgar	Display of internally illuminated and business identification signage	Advertising Sign
WH/2017/230	24-07-17	Permit Corrected	22B Rooks Rd, Nunawading	Springfield	Change of Use (Trade Supplies) and display of signage	Industrial
WH/2017/32	24-07-17	Withdrawn	41 Pembroke St, Surrey Hills	Riversdale	Construction of two double storey dwellings	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2016/1174	21-07-17	Withdrawn	8 Vernal Ave, Mitcham	Springfield	Construction of second (single storey) dwelling and vegetation removal (seven (7) trees)	Multiple Dwellings

BUILDING DISPENSATIONS/APPLICATIONS JULY 2017

Address	Date	Ward	Result
1/12 Cootamundra Crescent, BLACKBURN	28-07-17	Central	Amendment Refused R424
1 Molleton Street, BLACKBURN	12-07-17	Central	Consent Granted R424
11 Orana Street, BLACKBURN	19-07-17	Central	Consent Granted R414
12 Dundee Street, BLACKBURN SOUTH	05-07-17	Central	Consent Granted R415,R416, R414
14 Holland Road, BLACKBURN SOUTH	05-07-17	Central	Consent Granted R414
18 Baratta Street, BLACKBURN SOUTH	04-07-17	Central	Consent Granted R409
19 Edinburgh Road, BLACKBURN SOUTH	04-07-17	Central	Consent Granted R409
35 The Avenue, BLACKBURN	12-07-17	Central	Consent Granted R409
4 Kerrylyn Court, BLACKBURN	25-07-17	Central	Consent Granted R418
49 Primula Street, BLACKBURN NORTH	11-07-17	Central	Consent Granted R424
6 Julie Street, BLACKBURN NORTH	26-07-17	Central	Consent Granted R409, R417
61 Holland Road, BLACKBURN SOUTH	19-07-17	Central	Consent Granted R411
34 Brendale Avenue, BLACKBURN NORTH	12-07-17	Central	Consent Refused R424
61 Holland Road, BLACKBURN SOUTH	19-07-17	Central	Consent Refused R414
10 Jackson Avenue, MONT ALBERT NORTH	04-07-17	Elgar	Consent Granted R409
103 Windsor Crescent, MONT ALBERT	26-07-17	Elgar	Consent Granted R427, R424
15 St James Avenue, MONT ALBERT	27-07-17	Elgar	Consent Granted R415, R409, R414
21 Garden Street, BOX HILL NORTH	04-07-17	Elgar	Consent Granted R424
21 Simmons Street, BOX HILL NORTH	05-07-17	Elgar	Consent Granted R414
24 Horfield Avenue, BOX HILL NORTH	12-07-17	Elgar	Consent Granted R409
28 Killara Street, BOX HILL NORTH	11-07-17	Elgar	Consent Granted R409
28 Lorne Parade, MONT ALBERT	11-07-17	Elgar	Consent Granted R418
3 Carrington Road, BOX HILL	20-07-17	Elgar	Consent Granted R604
51 McKean Street, BOX HILL NORTH	12-07-17	Elgar	Consent Granted R409, R424
51 McKean Street, BOX HILL NORTH	12-07-17	Elgar	Consent Granted R424
6 Boxleigh Grove, BOX HILL NORTH	19-07-17	Elgar	Consent Granted R415
Shop 31A/1 Main Street, BOX HILL	27-07-17	Elgar	Consent Granted R604
1 Hogan Court, BOX HILL NORTH	05-07-17	Elgar	Consent Refused R409
15 St James Avenue, MONT ALBERT	27-07-17	Elgar	Consent Refused R409
24 Kerrimuir Street, BOX HILL NORTH	12-07-17	Elgar	Consent Refused R415, R417, R409
35 Ashley Street, BOX HILL NORTH	28-07-17	Elgar	Consent Refused R424
1-3 Ruby Street, BURWOOD EAST	11-07-17	Morack	Consent Granted R604
11 Longbrae Avenue, FOREST HILL	25-07-17	Morack	Consent Granted R409
13 Centre Road, VERMONT	21-07-17	Morack	Consent Granted R409
13 Centre Road, VERMONT	21-07-17	Morack	Consent Granted R414
2/4 Karwitha Street, VERMONT	12-07-17	Morack	Consent Granted R411, R414, R415

