Council Meeting

 

Held in the

Council Chamber

Nunawading Civic Centre

379 Whitehorse Road Nunawading

on

Monday 19 April 2021

at 7:00pm

Members:      Cr Munroe (Mayor), Cr Barker, Cr Carr (Deputy Mayor), Cr Cutts,

                      Cr Davenport, Cr Lane, Cr Liu, Cr McNeill, Cr Massoud, Cr Skilbeck,                                 Cr Stennett

Mr Simon McMillan

Chief Executive Officer

Recording of Meeting and Disclaimer

Please note every Council Meeting (other than items deemed confidential under section 3 (1) of the Local Government Act 2020) is being recorded and streamed live on Whitehorse City Council’s website in accordance with Council's Live Streaming and Recording of Meetings Policy. A copy of the policy can also be viewed on Council’s website.

The recording will be archived and made publicly available on Council's website within 48 hours after the meeting on www.whitehorse.vic.gov.au for a period of three years (or as otherwise agreed to by Council).

Live streaming allows everyone to watch and listen to the meeting in real time, giving you greater access to Council debate and decision making and encouraging openness and transparency.

All care is taken to maintain your privacy; however, as a visitor in the public gallery, your presence may be recorded. By remaining in the public gallery, it is understood your consent is given if your image is inadvertently broadcast.

Opinions expressed or statements made by individual persons during a meeting are not the opinions or statements of Whitehorse City Council. Council therefore accepts no liability for any defamatory remarks that are made during a meeting.

 


Whitehorse City Council

Council Minutes                                                                                             19 April 2021

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

1          PRAYER. 2

2          WELCOME AND APOLOGIES. 2

3          DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTS. 2

4          CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS. 2

5          RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS. 3

6          Notices of Motion.. 4

6.1          Notice of Motion No 140: Cr Stennett. 4

6.2          Notice of Motion No 141: Cr McNeill. 5

7          Petitions. 5

8          Urgent Business. 5

9          Council Reports. 6

9.1       City Development. 6

Statutory Planning

9.1.1       12-14 Nelson Road, BOX HILL (CP 103026 4) Amendment to Planning Permit WH/2015/715/G to allow the use of land for a medical centre and the reallocation of car parking. 6

9.1.2       74 Main Street, Blackburn (LOT 3 LP 17854) Construction of single dwelling, removal of protected trees and buildings and works within 4m of trees (SLO2) 17

9.2       Infrastructure. 41

9.2.1       Whitehorse Urban Forest Strategy. 41

9.2.2       Tender Evaluation (Contract 30298) Main Street Bridge Reconstruction. 47

9.2.3       Tender Evaluation (Contract 30281) Strathdon House Redevelopment. 50

9.2.4       Contract Sum Adjustment (Contract 30130) Morton Park Pavilion Redevelopment. 52

9.3       Human Services. 55

9.3.1       Sportlink Redevelopment. 55

9.3.2       Morack Golf Course Redevelopment. 64

9.3.3       Whitehorse Community Grants: Partnership Grants. 68

9.3.4       Whitehorse Manningham Regional Library Corporation Local Laws 3 and 4 2020. 72

9.4       Corporate. 74

9.4.1       Hardship and Stimulus. 74

9.4.2       Proposed Budget 2021/2022. 79

9.4.3       Draft Revenue and Rating Plan 2021-2025. 89

9.4.4       Councillor Gift Policy. 92

9.4.5       Assignment of Name to Laneway at Rear of Lake Road Blackburn (running from Wellington Avenue to Alandale Road) 94

10        Reports from Delegates, Delegated Committee Recommendations and Records of Informal Meetings of Councillors. 96

10.1        Reports by Delegates. 96

10.2        Recommendation from the Delegated Committee of Council Meeting of 12 April 2021. 96

10.3        Records of Informal Meetings of Councillors. 96

11        Reports on Conferences/Seminars Attendance. 96

12        Close Meeting. 96


Whitehorse City Council

Council Minutes                                                                                             19 April 2021

 

Meeting opened at 7:00pm

 

Present:  (Mayor) Cr Munroe, Cr Barker, Cr Carr (Deputy Mayor), Cr Cutts, Cr Davenport, Cr Lane, Cr Liu, Cr McNeill, Cr Massoud, Cr Skilbeck, Cr Stennett

 

Officers:  S McMillan, J Green, T Johnson, S White, S Cann, C Altan, J Russell

1            PRAYER

 

1a           Prayer for Council

 

We give thanks, O God, for the Men and Women of the past whose generous devotion to the common good has been the making of our City.

 

Grant that our own generation may build worthily on the foundations they have laid.

 

Direct our minds that all we plan and determine, is for the wellbeing of our City.

 

Amen.

 

 

1b           Aboriginal Reconciliation Statement

“Whitehorse City Council acknowledges the Wurundjeri and all peoples of the Kulin Nation as the traditional custodians of the land. We pay our respects to their Elders past, present and emerging”

2            WELCOME AND APOLOGIES

The Mayor welcomed all

APOLOGIES: Nil 

3            DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

None disclosed

4            CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

Minutes of the Council Meeting 15 March 2021.

Council Resolution

Moved by Cr Liu, Seconded by Cr Carr

That the minutes of the Council Meeting 15 March 2021 having been circulated now be confirmed.

Carried Unanimously

 


 

5            RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS

 

Mr Peter Carter, submitted two questions on Easy Ride Routes.

 

Question 1.

Subject: How much of the allocation of $270,000 will remain after completing ERR EW6

The Council received tenders and costing from contractors in early March for EW 6.

Given that the contract has now been awarded, based on tendered prices, would Council advise Councillors and myself what the estimated cost for EW6, so that Councillors and others are fully informed about the balance of money for funding of sharrow’s on other 5 Priority ERR projects.

 

Question 2.

Subject: Undertake Sharrow line-marking on 5 Priority Routes concurrently with EW6

Works on EW 6 is yet to start; a significant delay to the planned start in mid March. Will Council undertake sharrow’s line - marking of the 5 Priority Routes (noted by Council as being ‘shovel ready’) concurrently with EW6 works rather than sequentially to ensure that the full allocation of $270,000 can be expended in completing just the sharrow line marking on the 5 Priority routes in 2020-21. 

(Note: Sharrow line-marking for the 5 Priority ERR will cost about $170,000)

 

Mr Jeff Green General Manager of City Development read out and responded on behalf of Council in relation to the two questions submitted.

 

 

 

 

One Minute’s Silence in Memory of His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

 

The Mayor then called for one minute’s silence to be observed in memory of HRH Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh who passed away on 9 April 2021 at the age of 99.

 

The meeting observed one minute’s silence from 7.08pm to 7.09pm.

 


 

6            Notices of Motion

6.1   Notice of Motion No 140: Cr Stennett

 

MOTION

Moved by Cr Stennett, Seconded by Cr Cutts

That Council:

1.       Note there have been increases in participation rates in both cricket and football in Whitehorse in recent years, in part due to greater female participation, which Council has supported.

2.       Provide a report to Councillors about the most recent ground allocations to football and cricket clubs within Whitehorse and report to also consider the seasonal allocation of other sporting modes and recreational grounds and other facilities where relevant.

3.       As part of the report provide comment on:

i.     How Council can positively respond to the open space demands that AFL football, and cricket training/competitions require;

ii.    Any unmet demand at a club level or across Whitehorse;

iii.   Any future supply and demand in future years;

iv.   Any opportunities to partner with schools and universities; and

v.    Opportunities to use any large underutilised Council owned land.

 

Amendment

Moved by Cr Davenport, Seconded by Cr Barker

That Council:

1.       Note there have been increases in participation rates in both cricket and football in Whitehorse in recent years, in part due to greater female participation, which Council has supported.

2.       Provide a report to Councillors about the most recent ground allocations to football and cricket clubs within Whitehorse and report to also consider the seasonal allocation of other sporting modes and recreational grounds and other facilities where relevant.

3.       As part of the report provide comment on:

           i.       How Council can positively respond to the open space demands that AFL football, and cricket training/competitions require;

          ii.       Any unmet demand at a club level or across Whitehorse;

        iii.       Any future supply and demand in future years;

         iv.       Any opportunities to partner with schools and universities; and

          v.       Opportunities to use any large underutilised Council owned land.

         vi.       Any regional approaches to open space allocation.

Carried

A Division was called.

Division

For

Cr Carr

Cr Cutts

Cr Davenport

Cr Lane

Cr Massoud

Cr McNeill

Cr Munroe

Cr Stennett

Against

Cr Barker

Cr Liu

Cr Skilbeck

On the results of the Division the motion was declared carried

 

6.2   Notice of Motion No 141: Cr McNeill

 

Council Resolution

Moved by Cr McNeill, Seconded by Cr Massoud

That Council:

1.      Calls for the Municipal Association of Victoria to endorse the campaign by the Australian Local Governance Association for Local Government to be given representation and voting rights to the replacement of the Council of Australian Governments, currently the National Cabinet.

2.      Write to Federal Government members the Hon Michael Sukkar, Hon Josh Frydenberg and Gladys Liu MP to seek their support for such an initiative.

Carried

Cr Davenport requested that the minutes reflect that he voted in opposition to the motion.

 

 

Attendance

Cr Skilbeck left the Chambers at 7:45pm, returning at 7:46pm.

 

 

7            Petitions 

None submitted

8            Urgent Business

None submitted


Whitehorse City Council

Council Minutes                                                                                                                               19 April 2021

 

9            Council Reports

9.1         City Development

Statutory Planning  

9.1.1      12-14 Nelson Road, BOX HILL (CP 103026 4) Amendment to Planning Permit WH/2015/715/G to allow the use of land for a medical centre and the reallocation of car parking

FILE NUMBER: WH/2015/715/H
ATTACHMENT

 

SUMMARY

This application was advertised, and a total of 41 objections were received. The objections raised issues with the land use, health and safety risks, shared building access and traffic and parking implications. A Consultation Forum was held on 04/02/2021 chaired by Councillor Barker, at which the issues were explored, however no resolution was reached between the parties. This report assesses the application against the relevant provisions of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, as well as the objector concerns.  It is recommended that the application be supported, subject to conditions.

motion

Moved by Cr Barker, Seconded by Cr Liu

That Council:

A.    Being the Responsible Authority, having caused amendment to Application WH/2015/715/H for 12-14 Nelson Road, BOX HILL (CP 103026 4) to be advertised and having received and noted the objections is of the opinion that the granting of an Amended Planning Permit to allow the use of land for a medical centre and the reallocation of car parking is acceptable and should not unreasonably impact the amenity of adjacent properties.

B.    Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant an Amended Planning Permit under the Whitehorse Planning Scheme to the land described as 12-14 Nelson Road, BOX HILL (CP 103026 4) to allow the use of the land for a medical centre and the reallocation of car parking, subject to the following additional conditions:

1.    Except in the case of an emergency or within the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the approved Medical Centre may only hold appointments between the hours of:

a)    Monday to Friday: 8:00am to 6:00pm.

Practitioners may perform general administration and office duties outside of these specified hours between 6:00am to 10:00pm.

2.    Consultations must be conducted upon an appointment-only basis.

3.    Prior to the commencement of the Medical Centre use, a Medical Centre Management Plan to the satisfaction Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Medical Centre Management Plan must provide for the following:

              Waste

a)    The collection of waste associated with the medical centre use, including the provision of bulk waste collection bins or approved alternative, recycling bins, the storage of other refuse and solid wastes in bins or receptacles within suitable screened and accessible areas to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

b)    Appropriate areas of bin storage on site and areas of waste bin storage on collection days.

c)    Designation of method of collection including the need to provide for private services or utilisation of Council services.

d)    Details for best practice waste management once operation.

Amenity

e)    A wayfinding strategy to guide patrons of the medical centre to the commercial lift lobby from the street and basement / building car parks.

f)     A safety strategy to restrict access to all residential uses from the street, ground level and basement / building car parks. This must include details of access arrangements for staff and visitors to the medical centre use and measures to limit inter-building conflict.

C.    Has made this decision having particular regard to the requirements of Sections 58, 59, 60 and 61 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Amendment

Moved by Cr Davenport, Seconded by Cr Stennett

That Council:

A.     Being the Responsible Authority, having caused amendment to Application WH/2015/715/H for 12-14 Nelson Road, BOX HILL (CP 103026 4) to be advertised and having received and noted the objections is of the opinion that the granting of an Amended Planning Permit to allow the use of land for a medical centre and the reallocation of car parking is acceptable and should not unreasonably impact the amenity of adjacent properties.

B.     Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant an Amended Planning Permit under the Whitehorse Planning Scheme to the land described as 12-14 Nelson Road, BOX HILL (CP 103026 4) to allow the use of the land for a medical centre and the reallocation of car parking, subject to the following additional conditions:

1.      Except in the case of an emergency or within the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the approved Medical Centre may only hold appointments between the hours of:

a)      Monday to Friday: 8:00am to 7:00pm.

Practitioners may perform general administration and office duties outside of these specified hours between 6:00am to 10:00pm.

2.      Consultations must be conducted upon an appointment-only basis.

3.      Prior to the commencement of the Medical Centre use, a Medical Centre Management Plan to the satisfaction Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Medical Centre Management Plan must provide for the following:

Waste

a)      The collection of waste associated with the medical centre use, including the provision of bulk waste collection bins or approved alternative, recycling bins, the storage of other refuse and solid wastes in bins or receptacles within suitable screened and accessible areas to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

b)     Appropriate areas of bin storage on site and areas of waste bin storage on collection days.

c)      Designation of method of collection including the need to provide for private services or utilisation of Council services.

d)     Details for best practice waste management once operation.

Amenity

e)      A wayfinding strategy to guide patrons of the medical centre to the commercial lift lobby from the street and basement / building car parks.

f)       A safety strategy to restrict access to all residential uses from the street, ground level and basement / building car parks. This must include details of access arrangements for staff and visitors to the medical centre use and measures to limit inter-building conflict.

C.     Has made this decision having particular regard to the requirements of Sections 58, 59, 60 and 61 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Carried

A Division was called.

Division

For

Cr Barker

Cr Carr

Cr Cutts

Cr Davenport

Cr Lane

Cr Massoud

Cr McNeill

Against

Cr Liu

Cr Munroe

Cr Skilbeck

Cr Stennett

On the results of the Division the Amendment was declared carried

The substantive Motion as amended was then put and Carried Unanimously

 


 

MELWAYS REFERENCE 75A E3

 

Applicant:                H & F Properties

Zoning:                    Clause 32.04 Mixed Use Zone

Overlays:                 Clause 45.03 Environmental Audit Overlay

Clause 45.09 Parking Overlay

Relevant Clauses:

Clause 17.01-1S Diversified Economy

Clause 17.02-1S Business

Clause 18.02-4S Car Parking

Clause 19.02-1S Health Facilities

Clause 19.02-1R Health Precincts – Metropolitan Melbourne

Clause 21.07 Economic Development

Clause 22.07 Box Hill Metropolitan Activity Centre

Clause 52.06 Car Parking

Clause 52.34 Bicycle Facilities

Ward:                      Elgar Ward

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subject site and location of 40 objectors

 

41 Objector Properties in total with 40 being within the subject site existing building 

é

North


BACKGROUND

Amendments

The building permitted by the original planning permit has finished construction and is occupied. This application for amendment to use some of the levels for the purpose of a medical centre in lieu of office was originally lodged with a car parking configuration that sought to share spaces between other existing uses within the building. 

This was in the form of sharing of car parking spaces between the medical centre, serviced apartments and visitor parking spaces which would have required separate planning permission under Clause 52.06 to use car parking spaces on land other than the subject site. The applicant was advised that this parking arrangement was unlikely to be supported by planning officers.

Following the advertising period for the amendment as originally proposed, a Section 57A amendment was lodged on 02/12/2020 to address the concerns raised by planning officers by formally reallocating excess car parking spaces from the serviced apartments to the proposed medical centre, ensuring that the statutory requirements under Clause 52.06-5 were met for the proposed medical centre land use on the subject site.

As a result of the Section 57A amendment, the reduction being sought for the medical centre was no longer applicable. Given the car parking requirements were addressed to comply with the planning scheme, the amendment did not require further notice under Section 52 of the Act.

History

Planning Permit WH/2015/715 was issued on 01/07/2016 for the construction of a Part 19, Part 20 storey building, comprising dwellings, retail space and offices, with basement car park, use of the building for accommodation (dwellings), and reduction of the parking requirements of Clause 52.06 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme to alter configuration of apartments and parking layout.

Since the issue of the original permit, a number of amendments to the permit have since been issued, which can be described as follows:

·     WH/2015/715/A – To vary number of dwellings and on site car parking, amendment to floor plan layout and Condition 1.

·     WH/2015/715/B – To amend conditions to include provision for ‘early works’.

·     WH/2015/715/C – To allow use for serviced hotel or apartments.

·     WH/2015/715/D – Application to reallocate ‘visitor’ residential parking to resident parking.

·     WH/2015/715/E – Application to alter requirements under the existing S173 Agreement for the provision of affordable housing units.

·     WH/2015/715/F – Amendments to plans under Section 72 of the Act:

o   Introduction of a south-facing window to Dwelling 6.01 and consolidation of units;

o   Reallocation of ‘social housing’ dwelling;

o   Consolidation of internal office areas/layout at levels 1, 2 & 3; and

o   Changes to external materials.

·     WH/2015/715/G – To incorporate glass screens (wind protection measure) above existing balustrade at apartment 4.01.

The latest iteration of the Planning Permit is Amendment ‘G’, which currently allows for the following: Construction of a Part 19, Part 20 storey building, comprising dwellings, food and drink premises (café), and office, with basement car park, use of the building for accommodation (dwellings and residential hotel – serviced apartments), and reduction of the parking requirements of Clause 52.06 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme.

 

The Site and Surrounds

The subject site is located on the east side of Nelson Road in Box Hill, approximately 110m north of the intersection with Whitehorse Road.  The site has a frontage of 27.43m to Nelson Road, a depth of 58.26m, and a frontage of 27.43m to Shipley Street to the east, and an overall area of 1,597sqm. The site is not affected by any easements.

The site is currently developed in accordance with the permit issued on the land, for a part 19, part 20 storey building, used for the purpose of residential, services apartments and other retail and office land uses. Vehicle access is maintained from the Nelson Road frontage.

The surrounding properties are generally commercial in nature and scale with the Box Hill RSL abutting to the north, and a panel beater abutting immediately to the south. A transmission workshop, a language school and a 4-5 storey office building are also located to the south up to the corner of Whitehorse Road. The Box Hill TAFE western campus is located opposite the site to the west, and the Epworth Hospital is diagonally opposite to the north-west.  Opposite the site to the east in Shipley Street is a block of single and double storey dwellings, and a car park.  Shipley Street also contains a number of commercial and industrial scale buildings.

PROPOSAL

The application seeks to amend the Planning Permit for the following:

·           To allow the use of the land for medical centre, to replace the office floor space at levels 1 and 3. The total number of practitioners is yet to be identified.

·           To reallocate car parking spaces from the level 1 and 3 office and serviced apartments to the medical centre land use.

·           To amend the previously endorsed plans and documents to reflect the above changes.

There are no changes proposed to the buildings internal or external layout.

PLANNING CONTROLS

An application for Amendment was received under Section 72 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (“the Act”) .

Section 73 of the Act states that sections 47 to 62 of the Act apply to any application to the Responsible Authority to amend a permit.

In accordance with Section 60(1) of the Act the Responsible Authority must consider, when deciding on an application, the following matters:

·       The planning scheme.

·       The objectives of planning in Victoria.

·       All objections and other submissions which it has received and which have not been withdrawn.

·       Any decision and comments of a referral authority, which it has received.

·       Any significant effects, which the Responsible Authority considers the use or development may have on the environment or which the Responsible Authority considers may have on the use or development.

The Responsible Authority may also consider if the circumstances appear to require so, any of the matters listed in Section 60(1A).

The Responsible Authority must decide upon the application for an amendment to a permit in accordance with the requirements of Sections 60(2) – (6) of the Act (Restrictive Covenants).


 

In forming the below recommendations the relevant provisions of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme listed below:

Zone

Mixed Use Zone

The subject site is located within the Mixed Use Zone. Pursuant to Clause 34.02-1, a Planning Permit is required to use the land for a medical centre if the following conditions are not met:

·           The gross floor area must not exceed 250sqm.

As the gross floor area of the medical centre is 618sqm (exceeding by 368sqm), a planning permit is therefore required for the Medical Centre land use.

Overlay

Parking Overlay

The subject site is located within the Parking Overlay. As there is no rate associated with a medical centre within the Overlay, the default Column B rate of 3.5 spaces per 100sqm applies under Clause 52.06-5.

A total of 21 car parking spaces are required for the medical centre, which have been provided through the reallocation of parking spaces from the previously approved level 1 and 3 office use and serviced apartments to demonstrate compliance with Clause 52.06.

It is noted that there is currently an excess of parking spaces provided for the serviced apartments and the reallocation would still be to the satisfaction of Council’s transport department at 0.5 spaces per apartment.

Environmental Audit Overlay

The subject site is located within the Environmental Audit Overlay. As there is no additional sensitive land use being proposed, no further consideration of the Overlay is required.

Particular Provisions

Clause 52.06 Car Parking

The proposal meets the statutory rates under Clause 52.06 and as such a planning permit is not required for a reduction in car parking spaces.

Clause 52.34 Bicycle Facilities

The proposal meets the statutory rates under Clause 52.34 and as such a planning permit is not required for a reduction in bicycle parking spaces

CONSULTATION

Public Notice

The application was advertised by mail to the adjacent and nearby property owners and occupiers and by erecting notices to the Nelson Road and Shipley Street frontages.

Following the advertising period a total of 41 objections were received. The key concerns  are summarised below with responses provided to each:

·     The use of the land for a medical centre

·     Traffic and parking implications

·     Shared building access

·     Health and safety risks

 

An assessment against these specific concerns in provided within the discussion section below.

Consultation Forum

A Consultation Forum was held online using Zoom on 4th February 2021. Twelve (12) objectors attended the meeting, which was chaired by Cr Barker, and also attended by the permit applicant and the planning officer. Objector concerns were raised and discussed, however no resolution was reached and all objections remain.

REFERRALS

External

No external referrals required under Clause 66 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme.

Internal

No internal referrals required due to the amendments proposed being confined to planning discussions only.

DISCUSSION

The planning framework remains virtually unchanged to that which existed at the time of the original decision. While there have been a number of planning scheme amendments since the issue of the original permit, these are generally not applicable to the application due to the existence of transitional provisions and/or the amendments relating to other types of land uses and developments or being of a relatively administrative nature.

Subject to the below assessment it is considered that the proposed changes are generally consistent with relevant provision of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme.

Use

The proposed land use for a medical centre requires a planning permit pursuant to Clause 32.04-1 of the Mixed Use Zone. The medical centre use is proposed to replace the level 1 and 3 office spaces previously approved, occupying a total area of 618sqm.

Policy Framework

A purpose of the Mixed Use Zone is:

·     To provide for a range of residential, commercial, industrial and other uses which complement the mixed-use function of the locality.

This is further supported by the Policy Framework at Clause 19.02-1S and Clause 19.02-1R which broadly seek to facilitate health and community wellbeing precincts through the co-location of hospitals, general practitioners and other necessary health services.

In addition, objectives outlined within Clause 22.07 seek to ensure that Box Hill accommodates a more intensive and diverse range of activities that increase choices and opportunities, support synergies between different uses, encourage use of sustainable transport and complement surrounding areas.

Is the use acceptable?

Whilst the site is not within the boundary of the health precinct under the Structure Plan, it is located to the precinct’s edge and continues to complement the Box Hill hospital and wider health precinct, as well as encouraging a diversity of land uses that support the Box Hill Metropolitan Activity Centre. As such, the proposed land use for the medical centre is supported by the policy framework applicable to the site.

 

The proposed land use is of an acceptable scale, at 618sqm, exceeding the use threshold of 250sqm under the zone by approximately 368sqm. However, this is commensurate with the scale of the existing building and provides sufficient space for flexible floor space arrangements for future tenants. The uptake of these spaces will be important to provide active frontage space to the Nelson Road streetscape, and improve the relationship between the building and the public realm.

Whilst there have been a number of resident concerns relating to the sharing of building and lift access between the medical centre and residential land uses, these are not considered to be unreasonable on the basis that the volume of pedestrian traffic would not materially change in comparison with the office use approved under existing planning permit.

The proposed medical centre maintains the existing access arrangement with separate access from the ground floor lobby via lift 4 utilised for the approved offices, and as such, shared access will only be required from the basement levels into the main lobby which is unchanged from the current approval for office space. Patients of the medical centre would not require access to the upper levels of the building from the residential lifts.

In addition, the submitted Car Parking Management Plan specifies that visitors are expected to phone or buzz the medical centre for entry into the building from either the street or basement, with staff to maintain swipe cards for access. This is generally reasonable, but fails to capture the potential for patrons to access the upper residential levels or how this could be limited through appropriate mitigation measures. A further condition of permit will be required as part of an operational management plan of the use to limit potential conflict between the various uses of the building.

Overall, the proposed medical centre land use is acceptable when considered against the Zone and Policy Framework. Additional planning permit conditions will be required specific for the medical centre land use.

Conditions have been applied to restrict appointment hours in accordance with those specified within the application material, and to ensure that consultations are conducted as an appointment-only basis. Hours will therefore be limited as follows:

·     Monday to Friday: 8:00am to 6:00pm;

The condition will be worded to provide flexibility to practitioners to complete office and administration work as necessary and outside of these hours.

This is considered to be a reasonable condition, ensuring that there is a balance between tenant flexibility and residential amenity, limiting late night appointments that may impact the amenity of future residents. There are existing conditions on the permit pertaining to noise and other offsite emissions.

A management plan will be required prior to commencement of the use to demonstrate acceptable waste outcomes and to manage pedestrian movement through the building.

Car Parking

The proposed amendment seeks to reallocate car parking spaces from the serviced apartments to the medical centre land use.

Car parking rates and signage

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5, a total of 21 car parking spaces are required for the proposed medical centre use, at a rate of 3.5 spaces per 100sqm. The plans and car parking management plan allocate 21 car parking spaces to the use, therefore demonstrating compliance with Clause 52.06-5.


 

Car parking spaces for the medical centre are located in the following areas of the building:

·     Level B1: 2 spaces

·     Level 2: 10 spaces

·     Level B3: 9 spaces

The car parking management plan demonstrates that these car parking spaces will be reserved with signage to ensure they are available at all times for their use in associated with the medical centre.

Car parking reallocations required

The reallocation of parking spaces from the serviced apartments to the proposed medical centre uses arises as a result of the higher rate for car parking generated by the medical centre in comparison to the previously approved office uses.

Where the currently approved offices generated a requirement for 12 car parking spaces, the proposed medical centre requires a total of 21 spaces, with a shortfall of 9.

Under the existing approval, council’s transport department supported car parking for the serviced apartments at a rate of 0.5 spaces per apartment.

In reviewing the parking rates provided for the serviced apartments / dwellings, a total of 131 spaces are provided, where 107 are required (using 0.5 car spaces per serviced apartment). As such, the reallocation of 9 car parking spaces from the serviced apartments, would continue to ensure that the rate of 0.5 spaces is maintained for the serviced apartments, in accordance with the supported level of car parking determined by council’s transport department.

As a result of the reallocation, there are no further amendments required to the permit preamble or permit conditions.


 

Objections

Objector concern

Planning response

Land use

 

Concerns have been raised that the proposed use is inconsistent with the Mixed Use Zone and in conflict with the current residential uses within the building.

 

 

The use of the land for a medical centre is generally consistent with the purpose of the Mixed Use Zone which encourages a range of residential, commercial and other uses which complement the mixed-use function of the locality. This is further demonstrated by both the proximity of the site to the Box Hill hospital, and the wide range of new developments which incorporate a mixture of land uses within the podium levels.

Traffic and parking

 

Concerns have been raised that the proposed use would result in greater traffic impacts to the road network and within the basement.

 

 

The proposal does not result in any further car parking reductions, with car parking provided for the medical centre in accordance with the statutory requirement under Clause 52.06-5

Shared building access

 

Concerns have been raised that the sharing of building access would result in the spread of disease to residents of the building.

 

 

The proposed access arrangement remains unchanged from the previous approval and layout, where there is a sharing of lifts from the basement into the building lobby.

Health and safety

 

Concerns have been raised that the proposed use would result in the spread of disease to residents of the building.

 

 

Health and safety concerns are not issues which can be addressed through the requirements of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme.

CONCLUSION

The proposal to allow the use of land for a medical centre and the reallocation of car parking is an acceptable response that satisfies the relevant provisions contained within the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, including the policy framework and purpose of the Mixed Use Zone.

The proposed use is consistent with the purpose of the Mixed Use Zone which encourages a range of land uses that complement the Activity Centre, particularly the nearby Box Hill Hospital. The reallocation of car parking ensures that the proposed use maintains parking in accordance with the statutory rates applicable to limit potential offsite traffic impacts to the wider road network.

A total of 41 objections were received as a result of public notice and all of the issues raised have been discussed as required.

It is considered that the amended permit application should be approved.

 

Attachment

1        Current Endorsed Plans  

2        Current Planning Permit  

3        Development Plans  

4        Car Parking Management Plan    


Whitehorse City Council

Council Minutes                                                                                                                               19 April 2021

 

9.1.2      74 Main Street, Blackburn (LOT 3 LP 17854) Construction of single dwelling, removal of protected trees and buildings and works within 4m of trees (SLO2)

FILE NUMBER: WH/2020/838
ATTACHMENT

 

SUMMARY

 

This application was advertised, and a total of 20 objections were received.  The objections raised issues with extensive vegetation removal, lack of landscaping opportunity, site coverage and consistency with neighbourhood character.  A Consultation Forum was held on 28 January 2021 chaired by Councillor Munroe, at which the issues were explored, however no resolution was reached between the parties.  This report assesses the application against the relevant provisions of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, as well as the objector concerns.  It is recommended that the application be supported, subject to conditions. 

RECOMMENDATION

 

That Council:

A.      Being the Responsible Authority, having caused Application WH/2020/838 for 74 Main Street, BLACKBURN (LOT 3 LP 17854) to be advertised and having received and noted the objections is of the opinion that the granting of a Planning Permit for the construction of single dwelling, removal of trees and buildings and works within 4m of trees (SLO2) is acceptable and should not unreasonably impact the amenity of adjacent properties.

B.      Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit under the Whitehorse Planning Scheme to the land described as 74 Main Street, BLACKBURN (LOT 3 LP 17854) for the construction of single dwelling, removal of trees and buildings and works within 4m of trees (SLO2), subject to the following conditions:

1.    Before the development starts, or vegetation removed, amended plans must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority in a digital format.  When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.  The plans must be drawn to scale, and be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show:

a)    The locations of the Structural Root Zone and Tree Protection Zones described in Condition 5, with all nominated trees clearly identified and numbered on both the site and landscape plans and the requirements of Conditions 5 and 6 to be annotated on the development plan and landscape plan.

b)    The retention of Trees 3, 4, 6, 7 and 26 along with their TPZs, SRZs and tree numbers as per the submitted arborist report.

c)    The location of all service trenches to serve the dwelling (for example: gas, water, electricity, stormwater, sewerage, telecommunications), the location of protected trees within four (4) metres of these trenches (if any).  The service trenches must be located, hand dug or bored to ensure the protected trees are not damaged, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

d)    Deletion of the turning area within the front setback, with remediation in accordance with Condition 1g). 

e)    Location of retaining wall to retain the fill required to the south and west elevation. 

f)     An accurate calculation of the garden area provision (as defined by Clause 73.01 of the Planning Scheme) for the proposed development as required by Clause 32.09-4 of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.  The denoted Garden Area needs to be clearly hatched and demonstrated on a scaled Site Plan.

g)    The landscape plan to be amended to show:

i.     The provision of at least four (4) new indigenous or native trees capable of reaching a mature height of 15 metres.

ii.    Replacement tree species to be selected from the following list:

·       Eucalyptus mannifera – Brittle Gum

·     Eucalyptus melliodora – Yellow Box

·     Eucalyptus ognate – Narrow-leafed Peppermint

·     Eucalyptus sideroxylon – Red-flowered Ironbark

                           iii.       Remediation of the turning space within the front setback with native and indigenous species. 

iv.   The Acacia species to be complimented by Goodenia ovata and Correa reflexa.

v.    Adjacent to the northern fence line the viburnum is to be reduced and replaced with indigenous shrubs such as Cassinia longifolia – shiny cassinia or Kunzea leptospermoides – Burgan.

vi.   The replacement of the Clivia sp. Within the front yard with Poa morrisii – Velvet Tussock Grass or Themeda triandra – Kangaroo Grass.  These grasses should be planted with Kennedia prostrata – Running Postman. 

vii.  Driveway to be constructed with permeable materials and reference to all weather hard sealed driveway deleted.

h)    Finished floor levels must be provided in accordance with a current Report and Consent – Land Liable to Flooding.

i)     The level of fill on site must not impede overland flows.

j)     Remove door between the garage and laundry or provide 300 millimetre step from the garage to the laundry.

All of the above must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  Once approved these plans must always accord with the endorsed plan and must not be altered or modified without the further written consent of the Responsible Authority. 

2.    The layout of the site and the size, design and location of the buildings and works permitted must always accord with the endorsed plan and must not be altered or modified without the further written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3.    No building or works must be commenced (and no trees or vegetation are to be removed) until a landscape plan prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person or firm has been submitted to and endorsed by the Responsible Authority.  This plan when endorsed shall form part of this permit.  This plan shall show:

a)    A survey of all existing vegetation, abutting street trees, natural features and vegetation.

b)    Buildings, outbuildings and trees in neighbouring lots that would affect the landscape design.

c)    Planting within and around the perimeter of the site comprising trees and shrubs capable of:

i.     Providing a complete garden scheme,

ii.    Softening the building bulk,

                           iii.       Providing some upper canopy for landscape perspective,

iv.   Minimising the potential of any overlooking between habitable rooms of adjacent dwellings.

d)    A schedule of the botanical name of all trees and shrubs proposed to be retained and those to be removed incorporating any relevant requirements of Condition 1.

e)    The proposed design features such as paths, paving, lawn and mulch.

f)     A planting schedule of all proposed vegetation (trees, shrubs and ground covers) which includes, botanical names, common names, pot size, mature size and total quantities of each plant.

Landscaping in accordance with this approved plan and schedule must be completed before the development is occupied.

Once approved these plans become the endorsed plans of this permit.

4.    The garden areas shown on the endorsed plan must only be used as gardens and must be maintained in a proper, tidy and healthy condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  Should any tree or shrub be removed or destroyed it must be replaced by a tree or shrub of a similar size and variety.

5.    Prior to commencement of any building or demolition works on the land, Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) must be established on the subject site and nature strip and maintained during, and until completion of, all buildings and works including landscaping, around the following trees in accordance with the distances and measures specified below, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

a)    Tree Protection Zone distances:

i.     Tree 3 (Corymbia citriodora) – 13 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

ii.    Tree 4 (Corymbia citriodora) – 6.2 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

                           iii.       Tree 6 (Grevillea robusta) – 2.5 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

                            iv.       Tree 7 (Grevillea robusta) – 2.0 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

v.    Tree 12 (Corymbia citriodora) – 7.8 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

vi.   Tree 16 (Melaleuca linariifolia) – 6.6 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

                          vii.       Tree 18 (Tristaniopsis laurina) – 2.4 metre radius from the centre of the tree base. 

                         viii.       Tree 19 (Lagerstroemia indica) – 2.0 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

ix.   Tree 26 (Acer negundo) – 9.1 metre radius from the centre of the tree base. 

x.    Tree 27 (Acer negundo) – 6.6 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

xi.   Tree 28 (Photinia robusta) – 2.3 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

xii.  Tree 29 (Brachychiton acerifolius) – 4.8 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

xiii. Tree 30 (Quercus palustris) – 10.2 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

xiv.  Tree 31 (Jacaranda mimosifolia) – 2.6 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

xv.   Tree 41 (shrub) – 2.0 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

b)    Tree Protection Zone measures are to be established in accordance with Australian Standard 4970-2009 and are to include the following:

i.   Erection of solid chain mesh or similar type fencing at a minimum height of 1.8 metres in height held in place with concrete feet.

ii.  Signage placed around the outer edge of perimeter the fencing identifying the area as a TPZ. The signage should be visible from within the development, with the lettering complying with AS 1319.

                           iii.   Mulch across the surface of the TPZ to a depth of 100 millimetres and undertake/ provide supplementary watering/ irrigation within the TPZ, prior and during any works performed.

iv. No excavation, constructions works or activities, grade changes, surface treatments or storage of materials of any kind are permitted within the TPZ unless otherwise approved within this permit or further approved in writing by the Responsible Authority.

v.  All supports and bracing should be outside the TPZ and any excavation for supports or bracing should avoid damaging roots where possible.

vi. No trenching is allowed within the TPZ for the installation of utility services unless tree sensitive installation methods such as boring have been approved by the Responsible Authority.

                          vii.   Where construction is approved within the TPZ, fencing and mulching should be placed at the outer point of the construction area.

                         viii.   Where there are approved works within the TPZ, it may only be reduced to the required amount by an authorized person only during approved construction within the TPZ, and must be restored in accordance with the above requirements at all other times.

6.    During construction of any buildings, or during other works, the following tree protection requirements are to be adhered to, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

a)    A Project Arborist must be appointed by the Applicant or Builder.  Project Arborist qualifications must read ‘Arboriculture’ for example ‘Diploma in Horticulture (Arboriculture)’.  The Project Arborist must have a minimum Diploma qualification in arboriculture to be appointed as the Project Arborist.

b)    The Project Arborist must supervise all approved works within and adjacent to the TPZs of Trees 3, 4, 6, 7, 12, 16, 18, 19, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 41.  The Project Arborist must ensure that all buildings and works (including site demolition) within the TPZs of the trees do not adversely impact their health or stability now or into the future.

c)    The Driveway where within the TPZs of Trees 3 and 4 must be constructed above the existing soil grade, using porous materials that allows water to penetrate through the surface and into the soil profile.  There must be no grade change within greater than 10 percent of the TPZs and no roots within the SRZs or greater than 40 millimetres in diameter within the TPZs are to be cut or damaged during any part of the construction process.

d)    All buildings and works for the demolition of the site and construction of the development (as shown on the endorsed plans) must not alter the existing ground level or topography of the land within greater than 10 percent of the TPZs of Trees 12, 16, 18, 19, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 41.

e)    For Trees 6, 7, 12, 16, 18, 19, 26, 7, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 41 no roots greater than 40 millimetres in diameter are to be cut or damaged during any part of the construction process.

f)     No trenching is allowed within the TPZs of Trees 3, 4, 6, 7, 12, 16, 18, 19,26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 41 for the installation of utility services.  All utility services must be bored to a depth of 600millimetres below natural ground level where within the TPZs of these trees.  The entering points for the boring works must be outside the TPZs.

g)    The Project Arborist and Builder must ensure that TPZ Fencing Conditions and the Tree Protection Measures for Trees 3, 4, 12, 16, 18, 19, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 41 are being adhered to throughout the entire building process, including site demolition, levelling, and landscape works.

7.    The applicant is required to contact Council’s Planning Enforcement Officer in writing within three (3) months of planting to allow a site inspection of the replacement canopy trees.

8.    All stormwater drains and on-site detention systems are to be connected to the legal point of discharge to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the occupation of the building/s. 

9.    Stormwater that could adversely affect any adjacent land must not be discharged from the subject site onto the surface of the adjacent land.

10.   The Applicant/ Owner is responsible to pay for all costs associated with reinstatement and/or alterations to Council or other Public Authority assets as a result of the development.  The Applicant/ Owner is responsible to obtain all relevant permits and consents from Council at least seven (7) days prior to the commencement of any works on the land and is to obtain prior specific written approval for any works involving the alteration of Council or other Public Authority assets.  Adequate protection is to be provided to Council’s infrastructure prior to works commencing and during the construction process.

11.   The existing street trees must not be removed or damaged except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

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

a)    The development is not commenced within two (2) years from the date of issue of this permit;

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

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing pursuant to the provisions of Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

C.    Has made this decision having particular regard to the requirements of Sections 58, 59, 60 and 61 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.


 

Council Resolution

Moved by Cr Massoud, Seconded by Cr Lane

That Council:

A.    Being the Responsible Authority, having caused Application WH/2020/838 for 74 Main Street, BLACKBURN (LOT 3 LP 17854) to be advertised and having received and noted the objections is of the opinion that the granting of a Planning Permit for the construction of single dwelling, removal of trees and buildings and works within 4m of trees (SLO2) is acceptable and should not unreasonably impact the amenity of adjacent properties.

B.    Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit under the Whitehorse Planning Scheme to the land described as 74 Main Street, BLACKBURN (LOT 3 LP 17854) for the construction of single dwelling, removal of trees and buildings and works within 4m of trees (SLO2), subject to the following conditions:

1.    Before the development starts, or vegetation removed, amended plans must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority in a digital format.  When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit.  The plans must be drawn to scale, and be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show:

a)    The locations of the Structural Root Zone and Tree Protection Zones described in Condition 5, with all nominated trees clearly identified and numbered on both the site and landscape plans and the requirements of Conditions 5 and 6 to be annotated on the development plan and landscape plan.

b)    The retention of Trees 3, 4, 6, 7 and 26 along with their TPZs, SRZs and tree numbers as per the submitted arborist report.

c)    The location of all service trenches to serve the dwelling (for example: gas, water, electricity, stormwater, sewerage, telecommunications), the location of protected trees within four (4) metres of these trenches (if any).  The service trenches must be located, hand dug or bored to ensure the protected trees are not damaged, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

d)    Deletion of the turning area within the front setback, with remediation in accordance with Condition 1g). 

e)    Location of retaining wall to retain the fill required to the south and west elevation. 

f)     An accurate calculation of the garden area provision (as defined by Clause 73.01 of the Planning Scheme) for the proposed development as required by Clause 32.09-4 of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.  The denoted Garden Area needs to be clearly hatched and demonstrated on a scaled Site Plan.

g)    The landscape plan to be amended to show:

                           i.       The provision of at least four (4) new indigenous or native trees capable of reaching a mature height of 15 metres.

                         ii.       Replacement tree species to be selected from the following list:

·       Eucalyptus mannifera – Brittle Gum

·       Eucalyptus melliodora – Yellow Box

·       Eucalyptus ognate – Narrow-leafed Peppermint

·       Eucalyptus sideroxylon – Red-flowered Ironbark

                        iii.       Remediation of the turning space within the front setback with native and indigenous species. 

                        iv.       The Acacia species to be complimented by Goodenia ovata and Correa reflexa.

                          v.       Adjacent to the northern fence line the viburnum is to be reduced and replaced with indigenous shrubs such as Cassinia longifolia – shiny cassinia or Kunzea leptospermoides – Burgan.

                        vi.       The replacement of Asparagus densiflorus – Asparagus Fern within the frontage with Banksia blechnifolia – Banksia and within the side setbacks with Goodenia ovata ‘Gold Cover’.

                       vii.       The replacement of the Clivia sp. Within the front yard with Poa morrisii – Velvet Tussock Grass or Themeda triandra – Kangaroo Grass.  These grasses should be planted with Kennedia prostrata – Running Postman. 

                      viii.       Driveway to be constructed with permeable materials and reference to all weather hard sealed driveway deleted.

                        ix.       The pathway along the southern side boundary up to the side gate, must be constructed of the same permeable materials as the driveway. 

h)    Finished floor levels must be provided in accordance with a current Report and Consent – Land Liable to Flooding.

i)     The level of fill on site must not impede overland flows.

j)     Remove door between the garage and laundry or provide 300 millimetre step from the garage to the laundry.

All of the above must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  Once approved these plans must always accord with the endorsed plan and must not be altered or modified without the further written consent of the Responsible Authority. 

2.    The layout of the site and the size, design and location of the buildings and works permitted must always accord with the endorsed plan and must not be altered or modified without the further written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3.    No building or works must be commenced (and no trees or vegetation are to be removed) until a landscape plan prepared by a suitably qualified and experienced person or firm has been submitted to and endorsed by the Responsible Authority.  This plan when endorsed shall form part of this permit.  This plan shall show:

a)    A survey of all existing vegetation, abutting street trees, natural features and vegetation.

b)    Buildings, outbuildings and trees in neighbouring lots that would affect the landscape design.

c)    Planting within and around the perimeter of the site comprising trees and shrubs capable of:

i.     Providing a complete garden scheme,

ii.    Softening the building bulk,

                           iii.       Providing some upper canopy for landscape perspective,

iv.   Minimising the potential of any overlooking between habitable rooms of adjacent dwellings.

d)    A schedule of the botanical name of all trees and shrubs proposed to be retained and those to be removed incorporating any relevant requirements of Condition 1.

e)    The proposed design features such as paths, paving, lawn and mulch.

f)     A planting schedule of all proposed vegetation (trees, shrubs and ground covers) which includes, botanical names, common names, pot size, mature size and total quantities of each plant.

Landscaping in accordance with this approved plan and schedule must be completed before the development is occupied.

Once approved these plans become the endorsed plans of this permit.

4.    The garden areas shown on the endorsed plan must only be used as gardens and must be maintained in a proper, tidy and healthy condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.  Should any tree or shrub be removed or destroyed it must be replaced by a tree or shrub of a similar size and variety.

5.    Prior to commencement of any building or demolition works on the land, Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) must be established on the subject site and nature strip and maintained during, and until completion of, all buildings and works including landscaping, around the following trees in accordance with the distances and measures specified below, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

a)    Tree Protection Zone distances:

                              i.       Tree 3 (Corymbia citriodora) – 13 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

                             ii.       Tree 4 (Corymbia citriodora) – 6.2 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

                           iii.       Tree 6 (Grevillea robusta) – 2.5 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

                            iv.       Tree 7 (Grevillea robusta) – 2.0 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

                             v.       Tree 12 (Corymbia citriodora) – 7.8 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

                            vi.       Tree 16 (Melaleuca linariifolia) – 6.6 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

                          vii.       Tree 18 (Tristaniopsis laurina) – 2.4 metre radius from the centre of the tree base. 

                         viii.       Tree 19 (Lagerstroemia indica) – 2.0 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

                            ix.       Tree 26 (Acer negundo) – 9.1 metre radius from the centre of the tree base. 

                             x.       Tree 27 (Acer negundo) – 6.6 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

                            xi.       Tree 28 (Photinia robusta) – 2.3 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

                          xii.       Tree 29 (Brachychiton acerifolius) – 4.8 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

                         xiii.       Tree 30 (Quercus palustris) – 10.2 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

                         xiv.       Tree 31 (Jacaranda mimosifolia) – 2.6 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

                           xv.       Tree 41 (shrub) – 2.0 metre radius from the centre of the tree base.

b)    Tree Protection Zone measures are to be established in accordance with Australian Standard 4970-2009 and are to include the following:

                              i.       Erection of solid chain mesh or similar type fencing at a minimum height of 1.8 metres in height held in place with concrete feet.