Address	Date	Ward	Result
44 Sevenoaks Road, BURWOOD EAST	04-07-17	Morack	Consent Granted R409
6 Lucerne Street, VERMONT	21-07-17	Morack	Consent Granted R414
9 Jaques Grove, FOREST HILL	18-07-17	Morack	Consent Granted R410
24 Patterson Avenue, BURWOOD	10-07-17	Riversdale	Amendment Approved R424
13 Devon Street, BOX HILL SOUTH	12-07-17	Riversdale	Consent Granted R424
24 Kitchener Street, BOX HILL SOUTH	04-07-17	Riversdale	Consent Granted R409
26 Waratah Avenue, BURWOOD	27-07-17	Riversdale	Consent Granted R414
26 Waratah Avenue, BURWOOD	27-07-17	Riversdale	Consent Granted R416, R415
33 Jenner Street, BLACKBURN SOUTH	04-07-17	Riversdale	Consent Granted R414, R415
34 Russell Street, SURREY HILLS	21-07-17	Riversdale	Consent Granted R411
7 Aylwin Avenue, BURWOOD	12-07-17	Riversdale	Consent Granted R424
5 McComas Grove, BURWOOD	28-07-17	Riversdale	Consent Refused R413
15 Abelia Street, NUNAWADING	04-07-17	Springfield	Consent Granted R414
15 Abelia Street, NUNAWADING	25-07-17	Springfield	Consent Granted R409
15 Lasiandra Avenue, NUNAWADING	12-07-17	Springfield	Consent Granted R411
18 Bristow Drive, FOREST HILL	25-07-17	Springfield	Consent Granted R410
18 Bristow Drive, FOREST HILL	25-07-17	Springfield	Consent Granted R415, R411
19 Warnes Road, MITCHAM	05-07-17	Springfield	Consent Granted R409
2/112 Springvale Road, NUNAWADING	04-07-17	Springfield	Consent Granted R409
27 Orion Street, VERMONT	12-07-17	Springfield	Consent Granted R414
39 Bessazile Avenue, FOREST HILL	11-07-17	Springfield	Consent Granted R409
78 Hedge End Road, NUNAWADING	25-07-17	Springfield	Consent Granted R409, R426
15 Abelia Street, NUNAWADING	05-07-17	Springfield	Consent Refused R415
25 Glen Valley Road, FOREST HILL	18-07-17	Springfield	Consent Refused R409
4/4-6 Shady Grove, NUNAWADING	14-07-17	Springfield	Consent Refused R414

DELEGATED DECISIONS MADE ON STRATEGIC PLANNING MATTERS – JULY 2017

Under the Planning and Environment Act 1987

Nil

REGISTER OF CONTRACTS SIGNED BY CEO DELEGATION JULY 2017

Contract	Service
Contract 20045	Footpath Sweeping & Township Cleaning

REGISTER OF PROPERTY DOCUMENTS EXECUTED JULY 2017

Property Address	Document Type	Document Detail
Leases
337 Morack Road, Vermont South - Bestchance Child Family Care	Transfer of Lease	Whitehorse City Council as Landlord (expires 31-Mar-2018)
Land Transfers
2 Carrington Road, Box Hill	Contract of Sale	Whitehorse City Council to Golden Age Box Hill Development Pty Ltd
Rear, 37 Combarton Street, Box Hill	Transfer of Land	Sale of Land Section 189 Local Government Act 1989
Fire Services Property Levy (FSPL)
29B Redland Drive, Vermont		Property use changed from Industrial to Commercial
Agreements
Car Park Management Agreement - 5 Watts Street, Box Hill	Management Agreement	Whitehorse City Council, Care Park Pty Ltd and Robert Paul Belteky
Rates Write-off
Amount of $526 not reported as owing on the Land Information Certificates issued for the 6 unit development at 38 McComas Grove Burwood. Staff not aware that 40 McComas Grove was consolidated and formed a part of the development.	Journal dated 11-Jul-17 (HPRM 17/110234)	DL Group (Aust) Pty Ltd

REGISTER OF DOCUMENTS AFFIXED WITH THE COUNCIL SEAL – JULY 2017

Instrument of Sub-Delegation CEO to Staff (Resolution 18.07.17)

PARKING RESTRICTIONS APPROVED BY DELEGATION JULY 2017

Address: Pakenham Street, Blackburn: from Derby Street to Garie Street – west side