                             ii.       Signage placed around the outer edge of perimeter the fencing identifying the area as a TPZ. The signage should be visible from within the development, with the lettering complying with AS 1319.

                           iii.       Mulch across the surface of the TPZ to a depth of 100 millimetres and undertake/ provide supplementary watering/ irrigation within the TPZ, prior and during any works performed.

                            iv.       No excavation, constructions works or activities, grade changes, surface treatments or storage of materials of any kind are permitted within the TPZ unless otherwise approved within this permit or further approved in writing by the Responsible Authority.

                             v.       All supports and bracing should be outside the TPZ and any excavation for supports or bracing should avoid damaging roots where possible.

                            vi.       No trenching is allowed within the TPZ for the installation of utility services unless tree sensitive installation methods such as boring have been approved by the Responsible Authority.

                          vii.       Where construction is approved within the TPZ, fencing and mulching should be placed at the outer point of the construction area.

                      viii.       Where there are approved works within the TPZ, it may only be reduced to the required amount by an authorized person only during approved construction within the TPZ, and must be restored in accordance with the above requirements at all other times.

6.    During construction of any buildings, or during other works, the following tree protection requirements are to be adhered to, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

a)    A Project Arborist must be appointed by the Applicant or Builder.  Project Arborist qualifications must read ‘Arboriculture’ for example ‘Diploma in Horticulture (Arboriculture)’.  The Project Arborist must have a minimum Diploma qualification in arboriculture to be appointed as the Project Arborist.

b)    The Project Arborist must supervise all approved works within and adjacent to the TPZs of Trees 3, 4, 6, 7, 12, 16, 18, 19, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 41.  The Project Arborist must ensure that all buildings and works (including site demolition) within the TPZs of the trees do not adversely impact their health or stability now or into the future.

c)    The Driveway where within the TPZs of Trees 3 and 4 must be constructed above the existing soil grade, using porous materials that allows water to penetrate through the surface and into the soil profile.  There must be no grade change within greater than 10 percent of the TPZs and no roots within the SRZs or greater than 40 millimetres in diameter within the TPZs are to be cut or damaged during any part of the construction process.

d)    All buildings and works for the demolition of the site and construction of the development (as shown on the endorsed plans) must not alter the existing ground level or topography of the land within greater than 10 percent of the TPZs of Trees 12, 16, 18, 19, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 41.

e)    For Trees 6, 7, 12, 16, 18, 19, 26, 7, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 41 no roots greater than 40 millimetres in diameter are to be cut or damaged during any part of the construction process.

f)     No trenching is allowed within the TPZs of Trees 3, 4, 6, 7, 12, 16, 18, 19,26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 41 for the installation of utility services.  All utility services must be bored to a depth of 600millimetres below natural ground level where within the TPZs of these trees.  The entering points for the boring works must be outside the TPZs.

g)    The Project Arborist and Builder must ensure that TPZ Fencing Conditions and the Tree Protection Measures for Trees 3, 4, 12, 16, 18, 19, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 41 are being adhered to throughout the entire building process, including site demolition, levelling, and landscape works.

7.    The applicant is required to contact Council’s Planning Enforcement Officer in writing within three (3) months of planting to allow a site inspection of the replacement canopy trees.

8.    All stormwater drains and on-site detention systems are to be connected to the legal point of discharge to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the occupation of the building/s. 

9.    Stormwater that could adversely affect any adjacent land must not be discharged from the subject site onto the surface of the adjacent land.

10.   The Applicant/ Owner is responsible to pay for all costs associated with reinstatement and/or alterations to Council or other Public Authority assets as a result of the development.  The Applicant/ Owner is responsible to obtain all relevant permits and consents from Council at least seven (7) days prior to the commencement of any works on the land and is to obtain prior specific written approval for any works involving the alteration of Council or other Public Authority assets.  Adequate protection is to be provided to Council’s infrastructure prior to works commencing and during the construction process.

11.   The existing street trees must not be removed or damaged except with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

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

a)    The development is not commenced within two (2) years from the date of issue of this permit;

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

The Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing pursuant to the provisions of Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

C.     Has made this decision having particular regard to the requirements of Sections 58, 59, 60 and 61 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987

.Carried Unanimously

 


 

MELWAYS REFERENCE 47 J12

 

Applicant:                Alpha Building Group

Zoning:                    Neighbourhood Residential Zone, Schedule 1 (NRZ1)

Overlays:                 Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 2 (SLO2)

Relevant Clauses:   

Clause 11            Settlement

Clause 12            Environment and Landscape Values

Clause 15            Built Environment and Heritage

Clause 21.05       Environment

Clause 21.06       Housing

Clause 22.03       Residential Development

Clause 22.04       Tree Conservation

Clause 32.01       Neighbourhood Residential Zone, Schedule 1

Clause 42.03      Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 2

Clause 65                Decision Guidelines

Ward:                      Cootamundra

 

 

 

 

 

Subject site

 

20 Objector Properties

(11 outside of map) 

é

North

BACKGROUND

History

Planning Permit WH/2015/583 was issued for the construction of two double storey dwellings and removal of vegetation within a Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 2 on 26 September 2016.  An amendment to the permit was issued 18 June 2018.  The above permit has recently expired.

 


 

The Site and Surrounds

 

The subject site is located on the west side of Main Street, approximately 40 metres north of Molleton Street and approximately 60 metres south of Haydn Street.  The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 24.38 metres to Main Street, a depth of 46.29 metres and comprises an overall area of 1,147 square metres. 

 

The site contains a single storey brick dwelling with a skillion roof form.  A crossover is located to the south-east corner of the lot.  The site has a slope of approximately 2.6 metres falling from the north-east corner to the south-west corner. A 1.83 metres wide easement extends across the rear of the lot. 

 

The arborist report submitted with the application, prepared by TMC Reports, dated 4 July 2020, provides an assessment of 42 trees.  Trees 1 and 2 are street trees, Trees 3 to 11, 13 to 15, 17, 20 to 26, 32 to 40 and 42 are located within the subject site and Trees 12, 16, 18, 19, 27 to 31 and 41 are located within adjoining lots. 

 

Of the assessed trees, those numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 38 are protected under Schedule 2 to the Significant Landscape Overlay. 

 

The subject site is located within a residential area and is located within the Bush Environment, Limited Change Neighbourhood Character Precinct. 

 

Within the immediate context, the following is noted:

 

North

The adjoining lot to the north, at 72 Main Street, contains a single storey brick dwelling with a tiled pitched roof. The dwelling is setback 8.62 metres to Main Street and a minimum of 1.7 metres from the common boundary with the subject site.

 

South

The adjoining lot to the south, at 76 Main Street, contains a single storey brick dwelling with a tiled pitched roof.  The dwelling is setback approximately four metres to Main Street and approximately 8.2 metres to the common boundary with the subject site.

 

The other adjoining lot to the south, at 2/1A Molleton Street, contains a single storey brick dwelling with a tiled pitched roof. The dwelling is setback approximately 4.2 metres to the common boundary with the subject site.

 

West

The adjoining lot to the west, at 1 Molleton Street, contains a single storey weatherboard dwelling with an area of secluded private open space (SPOS) orientated towards the subject site.

 

Within the remainder of Main Street, the predominant housing style is single storey detached dwellings.  Most roof styles are pitched, with some evidence of flat roof forms.  Most dwellings are of brick construction (some with rendered finishes) with some examples of weatherboard cladding. The appearance of vegetated garden areas around buildings is a notable feature of the area. 

 


 

PROPOSAL

 

The application proposes the construction of a new single storey dwelling (replacing the dwelling on site) with associated tree removal. The key features of the proposal include:

·       The dwelling is setback between 9 and 9.9 metres to the Main Street boundary, a minimum of 2.9 metres to the south boundary, a minimum of 1.2 metres to the north boundary and 8.1 metres to the west boundary.

·       The floor layout provides for an entrance, an open plan kitchen, dining and family room, four bedrooms, bathrooms and ensuites, separate rumpus room, bike room and laundry. 

·       Vehicle access is via the existing crossover and permeable driveway to a double-width garage. 

·       A west-facing deck area accessible via the family room and a north-facing alfresco area accessible via the family and dining room. 

·       A total floor area (including garage, porch and alfresco areas) of 424.96 square metres.

·       A site cut (a maximum of approximately 800 millimetres) and fill (a maximum of approximately 1.5 metres) to create a level area. 

·       External materials include rendered hebel cladding (black to front façade and brown to side and rear elevations) tile cladding to the hipped roof form (black colour), feature tile cladding to front façade (rust colour porcelain tile). 

·       A maximum building height of 5.5 metres. 

·       A site coverage of 37.05 percent.

·       A site permeability of 62.95 percent.

Planning Controls

Neighbourhood Residential Zone, Schedule 1 (NRZ1)

Under Schedule 1 of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, a permit is not required to construct a single dwelling as the lot size is greater than 500 square metres.

An application to construct a dwelling must provide a minimum garden area of 35 percent (based on the lot size of over 650 square metres).  An assessment of the plans indicates an approximate area of 583 square metres or 48.6 percent minimum garden area.  This is not clearly demonstrated, therefore will be addressed via a condition of the permit. 

Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 2

Under Schedule 2 to the Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO2) a permit is required for the removal of a tree having a single trunk circumference of 0.5 metres or more at a height of one metre above ground level. 


 

A permit is required to remove Trees 6, 10, 14, 15, 21, 23 to 26, 32 to 36 and 38.  A summary of these trees follows:

Table 1

Tree No.

Species

Height

DBH

Significance

Comments

6

Grevillea robusta – Silky Oak

10

0.21

Low

 

10

Grevillea robusta – Silky Oak

11

0.34

Low

-

14

Pittosporum undulatum – Sweet pittosporum

8

0.21

Low

Environmental weed

Existing driveway and garage located within TPZ

15

Pittosporum eugenioides – Lemonwood

9

0.19

Low

Co-dominant stems of 0.5m above ground level.   Decay present within stems

21

Acacia baileyana – Cootamundra wattle

9w

0.22

Low – environmental weed

Leaning to the east.  Existing garage and dwelling located within TPZ

23

Pittosporum undulatum – Sweet pittosporum

9

0.29

Low – environmental weed

 

24

Corymbia citriodora – lemon scented gum

19

0.33

Moderate

Extended limbs – failed stem at base

Sparse canopy mass

25

Ligustrum lucidum – Broadleaf privet

9

0.23

Low – environmental weed

Lopped stems at base. 

26

Acer negundo – Box Elder

9

0.76

Low – environmental weed

Existing shed located within TPZ

32

Pittosporum undulatum – Sweet pittosporum

11

0.34

Low – environmental weed

Vine at base of tree

33

Acer negundo – Box Elder

8

0.30

Low – environmental weed

Vine at base of tree

34

Ligustrum lucidum – Broadleaf privet

9

0.28

Low

Multi stemmed at ground level

35

Ligustrum lucidum – Broadleaf privet

9

0.20

Low

Multi stemmed at ground level

36

Ligustrum lucidum – Broadleaf privet

9

0.20

Low – environmental weed

3 trees growing from one root plate

38

Prunus lusitanica – Prunus lusitanica

7

0.20

Low

 

Source – TMC Reports

Under Clause 42.03-2 a permit is required to undertake buildings and works within four metres of protected trees.  This includes Trees 3, 4, 16, 18, 30 and 31. 

Trees 11, 13, 17, 20, 39 40 and 42 do not trigger a permit for removal due to being under 0.5 metres in diameter at breast height (DBBH) or dead. 

A DBH has been provided for Trees 5, 8 and 9 therefore they are assessed as requiring a permit.

Schedule 2 to the Overlay sets out a number of ‘permit triggers’ for buildings and works.  The following table sets out the ‘permit triggers’ for this proposal. 

 

Permit requirement

Measure

A permit is not required to construct a building or construct or carry out works provided all of the following is met:

The building is no higher than two storeys or 9 metres.

The dwelling is single storey and not higher than 9 metres

No permit required

The building is set back at least 9 metres from the front boundary for a single storey building or 11 metres for a two-storey building

The single storey dwelling is setback a minimum of 9 metres from the front boundary.

No permit required

The building is set back at least 3 metres from a boundary to a road at least 4 metres wide (other than the front boundary) for a building wall height of no more than 3.6 metres or 3 metres plus half the building wall height if the building wall height is more than 3.6 metres.

N/A

The building is set back at least 1.2 metres from any other boundary for a building wall height of no more than 3.6 metres or 1.5 metres plus half the building wall height if the building wall height is more than 3.6 metres

The setback to the south boundary is between 2.9 and three metres.  The overall wall height is 4.7 metres above natural ground level. 

The required setback is 3.85 metres (950 millimetre variation sought). 

Permit required

The building is less than 33 per cent of the site area at ground level and 25 per cent of the site area at first floor level, excluding hard surfaces and impervious areas.

The site coverage is 424.96 square metres (37 percent)

Permit required

Comprising hard surfaced and impervious areas (including tennis courts and swimming pools, but excluding buildings) are less than 17 per cent of the site area.

Hard surfacing is calculated at 118 square metres (22 percent).

Permit required

The total area of all buildings and hard surfaces and impervious areas (including tennis courts and swimming pools are less than 50 per cent of the site area. 

The total building and paving hard surface coverage is 59 percent

Permit required

CONSULTATION

Public Notice

The application was advertised by mail to the adjacent and nearby property owners and occupiers and by erecting notices to the Main Street frontage.  Following the advertising period 20 objections were received.


 

The issues raised are summarised as follows:

·       The proposal contravenes the purpose and objectives of the applicable planning controls.

·       Consistency with neighbourhood character objectives.

·       Excessive tree loss.

·       Impact to trees within adjoining lots.

·       No landscape plan.

·       Lack of replacement tree planting and overall landscaping opportunity

·       Over development of the lot

·       Demolition of a heritage dwelling

Consultation Forum

A Consultation Forum was held online via Zoom on 28 January 2021, chaired by Councillor Munroe.  Eleven (11) objectors, the applicant and Council’s planning officers attended the meeting during which the issues were explored.  Key points during the forum meeting included the amount of tree removal and available room for landscaping. 

After the forum meeting, the applicant provided a landscape plan, prepared by Sun ‘n’ Shade P/L, dated 9 February 2021 Revision A.  The plan includes changes agreed to at the forum by the applicant which are the retention of Trees 3 and 4 within the front setback, a new Brachychiton acerifolois (Illawarra Flame Tree) in the north-east corner of the site, four Acer palmatum (Japanese Maple) adjacent to the side (north) boundary, retention of Tree 26 Acer negundo (Box Elder) within the rear yard and a new Acer X Fremanii (Autumn Blaze) within the north-west corner of the site. 

The landscape plan was re-referred to Council’s Planning Arborist to review additional tree retention, including Trees 6, 7 and 10 within the front setback (see discussion below). 

As agreed at the consultation forum the landscape plan was also circulated by email to all objectors.  Two responses were received expressing dissatisfaction with the landscape plan, and advising that their concerns remain in place.

Referrals

External

The application was not required to be referred under Section 55 of the Act to any relevant external departments in accordance with Clause 66 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme.

Internal

Assets Engineer

The application was referred to Councils Asset Engineering who noted that an application for Report and Consent – Land Liable to Flooding was lodged with Council 28 January 2020, where consent was provided for finished floor levels.  A second application was lodged 17 February 2021 and is still being assessed.  The following comments/ recommendations have been provided:

·       ‘The plans submitted with the Report and Consent – Land Liable to Flooding are different from the plans submitted with the Planning application.  The Planning application shows an increase in the excavation levels, therefore making the Report and Consent Land Liable to Flooding non-compliant with the Building Regulations and rendering the Report and Consent invalid.

·       The plans also show a large volume of fill on the site.  This fill will impede overland flow and cause an increase in flood levels in the surrounding properties.   The fill must be removed.

·       The property will also need to drain their stormwater through downstream properties to the legal point of discharge.

·       Remove door between garage and laundry or provide 300 millimetre step to mitigate flooding of habitable areas’.

 

Planning Arborist

 

Council’s arborist has assessed the application and provided the following response:

·       The plans must be amended to show the retention of Trees 3 and 4, along with their TPZs, SRZs and tree numbers.

These trees could be retained with no changes to the design proposal.  The plans show a new porous driveway being constructed within the footprint of the existing driveway.  This is ideal, as the existing driveway sits between these two trees.  Therefore, not only does the design response lend itself to the retention of these tree, so does the proposed surface treatment within their TPZs.

·       The area of encroachment into the TPZ of trees within adjoining lots includes:

o   Tree 12 – 0%

o   Tree 16 – 9.9%

o   Tree 18 – 0%

o   Tree 19 – 0%

o   Tree 27 – 0%

o   Tree 28 – 0%

o   Tree 29 – 0%

o   Tree 30 – 0%

o   Tree 31 – 0%

o   Tree 41 – 0%

 

Based on the levels of encroachment, with conditions the proposal can be supported in relation to these trees.  Tree protection conditions are to be included within any permit issued. 

 

Post the Consultation Forum, Council’s arborist also reviewed the option of retaining Trees 6, 7 and 10 (all Silky Oaks) within the front setback.  The following advice has been provided:

·       Trees 6 and 7 can be retained, if they are managed correctly through mulching and watering.  This will improve their health and continue their growth.

·       Tree 10 is too close to the site cut, and structural roots would be damaged therefore it cannot be retained. 

Tree Education Officer

The application was referred to Council’s Tree Education Officer, who reviewed the landscape plan.  Concern was raised with regard to the lack of native and indigenous species across the site, due to the site being in the SLO2.  The following modifications have been recommended:

·       ‘The best opportunity for a large canopy tree is in the location of Tree 33 and where the location of the Flame Tree is currently proposed.  The following trees should be considered:

o   Brittle Gum – Eucalyptus mannifera

o   Yellow Box – Eucalyptus melliodora

o   Narrow-leafed Peppermint Gum – Eucalyptus ognate

o   Red-flowered Ironbark – Eucalyptus sideroxylon’

Council’s Tree Education Officer is also supportive of the absence of lawn within the front setback, as this will allow for a greater diversity of plants.  Given that the Grevillea robusta trees are to be retained, it has also been recommended that the formality created by the row of Acacia ognate along the front boundary, be reduced and that the Acacias be placed in clumps where a clear view over the top is desired.  Other recommendations include:

‘Indigenous plants can be used to compliment the natives in shadier areas such as Goodenia ovata and Correa reflexa.  Along the northern fence line, reducing the number of viburnum will create space for the indigenous shrubs such as Cassinia longifolia or Kunzea leptospermoides. 

·       Replacement the Clivia sp. Within the front yard with an indigenous grass species.  Poa morrisii – Velvet tussock grass and Kennedia prostrata – running postman will add some colour’.

To further enhance the bush environment setting, it is recommended the turning area within the front setback be removed and replaced with further planting (without removing access to the front entrance). 

These modifications to the landscape plan will be addressed via permit conditions.

ASSESSMENT

Consistency with State and Local Planning Policies

The central issue surrounding this application focuses on whether the proposal appropriately meets the preferred neighbourhood character under the Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 2 (SLO2), which in this area seeks minimal change in a landscape setting.  Such policy does not envisage no development, rather, seeks to ensure development is sympathetic to the existing and preferred character. 

The following provides an outline of the relevant local planning provisions.

Clause 21.06 (Housing) is informed by Council’s Housing Strategy 2014.  It outlines how the municipality will contribute to the State’s housing objectives for Metropolitan Melbourne.  It identifies three categories of change.  The subject site is included within a ‘limited change’ area.  These areas enable specific characteristics of the neighbourhood, environment or landscape to be protected through greater controls over new housing development.  These areas represent the lowest degree of intended residential growth in Whitehorse.  Under this clause, the subject site is located within a ‘Limited Change Area’.

Clause 22.03 (Residential Development) seeks to ensure new development reflects the minimal change designation of housing policy and contributes to the preferred character for this neighbourhood.  Under this clause the site is included within a Bush Environment precinct. 

Clause 22.04 (Tree Conservation) encourages new development to minimise the loss of significant trees and promotes regeneration of tall trees by ensuring sufficient space exists on new development for re-planting of tall trees.  The policy sets ‘performance standards’ for the retention and regeneration of trees.  That aim to assist in the management of the City’s tree canopy by ensuring that new development minimises the loss of significant trees.  These local policies enable specific characteristics of the neighbourhood, environment and landscape to be protected through greater control over new development.  Moreover, architectural, urban design and landscape outcomes must positively contribute to the local urban character whilst minimising impacts on neighbouring properties.

These policies, amongst other Local level planning policies, justify the zoning of the site and surrounds in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, Schedule 1 (NRZ1).  The purpose of this zone places emphasis on neighbourhood character and its associated policies.

The proposed development is a replacement of one single storey dwelling with another single storey dwelling, which is consistent with State and Local Policy for areas designated for limited change.  The scale, siting, vegetation retention and replacement landscaping and how it responds to the context of the site, as well as the preferred neighbourhood character, is consistent with the objectives and intent of Council’s local policies.  For developments within Limited Change areas and the Bush Environment Precinct. 

Zoning and Overlays

The NRZ1 encourages further curtailing of the ResCode standards for new dwellings by specifying a lesser site coverage and greater permeability, discouraging the construction of any walls on boundaries, and specifying greater landscaping, side setbacks and greater private open space than otherwise required under the ResCode standards.  The zone’s decision guidelines require more stringent consideration of the provision or retention of vegetation than would otherwise apply.

The presence of the SLO2 does not negate the ability of a site to be developed or re-developed for residential purposes, however the hierarchy of the SLO2 controls require a more sensitive approach.  It places a higher level of expectation on how built form should respond to the site, landscape and environmental values.  The decision guidelines within the SLO2 are designed to guide and shape new development to ensure the environmental and landscape elements valued by the community, continue to be protected.  Any new development should respect and respond to these performance objectives.

The proposed dwelling has sought to respond to these measures through a site responsive design that creates appropriately landscaped areas through the provision of a single storey built form.  Whilst the dwelling has a dark façade and roof, it is considered to be an acceptable response to the existing housing stock and character of the surrounding area.  With the use of a single story form combined with setbacks that respond appropriately to the surrounding built form, articulated façade features, provision of a pitched tiled roof form, retention of existing vegetation where appropriate and appropriate spacing for landscaping and replanting, the decision guidelines of Clause 22.04 and the NRZ1 are considered to be met.

Built Form

The subject site is identified as being located within a Bush Environment Character Precinct.  The City of Whitehorse Neighbourhood Character Study2014 summarises the existing architectural style in the area asmixed’ and includes ‘pre-WWII (including heritage significant bungalow dwellings), post-war, 1940s, 1950s and contemporary infill styles’.  In terms of the landscape settingGardens are bushy and informal with predominantly native/indigenous species and large canopy trees.  The appearance of vegetated garden areas around buildings is an important feature of this precinct’.

Achieving a preferred character for the area is guided by the ‘Preferred Character Statement’ outlined within Clause 22.03-5.  The preferred character setting for the Bush Environment Setting is:

‘The streetscapes will be dominated by vegetation with subservient buildings frequently hidden from view behind vegetation and tall trees. The buildings will nestle into the topography of the landscape and be surrounded by bush-like native and indigenous gardens, including large indigenous trees in the private and public domains.

Buildings and hard surfaces will occupy a very low proportion of the site. They will be sited to reflect the prevailing front, rear and side setbacks. The larger rear setbacks will accommodate substantial vegetation including large canopy trees. The bushy environs are complemented by street trees and a lack of front fencing. Properties abutting and close to creeks and lake environs will contain more indigenous trees and shrubs that act in part as wildlife corridors.

This precinct is identified for the lowest scale of intended residential growth in Whitehorse (Limited Change area) and the preservation of its significant landscape character and environmental integrity is the highest priority’.