Previously: 7 ‘Unrestricted’ parking spaces

Now: 7 ‘2-Hour, 8am to 6pm, Monday to Friday’ parking spaces

Address: Young Street, Box Hill: from 10m north of Prospect Street to 10m south of Fairbank Lane – east side

Previously: 3 ‘Loading Zone, 15 minute, 7am to 6pm, Monday to Saturday’ parking spaces

Now: 3 Temporary ‘Disabled’ parking spaces

Address: Eley Road, Blackburn South: from Holland Road to Grange Road – north side

Previously: 20 ‘Unrestricted’ parking spaces

Now: 20 ‘No Stopping, 8am to 9.15am & 3pm to 4pm, School Days’ parking spaces

Address: High Street, Mont Albert: from Beatty Street to 15m north of Beatty Street – east side

Previously: 1 ‘Unrestricted’ parking space

Now: 1 ‘No Stopping' parking space

Address: High Street, Mont Albert: from Beatty Street to 15m north of Beatty Street – west side

Previously: 1 ‘Unrestricted’ parking space

Now: 1 ‘No Stopping' parking space

Address: Glenice Avenue, Blackburn South: from Eley Road to Hastings Avenue – west side

Previously: 19 temporary '1-Hour, 8am to 6pm, Monday to Friday & 8am to 1pm Saturday' parking spaces

Now: 19 ‘Unrestricted’ parking spaces

Address: Neil Court, Blackburn South: from Eley Road to end of the street – west side

Previously: 18 temporary '1-Hour, 8am to 6pm, Monday to Friday & 8am to 1pm Saturday' parking spaces

Now: 18 ‘Unrestricted’ parking spaces

Address: Hastings Avenue, Blackburn South: from Eley Road to Glenice Avenue – west side

Previously: 12 temporary '1-Hour, 8am to 6pm, Monday to Friday & 8am to 1pm Saturday' parking spaces

Now: 12 ‘Unrestricted’ parking spaces

Address: Mersey Street , Box Hill North: from Thames Street to Severn Street – east side

Previously: 6 temporary '1-Hour, 8am to 5pm, Monday to Friday' parking spaces

Now: 6 permanent '1-Hour, 8am to 6pm, Monday to Friday' parking spaces

Address: Trafalgar Street, Mont Albert: from Earle Close to York Street – south side

Previously: 20 ‘Unrestricted’ parking spaces

Now: 20 ‘2-Hour, 8am to 6pm, Monday to Friday’ parking spaces

Address: Malabar Road , Blackburn: from southern boundary of 26 Malabar Road to northern boundary of 26 Malabar Road – west side

Previously: 2 ‘2-Hour, 8am to 6pm, Monday to Friday’ parking spaces

Now: 2 ‘Works Zone, 7am to 5pm, Monday to Saturday’ parking spaces

Address: Mitcham Road, Mitcham: from North boundary of 566 Mitcham Road to south boundary of 566 Mitcham Road – west side

Previously: 1 ‘Mail Zone, 1pm to 1.30pm & 5pm to 5.30pm, Monday to Friday’ parking space

Now: 1 ‘Mail Zone, 1pm to 1.30pm & 4.30pm to 5pm, Monday to Friday’ parking space

Address: Kent Road, Box Hill South: from Station Street to 5m west of 5 Kent Road – south side

Previously: 8 temporary '1-Hour, 8am to 6pm, Monday to Thursday’ and ‘No Stopping, 8am to 6pm, Friday’ parking spaces

Now: 8 permanent '1-Hour, 8am to 6pm, Monday to Thursday’ and ‘No Stopping, 8am to 6pm, Friday’ parking spaces

Address: Mont Albert Road, Mont Albert: from Gordon Street to 20m west of Gordon Street – south side

Previously: 2 'Unrestricted’ parking spaces

Now: 2 'No Stopping’ parking spaces

Address: Middleborough Road, Blackburn South: from 131m south of Dundee Street to 151m south of Dundee Street – east side

Previously: 1 'Bus Zone’ parking space

Now: 1 'No Stopping’ parking space

Address: Eley Road, Box Hill South: from 37m west of Middleborough Road to 18m west of Middleborough Road – north side