The SLO2 area is recognised as having special significance attributed to the quality of the environment, which includes vegetation notable for its height, density, maturity and high proportion of Australian native trees.  This in turn contributes to the significance of the area as a valuable bird and wildlife habitat. 


 

The Overlay provides a number of landscape objectives to be achieved, which can be summarised as retaining the dominance of vegetation cover.  This is in keeping with the bush character environment.  Encouraging development that is compatible with the character of the area, ensures that a reasonable portion of the lot is free of buildings, to provide for the retention and planting of tall trees.  The SLO2 also includes a number of ‘decision guidelines’ which test a development’s responsiveness to a preferred neighbourhood and landscape character. 

The immediate locality as identified earlier, predominantly provides detached single storey dwellings on a lot.  The proposed development provides a modest footprint with appropriate setbacks from side and rear boundaries and articulated forms.  This leads to an outcome that presents an inconspicuous profile, particularly in a setting of large canopy trees with understorey planting. 

Site Coverage, Permeability and Hard Surfacing

The dwelling site coverage is 37.05 percent, 4.5 percent more than the 33 percent permit trigger under the SLO2.  The site’s permeability is 40.1 percent which meets the varied standard under the zone.  It is noted that this is lower than the 62.95 percent referenced by the applicant, which is due to the inclusion of permeable paving, hard landscaping and decking as permeable area.  However the 40.1 percent permeability is assessed as an appropriate outcome with opportunity for tree retention, whilst new landscaping demonstrates the ability to achieve a preferred character outcome.  Hard surfacing across the site has been calculated at 22 percent, which is higher than the 17 percent permit trigger.  This calculation includes the reversing area, which as previously discussed, will be remediated with landscaping and is assessed as a reasonable reduction.

It is noted that site coverage could have been reduced through the provision of a two storey dwelling, however this would have brought forward its own specific issues.  It is considered the provision of a single storey dwelling is in keeping with the character of the area, which is predominantly single storey dwellings.  By increasing landscaping through conditions on the permit, an acceptable outcome can be achieved.

Setbacks

At its southwest corner the dwelling (Bed 1 and 2) proposes a minimum setback of 2.9 metres to the southern boundary, for an overall height above ground level of 4.7 metres (accounting for approximately 1.4 metres of fill).  This setback triggers a permit, with all other setbacks to side and rear boundaries being within the prescribed limits, referenced under the Overlay.  Across the site, the dwelling does not exceed a wall height of three metres, however this portion of the site requires some fill to accommodate the single level finished floor level.  On balance, this outcome is appropriate, noting ample opportunity for landscape around all elevations.  Adjacent to the southern boundary, 20 Viburnum odoratissimum – sweet viburnum plants are proposed which achieve a height of 2.5 metres.  When mature, these shrubs will provide a green screen to the area of secluded open space to the adjoining lot to the south. 

On the matter of fill it is necessary to nominate how the fill is managed (i.e. retaining walls), so as not to impact on Tree 26 (nominated for retention).  In addition this will address overland flow concerns raised by Asset Engineering, therefore will be included as a Condition 1 requirement.


 

Other attributes of the development that reflect the preferred character outcome include:

·       A front setback that exceeds the front setback pattern established within the immediate setting. 

·       The provision of a single-width crossover, maximising garden space and tree retention across the site’s frontage.

·       Avoiding any boundary development and providing a ground level separation from all boundaries.

·       Offering a material palette that assists in recessing the building within the landscape setting. 

·       Side access gates/ fencing set well behind the front façade, blurring the line between public and private open space.

·       No front fencing that will allow the new garden planting to flow uninterrupted to Main Street.

The above assessment identifies how the proposal can appropriately meet the neighbourhood character objectives of the planning scheme and specifically the SLO2.  On balance, the new dwelling is able to meet the decision guidelines under the overlay and therefore integrate with the preferred neighbourhood character of the Bush Environment Precinct. 

Tree Assessment and Landscaping

This site falls under SLO2.  The Statement of nature and key elements of landscape for this area is:

·       ‘The significance of the area is attributed to the quality of the environment, which includes vegetation notable for its height, density, maturity and high proportion of Australian native trees (Trees 3 and 4 are native). This in turn contributes to the significance of the area as a valuable bird and wildlife habitat’.

As previously discussed the site mainly consists of recognised environmental and/or woody weeds.  However concerns have been raised regarding the proposed landscaping not including enough native species.  This has been addressed by Council’s Tree Education Officer and conditions are to be included if any permit issues to incorporate native species from the canopy, mid-canopy and ground cover.  Providing a more holistic outcome for the site.

In addition, the Landscape character objectives to be achieved include:

·       ‘To retain the dominance of vegetation cover in keeping with the bush character environment.

·       To encourage the retention and regeneration of native vegetation for the protection of wildlife habitat.

·       To ensure that a reasonable proportion of a lot is free of buildings to provide for the planting of tall trees in a natural garden setting.

·       To encourage the development of sympathetic buildings within an envelope, which ensures the maintenance of a tree-dominated landscape.

·       To ensure that buildings and works retain an inconspicuous profile and do not dominate the landscape.

·       To ensure that development is compatible with the character of the area’.

 


 

The application seeks approval for the removal of a number of trees across the site.  For the most part, the trees across the site are exotics and environmental and or woody weeds, however there are some trees that can be successfully incorporated into the development.  Trees 3 and 4 are mature Corymbia citriodora – Lemon scented gum trees located in the south-east corner (front setback) and were proposed to be removed under the application as lodged.  The applicant’s arborist has assessed Trees 3 and 4 as being fair in health and fair to poor in structure.  However, the report also identifies a useful life expectancy (ULE) of 20 plus years.  These trees, as individual specimens and as a pair, provide a very high contribution to the landscape character.  In addition, the street tree, Tree 2, is positioned slightly north of Trees 3 and 4 and provides a ‘green curtain’ at the front of the site.  This will screen the proposed dwelling from the street and will maintain the continuation of tree canopy linking with surrounding trees. As such, these trees have been included for retention into the development.

 

The applicant’s landscape plan also nominates the retention of Tree 26 (Acer negundo – Box elder) within the south-west corner of the lot.  The applicant’s arborist report has assessed the tree as being of moderate retention value and moderate amenity value.  Whilst this tree is listed as an environmental weed on Council’s website, it is mature and does contribute to the landscape setting.  The development would result in a 5.2 percent encroachment to the TPZ of this tree, therefore will not be unreasonably impacted. 

 

It is therefore reasonable that Trees 3, 4, 6, 7 and 26 be retained, and consider that they can be readily retained within the site without unreasonable changes to the proposal.  The retention of these trees will be in keeping with the ‘statement of nature and key elements of the landscape’ and contribute to the bush environment setting. 

The remaining trees (14, 15, 21, 23, 25, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 38) are environmental or woody weeds that are not worthy of retention, and their removal can create space for new more suitable indigenous plantings within the site.  Whilst  appears a large extent of vegetation removal, these species cause negative impact on the natural environment, habitat and biodiversity, so an outcome more consistent with the SLO objectives is to remove these and replacement plant more appropriate species. 

In terms of Tree 24 (Corymbia citriodora – Lemon scented gum), whilst the top of its canopy can be seen from the street, Council’s arborist has confirmed it is in decline and not worthy of retention. A visual inspection of this tree confirms this, and also highlights the number of other existing large canopy trees that form a feature of the landscape on the site and from surrounding properties.

To ensure adequate replanting is achieved, the decision guidelines within the SLO2 recommend an average density of one tree (reaching a height) of over 15 metres to each 150 square metres of site area.  This equates to seven trees within the site.  The landscape plan specifies five Acer palmatum – Japanese Maple, one Acer x fremanii – Autumn Blaze and 1 Brachychiton acerifolius – Illawarra Flame tree, which would provide a total of 11 trees (retaining Trees 3, 4, 6, 7 and 26).  Trees 3, 4 and 26 already exceed a height of 15 metres and Trees 6 and 7 are between nine and 10 metres and do have the potential to reach a height of 15 metres.  The specified trees within the landscape plan do not reach a mature height of 15 metres and do not meet the expectations of providing native and indigenous species.  As previously discussed, this has been addressed by way of conditions, in accordance with recommendations from Council’s Tree Education Officer.


 

Objectors Concerns not Previously Addressed

The following concerns have been raised, many which are addressed in more detail in the above assessment section of the report:

The proposal contravenes the purpose and objectives of the applicable planning controls.

As previously discussed, there are components of the SLO2 that have thresholds which, if not met, trigger the need for a permit. The triggering of a permit does not assume non-compliance, but rather, calls into consideration an assessment of the purpose and objectives of the overlay in the context of what is proposed. In this regard, the southern (side) setback, site coverage and hard surfacing trigger assessment under the SLO2, and have been discussed above.  Hard surfacing will be conditioned to be reduced by four percent in acknowledgement of this element of the proposal being considered beyond what it reasonable under the SLO2.

Consistency with neighbourhood character objectives.

As previously discussed, the proposed development is for a single storey detached dwelling with a pitched tile roof, and is similar in scale, form and size of what is predominantly present along Main Street.  The front setback is over the minimum required and the side and rear setbacks are adequate to allow for abundant planting opportunities.

Excessive tree loss.

The extent of tree loss and lack of landscaping/ replacement tree planting is a significant concern raised within the objections received.  As previously discussed the majority of trees within the site have been identified as environmental weed species (as classified by the City of Whitehorse).  It is understood that the retention of Tree 24 (Corymbia citriodora) is preferable, however two arborists have confirmed that the tree is in decline and not worthy of retention.  It was put to the owner to retain the tree as a habitat tree, however there were still concerns with regard to the species being suitable for this purpose, due to being so close to the proposed dwelling. 

Impact to trees within adjoining lots.

As previously discussed, there are limited impacts to trees (either none or less than the permissible 10 percent under the Australian Standard) on adjoining lots.  Tree protection conditions have been recommended and will form part of the permit to manage this concern.

No landscape plan.

As previously discussed, the landscaping plan has been provided and circulated to all objectors prior to the Council meeting.

Lack of replacement tree planting and overall landscaping opportunity

As previously discussed, the proposed development is able to accommodate the required seven 15 metre high canopy trees onsite, through a combination of (five) retained and (two) re-placement canopy trees.  In addition landscaping is provided throughout the site, particularly toward the street frontage.

Over development of the lot

A single storey detached dwelling is not considered an over development of the site. Single dwellings are the predominant built form in this area.  It is also noted that the site previously had a planning permit for two dwellings on the lot approved at a Council meeting, which includes removal of all vegetation from the site. 


 

Demolition of a heritage dwelling

Concerns were raised with regard to the heritage significance of the existing dwelling.  It is noted that the site has been considered as a potential heritage site.  Council’s consultant Heritage Advisor has inspected the site and advised it has no heritage significance, therefore is not worthy of retaining from a heritage perspective. 

CONCLUSION

The proposal for the construction of one dwelling on a lot and removal of vegetation within the Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 2, is an acceptable response that satisfies the relevant provisions contained within the Whitehorse Planning Scheme. 

The provision of one new single storey dwelling, which replaces the existing single storey dwelling, will provide an appropriate character outcome and is consistent with the prevailing dwelling form. The new dwelling will provide for appropriate development that ensures its front setback can be well vegetated, and in doing so, will be consistent with others in the street.  The development also provides space around the new building, allowing for tree retention, as well as allowance for new tree planting and landscaping to ensure the vegetated character of the area is retained and enhanced. 

A total of twenty (20) objections were received as a result of public notice and all of the issues raised have been discussed as required. It is considered that the application should be approved.

 

 

Attachment

1        Advertised Plans  

2        Landscape Plan   

    


Whitehorse City Council

Council Minutes                                                                                                                               19 April 2021

 

9.2         Infrastructure

9.2.1      Whitehorse Urban Forest Strategy

ATTACHMENT

 

SUMMARY

Trees and vegetation contribute to the natural character of Whitehorse and deliver important environmental and social benefits to the community. Current data shows that canopy cover is in decline across both public and private land. Without a robust strategy in place, there is a risk of continual loss of canopy cover.

A draft Whitehorse Urban Forest Strategy 2021-2031 (Strategy) (Attachment 1) has been developed in consultation with community groups, residents and Council officers. The Strategy seeks to reverse the decline of vegetation cover with the key target of achieving 27% canopy cover by 2031 and 30% by 2050 in line with Living Melbourne: Our Metropolitan Urban Forest Strategy. The draft Whitehorse Urban Forest Strategy has the following vision and objectives:

Vision: A diverse, healthy and resilient urban forest

Objective 1: Protect the urban forest across private and public land

Objective 2: Expand the urban forest and adopt to climate change

Objective 3: Enhance biodiversity

Objective 4: Build community capacity

Objective 5: Develop knowledge base

A Draft Urban Forest Implementation and Action Plan (Action Plan) (Attachment 2) identifies the actions and estimates the funding required with timeframes to commence delivery.

 

MOtion

Moved by Cr Liu, Seconded by Cr Cutts

That Council notes that the Draft Whitehorse Urban Forest Strategy (Attachment 1) and draft Urban Forest Implementation and Action Plan (Attachment 2) will be publically released to gain feedback and insights from the community prior to finalising the documents for consideration at a future Council meeting.

Amendment

Moved by Cr Davenport

That Council:

1.    Notes that the Draft Whitehorse Urban Forest Strategy (Attachment 1) and draft Urban Forest Implementation and Action Plan (Attachment 2) will be publically released to gain feedback and insights from the community prior to finalising the documents for consideration at a future Council meeting.

2.    Makes amendments to the Urban Forest Strategy (Attachment 1) and draft Urban Forest Implementation and Action Plan (Attachment 2) prior to publically releasing the documents to reflect:

·           Setting a sub target of 8% of canopy cover in municipality to come from open space and road reservations; and

·           Referring tree education to the Eastern Region Group of Councils for a regional approach.”

The Amendment LAPSED for want of a Seconder

The Substantive motion Moved by Cr Liu, Seconded by Cr Cutts was then put and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

background

Whitehorse City Council recognises the value of an extensive well-managed urban forest. Trees and vegetation provide many environmental, social and health benefits for the municipality. Council committed to the sustainable management of trees and vegetation across the Municipality through the endorsement of an interim Urban Forest Strategy (UFS) in 2018. The actions contained within the interim Strategy were for two years only to allow time to gain better data and analysis to undertake a longer term strategy and action plan.

Since 2018, collaboration with 40 other councils, Resilient Melbourne and the Nature Conservancy led to the development of Living Melbourne: Our Metropolitan Urban Forest Strategy. In partnership, the evidence base was consolidated with actions determined to connect, extend and enhance urban greening across the metropolitan area. Whitehorse City Council endorsed this strategy in 2019 which seeks to coordinate actions across Melbourne councils to reach the target of 30% canopy cover by 2050.

With new data and analysis, recent findings were consolidated into the Whitehorse UFS Background Document 2021 (Attachment 3). The Background document identifies key challenges and opportunities to better manage vegetation in Whitehorse across land tenures. Data shows that canopy cover is in decline across Whitehorse. Without a robust strategy in place and adequate funding, there is a risk of continual loss of canopy cover, compromising the health and extent of tree canopy.

Founded on the evidence analysed in the UFS Background document and insights gained from a preliminary round of community engagement, the Strategy has been drafted. The Strategy is an organisation wide document supported by a 10 year Action Plan aligned with Local, State and Federal Government policies.

DISCUSSION

The Strategy sets a clear vision, five objectives with key actions to meet the canopy cover targets of 27% by 2031. This target is outlined below. The Strategy seeks to maximise the health and vigour of vegetation; build urban resilience; enhance biodiversity and adapt to climate change.

The urban forest is defined as all the trees, shrubs and other vegetation across public and private land. Whilst the urban forest includes the soil, fungi, microorganisms, the water and the wildlife that supports it, the trees and vegetation management is the primary focus of this Strategy.

Changes in canopy cover

The City of Whitehorse faces a number of challenges resulting in a decline in canopy cover.  Densified urbanisation, growing population, increasing power line clearance requirements and climate change place increasing pressure on the health and extent of the urban forest.

 

Data collected by the Department of Environment Land Water and Planning (DELWP) in 2014 and again in 2018 has shown that Whitehorse canopy cover has dropped from 21% canopy cover to 18% canopy cover over those four years.

Canopy targets

Analysis done by the Living Melbourne Strategy provides the guidance to councils for vegetation targets to allow new policy to be implemented and new trees to establish and grow canopy.

In line with these targets, the Strategy sets the target of 27% Canopy by 2031 as a first step in reaching a target of 30%.


 

The Strategy proposes a vision with objectives that melds community aspirations, existing policies and strategies to guide Council to better protect, enhance and connect Whitehorse’s natural assets presented as follows:

Vision    

A diverse, healthy and resilient urban forest.

Objectives

The Action Plan identifies tasks to be undertaken by each Council department to be commenced within a specified timeframe. Indicators are set against each action as a measure of action completed.

Growing the urban forest takes time, effective management and substantial resourcing.  Collective effort across sectors and land tenure will be vital to successfully protect and extend the urban forest. As understanding of the urban forest improves, innovation will find new ways to optimise the urban forest. It is hoped that in the long term Council will reach a 30% canopy cover.

The tree canopy targets set out in the Strategy rely on increasing canopy on private property. Whitehorse has interim tree protection controls in place for land in the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 9 (SLO9) of the Victorian Planning Scheme. The State Government is currently reviewing SLO9. Changes to SLO9 or a revised approach implemented by the State Government may limit the ability to attain the targets.

CONSULTATION

The vision, objectives and actions have been influenced by feedback received from community members. A community engagement process was carried out between November 2020 and February 2021. This included gaining community feedback and ideas from online surveys and small group discussions. The Strategy has further been informed by Council Officers across the organisation, as well as relevant legislation and policy. In summary, the community feedback is as follows:


 

The top 3 most important reasons to have trees and vegetation in your local area are to:

1.    Provide habitat for local wildlife such as birds, butterflies and other animals.

2.    Cool local areas, provide shade and reduce urban heat

3.    Improve the look and feel of the local area

The most important priorities for a new Urban Forest Strategy should be:

1.    Growing more trees and improving the quality of vegetation in our parks, reserves and on Council owned land.

2.    Requiring more vegetation to be included in new development.

3.    Find new ways to include more vegetation in built up areas.

 

14 Jan Icon-megaphone - Megaphone Icon White Png , Free Transparent Clipart  - ClipartKey

596

270

222

37

11

95

people visited the Whitehorse Urban Forest and My Favourite Tree  online platforms hosted by Oursay.

Community members provided feedback in some form.

online surveys completed.

people attended an online/in person environmental community group meeting.

residents sent open ended Email responses.

Images were submitted into the “My Favourite Tree” photo competition.

The draft Strategy has been prepared based on the feedback received and is now ready to be released for broad public consultation.

The next phase of consultation will involve the public release of the draft Strategy and Action Plan to seek feedback from the community prior to finalising the documents. The process will utilise the OurSay platform. It will include online surveys along with opportunities for questions and answer sessions. The main purpose of the consultation is to find out if:

·       The Strategy reflects adequately the feedback from the first round of consultation

·       The vision, objectives and proposed objections are suitable, clear and easy to understand

Consultation is planned to open from the 2 – 30 May. Specialist groups will be invited to join a presentation on the Strategy with an opportunity to discuss the Strategy with Council Officers.

It is planned that the consultation feedback and a finalised Urban Forest Strategy 2021-2031 will be considered by Council at its meeting in August 2021.


 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Implementation of the Action Plan can mostly be funded through existing operational budgets particularly in the first year of adoption and the proposed increase in funding for tree planting shown in the draft Budget 2021/22. However, some elements will require seeking new capital funding such as:

·       Extending canopy cover, habitat and improving connectivity.

·       Ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the urban forest.

·       Ongoing Implementation and enforcement of SLO9.

As Council’s capital works are planned, costs would include installation of trees and vegetation and ongoing maintenance. These expenses would draw on the capital works project budget. This could include things like the costs for irrigation, tree pits and soil as per landscape design.

The draft Budget 2021/22 includes increased allocations for street tree maintenance and management to ensure powerline clearances are maintained while seeking to minimise the negative impact on tree canopy and neighborhood amenity.

The proposed green corridors program would include extensive planting within the identified ecological corridors along creek lines within the Gardiners Creek, Koonung Creek, Mullum Mullum Creek and Dandenong Creek sub-catchments. Scoping of this project would include an analysis of the costs of the project. This type of project could potentially be jointly funded with partnering agencies such as Melbourne Water.

As the urban forest expands there will be more pressure on operational budgets to maintain and monitor these assets in the long run.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The Urban Forest Strategy 2021-2031 will supersede the Interim Whitehorse Urban Forest Strategy along with the Whitehorse Urban Biodiversity Strategy when it comes to an end.

The development of an Urban Forest Strategy 2021-2031 is an action within the Whitehorse Climate Response Plan.

 

 

Attachment

1        Draft Whitehorse Urban Forest Strategy 2021-2031  

2        Whitehorse Urban Forest Implementation and Action Plan  

3        Whitehorse Urban Forest Strategy Background Paper  2021 v2  

4        Urban Forest  Strategy Community Consultation Report Phase 1   

 


Whitehorse City Council

Council Minutes                                                                                                                               19 April 2021

 

9.2.2      Tender Evaluation (Contract 30298) Main Street Bridge Reconstruction

 

 

SUMMARY

Council has an ongoing program to undertake appropriate maintenance, renewal and replacement of bridges, culverts and path structures. The bridge in Main Street, Blackburn is identified as the next highest priority for replacement. This report is to consider tenders received for replacement of the bridge and to recommend the acceptance of the tender received from Axis Infrastructure Pty Ltd for the amount of $833,447.95, including GST and to consider the overall project expenditure.

Council Resolution

Moved by Cr Massoud, Seconded by Cr Skilbeck

That Council accepts the tender and signs the formal contract document for Contract 30298 Main Street Bridge Reconstruction received from Axis Infrastructure Pty Ltd (ABN 51 618 982 657), of 1a Randor Street, Campbellfield Victoria for the tendered amount of $833,447.95, including GST; as part of the total expected project expenditure of $1,621,843, including GST.

Carried Unanimously

 

BACKGROUND

Council has an ongoing program to undertake appropriate maintenance, renewal and replacement of bridges, culverts and path structures. All bridges and path structures are regularly audited by qualified Structural Engineers, which forms the basis of an ongoing maintenance, renewal and replacement program. The bridge in Main Street, Blackburn is identified as the next highest priority for replacement.

The bridge in Main Street is located just north of Heath Street and spans over Blackburn Creek between Furness Park and Kalang Park, part of the Blackburn Creeklands. The bridge is a two-span vehicular bridge formed with steel beams encased in concrete, supported on a masonry substructure. A photo of the side of the bridge is provided below:

The age of the bridge is not exactly known, however, it has been in place since at least 1945. The bridge was widened in 1976 and the last significant remedial works were done in 2005. In 2015 the concrete traffic islands were removed from the bridge to reduce the load on the bridge and new handrails were installed. In 2018, the Structural Engineering assessment of the bridge found that the bridge is beyond maintenance, the structure is compromised and should be demolished and replaced with a new structure within the next five years.

A detailed design has been completed for a replacement bridge that is similar in function and dimensions to the existing bridge. It is to remain a two lane bridge with footpaths each side, and be a single span bridge. The design has been independently certified to meet the relevant design standards and criteria. The design complies with the requirements of Melbourne Water in relation to water flowing in Blackburn Creek and environmental controls. The relevant authorities were consulted regarding the services of gas, water, sewer, power and telecommunications.

A Planning Permit application has been submitted for the construction of the bridge. The only referral is Melbourne Water and the Planning Permit will be issued prior to formal awarding of the contract. (Paragraph to be updated before Council meeting).