Previously: 1 'Unrestricted’ parking space

Now: 1 'No Stopping’ parking space

VENDOR PAYMENT SUMMARY – SUMS PAID DURING JULY 2017

Date	Total Issued	Payments (direct debit, cheques or electronic funds transfer)	Transaction Type EFT/CHQ/DD
11/07/2017	$437,873.70	1	EFT
13/07/2017	$3,209.81	15	EFC
13/07/2017	$96,375.01	45	CHQ
13/07/2017	$3,302,992.55	375	EFT
13/07/2017	$3,209.81	15	EFC
20/07/2017	$8,700.39	16	EFC
20/07/2017	$26,258.77	27	CHQ
20/07/2017	$537,923.76	46	EFT
21/07/2017	$123,670.25	1	EFT
26/07/2017	$278,571.81	1	EFT
26/07/2017	$278,571.81	1	EFT
27/07/2017	$2,245.51	7	EFC
27/07/2017	$145,053.13	35	CHQ
27/07/2017	$7,028,527.02	497	EFT
27/07/2017	$366.90	1	CHQ
Monthly Lease
Gross	$12,273,550.23	1083
Cancelled Payments	$73,000.00	20
Nett		1063

	Budget	Expenditure
Capital Works Funding Account No. U453 6708 Hagenauer Reserve	$ 540,000
Total Budget	$ 540,000
Preferred tenderer’s lump sum offer (including GST)		$ 546,149
Less GST		-$ 49,650
Net cost to Council		$ 496,499
Plus Contingencies		$ 23,261
Plus Project Management Fee		$ 49,650
Expenditure to date		$ 590
Total Expenditure		$ 570,000

	Budget	Expenditure
Capital Works – U906 DR Hardware	$ 460,000
Capital Works – U909 Network & Server Infra	$ 80,000
Capital Works – Various	$ 30,000
OPEX holding account	$ 130,000

Total Budget	$ 700,000

Preferred tenderer’s lump sum offer (including GST)		$ 701,063
Full migration costs		$ 15,840
Subtotal		$ 716,903
Less GST		-$ 65,173
Net cost to Council		$ 651,730

Total Expenditure		$ 651,730

Meeting Date	Matter/s Discussed	Councillors Present	Officers Present	Disclosures of Conflict of Interest	Councillor /Officer attendance following disclosure
21-08-17 6.30-7.00pm	Councillor Informal Briefing Session · In Principal Approval of the 2016/17 Annual Financial Statements & Performance Statement · 9.4.3 Delegation from Council to Special Committee of Council Chief Executive Officer & Positions within the Organisation · Contractual Matters – Confidential	Cr Massoud (Mayor & Chair) Cr Barker Cr Bennett Cr Carr Cr Cutts Cr Davenport Cr Ellis Cr Liu Cr Munroe Cr Stennett	N Duff J Green (AGMI) N Brown (AGMHS) T Johnson P Smith A De Fazio S Freud J Russell S Cann S Dixon	Nil	Nil
04-09-17 6.30 – 9.15pm	Strategic Planning Session · Confidential Matter · Community Satisfaction Survey Results · Nunawading Community Hub Concept Design · Financial Report July 2017 · Capital Works Update · Asset Management · Major Projects Councillor Reference Group	Cr Ellis (Acting Chairperson) Cr Bennett Cr Carr Cr Cutts Cr Davenport Cr Liu Cr Stennett	N Duff P Warner T Wilkinson P Smith A De Fazio S Cann A Ghastine R Prathapasinghe D Logan J Merrett	Nil	Nil
11-09-17 6.40 – 10.00pm	Councillor Briefing Session · Community Consultation Results Box Hill to Ringwood Bicycle Path through Laburnum Precinct · Annual Report 2017-18 · Special Committee Agenda/Other Business · Draft Council Agenda 18 September 2017	Cr Massoud (Mayor & Chair) Cr Bennett Cr Carr Cr Cutts Cr Davenport Cr Ellis Cr Liu Cr Munroe Cr Stennett NB. Cr Cutts arrived at 7.50pm	N Duff J Green P Warner T Wilkinson P Smith A De Fazio S Freud J Russell A Da Campo S Cann M Tate K Marriott A Egan T Johnson M Ackland	N Duff declared a conflict of Interest in Item 12.1 Contractual Matter	N Duff having declared a conflict of interest in Item 12.1 Contractual Matter left the meeting at 9.55pm and did not return.