This contract is to engage a suitably qualified contractor to remove the existing bridge and construct a new bridge that is of similar dimensions to the existing bridge.

DISCUSSION

Tenders were advertised in The Age newspaper on Saturday 30 January 2021 and were closed on Monday 1 March 2021. A total of seven tenders were received.

The tenders were evaluated against the following criteria:

·       The Tender offer;

·       Capability;

·       Credibility;

·       Social and environmental sustainability;

·       Local contents; and

·       Occupational Health and Safety and Equal Opportunity (Pass/Fail).

The preferred tenderer is Axis Infrastructure Pty Ltd. Axis Infrastructure is experienced in bridge construction and have recently successfully completed similar bridge projects for local governments including Knox, Stonnington, Moorabool, Murrindindi, Darebin and Maribyrnong. Axis Infrastructure has the required management systems for occupational health and safety, environmental and quality. Axis Infrastructure is experienced in working in environmentally sensitive areas and managing local access issues.

The tender received from Axis Infrastructure Pty Ltd is considered to provide the best value for money for this Contract.w

The preferred tenderer’s business viability has been considered.

CONSULTATION

In October 2019, during the design stage, there was a concept design plan prepared for the replacement bridge. The plan invited comments from the community and advised that works are likely to be undertaken in the next one to three years. There were no comments received about the design of the bridge, which was expected considering the new bridge will look similar from the road to the existing bridge. There were some queries about the timing of the works and the response was that further information will be provided about this.


 

Main Street will be closed to pedestrians and vehicles for a period of approximately four months or more. There will be detours in place. The details and exact timing of the works will be confirmed with the contractor and will depend on the timing of service authority works that need to be altered and relevant approvals. There will be letters sent to residents in the immediate area, advisory variable message sign (VMS) boards and information on social media about the construction.

The Blackburn Creeklands Advisory Committee has been informed that this project is now progressing and the group will be kept informed about this project.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Budget

Expenditure

Australian Government's Local Roads and Community Infrastructure (LRCI) COVID-19 grant program

 $ 5,146,109

 

Less other projects in LRCI program – footpaths, kerb and channel, sustainable lighting and road reconstructions

-$ 3,146,109

 

Total Available Funding (Main Street Bridge)

 $ 2,000,000

 

Preferred tenderer’s lump sum offer (including GST)

 

$   833,448

Less GST

 

-$     75,768

Net cost to Council

 

$   757,680

Plus standard construction contingencies (10%)

 

$     75,768

Plus contingencies due to potential service authority requirements (30%)

 

$   227,304

Subtotal Estimated Contract Construction Works

 

$ 1,060,752

Plus Project Management fees (10%)

 

$      75,767

Plus Structural Engineering input (5%)

 

$      37,884

Plus estimated non contestable costs for services relocation

 

$    300,000

Total Expenditure (Main Street Bridge)

 

$ 1,474,403

This project is being funded through a $5.15 million allocation from the Australian Government's Local Roads and Community Infrastructure COVID-19 grant program. A successful grant application has resulted in a signed funding agreement. It is expected that this bridge project will be delivered for less than the $2 million allocated. If this is the case, the balance of the funding available through the LRCI program will be discussed with the grant program team to potentially be allocated to other eligible projects.

A budget risk for this project is the costs associated with service authorities. There are services through the bridge including a gas main, water main and telecommunications cables. All service authorities have been consulted during the design. The services will have to be discontinued, a temporary supply provided and new services installed in the new bridge. The service authorities do not provide firm costs and designs until the project is approved. To mitigate this budget risk a significant contingency is allowed for service authority costs. The costs are non-contestable and only the service authorities can approve works on their assets. As soon as the project is awarded, work to confirm these costs will commence with the service authorities.

A further project risk relates to the overhead power lines in close proximity to where cranes and piling machines will operate. The power may need to be shut down or the power lines relocated to allow for the demolition and construction of the new bridge. The costs will not be known until the project is confirmed and the power authority provides its advice.

Notwithstanding the above, the service relocation expenditure allocations in the above table have been estimated based on the best available information to date.

 

Attendance

Cr Davenport left the Chambers at 8:25pm, returning at 8:26pm

 

 

 


Whitehorse City Council

Council Minutes                                                                                                                               19 April 2021

 

9.2.3      Tender Evaluation (Contract 30281) Strathdon House Redevelopment

 

 

SUMMARY

To consider tenders received for the provision of Contract 30281 – Strathdon House Redevelopment and to recommend the acceptance of the tender received from Langcon Pty Ltd ATF Langcon Trust, trading as Langcon Pty Ltd, for the amount of $1,123,540.00 including GST and to consider the overall project expenditure.

Council Resolution

Moved by Cr Lane, Seconded by Cr Carr

That Council accepts the tender and signs the formal contract document for Contract 30281 for the Strathdon House Redevelopment received from Langcon Pty Ltd ATF Langcon Trust, (ABN) 72 491 507 452, of 68 Kurrak Road Yarrambat, trading as Langcon Pty Ltd, for the tendered amount of $1,123,540.00 including GST; as part of the total expected project expenditure of $1,321,540.00 including GST.

Carried Unanimously

 

BACKGROUND

Strathdon House and Orchard precinct, 449465 Springvale Road Forest Hill, represents a significant historical and cultural asset to the City of Whitehorse.

The site is owned by Whitehorse City Council and comprises of Strathdon House, associated outbuildings and a windmill located on 2.5 hectares of land. Strathdon House is one of the only remaining examples of an original homestead and orchard, representative of early settlement in Whitehorse. The homestead and orchard were acquired by Council using a Federal grant to celebrate Australia’s bicentenary, with the aim of preserving the asset and opening it for public use.

The house and orchard has a unique location at the entrance to the Healesville Freeway Reservation (HFR), and the site has been highlighted in the State Governments Healesville Freeway Reserve Concept Plan, as the gateway to the reserve.

Strathdon House restoration and construction of a new Packing Shed works will be completed by late 2021. All other works including the kitchen garden and nature play will also be completed by end 2021.

The project includes:

•      Refurbishment of the homestead (including building new public meeting rooms) (this Contract)

•      Installing a new Packing Shed to host educational and sustainability programs (this Contract)

•      Creation of a demonstration kitchen garden (this Contract)

•      Re-growing the fruit orchard

•      Landscaping, including nature play features and a self-guided heritage and sustainability walk

•      Picnic shelters and additional seating

•      Accessible parking, pathway upgrades and installation of bicycle parking hoops

DISCUSSION

In accordance with Council’s Procurement Policy and Section 186 of the Local Government Act, a Request for Tender was issued on 6 December 2020. The closing date for submissions was 3pm, Monday 1 February 2021. Council received three tender submissions for this Contract.

The Tender Evaluation Panel (TEP) included Whitehorse City Council officers and an independent external consultant (heritage architect):

The tenders were evaluated in accordance with an Evaluation Plan.

Each of the three submissions were initially assessed to ensure conformance with the tender documentation. The TEP confirmed all submissions were conforming tenders and progressed to the next stage of assessment.

Tender submissions were evaluated by the TEP on a combined qualitative and quantitative basis. The evaluation determined that one tender submission scored the highest score and based on this evaluation, this tenderer was invited to attend a tender interview.

The highest scoring tenderer was Langcon Pty Ltd and this company attended an interview on 19 March 2021.  At the conclusion of the interview the TEP met and confirmed the assessment score is consistent with the pre-interview score.

Langcon Pty Ltd was established in May 2020. Due to the pandemic impact over the last 12 months, Langcon Pty Ltd does not have any considerable trading history.  However, the members of the company have the relevant experience and expertise to undertake this contract. To mitigate the risk of failure of Langcon, a cross company ‘Deed of Guarantee’ has been offered so that any risk of company stress can be mitigated. The cross company guarantee is proposed to be with Langbourne Constructions Pty Ltd which has provided a letter to Council stating their capacity to act as a guarantor for Langcon. Business Viability checks were undertaken on Langbourne Constructions Pty Ltd and received a preferable risk rating of sound.  A suitable cross company ‘Deed of Guarantee’ agreement prepared by lawyers will be signed prior to awarding this contract.

At the conclusion of the evaluation process the preferred tenderer that offered the best value outcome, with an acceptable level of risk to Council for this contract is Langcon Pty Ltd.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

A project budget of $900,000 has been allocated in 2020/21 financial year plus previous years carry forwards, providing a total project budget in 2021 financial year of $1,551,947 for the Strathdon House Redevelopment project.

 

 

Budget

Expenditure

Capital Works Funding Account No. X578 6708

$900,000

 

Previous year(s) carry forward

$651,947

 

Total Budget (excl. GST)

$1,551,947

 

Preferred tenderer’s lump sum offer (including GST)

 

$1,123,540

Less GST

 

-$102,140

Net cost to Council

 

$1,021,400

Plus Less Contingencies

 

$100,000

Plus Project Management Fee

 

$80,000

Total Expenditure (excl. GST)

 

$1,201,400

 The estimated total expenditure on this Contract is $1,201,400 excluding GST.

In addition to the work under this Contract, the budget provides for the other elements listed above (orchard, landscaping, etc.).

The complete project is within the agreed allocated budget of $1,551,947 excluding GST.

 

  


Whitehorse City Council

Council Minutes                                                                                                                               19 April 2021

 

9.2.4      Contract Sum Adjustment (Contract 30130) Morton Park Pavilion Redevelopment

 

 

SUMMARY

To consider an adjustment to the project budget and contract sum for Contract 30130 with 2Construct Pty Ltd (ABN 28 109 517 188) for the Morton Park Pavilion Redevelopment, and increase the overall contract value as a result of construction stage variations, additional Club funded requests, and increased contractor costs associated with program delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Council Resolution

Moved by Cr Massoud, Seconded by Cr Skilbeck

That Council:

1.    Authorises the Chief Executive Officer or his delegate to make an adjustment to the Contract sum for Contract No 30130 Morton Park Pavilion Redevelopment with 2Construct Pty Ltd (ABN 28 109 517 188) to increase its value by up to $290,000 excluding GST to a revised contract value of up to $5,391,984 excluding GST;

2.    Authorises a Capital Works Program Adjustment from surplus funds to cover the project overspend by increasing the overall project budget by $416,707 excluding GST to a revised value of $6,189,976 excluding GST; and

3.    Notes that:

·     The increase in cost associated with the Morton Park Pavilion Redevelopment project results from variations permitted under the contract for works not known at the time of the original tender. The inclusion of these items in the project will avoid any future rework.

·     The COVID-19 impacts on the construction program timing were unforeseen.

Carried Unanimously

 

background

Morton Park Pavilion Redevelopment is nearing completion and is expected to be operational by mid-April 2021.

The project experienced initial delays as a result of compliance requirements of the temporary facilities, which delayed the start of works by eight months, from April 2019 until November 2019.

During construction, the project encountered significant technical and design related issues coupled with the slowdown of work due to the COVID-19 work restrictions and materials supply issues, extending the construction period beyond the expected time frame.

Further variations resulted from accommodating additional scope items from the Sporting Clubs after the award of Contract. The additional scope included Club specific joinery and audio visual (AV) items, which are Club funded, but added complexity, time and cost to the project. These items were reported to Council in December 2020.

The delays caused by the COVID-19 shutdowns, as well as delays from extension of time claims permitted under the Contract have extended the construction period and resulted in additional costs for the hire of temporary facilities, as well as other costs for the contractor.

DISCUSSION

The additional time for hire of the temporary facilities used by the Football and Cricket Clubs due to delays resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and extensions of time permitted by the Contract has added additional costs.

Hired shipping containers have been provided to the Clubs to use to store their sporting equipment and training items. The hire of the shipping containers has also required an extension of the hire period, due to the prolongation of the construction program.

Extensions of time permitted under the Contract that have been approved relate to delays in some of the building permit approvals and time to resolve technical issues associated with the application of a specialist waterproofing product that was required by the design. Delays also resulted from design issues associated with a required expansion of the mechanical service plant deck, and relocation of the of the underground water tank. The change in location for the tank was required to minimise the impact of excavation on nearby significant trees. A nominal sum was allocated for landscaping works at the project planning stage, for reinstatement of the reserve once building work was completed. As the project has progressed, the extent of reinstatement work has been quantified and additional work to what was originally envisaged is required, resulting in an increased spend.

These costs associated with the Contract have been incurred and the Contract Sum adjustment is necessary. To enable the project team to finalise the negotiations and determine a final contract sum with the Contractor, Council authorisation for a maximum Contract value is required.

Some costs associated with the landscaping and site remediation have not yet been incurred, however it is recommended that these works continue to ensure the project is satisfactorily completed.

The project team has commenced a ‘Lessons Learnt’ review and is undertaking a full assessment of the project management processes that were undertaken throughout this project to ensure procedures are reviewed to mitigate the risk of issues that can result in time and cost variations on future projects.

CONSULTATION

Consultation is not relevant to this Contract and budget adjustments identified in this report. Legal advice has been received regarding assessment of variations and extension of time claims under the Contract.

The tenant clubs have been engaged in this project throughout. The current delays to completion have been frustrating and understandably, the clubs are anxious for the pavilion to be completed so that it can be used for the 2021 football season.


 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The funding for the additional project costs can be sourced from surplus budget funds in the 2020/21 financial year capital works program. These have resulted from other projects being completed for less cost than their budget allocations.

 

 

Budget

(excl. GST)

Expenditure (excl. GST)

Project Budget as per December 2020

$5,577,047

 

2Construct Contract Value as per December 2020

 

$5,091,984

Contract Variations since December 2020

 

$290,000

Sub-total Revised contact sum

 

$5,381,984

Project design costs, authority fees and works outside construction contract

 

$560,000

Additional project design costs, authority fees and works outside of contract (landscaping etc)

 

$247,992

 

 

 

Sub-total

$5,577,047

$6,189,976

Funding contribution for contract adjustment as per December 2020 Council report (Additional Club cash contribution and sports field lighting contribution)

$196,222

 

 

 

 

Budget

$5,773,269

$6,189,976

Shortfall

($416,707)

 

 

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

There are no policy implications relevant to this report.

 

 

  


Whitehorse City Council

Council Minutes                                                                                                                               19 April 2021

 

9.3         Human Services

9.3.1      Sportlink Redevelopment

 

 

SUMMARY

On endorsement of the Indoor Sports Facility Feasibility Study on the 24th August, 2020, Council resolved to complete the detailed design process for the Sportlink redevelopment and refer the construction requirement to Council’s budget process for consideration. The recommendation is that Council refer $19.3m to Council’s Capital Works Program over 2021/22 and 2022/23 to undertake the construction requirement for the Sportlink redevelopment.

ReCCOMENDATion

That Council refer $19.3m to Council’s Capital Works Program over 2021/22 and 2022/23 to undertake the construction requirement for the Sportlink redevelopment.

MOTION

Moved by Cr Lane, Seconded by Cr Carr

That Council:

1.      Defers the Sportlink redevelopment project, subject to the Commonwealth Government supporting the allocation of the $1.5 million grant and deferment of the project for the purpose of undertaking the required investigation, design and consultation required to explore upgrading the existing four outdoor courts to four indoor wooden floor, fully enclosed courts including LED lighting and carparking;

a)      Allocates $1 million in the Capital Works Program in 2021/22 to undertake the required investigation, design and consultation required to explore 1. outlined above and report back to Council;

b)     Allocates $2.8 million in the Capital Works Program in 2021/22 to address fire compliance matters related to the existing indoor courts building; and

2.      Request a further report in the event that the Commonwealth Government does not support 1 above.

Lost

COUNCIL RESOLUtion

Moved by Cr Davenport, Seconded by Cr Barker

That Council:

1.      Proceeds with in accordance with Option 2 (as outlined in the report) as Stage 1 of the Sportlink redevelopment project, subject to the Commonwealth Government supporting the allocation of the $1.5 million grant for this purpose including:

a)      Upgrading the outdoor courts to include an acrylic surface and portal frame roof including LED lighting;

b)     Addressing fire compliance matters related to the existing indoor courts building; and

c)      External works to the car park;

2.      Allocates $6.570 million in the Capital Works Program over 2021/22 and 2022/23 to complete Sportlink Option 2 based on a total project cost of $8.070 million; and

3.      Prepares cost estimates for the additional Sportlink redevelopment project works associated with Option 3 (as outlined in the report) as Stage 2, including the two new indoor courts and associated building and car park works, to be considered as part of a future budget, subject to receiving funding assistance from an fexternal source.

Carried

 

background

On the 24th August, 2020 Council endorsed the Indoor Sports Facility Feasibility Study (ISFFS). The ISFFS was a project identified in Council’s Recreation Strategy (2015-2024). The ISFFS provided an updated analysis of the demand for indoor sports to identify an appropriate strategic approach for the future provision of indoor facilities.

During this period Whitehorse Netball Association (WNA) successfully lobbied and as a result Council has received a $1.5m financial commitment as part of the 2019 Federal Election campaign towards additional indoor courts at Sportlink, Vermont South.

As part of the work involved in the ISFFS existing Council facilities were assessed conceptually for redevelopment. Sportlink was a facility identified as a preferred development site in the ISFFS. As such $250,000 was included in the 2019/20 budget towards the concept feasibility design of Sportlink to support the election commitment. 

DISCUSSION

The research and consultation process undertaken during the development of the ISFFS concluded netball was one of the priority sports needing additional indoor courts in the City of Whitehorse. With the sports of basketball and netball both having the greatest needs in the short term.

Based on the outcomes of the ISFFS and conceptual work undertaken for Sportlink, Council’s 2020/21 budget included $540,000 to complete the detailed design process for the Sportlink redevelopment and refer the construction requirement to Council’s budget process for consideration. Council’s Major Projects department allocated a Senior Project Manager to lead the process and subsequently appointed a lead design team to continue developing the design.

Sportlink is a Council managed facility that was originally constructed in 2009 and caters for netball, basketball, Futsal, badminton, table tennis and volleyball as well as being the home of Whitehorse Netball Association. The Netball Association caters for a wide range of participants ranging from beginners, all abilities, social ladies’ competitions, and representative level.  The facility is also used by the local community on a casual basis and currently includes;

·       Four indoor and four outdoor asphalt courts;

·       Player change and spectator amenities;

·       Multipurpose Room;

·       Crèche (license for 22 children held by WNA);

·       Café leased on a monthly basis;

·       Administration/Office areas for Council staff and WNA; and

·       Onsite car parking.


 

A Business Case was prepared to assist in outlining the need for the redevelopment which includes:

1.    Growing Demand for Indoor Sports Courts not being met

The Whitehorse population is forecast to grow to 207,424 by 2036. This is likely to mean an additional 4,000 people1 may seek facilities to play an indoor sport in Whitehorse.

The Whitehorse Netball Association (WNA) membership encompasses 18 Clubs, over 280 teams that utilise the indoor and outdoor courts over 7 days per week to meet current demand. Based on membership numbers the WNA is the 9th largest Association registered with Netball Victoria. WNA is the only organisation providing netball competitions within the City of Whitehorse aside from schools and Council Leisure Centres which provide training opportunities or social based competitions.

The ISFFS shows that Basketball is the highest participation sport in the City of Whitehorse with the greatest membership base and is projected to continue to grow. Basketball is a key stakeholder at Sportlink and utilises the indoor courts for competition, training and casual use.

With both basketball and netball participation continuing to grow at Sportlink the additional indoor courts will enable both sports additional court space at the venue, ability to showcase representative talent and more programming opportunities.

1 Based on Victoria state participation rates (AusPlay 2018) for indoor sports activities and applied to the 2016 and 2031 projected population.

2.    Different sports competing for use of Indoor Courts restricting participation, growth and membership of the sports.

In addition to population growth Sportlinks point of difference is that the facility is a true multi-purpose community facility, giving opportunities to a diverse range of user groups and also provides opportunities for local residents to utilise the facility for casual bookings and activities.

Unfortunately the conflict between casual and organised sport use has exasperated the lack of opportunity for community use during peak times, potentially resulting in individuals using an alternate facility. As well as existing user groups, particularly WNA, experiencing limited growth due to court availability constraints.

3.    Netball unable to host state events or tournaments due to limited court numbers, amenities and spectator areas.

The redevelopment of Sportlink aims to better accommodate the existing user group needs. The facility contributes to a regionally important facility for netball. Netball Victoria identified facility development priorities in the ISFFS for the region as ‘compliant and lit / indoor courts, more change rooms and more male and female umpire rooms. WNA has previously tried to host Netball Victoria tournaments but has been informed that they have not had enough courts, limited amenities and spectator areas for these events to be centralised at this venue.

As Sportlink also caters for a number of other sports for training and casual use WNA competes for indoor court space and currently the facility doesn't have a show court. The two new indoor courts includes a retractable seating unit for 500 spectators and will enable development of a show court for representative finals, tournaments and events for both netball and basketball.

4.    Sports have developed social formats of the game and are competing for court space at current venue.

Basketball is offering different formats in the sport and reaching different audiences including 3 on 3 competitions. Netball is hosting Fast5Net and Rock Up netball as well as variations to these programs at a junior level. These formats are becoming more popular with the sports and are requesting additional court time to host these options. The community are seeking additional casual use to enjoy these new types of activities as they are less demanding of people’s leisure time.

5.    Compliance and reduce safety issues on indoor/outdoor courts

It’s important to maintain the quality of court surfaces (Indoor and Outdoor) to maximise the use of the courts. The outdoor courts are ageing and in general have drainage issues. The use of the outdoor courts is compromised in winter due to poor weather. The indoor courts have the minimal run-off required and have limited spectator areas so during games and tournaments safety around the courts becomes an additional matter for staff and volunteers to control to minimise injury to players and officials. In the event that a redevelopment was not undertaken, the existing outdoor courts will require renewal due to their condition to support continued use. The courts will be fully compliant meeting Netball Victoria guidelines regarding compliance, amenities and the requirements of a regional netball facility.

Project Scope

The business case explores the options available to Council to address the ongoing demand for indoor court space at Sportlink by existing stakeholders. The scope includes;

·       Two additional indoor sports courts designed to include a show court with retractable seating for 500 spectators;

·       Additional player and umpire amenities to service the new indoor courts;

·       Additional public toilets;

·       Upgrade the outdoor courts to include an acrylic surface and portal frame roof including LED lighting over the outdoor courts; and

·       Under croft car parking providing an additional 40 parking spaces onsite.

Fire Compliance

During the design investigation process, a number of fire compliance issues relating to the construction of the existing indoor courts have been identified and some upgrades to the existing building may be necessary. Further investigatory work to address this issue is required.

Summary of Options

The business case preparation supports the development of a number of options. None of these options are cost or risk free. Each option will require some capital expenditure to address fire compliance matters or to establish an appropriate renewal program/upgrade for the outdoor courts.

Option 1 

Renewal Program – Outdoor Courts and address Fire Compliance matters related to Existing Building

 

This option encompasses renewal of the outdoor courts including lighting and addresses fire compliance related to the existing building. However without the redevelopment there are a number of matters that will not be addressed:

Benefits

·       Outdoor courts are ageing and are due for renewal. Upgrade the outdoor courts and lighting to improve the court surface.


 

Constraints

·       Indoor Court demand not being met.

·       Federal funding of $1.5m likely to be lost, due to scope change.

·       Facility unable to host future events and tournaments due to lack of courts, amenities and spectator areas.

·       Contingency on the current cost estimate for the full redevelopment would need to be applied to ensure future cost increases are confirmed. Potentially 3.2% to total cost estimate.

·       The estimated costs to rectify the fire compliance matters will be in the order of $1.2m - $2.8m, dependant on the performance solutions mandated by Fire Rescue Victoria (FRV).

Option 2 

 

Upgrade the outdoor courts to include an acrylic surface and portal frame roof including LED lighting over the outdoor courts and address fire compliance matters related to the existing building.

 

Undertake the external component of the project to upgrade the outdoor courts to include an acrylic surface, portal frame roof over the outdoor court including LED lighting. Fire compliance of the existing building will also be addressed.

 

Given the current financial environment post COVID-19, this option provides a reduced investment opportunity and a staged approach towards a Sportlink redevelopment. If this option was to be pursued four drop down basketball rings are recommended on two of the outdoor courts (two basketball rings per court). This is to encourage greater utilisation and multi-use. The estimated cost associated with the provision of four drop down basketball rings is $130,000 bringing the total project cost to $8.070m. Consultation would need to occur with both Netball Victoria and WNA regarding a dual netball/basketball approach on two of the outdoor courts.

 

However without the redevelopment there are a number of matters that will not be addressed:

Benefits

·       Additional benefit of a portal frame roof covering the upgraded courts to provide an all-weather option for training and competition increasing participation opportunities.

Constraints

·       Same as Option 1.

·       Subject to Federal Government sign off on change to the scope to keep funding as per the agreed $1.5m.

Project Risk:

The scope of works as outlined by the Commonwealth – Department of Health Funding Agreement is as follows:

B.    Activity

The activity consists of an upgrade to the Whitehorse Netball Association Sportlink Facility, with construction of two additional indoor courts.

Any shift in project scope would need to be considered and approved by the Commonwealth.

There is a potential risk that the proposed project scope change is not supported by the Commonwealth which may result in the funding being revoked.


 

Option 3

Partial Shutdown and address fire compliance matters related to the existing building. (Four indoor courts operating - closure of outdoor courts)

Benefits

·       Business Continuity – Expectation from the community. Limits loss of business to the facility and sporting clubs/associations.

·       Re-launch, stakeholders and users engaged in the construction project and each stage onsite. Ready to build on existing base of users not to start again based on re-launch of facility.

·       Council Goodwill, Council continues to offer public access to the facility.

Constraints

·       Need to ensure adequate and compliant disability access.

·       OHS – safety issues during construction – stakeholders onsite.

·       Car Parking closed.

·       Remaining operational is likely to add time and cost to the project.

·       Extend project potentially by 6 months.

·       Building Contract type to be confirmed potential legal fees.

·       The estimated costs to rectify the fire compliance matters will be in the order of $1.2m - $2.8m, dependant on the performance solutions mandated by Fire Rescue Victoria (FRV).

 

Additional Cost to keep the courts operational is $200,000 which includes:

·       Temporary relocations $100,000

·       Amenities $65,000

·       Contingency 20% (additional items to achieve DDA, Services terminations and temporary services etc.) $35,000

Option 4

 

Full Shutdown of Operations (approx. 14 months) and address fire compliance matters related to the existing building.

Benefits

·       Project time for completion not impacted by users onsite.


 

Constraints

·       Sport/Facility is lost to the community.

·       Sporting stakeholders likely to lose members to neighbouring municipalities not being able to operate over such a long period.

·       Roles of existing staff during a shut-down.

·       Existing lease arrangements, JUA – Livingstone Primary School.

·       No revenue collected during this period.

·       The estimated costs to rectify the fire compliance matters will be in the order of $1.2m - $2.8m, dependant on the performance solutions mandated by Fire Rescue Victoria (FRV).

Total Construction Cost Estimates 

Options

Cost

Assumptions

1

$3.617m

Fire Compliance Costing TBC - $2.8m approx.

2

$8.070m

Fire Compliance Costing TBC - $2.8m approx.

This includes $130,000 to deliver four drop down basketball rings on two outdoor sports courts.

3

$20.8m

Includes $200,000 to stay operational

Fire Compliance Costing TBC - $2.8m approx.

4

$20.6m

Fire Compliance Costing TBC - $2.8m approx.

The Business Case makes a preliminary recommendation towards Option 3 which will upgrade Sportlink to better accommodate user group needs. The option is recommended because the facilities will provide:

·       Additional participation and training opportunities;

·       A regional facility for netball to host events, finals and representative tournaments;

·       A show court for basketball and netball to showcase the sports and highlight the development pathway.

·       Compliant new indoor courts, amenities and upgraded outdoor courts to utilise all year round; and

·       Additional parking for an already well utilised site.

·       Enables services to continue without shutting down completely.

CONSULTATION

Major Projects have managed the project and led the consultation process in conjunction with officers from the Leisure and Recreation Services Department.

The appointed architects have held design workshops throughout the concept and schematic design stages that have included members of the Whitehorse Netball Association and a representative from Netball Victoria. Internal departments within Council have been consulted on the concepts and provided feedback that has been included into the schematic design.

Further consultation with external stakeholders including Livingstone Primary School, Vermont South Shopping Centre, Sportlink sporting groups and the local community will be undertaken on confirmation of the construction requirement into Council’s Capital works program.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Council’s 2020/21 budget includes $540,000 towards detailed design and documentation. The Federal Government has provided $1.5m towards the project as a commitment from the 2019 election.

The construction requirement to undertake Option 3 is $19.3m which includes $200,000 to keep the four indoor courts operational and $2.8m to rectify the fire compliance issues of the current building.

The estimated costs to rectify the fire compliance issues will be in the order of $1.2m - $2.8m, dependant on the performance solutions mandated by the Fire Rescue Victoria (FRV) previously known as the Metropolitan Fire Brigade (MFB).

The table below outlines the net impact to the recurrent budget over a five year period for the preferred Option 3.

Option 3

2021/22

2022/23

2023/24

2024/25

2025/26

Total

Revenue Total

483,241

780,100

1,051,577

1,072,609

1,094,061

4,481,588

Expenses Total

582,005

807,582

989,321

1,013,521

1,038,913

4,431,341

Recurrent Total

(98,764)

(27,482)

62,257

59,088

55,148

50,247

Net Impact to Recurrent Budget

(153,890)

(87,791)

4,316

3,936

3,260

(230,170)

Recharge Total

363,328

367,824

691,279

695,007

698,868

2,816,306

Capital Total

10,796,000

10,004,000

0

0

0

20,800,000

Net Total

(11,258,093)

(10,399,306)

(629,023)

(635,918)

(643,720)

(23,566,060)

Assumptions

·       Capital cost offset by $1.5m Federal Funding Grant.

·       Four indoor courts remain operational during 14 month construction period which allows for revenue to be received.

·       Potential to lease the car parking spaces (Vermont Shopping Centre) adjacent to the stadium. 

·       May require renewal maintenance works in lieu of hiring car parking.

·       Communications to vendors in advance as part of stakeholder consultation and engage in the project outcomes.

·       Temporary Amenities cost of $200,000 to accommodate business continuity.

·       Confirmation of costs to rectify the fire compliance issues will be in the order of $1.2m - $2.8m, maximum estimate applied to option, TBC before adoption into Capital Works Program.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Sportlink was a facility identified as a preferred development site in the Indoor Sports Facility Feasibility Study (2020).

Redevelopment of Sportlink supports Councils Recreation Strategy and Whitehorse Health and Wellbeing Plan. Refer below:

Whitehorse Recreation Strategy 2015-2024

(Theme 3 - Flexible Facilities) Action 32

Identified the need for an Indoor Sports Facility Feasibility Study (ISFFS) to provide a strategic direction towards the provision of Indoor Sports in the City of Whitehorse.

Whitehorse Health and Wellbeing Plan 2017-2021

Strategic Direction 1 – Support a healthy, vibrant, inclusive and diverse community.

Strategic Direction 2 – Maintain and enhance our built environment to ensure a liveable and sustainable city.

 

  


Whitehorse City Council

Council Minutes                                                                                                                               19 April 2021

 

9.3.2      Morack Golf Course Redevelopment

 

 

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to provide a project update on the Morack Golf Course redevelopment and seek additional capital budget funding to undertake the project.

Council Resolution

Moved by Cr Carr, Seconded by Cr Lane

That Council allocate additional funding of $2.514m to the existing allocation of $7.231m for the Morack Golf Course Redevelopment in the 2022/23 capital works program.

Carried

 

background

Morack Golf Course Profile

Morack Public Golf Course located in Vermont South, consists of an 18 hole golf course, 20 bay driving range and pro shop constructed in the early 1980’s and a timber clubhouse which accommodates four resident golf clubs. They being Creekside, Morack Ladies, Morack Seniors and Morack Ladies Blue. The clubhouse is the original pro shop that was constructed in the mid 1970’s.

The golf course is managed under a third party arrangement with a contractor appointed to operate the pro shop and collect green fees and other income under a revenue share arrangement. Over the past six financial years Morack has generated average operating surpluses from $150K - $300K per annum. There is a separate contract for the turf maintenance at the golf course. Both contracts expire June 30 2021 with a further one year option available at Council’s discretion.

The facility attracts approximately 90,000 attendances per annum across golf rounds, driving range visits and coaching. Whilst it is a popular course that is well patronised, the profile of participants suggests that the community appeal is narrow with 64% of participants over the age of 60 and 82% being male.

The number of golf rounds played per annum is around 50-60,000 players however the five year trend reflects an 11.8% decline over the period.

Strategic Plan

A Morack Public Golf Course Strategic Plan was developed and adopted by Council in March 2017. A capital budget of $7.231m was allocated towards the redevelopment project that includes:

·       New golf pavilion with golf retail, modern café, change facilities and multipurpose room to accommodate the resident golf clubs and social groups.

·       Upgraded driving range from 20 bays to 25 bays with premium bay concept.

·       New 18 hole premium mini golf facility.

·       New Golf Cart storage facility.

·       Expanded car parking.

A project update was provided to Councillors in March 2020. The update included progress on the redevelopment and a concept design which at that time was costed at $9.65m including contingency.


 

DISCUSSION

Redevelopment Benefits

The redevelopment will deliver a number of benefits including:

·       Will broaden the market appeal beyond the current golfer market to the wider community including women, families and young children.

·       Deliver a contemporary golf, entertainment and hospitality experience.

·       65% growth in visitations to over 150,000 visits per annum.

·       Diversify and increase sources of revenue.

·       Deliver significant economic benefit.

Doing nothing will result in continued ageing infrastructure, a decline in golf rounds and declining operating surpluses.

The operator will be expected to contribute $1m plus in fit out costs as part of the redevelopment project.

Project Cost

The original project budget of $7.231m was based on general cost estimates within the strategic plan.

The total required budget to deliver the project is $9.745m and is based on concept design development.

The cost differences are reflective of cost escalations and some scope changes including:

·       Initial budget of $7.231m included refurbishment of existing buildings and facilities. The revised budget includes construction of a new building and facilities to comply with existing site levels and constraints with accessibility and services.

·       Additional general store/larger service area for mechanical plant.

·       Building code requirements and functionality i.e. bringing all existing services to the current Building code, DDA access, Section J energy requirements and safety in design standards. Maximising functionality such as including locating golf reception and retail and kitchen in close proximity to each other and locating the golf cart store in view of reception.

·       Increased circulation space to complement building profile.

·       Ancillary spaces – freezer, dry store, bar store.

·       Outdoor dining space to complement building profile.

·       Additional car parking.

The $7.231m project budget will not provide an industry competitive customer experience and meet all functional requirements and hence not produce an optimal economic outcome.

Return on Investment

The current base course revenue is $2.2m per annum including operator share. The redevelopment will increase course revenue to approximately $3.7m to $4.2m per annum.

Taking into consideration land tax advice and the significant capital investment ($1m plus fit out costs) in the project by the operator, Council intends to offer a lease in lieu of the current management agreement. A lease will cover all the commercial areas associated with the golf course operations and with a non-exclusive licence over the golf course area.

Via an Expression of Interest (EOI) process a minimum initial lease term of 15 years with an overall term (including options) of up to 20 years is intended to be offered. By maximising the term of the lease should attract the highest number of proponents and incentivize capital investment by the operator. This will also enable Council to position the offer to the market to maximise the potential for a successful outcome. 

Council can expect to capture a proportion of the $3.7m to $4.2m revenue increase as rent; with Council, via an EOI process, seeking a yet to be determined fixed base rent component and turnover rent component.

The final rent payable by the operator will be determined by the market via the above mentioned EOI process.

It is important to note that Council will be granting of the proposed lease in accordance with Section 115 of the Local Government Act 2020.

Operational Considerations

There are a number of operational considerations for Council officers that form part of the redevelopment project. These include:

·       The timing of construction and new operator commencement.

·       Advertising of lease to meet statutory requirements.

·       Liquor licensing.

·       Community consultation.

·       Golf course contracts expire 30 June 2021. An extension will be negotiated until the new operator is on board.

CONSULTATION

Well Played Golf Business Consultancy developed the strategic plan including financial modelling assumptions for the golf course redevelopment. M21 specialist property consultants have provided advice regarding the commercial elements of the lease and EOI process for a new operator.

Consultation has been undertaken with key stakeholders including representatives of the four resident golf clubs and the golf course operator during concept design development.

As part of this work internal consultation has been undertaken with Finance and Corporate Performance, Property and Rates, Procurement and Major Projects. 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The approved budget allocation for the Morack Golf Course redevelopment is $7.231m.

Additional funding of $2.514m is required to meet the redevelopment program of $9.745m including a contingency due to a delay in the construction commencement from March 2021 to at least mid-2021. Refer to table below:

Budget Summary

 

Actual 18/19

$138,657

Actual 19/20

$295,670

Budget 20/21 (adopted plus carry forward)

$6,796,673

Shortfall ($9.47m - $7.23m)

$2,239,000

Escalation

$275,000

Total Budget

$9,745,000

 


 

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The Procurement Policy does not apply with regards to the new operator procurement as this is a property transaction.

Redevelopment of the Morack Golf course supports Council’s Recreation Strategy and Whitehorse Health and Wellbeing Plan. Refer below:

Whitehorse Recreation Strategy 2015-2024

Principle 2 – A variety of different sport and recreation options will be encouraged because they make for a vibrant, active and healthy city.

Whitehorse Health and Wellbeing Plan 2017-2021

Plan, promote and deliver a range of amenities and programs to enable all people to access health and fitness, wellness and social activities across the municipality

Council’s Property Lease and Licence Policy applies to this project.

 

 

 


Whitehorse City Council

Council Minutes                                                                                                                               19 April 2021

 

9.3.3      Whitehorse Community Grants: Partnership Grants

 

 

SUMMARY

This report provides Council with information regarding the Whitehorse Community Partnership Grants program.

The current Partnership Grants funding agreements were established in the 2012/13 financial year for a four year period (these have undergone a number of extensions due to both the Price Waterhouse Coopers review followed by an internal review of the community grants program. They are due to expire on 30th June 2021.

It is proposed that officers write to the current Category 1 Community Grants Partnership recipients inviting them to apply for a two year Community Partnership Grant, as well as a implementing a competitive Community Partnership Grants process in regard to Category 2 funding, for a two year period (only) so that the Community Vision, Council Plan, and Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing outcomes can inform the broad Community Grants program including the Partnership Grants component from 2023.

MOTION

Moved by Cr McNeill, Seconded by Cr Massoud

That Council:

1.    Approve officers to write to Category 1 Community Grants Partnership recipients inviting them to apply for a two year Community Partnership Grant.

2.    Endorse a competitive Community Partnership Grants process for Category 2 funding for a two year period.

Amendment

Moved by Cr Barker, Seconded by Cr Liu

That Council:

1.      Approve officers to write to Category 1 Community Grants Partnership recipients inviting them to apply for a two year Community Partnership Grant.

2.      Endorse a competitive Community Partnership Grants process for Category 2 funding for a two year period.

3.      Rename the annually themed Chinese New Year’s Festival, to the more commonly themed Lunar New Year’s Festival within the City of Whitehorse.

Carried Unanimously

FURTHER Amendment

Moved by Cr Barker, Seconded by Cr Liu

That Council:

1.      Approve officers to write to Category 1 Community Grants Partnership recipients inviting them to apply for a two year Community Partnership Grant, noting the ABAW allocation in Category 1 be removed to enable a competitive process as identified in part 4 of the recommendation.

2.      Endorse a competitive Community Partnership Grants process for Category 2 funding for a two year period.

3.      Rename the annually themed Chinese New Year’s Festival, to the more commonly themed Lunar New Year’s Festival within the City of Whitehorse.

4.      Endorse a competitive Community Partnership Grants approach for the Lunar New Year’s Festivities.

lost

The Substantive Motion moved by Cr McNeill, seconded by Cr Massoud, as Amended was then put and Carried Unanimously

 

background

Council has an annual Community Grants program which is highly regarded in the local community and demonstrates Council’s support of community organisations and groups in regard to the provision of a wide range of initiatives, services and programs with the aim of benefiting the Whitehorse community.

The Community Grants program is made up of four grant streams:

1.    Annual Community Grants

2.    Discount Support hall hire

3.    Discount Support free tipping

4.    Partnership Grants

The current Partnership Grants funding agreements were established in the 2012/13  financial year for a 4 year period (these have undergone a number of extensions due to both the Price Waterhouse Coopers and internal reviews of the community grants program) and are due to expire on 30th June 2021.

DISCUSSION

These partnership grants fall into 2 categories:

Category 1:

Organisations that have a unique role in regard to service provision. These organisations have a strong connection with a particular local community or regular event, and/or are the only organisation that can provide the particular initiative, service or program offered.

In the past, these organisations have been invited to apply for funding outlining how the funds will be used as part of that process. These organisations are invited to directly apply for a Partnership Grant as they are not contested. However, these organisations are still required to enter into a service agreement with Council, detail how they will expend their grant funding and report to Council in regard to their outcomes.

Listed below are the organisations this category relates to, along with the funding they will receive in the 21/22 financial year:

·       10 Neighbourhood Houses and Centres (ranging from between $28,647- $39,419) for a total value of $337,015 in the 21/22 financial year

·       Whitehorse Pre-school Association ($32,829)

·       Asian Business Association Chinese New Year Festival ($25,351)

·       The Whitehorse Community Chest (concluded in the 19/20 financial year). The $14,500 that was previously allocated is a saving to Council in this current (and ensuing) financial years.

Category 2:

Funding is offered to community organisations to provide initiatives which align with the Council Plan, other Council plans and policies, priorities, and /or strategic directions. These may change over time depending on the community and Council priorities, emerging issues and trends.

The initiatives, services and programs that fall within this category can be provided by a range of services/organisations within the City of Whitehorse and are therefore put out to the community via an expression of interest process, as part of a contested funding round.

A range of organisations have the opportunity to bid for the provision of services, initiatives and programs toward the end of each partnership agreement cycle. These organisations are required to enter into a service agreement with Council, detail how they will expend their grant funding and report to Council in regard to their outcomes.

At the present time, providers of the following services fall into this category (the funding amount for the 2021/2022 year is also detailed):

·       Life Skills program (Family Access Network) ($39,691)

·       Emergency relief (Uniting Care East Burwood Centre) ($27,782)

·       Family violence program (was provided by Mitcham Community House however their program concluded in October 2020. The $18,378 that was previously allocated is a saving to Council in this current (and ensuing) financial years.

Considerations moving forward:

Council is in the process of facilitating the development of a 20 year Community Vision as well as the development of a new four year Community Plan and a four year Municipal Public Health & Wellbeing Plan (MPHWP). These will be confirmed and in place by 31st October 2021. As a result, the Community Vision, Council Plan and MPHWP processes will determine new priorities and strategic directions for Council’s work into the future, including the Whitehorse Community Grants program.

It is therefore proposed that all Partnership grants (category 1 & 2) are either advertised (as part of a contested process) or put in place for a period of two years only, so that the priorities and strategic directions falling from the Community Vision, Council Plan and MPHWP can guide the Partnership Grants from July 2023.

Given that the Mitcham Community House Family Violence Program is no longer operating as well as the State Government having released considerable funding for family violence initiatives, proposed that the funding that was allocated to this program ($18,378 for the 21/22 financial year) becomes a saving to Council in the 2021/2022 financial year and into the future.

The Whitehorse Community Chest has also concluded. The $14,500 that was previously utilised by this organisation, is a saving to Council this financial year and ensuing financial years.

CONSULTATION

Not applicable.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

In regard to the 2021/2022 financial year the value of the Partnership Grants (excluding the Family Violence program and the Community Chest program) is detailed below:

Category 1:

·       10 Neighbourhood Houses and Centres (ranges from between $28,647 - $39,419) for a total value of $337,015 in the 21/22 financial year)

·       Whitehorse Pre-school Association ($32,829)

·       Asian Business Association (Chinese New Year Festival) ($25,351)

Category 2:

·       Life Skills program (Family Access Network) ($39,691)

·       Emergency relief (Uniting Care East Burwood Centre) ($27,782)

Category 1 and Category 2 = $462,668

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The Whitehorse Community Grants program, incorporating the Partnership grants, align with the current Whitehorse Council Plan and the Whitehorse Health and Wellbeing Plan (WHWP), particularly in relation to serving and strengthening our diverse community to be inclusive, vibrant and engaged.

Given it is a requirement that all community grant applications must align with one or more of Council’s strategic directions, there is a strong argument that new Partnership grants should only be in place for a period of two years to ensure they are realigned with the four year Community Plan and four year Municipal Public Health & Wellbeing Plan currently in development.


Whitehorse City Council

Council Minutes                                                                                                                               19 April 2021

 

9.3.4      Whitehorse Manningham Regional Library Corporation Local Laws 3 and 4 2020

ATTACHMENT

 

SUMMARY

The Whitehorse Manningham Regional Library Corporation has reviewed its Local Laws which govern meeting procedures and operation of library services.  Local Law No. 3 and Local Law No. 4 were adopted by the Board of the Library Corporation on 10 March 2021.  Ratification from the member Councils is required prior to finalising the process.  It is recommended that Council ratify the Local Laws as attached.

 

Council Resolution

Moved by Cr Skilbeck, Seconded by Cr Lane

That Council:

1.    Ratify Whitehorse Manningham Regional Library Corporation Local Law No. 3 Meeting Procedures and Use of the Common Seal and Local Law No. 4 Library Services Local Law.

2.    Inform the Whitehorse Manningham Regional Library Corporation of this decision.

Carried Unanimously

 

background

Council is required by the Regional Library Agreement and the Local Government Act 1989 to ratify any new or amended Local Law made by the Regional Library Corporation.

For clarity it should be noted that the impact of s330 of the Local Government Act 2020 is that those sections of the Local Government Act 1989 that were applicable to an existing regional library corporation, continue to apply to that library as if all of those sections had not been repealed, until 2031.

DISCUSSION

Library Corporation meetings provide the forum and authority by which Library Board members can make decisions on behalf of their community.  It is important to have accountable and transparent meeting procedures and processes. 

The purpose and general purport of the proposed Meeting Procedures and Use of the Common Seal Local Law No 3 2020 is to:

1.       Provide for the administration of the Library’s powers and functions;

2.       Regulate and control the use of the Common Seal of the Library;

3.       Regulate and control the election of the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson;

4.       Regulate and control the conduct of meetings of the Library; and

5.       Create offences arising out of disorderly conduct at a meeting or the unauthorised use of the Common Seal.


The provision of clear and precise information relating to use of Library services and facilities is essential in ensuring the safe and efficient operation of public libraries. The purpose and general purport of the proposed Library Services Local Law No. 4 2020 is to:

1.       Regulate the administration of the public library services provided by the Library;

2.       Govern the membership of the public library services provided by the Library;

3.       Regulate the conduct of persons attending Library premises; and

4.       Regulate the borrowing and return of items.

CONSULTATION

Consultation included discussion and input from Library Board members, Library Corporate Management Team, staff and legal advisors.  Public comment was sought after the formal advertisement period.

The Library engaged a lawyer to review the Local Laws and to prepare community impact statements, public notices and advertisements.  The proposed laws were discussed at the Library Board meeting on 16 December 2020 and endorsed for advertising.  Public notice was placed in the Age and the Victorian Government Gazette, and all statutory requirements have been met.

No submissions were received.

The Library Board at its meeting held 10 March 2021 endorsed Local Law No. 3 and Local Law No. 4.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications to Council.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The matter is of a statutory matter and a legislative requirement which must be complied with, and part of ensuring good governance and effective management.

 

Attachment

1        WMRLC Local Law No. 3 Meeting Procedures & Use of Common Seal  

2        WMRLC Local Law No. 4 Service   

  


Whitehorse City Council

Council Minutes                                                                                                                               19 April 2021

 

9.4         Corporate

9.4.1      Hardship and Stimulus

FILE NUMBER: SF20/731

 

SUMMARY

This report provides Council with an update of the key items contained within the Pandemic Response Policy reports adopted by Council on 20 April 2020 and on 24 August 2020.

 

Council Resolution

Moved by Cr Cutts, Seconded by Cr Lane

That Council:

1.    Approves implementation of the recommended responses contained within this report.

2.    Resolve to carry forward one million dollars of unspent stimulus funds into the 2021/22 Council budget for allocation during the 2021/22 financial year.

Carried Unanimously

 

background

In response to the State of emergency declared on 16 March 2020 (Victoria), Council at its ordinary meeting on 20 April 2020 adopted the Pandemic Response Policy Package A and Package B. 

Both packages were designed to provide residents, businesses, ratepayers and community organisations with relief and support during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Package A approved support and hardship relief of up to two million dollars ($2,000,000) covering the following five categories:

·       Council Rates & Charges,

·       Other Statutory Fees & Charges,

·       Licence Fees & Rentals,

·       User Pay Fees & Charges, and

·       Other

Council also resolved to develop a pandemic response policy (Package B) with recovery stimulus and additional funding of up to two million five hundred thousand dollars ($2,500,000).

During the second half of 2020 an update was provided to Council and at its ordinary meeting on 24 August 2020 and resulting from that update Council resolved to extend the seasonal licence fee waiver to the summer season clubs for the period 1 October 2020 to 31 December 2020.

Also at its 24 August 2020 meeting Council also acknowledged that to mitigate the amount of rate arrears that Council’s Property & Rates Department will make every effort to make contact with all ratepayers with rate arrears, using Council’s adopted Rates Hardship Assistance Policy to assist these ratepayers.

At the time of writing this report, it was projected that 95% of the two million dollars for Package A will be allocated prior to 30 June 2021.

Package B had two components, these being:

1.    Business Grants, and

2.    Community Grants

In reference to the Business Grants there have been two rounds, totalling five hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

The Community Grants also have had two rounds with a combined total of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

It is projected that 40% of the two million five hundred thousand dollars for Package B will be allocated prior to 30 June 2021.

In reference to rates hardship applications Council has received in excess of 1,350 applications since March 2020, with approximately 93% of those applications being completed.  Many ratepayers have asked for extra time to pay their unpaid rates with many being granted until 31 May 2021 to pay.  However, whilst all ratepayers had good intentions to pay by 31 May 2021, many will be unable to meet this deadline.

All Victorian councils have the legal right to levy 10% penalty interest on unpaid rates in accordance with the Penalty Interest Rates Act 1983; since the commencement of the pandemic Council has not levied penalty interest against any unpaid rates.

It is estimated that the penalty interest foregone for the 2020/21 financial year is approximately three hundred thousand dollars.  Should Council resolve to not levy penalty interest during the 2021/22 financial year, it is expected that a similar amount of penalty interest will also be foregone.

Other rates hardship initiatives implemented during 2020 were a fully automated online hardship system for applications and a fully automated online system for payment arrangements.

Both initiatives have been well received by ratepayers.

DISCUSSION

Council Rates & Charges:

Council should continue to work with ratepayers experiencing genuine hardship and/or requiring additional time to pay their rates.  Consequently, it is recommended that ratepayers with unpaid rates be encouraged to enter into payment arrangements with a due date of 30 September 2021 without incurring penalty interest. 

The reasoning behind these recommendations, is that it enables ratepayers with unpaid rates an additional five months to pay with the due date coinciding with the first instalment of the 2021/22 rates.

The recommended extension to 30 September 2021 allows ratepayers additional time to restructure their finances while mortgage rates are low.  Additionally, some ratepayers with unpaid rates may see the current buoyant property market as an opportunity to restructure their property holdings, therefore allowing these ratepayers an additional five months to pay without penalty is considered prudent.

To reiterate earlier advice provided to Council, rates are a statutory charge levied against a property, with the owner of the property being liable to pay the levied rates and charges in accordance with the Local Government Act 1989 (the LGA). 

Consequently, rates can accrue as a property debt; however, accrued rates must be paid in full at a future property sale settlement.


 

Additionally, the Victorian Ombudsman is due to shortly table the final report of their investigation into ratepayers in financial hardship; depending on the recommendations contained within the Ombudsman’s final report, Council may need to amend its processes and policies relating to rates hardship. 

If further amendments are required to Council’s Rates Hardship Assistance Policy then a Council report with recommended amendments will be presented to Council at a future date.

It is also important to note, that at a yet to be determined date, Council will need to recommence strategic debt recovery in accordance with the LGA; this is to recover large unpaid rate amounts.  If debt recovery were to recommence it is recommended that the focus be on non-residential properties.

Licence Fees & Rentals:

As advised in the 20 April 2020 Council report, occupants of Council owned land and buildings can be divided into the following subcategories:

1.    Residential Tenants:

During the past twelve months Council has not received, via its managing agents, any requests for rent relief from its tenants and at the time of writing there were no rent arrears.

2.    Commercial businesses located in Council Centres:

As advised in the 20 April 2020 report, both Aqualink centres and Sportlink have businesses that service the patrons of these centres and are consequently dependent on the centres for their livelihoods.

It was recommended these tenants be provided with a rent “holiday” for the month of March 2020 and for the period of closure, and that rent would not be levied for the first month after reopening of the centres. 

However, since the gradual reopening, the “foot traffic” at both Aqualink centres has reduced by approximately 40% to 50%.  It is recommended that Council, as landlord, provide a 50% rent reduction to the commercial tenants located in the Aqualink centres, effective from 1 January 2021 to 30 June 2021, to acknowledge the loss of “foot traffic”.

In reference to Sportlink, it is difficult to quantify the exact “foot traffic” reduction since the gradual reopening of the centre.  However, stadium hours booked since reopening are estimated to have reduced by approximately 15% to 20%.  It is therefore recommended that Council, as landlord, provide a 25% rent reduction to the commercial tenant located at Sportlink, effective from 1 January 2021 to 30 June 2021, to acknowledge the loss of “foot traffic”.

This additional rent relief will enable the commercial businesses located in Council centres the opportunity to re-establish their businesses over the first half of 2021 and does not contravene national competition policy.

3.    Other Council Centres:

The 20 April 2020 report advised Council that there may be circumstances in Other Council Centres, such as the Box Hill Town Hall Hub, that warrant a case by case rent relief assessment in accordance with the Federal Government’s “JobKeeper Payment” for employers and employees and the “National Cabinet Mandatory Code of Conduct SME Commercial Leasing Principles during COVID-19” (the Mandatory Code). 

However, an unforeseen limitation of applying the Mandatory Code to Box Hill Town Hall Hub occupants was that many occupants are volunteer based organisations and subsequently were not eligible for the Federal Government’s “JobKeeper Payment” for employers and employees or the Mandatory Code.

As a goodwill gesture, it is recommended that Council retrospectively apply rent relief to all Box Hill Town Hall Hub tenants by reimbursing, to the individual tenants, any rent levied (and paid) for the rental period from 1 April 2020 to 30 September 2020.

It is important to note that the reimbursement only applies to rent associated with leases and licences, it does not apply to short-term hire arrangements.

4.    Not for Profit Sporting/Recreation Clubs:

As mentioned above, Council at its 24 August 2020 meeting resolved to extend the seasonal licence fee waiver to the summer season clubs for the period 1 October 2020 to 30 December 2020; this acknowledged that the summer sporting clubs had a delayed start to their season.

Given that Council has already provided rent relief and reimbursement of utility outgoings to these groups it is recommended that Council not provide any additional relief to Not for Profit Sporting/Recreation Clubs.

However, it is recommended that Council Officers complete a final review of eligible Not for Profit Sporting/Recreation Clubs to ensure that all entitlements have been requested and reimbursed.

5.    Not for Profit Community Groups and Charities:

Similar to eligible Not for Profit Sporting/Recreation Clubs mentioned above, Council has already provided rent relief and reimbursement of utility outgoings to Not for Profit Community Groups and Charities, it is therefore recommended that Council not provide any additional relief to Not for Profit Community Groups and Charities.

However, it is also recommended that Council Officers complete a final review of eligible Not for Profit Community Groups and Charities to ensure that all entitlements have been requested and reimbursed.

It is also important to note that the reimbursement applied to Not for Profit Community Groups and Charities only applies to rent associated with leases and licences, it does not apply to short-term hire arrangements.

Council Rates & Fire Services Property Levy:

The majority of tenancies located in Council buildings and/or on Council owned land are deemed rateable.  Council as landlord passes the rates and Fire Services Property Levy (FSPL) onto the tenants, via the annual Valuation & Rates Notice, for payment in accordance with their lease obligations. 

Please note that this also applies to tenancies located on Council owned land which comply with the requirements of the Cultural and Recreational Land Act 1963.

Effective 1 July 2020, Council raised council rates and FSPL for the 2020/21 financial year, with rates and FSPL being due on 15 February 2021.  However, given that these tenants were unable to access their leased properties during the first six months of the 2020/21 financial year it is recommended that Council pay the full 2020/21 rates and FSPL on behalf of all Not for Profit tenants, and that Council only seek partial reimbursement from commercial tenants located in Council Centres for the final quarter of the 2020/21 financial year.

The recommendation to pay the 2020/21 rates and FSPL acknowledges that uncertainty still exists regarding the potential of further lockdowns before the end of the 2020/21 financial year.

It is important to note that Council paying the Council rates and FSPL as the landowner does not contravene national competition policy; however, for consistency with private landlords it is recommended that Council only seek the partial reimbursements mentioned above.

Stimulus:

For the 2021/22 financial year it is envisaged that a provision for further stimulus be made, especially business grants with the removal of the Federal Government’s “JobKeeper Payment” for employers and employees.

Any future grants made as business grants should focus on economic development and business recovery; up to a considered total value of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

It is recommended that prior to any future grant application process that there be a greater focus on educating the applicants regarding the process and reinforcing that the grants’ process is a competitive process primarily designed for recovery.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

In April 2020 the financial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic were unknown and in the 20 April 2020 Council report Council allocated two million dollars for hardship and two million five hundred thousand dollars for stimulus; giving a combined total of four million five hundred thousand dollars.

It is projected that one million nine hundred thousand dollars of the allocated two million dollars of the hardship allocation will be spent during the 2020/21 financial year; while it is projected that one million dollars of the allocated two million five hundred thousand dollars allocated to stimulus will be spent during the 2020/21 financial year.

It is recommended that one million dollars of the stimulus funds be carried forward into the 2021/22 financial year for the following:

·       Provision for penalty interest foregone during the 2021/22 financial year,

·       Business grants, as mentioned above,

·       Payment of Council rates and the FSPL for Council tenancies, as mentioned above,

·       Reimbursement of Box Hill Town Hall Hub levied rents for the period 1 April 2020 to 30 September 2020, as mentioned above, and

·       A contingency provision for unforeseen expenditure or circumstances including any future lockdowns during the 2021/22 financial year.

The recommended rent relief provided to the Commercial businesses located in Council Centres will be funded by the unspent funds associated with the two million dollars granted by Council in April 2020 and known as Package A.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

All rates hardship applications are processed in accordance with Council’s Rates Hardship Assistance Policy.

 

Attendance

Cr Barker left the Chambers at 9:54pm, returning at 9:56pm

Cr Cutts left the Chambers at 9:54pm, returning at 9:57pm

 


Whitehorse City Council

Council Minutes                                                                                                                               19 April 2021

 

9.4.2      Proposed Budget 2021/2022

ATTACHMENT

 

SUMMARY

A Proposed Budget for the 2021/2022 financial year has been prepared. Under section 96 (2) of the Local Government Act 2020 and section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989, Council is required to give public notice that the budget is available for inspection and to consider submissions received in respect of the budget prior to its adoption.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1.    Approves the Proposed Budget 2021/2022 for the financial year, for the purposes of Section 94 of the Local Government Act 2020;

2.    Pursuant to Section 223 (1) (b) of the Local Government Act 1989 determine that the Delegated Committee comprising the whole of Council will consider, and if requested, hear any submissions received in relation to the Proposed Budget 2021/2022, on Tuesday 15 June 2021 at 7.00 pm (as practical to ensure appropriate health and social distancing measures) at the Civic Centre, Nunawading;

3.    Authorise the Acting General Manager Corporate Services to give public notice, in accordance with Section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 that Council has prepared a Proposed Budget for the 2021/2022 year, and pursuant to Section 223 (3) to carry out the administrative procedures necessary to enable the Committee to carry out its functions under Section 223 of the Act; and

4.    Consider for adoption the Proposed Budget 2021/2022 at the Council Meeting on Monday 28 June 2021, after consideration of any submissions received by the Delegated Committee at its Meeting on Tuesday 15 June 2021.

Motion

Moved by Cr Skilbeck, Seconded by Cr Liu

That Council:

1.      Gives public notice that the Proposed Budget 2021/2022 has been prepared for the 2021/2022 financial year and three subsequent years for the purposes of Section 94 of the Local Government Act 2020, including;

2.      Proceed in accordance with Option 2 as Stage 1 of the Sportlink redevelopment project, subject to the Commonwealth Government supporting the allocation of the $1.5 million grant for this purpose, including:

a)      Upgrading the outdoor courts to include an acrylic surface and portal frame roof including LED lighting;

b)     Addressing fire compliance matters related to the existing indoor courts building;

c)      External works to the car park;

d)     Allocation of $6.570 million in the Capital Works Program over 2021/22 and 2022/23 to complete Sportlink Option 2 based on a total project cost of $8.070 million; and

e)      Preparation of cost estimates for the additional Sportlink redevelopment project works associated with Option 3 (as outlined in the report) as Stage 2, including the two new indoor courts and associated building and car park works, to be considered as part of a future budget, subject to receiving funding assistance from an external source.

3.      Allocate additional funding of $2.514m to the existing allocation of $7.231m for the Morack Golf Course Redevelopment in the 2022/23 capital works program.

4.      Makes available the Proposed Budget 2021/2022 for public inspection and comment in accordance with Council’s Community Engagement Policy pursuant to Section 96(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 2020;

5.      Determine that the Delegated Committee comprising the whole of Council will consider, and if requested, hear any submissions received in relation to the Proposed Budget 2021/2022, on Tuesday 15 June 2021 at 7.00 pm (as practical to ensure appropriate health and social distancing measures) at the Civic Centre, Nunawading;

6.      Authorise the Acting General Manager Corporate Services to give public notice, that Council has prepared a Proposed Budget for the 2021/2022 year and three subsequent years, has made this document available for inspection and is accepting public feedback by way of submissions;

7.      Notes that the Proposed Budget 2021/2022 report will be amended in the Council meeting minutes to reflect changes to the consultation processes to be undertaken under the new Local Government Act 2020; and

8.      Consider for adoption the Proposed Budget 2021/2022 at the Council Meeting on Monday 28 June 2021, after consideration of any submissions received by the Delegated Committee at its Meeting on Tuesday 15 June 2021.

Amendment

Moved by Cr Barker, Seconded by Cr Davenport

That:

1.      Council gives public notice that the Proposed Budget 2021/2022 has been prepared for the 2021/2022 financial year and three subsequent years for the purposes of Section 94 of the Local Government Act 2020, including:

2.      Council proceed in accordance with Option 2 as Stage 1 of the Sportlink redevelopment project, subject to the Commonwealth Government supporting the allocation of the $1.5 million grant for this purpose, including:

a)      Upgrading the outdoor courts to include an acrylic surface and portal frame roof including LED lighting;

b)     Addressing fire compliance matters related to the existing indoor courts building;

c)      External works to the car park;

d)     Allocation of $6.570 million in the Capital Works Program over 2021/22 and 2022/23 to complete Sportlink Option 2 based on a total project cost of $8.070 million; and

e)      Preparation of cost estimates for the additional Sportlink redevelopment project works associated with Option 3 (as outlined in the report) as Stage 2, including the two new indoor courts and associated building and car park works, to be considered as part of a future budget, subject to receiving funding assistance from an external source.

3.      Council allocate additional funding of $2.514m to the existing allocation of $7.231m for the Morack Golf Course Redevelopment in the 2022/23 capital works program.

4.      Further savings within the Proposed Budget 2021/2022 – to be referred to as “Post COVID-19 Operational Efficiencies” – of $1.7m, representing 1.0% of the $171m proposed operating expenditure budget  (excluding depreciation) and the return of the “Post COVID-19 Operational Efficiencies” to the community as a one-off rate reduction as part of the 2022/2023 Budget;

 

5.      Council makes available the Proposed Budget 2021/2022 for public inspection and comment in accordance with Council’s Community Engagement Policy pursuant to Section 96(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 2020;

6.      Council determine that the Delegated Committee comprising the whole of Council will consider, and if requested, hear any submissions received in relation to the Proposed Budget 2021/2022, on Tuesday 15 June 2021 at 7.00 pm (as practical to ensure appropriate health and social distancing measures) at the Civic Centre, Nunawading;

7.      Council authorise the Acting General Manager Corporate Services to give public notice, that Council has prepared a Proposed Budget for the 2021/2022 year and three subsequent years, has made this document available for inspection and is accepting public feedback by way of submissions;

8.      Council notes that the Proposed Budget 2021/2022 report will be amended in the Council meeting minutes to reflect changes to the consultation processes to be undertaken under the new Local Government Act 2020; and

9.      Council consider for adoption the Proposed Budget 2021/2022 at the Council Meeting on Monday 28 June 2021, after consideration of any submissions received by the Delegated Committee at its Meeting on Tuesday 15 June 2021

Lost


A Division was called.

Division

For

Cr Barker

Cr Davenport

Against

Cr Carr

Cr Cutts

Cr Lane

Cr Liu

Cr Massoud

Cr McNeill

Cr Munroe

Cr Skilbeck

Cr Stennett

On the results of the Division the motion was declared lost

 

Procedural Motion – (AT 10:29PM)

Moved by Cr Lane, Seconded by Cr Massoud

In accordance with clause 16 of Council’s Governance Rules, the Council meeting be extended for 30 minutes beyond 10.30pm.

Carried BY MAJORITY


 

Amendment

Moved by Cr Davenport, Seconded by Cr Barker

That:

1.      Council gives public notice that the Proposed Budget 2021/2022 has been prepared for the 2021/2022 financial year and three subsequent years for the purposes of Section 94 of the Local Government Act 2020, including;

2.      Council proceed in accordance with Option 2 as Stage 1 of the Sportlink redevelopment project, subject to the Commonwealth Government supporting the allocation of the $1.5 million grant for this purpose, including:

a)      Upgrading the outdoor courts to include an acrylic surface and portal frame roof including LED lighting;

b)     Addressing fire compliance matters related to the existing indoor courts building;

c)      External works to the car park;

d)     Allocation of $6.570 million in the Capital Works Program over 2021/22 and 2022/23 to complete Sportlink Option 2 based on a total project cost of $8.070 million; and

e)      Preparation of cost estimates for the additional Sportlink redevelopment project works associated with Option 3 (as outlined in the report) as Stage 2, including the two new indoor courts and associated building and car park works, to be considered as part of a future budget, subject to receiving funding assistance from an external source.

3.      Council allocate additional funding of $2.514m to the existing allocation of $7.231m for the Morack Golf Course Redevelopment in the 2022/23 capital works program.

4.      The addition of a note in the Proposed Budget 2021/2022 indicating that ‘The Upgrade Program Interim Climate Response Plan 2020-2022 Implementation’ is not to be used to fund Electric Vehicle Charging Stations’;

5.      Council makes available the Proposed Budget 2021/2022 for public inspection and comment in accordance with Council’s Community Engagement Policy pursuant to Section 96(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 2020;

6.      Council determine that the Delegated Committee comprising the whole of Council will consider, and if requested, hear any submissions received in relation to the Proposed Budget 2021/2022, on Tuesday 15 June 2021 at 7.00 pm (as practical to ensure appropriate health and social distancing measures) at the Civic Centre, Nunawading;

7.      Council authorise the Acting General Manager Corporate Services to give public notice, that Council has prepared a Proposed Budget for the 2021/2022 year and three subsequent years, has made this document available for inspection and is accepting public feedback by way of submissions;

8.      Council notes that the Proposed Budget 2021/2022 report will be amended in the Council meeting minutes to reflect changes to the consultation processes to be undertaken under the new Local Government Act 2020; and

9.      Council consider for adoption the Proposed Budget 2021/2022 at the Council Meeting on Monday 28 June 2021, after consideration of any submissions received by the Delegated Committee at its Meeting on Tuesday 15 June 2021

 

Lost


 

Amendment

Moved by Cr Davenport, Seconded by Cr Barker

That

1.      Council gives public notice that the Proposed Budget 2021/2022 has been prepared for the 2021/2022 financial year and three subsequent years for the purposes of Section 94 of the Local Government Act 2020, including;

2.      Council proceed in accordance with Option 2 as Stage 1 of the Sportlink redevelopment project, subject to the Commonwealth Government supporting the allocation of the $1.5 million grant for this purpose, including:

a)      Upgrading the outdoor courts to include an acrylic surface and portal frame roof including LED lighting;

b)     Addressing fire compliance matters related to the existing indoor courts building;

c)      External works to the car park;

d)     Allocation of $6.570 million in the Capital Works Program over 2021/22 and 2022/23 to complete Sportlink Option 2 based on a total project cost of $8.070 million; and

e)      Preparation of cost estimates for the additional Sportlink redevelopment project works associated with Option 3 (as outlined in the report) as Stage 2, including the two new indoor courts and associated building and car park works, to be considered as part of a future budget, subject to receiving funding assistance from an external source.

3.      Council allocate additional funding of $2.514m to the existing allocation of $7.231m for the Morack Golf Course Redevelopment in the 2022/23 capital works program.

4.      The reduction of the Whitehorse Centre operational budget from $1.4m to $700k given that the centre is now closed and demolished.

5.      Council makes available the Proposed Budget 2021/2022 for public inspection and comment in accordance with Council’s Community Engagement Policy pursuant to Section 96(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 2020;

6.      Council determine that the Delegated Committee comprising the whole of Council will consider, and if requested, hear any submissions received in relation to the Proposed Budget 2021/2022, on Tuesday 15 June 2021 at 7.00 pm (as practical to ensure appropriate health and social distancing measures) at the Civic Centre, Nunawading;

7.      Council authorise the Acting General Manager Corporate Services to give public notice, that Council has prepared a Proposed Budget for the 2021/2022 year and three subsequent years, has made this document available for inspection and is accepting public feedback by way of submissions;

8.      Council notes that the Proposed Budget 2021/2022 report will be amended in the Council meeting minutes to reflect changes to the consultation processes to be undertaken under the new Local Government Act 2020; and

9.      Council consider for adoption the Proposed Budget 2021/2022 at the Council Meeting on Monday 28 June 2021, after consideration of any submissions received by the Delegated Committee at its Meeting on Tuesday 15 June 2021

Lost

 

 

 

Procedural Motion

Moved by Cr Massoud, Seconded by Cr Stennett

That the Motion be put.

Carried Unanimously

The Substantive Motion, moved by Cr Skilbeck, Seconded by Cr Liu was then put  and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

 

background

A Proposed Budget has been prepared for the 2021/2022 financial year in accordance with the requirements of Section 94 of the Local Government Act 2020. A copy of the Proposed Budget 2021/2022 is included as an attachment.

DISCUSSION

The Budget has been prepared with reference to Council’s long term financial planning strategy, which is aimed at creating a sustainable fiscal environment to enable Council to continue to provide the community with high quality services and infrastructure into the medium and long term. It is a financial plan aimed at:

·       Balancing the community’s needs and ensuring that Council continues to be financially sustainable in the long term.

·       Increasing Council’s commitment to sustainable asset renewal and maintenance of the community’s assets.

·       Maintaining a strong cash position for financial sustainability.

·       Achieving efficiencies through targeted savings and an ongoing commitment to contain costs.

·       Rate and fee increases that are both manageable and sustainable; and

·       Providing a framework to deliver balanced budgets including sustainable annual surpluses.

The Proposed Budget 2021/2022 incorporates the Annual Plan, Operating Budget, and Capital Works Program, and details the resources required over the next four financial years to deliver on the new Council Plan 2021-2025, which is currently under development. 

The Proposed Budget 2021/2022 provides $221 million funding to enable the ongoing delivery of high quality services and the renewal and improvement of community facilities and infrastructure for the Whitehorse community. The budget funds a range of community services including health and family services, home and community services, the maintenance of community facilities, parks, sport fields and infrastructure, waste and recycling collection, and building and planning services. In addition, the Capital Works Program provides for a sustainable level of funding for the renewal of the community’s infrastructure and an investment in major community facilities such as the redevelopments of the Whitehorse Centre, sporting pavilions and Morack Golf Course.

KEY HIGHLIGHTS OF THE BUDGET

An operational budget that enables the delivery of services to the community including:

·       $20.35 million Sustainability, Waste and Recycling

·       $16.34 million Home and Community Services

·       $15.12 million Recreation and Leisure

·       $13.39 million ParksWide (Maintenance of sports fields, parks and gardens)

·       $11.14 million Health and Family Services

·       $9.42 million City Works (Depot operations, maintenance of footpaths, drains and roads)

·       $9.01 million Recycling and Waste Centre

·       $8.72 million Compliance (Community Laws, parking, school crossings, risk, insurance and emergency management)

·       $7.97 million Planning and Building Services

·       $6.24 million Engineering

·       $5.59 million Libraries

·       $5.52 million Arts and Cultural Services

·       $5.27 million Transformation (Excluding waste services charge and parking initiatives which are reflected within Sustainability, Waste and Recycling and Compliance budgets respectively)

·       $4.33 million Assets, Buildings and Capital Works

·       $2.28 million Community Development

·       $0.99 million Investment and Economic Development

·       $0.58 million Major Projects

·       $0.42 million Pandemic Response

A $75 million Capital Works Program comprising:

·       $42.79 million for buildings and building improvements

·       $9.11 million for roads, bridges and off street car parks

·       $6.89 million for plant and equipment

·       $5.90 million for parks, open space and streetscapes

·       $4.43 million for footpaths and cycleways

·       $3.33 million for recreational, leisure and community facilities      

·       $2.97 million for drainage improvements, waste management and other infrastructure

KEY PRESSURES AND CHALLENGES

In preparing the Proposed Budget 2021/2022, a number of influences have been taken into consideration because they are likely to impact significantly on the services delivered by Council in the Budget period. These include:

·      The average rate increase will rise by 1.5% in 2021/2022 under the Fair Go Rates System.

·      An expected $40.00 per metric tonne increase in the State Government landfill levy has been assumed in the Budget effective from 1 July 2021. The landfill levy is charged by the state government for every tonne of waste that goes to landfill, including kerbside waste collections, street cleaning, and non-recyclable waste collected at the Whitehorse Recycling and Waste Centre. The state landfill levy is expected to increase from $65.90 per tonne in 2020/21 to $105.90 per tonne in 2021/2022. This represents a 1076.7% increase in the levy over the past 12 years from the $9.00 charge in 2009/10.

·      This budget has been prepared under the premise that the majority of Council services and demand for these services will return to normal levels in 2021/2022 following the COVID-19 pandemic. There is still an element of unknown as to whether any ongoing impacts will be seen.

·      Cost shifting by other levels of government. Cost shifting occurs where local government provides a service to the community on behalf of the State or Federal Governments. Over time, the funds received by Council do not increase in line with real cost increases. Examples of services that are subject to cost shifting include school crossing supervision, library services and Home and Community Services.

·      Continuing pressure on recycling and landfill costs as a result of the impact of China’s importation ban on recyclable materials and increasing demand and limitations of capacity of Victorian landfill sites.

·      Significant increases in insurance premiums are expected in 2021/2022 following the impact of the 2019/20 bushfires, storms and the COVID-19 pandemic.

·      The State Government Fire Services Property Levy will continue to be collected by Council on behalf of the state government under the Fire Services Property Levy Act 2012.

·      Changing demographic as a result of an ageing and increasingly culturally diverse population resulting in the need for Council to develop facilities which are accessible and adaptable to inter-generational, diverse and multicultural community users.

·      Community expectations for Council to be a leader in environmental sustainability by planning for the effects of climate change, education and awareness of the benefits of trees and natural bushland, and supporting the community in protecting and enhancing our natural assets and open spaces.

·      Impact of market competition particularly in relation to other leisure facilities in the local region.

·      Continuing decline in interest rates in the short to medium-term restricting Council’s ability to generate earnings on cash and investments.

·       The cost of maintaining Council’s infrastructure assets. This is to ensure that infrastructure assets are provided to support services that are appropriate, accessible, responsive and sustainable to the community.

·       An increased sustainable level of funding allocated to the renewal of major community infrastructure and facilities.

·       The current Enterprise Agreement allows for an annual increment in line with the 2021/2022 rate cap.

·       A recently launched Council Transformation process which includes an organisational restructure which is in the process of being finalised, an increased focus on service planning and reviews and continuous improvement, and commencing implementation of Council’s IT Strategy and a new Enterprise Resource Planning System.

FEES AND CHARGES

Fees and charges have been reviewed with consideration of several influencing factors including full costs, market comparison and an emphasis on accessibility, equity and social justice considerations. The proposed 2021/2022 fees and charges will achieve a budgeted income of 50.8% greater than the 2020/21 forecast, which primarily relates to the impact of COVID during 2020/21, and 1.6% higher than the 2020/21 adopted budget.

A number of fees and charges are set by other levels of government regulation (statutory) and are not subject to discretionary change by Council. Statutory fees will be changed by Council when advised of a change by the relevant authorities. These are clearly identified in the schedule of fees and charges. The majority of Whitehorse Home and Community Services fees are set with reference to Commonwealth guidelines.

The following analysis provides explanations of significant variances compared to the 2020/21 adopted budget.

Planning and Building ($396k or 8.6% decrease)

This decrease primarily reflects a $277k decline in swimming pool and spa registration fee income, which related to the introduction of new State Government legislation in 2019/20, and a $174k reduction in Building report and consent fees based on actual trend. This is partly offset by a $106k increase in construction management plan fees, with a suite of new fees proposed to commence in 2021/2022.

Compliance ($371k or 3.0% decrease)

This decrease primarily reflects a $453k decrease in parking infringement income, reflecting an expectation of some continuing impact of COVID-19 into the 2021/2022 financial year and an adjustment to the number of additional parking sensors expected to be rolled out under a new contract.

Civic Services ($69k or $28.8% decrease)

This decrease reflects an estimated reduction in non-voter fine income in 2021/2022, in line with actual trend following previous Council elections.

Health and Family Services ($434k or 10.7% decrease)

This decrease primarily relates to the closure of the Wattle Park Children’s Services Centre during 2020/21 ($386k).

Arts and Cultural Services ($54k or 3.0% decrease)

This decrease is mainly due to a reduction in income expected for the Whitehorse Centre in 2021/2022, including lower venue hire income due to the redevelopment and reduced ticket sales income due to an expected continued impact of COVID. This is partly offset by a $65k increase due to the opening of Strathdon House which is planned for late in the current financial year.

Recycling and Waste Centre ($1.26m or 12.1% increase)

This reflects increases in fee levels to recover rising costs including the significant $40 per tonne increase in the State Government landfill levy that is planned from 1 July 2021.

COVID Response ($585k or 100.0% decrease)

This decrease relates to the centralised budget allocations in 2020/21 financial year under the COVID pandemic hardship and stimulus response packages.

CONSULTATION

The Proposed Budget 2021/2022 is informed by community feedback which has been accumulated through various consultations held as part of the development and review of key Council strategies and plans, the annual community satisfaction survey and from past budget submissions. Council has recently undertaken a comprehensive engagement process to help inform the new Community Vision 2040, and further engagement is currently underway for the development of the new Council Plan, Financial Plan, Asset Plan and Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan. The themes and priorities identified from both these processes will flow through to future years’ budgets.

Councillors and officers also held a number of meetings to develop this fiscally responsible four year budget in a time of significant external and internal pressures and challenges.

In accordance with Section 96(2) of the Local Government Act 2020, Council is seeking written public comment on the Proposed Budget 2021/2022 pursuant with section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989. Section 96(2) permits Council to develop the first budget under the new Act according to this section as Council had not adopted its Community Engagement Policy at the time Council commenced development of the budget. Council is required to give public notice that the proposed document will be made available for inspection for 28 days and that Council will receive submissions made under Section 223 in respect of the Budget. A person who has made a written submission may also request to be heard by a Committee of Council appointed to consider and hear submissions.

Formal notice of the adoption of the Proposed Budget for consultation will be placed through an advertisement in The Age on Wednesday 21 April 2021 and on Council’s website.

It is proposed that Council hear submissions at a Delegated Committee meeting on Tuesday 15 June 2021 at 7.00 pm in the Civic Centre, Nunawading in an appropriate manner consistent with the health and social distancing requirements. The closing date for written submissions will be Wednesday 19 May 2021.

Copies of the Proposed Budget 2021/2022 will be made available at Council’s customer service centres (Box Hill, Forest Hill and Nunawading), at the four Whitehorse library branches (Blackburn, Box Hill, Nunawading and Vermont South) and will be placed on Council’s website for review by the community.

 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The Proposed Budget 2021/2022 incorporates the Annual Plan, Operating Budget, and Capital Works Program, and details the resources required over the next four financial years to deliver on the new Council Plan 2021-2025, which is currently under development. 

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

In accordance with Section 96(2) of the Local Government Act 2020, Council is seeking community feedback on the Proposed Budget 2021/2022 pursuant with section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989. Section 96(2) permits Council to develop the first budget under the new Act according to this section as Council had not adopted its Community Engagement Policy at the time Council commenced development of the budget in November 2020. The Community Engagement Policy will be applied for future years’ budgets.

 

Attachment

1        Proposed Budget 2021-2022    


Whitehorse City Council

Council Minutes                                                                                                                               19 April 2021

 

9.4.3      Draft Revenue and Rating Plan 2021-2025

ATTACHMENT

 

SUMMARY

Council is required to prepare a Revenue and Rating Plan for at least the next four years under the Local Government Act 2020. A draft Revenue and Rating Plan 2021-2025 has been prepared for Council approval and release for public consultation prior to being adopted in June 2021.

 

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1.    Approves in principle the Draft Revenue and Rating Plan 2021-2025 and release for public submissions alongside the Proposed Budget 2021/2022,

2.    Authorise the Acting General Manager Corporate Services to give public notice that Council has prepared a Draft Revenue and Rating Plan 2021-2025 and that this is available for public review and submissions, and

3.    Consider for adoption the Draft Revenue and Rating Plan 2021-2025 in accordance with Section 93 of the Local Government Act 2020 at the Council Meeting on Monday 28 June 2021, after consideration of any submissions received.

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

Moved by Cr Massoud, Seconded by Cr Carr

That Council:

1.      Gives public notice that the Draft Revenue and Rating Plan 2021-2025 has been prepared and will be made available for inspection and public submissions alongside the Proposed Budget 2021/2022.

2.      Authorise the Acting General Manager Corporate Services to give public notice that Council has prepared a Draft Revenue and Rating Plan 2021-2025 and that this is available for public review and submissions.

3.      Determine that the Delegated Committee comprising the whole of Council will consider, and if requested, hear any submissions received in relation to the Draft Revenue and Rating Plan 2021-2025, on Tuesday 15 June 2021 at 7.00pm (as practical to ensure appropriate health and social distancing measures) at the Civic Centre, Nunawading; and

4.      Consider for adoption the Draft Revenue and Rating Plan 2021-2025 in accordance with Section 93 of the Local Government Act 2020 at the Council Meeting on Monday 28 June 2021, after consideration of any submissions received.

Carried Unanimously

 

background

Section 93 of the Local Government Act 2020 requires Council to prepare and adopt a Revenue and Rating Plan (the Plan) for a period of at least the next four financial years by 30 June after a general election. The Plan forms part of the new Integrated Strategic Planning and Reporting Framework and must be prepared in accordance with the strategic planning principles outlined in section 89 of the Act and the financial management principles in section 101 of the Act.


 

The strategic planning principles in section 89 include the following requirements:

·       An integrated approach to planning, monitoring and performance reporting

·       The Community Vision must be addressed

·       Resources needed for effective implementation must be taken into account

·       Risks to effective implementation must be identified and addressed

·       Ongoing monitoring of progress and regular reviews to identify and address changing circumstances

The financial management principles in section 101 of the Act requires that the Revenue and Rating Plan must seek to provide stability and predictability in the financial impact on the municipal community.

Council adopted its current rating strategy in June 2014.

DISCUSSION

The Revenue and Rating Plan provides a medium-term plan for how Council will generate income to deliver on the Council Plan, programs, services and capital works commitments over the next four years. It outlines the relevant assumptions, policy and decisions of Council with respect to each budgeted revenue source, and provides transparency on these decisions to the community.

The Revenue and Rating Plan is a new strategic plan for Council and supersedes the Rating Strategy, which was adopted in June 2014.

The Plan includes a broad pricing policy section, which outlines Council’s approach to each major income sources including rates, fees and charges, grants, contributions and other income. It provides an overview of the different factors that are considered when setting Council fees and charges and highlights that Council actively seeks to obtain grant funding and grow its own-sourced revenue to reduce the burden on ratepayers.

The Plan also includes Council’s rating strategy providing further information about the rating and valuation approaches and principles that are currently applied and a recommendation for the future introduction of a waste service charge from 2023/24.

The Plan will be reviewed annually and updated when required to reflect any changes to Council’s pricing policy or rating strategy that arise. This may be required due to:

·       Changes that result from the development of other strategic plans including the Community Vision 2040, Council Plan 2021-2025 and Financial Plan 2021-2031, which are currently underway at the time of this report, and

·       Changes to Council’s rating strategy that may result from Council’s waste services charge project, which is considering the potential introduction of a waste services charge in future years.

The Plan has been prepared with reference to the Better Practice Guide and supplementary guidance issued by Local Government Victoria.

CONSULTATION

The draft Revenue and Rating Plan 2021-2025 will be released for public review and feedback during a four week submission period in April-May alongside the Proposed Budget 2021/2022.

The draft Plan will be made available for review by the community for 28 days on Council’s website, at Council’s customer services centres in Box Hill, Forest Hill and Nunawading and at Whitehorse library branches in Blackburn, Box Hill, Nunawading and Vermont South.

Community members may submit written submissions to Council with any feedback regarding the Plan by Wednesday 19 May 2021. These can be submitted through Council’s Your Say Whitehorse platform or via post.

An advertisement providing formal notice of the Revenue and Rating Plan consultation period will be placed in The Age on Wednesday 21 April 2021 and it will also be publicised on Council’s website and Facebook page.

All feedback will be considered in light of Council’s current rating and pricing strategies. Feedback may not result in changes to the current Plan given the required adoption of the Plan by 30 June, however further consideration may be given to submissions for future revisions of the Revenue and Rating Plan.

Further and more comprehensive engagement will be conducted in the coming years with respect to the proposed introduction of a waste services charge and the resulting changes to rating strategy.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The draft Revenue and Rating Plan outlines Council’s assumptions, policy and decisions with respect to revenue streams expected over the next four years.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Community consultation will be undertaken via a four week submissions period, as noted above. Further and more comprehensive engagement will be done in the coming years with respect to the proposed introduction of a waste services charge and the resulting changes to rating strategy, and this will be conducted in accordance with Council’s Community Engagement Policy.

Attachment

1        Draft Revenue and Rating Plan    


Whitehorse City Council

Council Minutes                                                                                                                               19 April 2021

 

9.4.4      Councillor Gift Policy

ATTACHMENT

 

SUMMARY

The presentation of this report will allow Council to consider the adoption of its new Councillor Gift Policy, which is specifically required by the new Local Government Act 2020.

 

Council Resolution

Moved by Cr Davenport, Seconded by Cr McNeill

That Council adopt its Councillor Gift Policy, provided as Attachment 1.

Carried Unanimously

 

background

Council adopted its current Gifts, Benefits and Hospitality Policy which applies to Councillors and Council Officers in May 2019. The policy was developed, after giving due regard to key reviews including the Independent Broad-Based Anti-Corruption Commission – Local Government Integrity Frameworks Review (March 2019) and the Victorian Ombudsman – Conflicts of Interest in Local Government Report (2008).

The Local Government Act 2020, now specifically requires that a Council must adopt a Councillor Gift Policy by 24 April 2021 and also requires that the Council’s Chief Executive Officer develops and implements a code of conduct for Council staff by 31 December 2021.

DISCUSSION

Council operates within a Governance Framework which has a number of layers, including a layer which is reliant on key directional documents, which includes documents such as the Councillor Code of Conduct, the Governance Rules and the Councillor Gift Policy.

The focus of the Councillor Gift Policy is to provide Councillors with certainty on how to deal with situations involving offers of gifts, benefits and hospitality, in order to avoid conflicts of interest and maintain high levels of integrity and importantly, safeguard public trust. As an elected Councillor, it is inevitable that situations will arise where a constituent or organisation will seek to show their appreciation for the Councillor’s dedicated civic work. The adoption of this document will suitably provide Councillors with the necessary information to allow them to make good personal decisions when encountered with such situations.

The proposed Councillor Gift Policy has been drafted with the dual objective of seeking to be a user-friendly and easy to understand document, but also a document that sets clear expectations of Councillors and demonstrable commitment to high standards of transparency.

A good starting point for the Policy document, is the identified Guiding Principles of the Policy. It clearly notes that –

a)    Councillors must not solicit, demand or request gifts, benefits or hospitality for themselves or another person by virtue of their position;

b)    Monetary gifts of any value are not to be accepted (election donations excluded); and

c)    Every offer of a gift, benefit or hospitality accepted, returned or declined (regardless of value) requires the lodgement of a Gift Registration Form within 7 days of the offer, and such details will be entered onto the Council’s Gift Register which is accessible on the Council website. 

The Policy document then highlights a number of different types of gifts that may be transacted, namely – appreciation, hospitality and official.  At the same time, the document also describes those situations, which the Policy does not apply.


 

The Policy document also captures invaluable guidance information for Councillors, including the GIFT test, which will assist Councillors in deciding whether to accept or decline an offer of a gift, benefit or hospitality. Importantly, reference is also made to applicable legislative provisions pertaining to material conflict of interest, anonymous gifts and the obligations with declaring gifts received in the Biannual Personal Interests Return.  It is recommended that the Policy be duly endorsed.  

CONSULTATION

The nature of this report has not necessitated the need for any external consultation.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications associated with the presentation of this report.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

There are no applicable current Council policies which have an impact on the operations of a Councillor Gift Policy. However legislative imperatives, together with a collective commitment by Councillors to demonstrate and promote good governance practices and conduct, underpin the importance of this policy document.

 

Attachment

1        Councillor Gift Policy 2021   

 


Whitehorse City Council

Council Minutes                                                                                                                               19 April 2021

 

9.4.5      Assignment of Name to Laneway at Rear of Lake Road Blackburn (running from Wellington Avenue to Alandale Road)

 

 

SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to allow Council to make a final decision on naming the laneway at the rear of Lake Road, Blackburn running from Wellington Avenue to Alandale Road.

 

Council Resolution

Moved by Cr Massoud, Seconded by Cr Lane

That Council:

1.    Resolve that the laneway at the rear of Lake Road, Blackburn running from Wellington Avenue to Alandale Road be named Yellow Box Lane.

2.    Request that the Registrar of the Office of Geographic Names be advised in terms of 1 above.

3.    Upon receiving acceptance of the name from the Office of Geographic Names Victoria, ensure that:

a)    Abutting property owners/occupiers are advised accordingly; and

b)    Appropriate street signage be installed.

Carried Unanimously

 

background

The Special Committee of Council at its meeting on 9 June 2020, resolved to commence the statutory process to name the unnamed laneway at the rear of Lake Road, Blackburn running from Wellington Avenue to Alandale Road, Blackburn.

DISCUSSION

The primary objective with any naming exercise is to try to find a name that has relevance and meaning to the specific location of the road/lane to be named.

In this case, after receiving some initial naming suggestions, the names were assessed and found that they weren’t compliant with VICNAMES guidelines. Consequently, Council officers undertook further research and subsequently identified the name “Yellow Box”. This being the common name for the Eucalyptus melliodora tree species that was found along the waterway of Gardiner’s Creek, prior to the creation of Blackburn Lake and many are now lining the shores of Blackburn Lake. This name does meet the VICNAMES guidelines.

Following Council endorsement of the name for community consultation purposes, the proposal was advertised on the Council website in early February 2021. At the end of the 30+ days consultation period, 15 out of 26 respondents supported the name – Yellow Box Lane. Four respondents did not specify an actual preferred name and of the other eleven names submitted, there was no direct connection with the specific location of the road. On this basis, it is recommended that the suggested name of Yellow Box Lane should be assigned as the new name for the unnamed laneway (site map provided as Appendix A).

CONSULTATION

Following the Special Committee of Council decision (9/6/20), Council officers made contact with the abutting property owners/occupiers, the Blackburn Scouts Group, the Whitehorse Historical Society and the Wurundjeri Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation, inviting naming suggestions.


 

Following the receipt of a number of naming suggestions, Council at its meeting on 27 January 2021, endorsed the name “Yellow Box Lane” for the community consultation purposes.  On 3 February, Council officers wrote to all the abutting owners/occupiers advising that Council had endorsed a name for community consultation purposes and again inviting feedback and new naming suggestions by 5pm on Tuesday 9 March 2021.

This proposal was advertised on Council’s Community Consultation Page on its website for over 30 days. At the close of submissions, 30 responses were received, of which 26 respondents identified a preferred actual street name and 15 out of the 26, supported the name Yellow Box Lane.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The preparation and installation of new street name signage, can be accommodated from Council’s allocated 2020/21 operating budget.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

In arriving at its naming decision, Council has given full and proper consideration to the 12 general (naming) principles of the Office of Geographic Names.

Remembering that the 12 general principles are designed to ensure that no ambiguity, confusion, errors or discrimination results from any naming, renaming or boundary change process.

 

 

APPENDIX A

SITE MAP

LANE TO BE NAMED (YELLOW BOX LANE) HIGHLIGHTED IN RED

(Rear of Lake Road, Blackburn running from Wellington Ave to Alandale Rd)

 

   


Whitehorse City Council

Council Minutes                                                                                                                               19 April 2021

 

10          Reports from Delegates, Delegated Committee Recommendations and Records of Informal Meetings of Councillors

10.1       Reports by Delegates

Nil

 

10.2       Recommendation from the Delegated Committee of Council Meeting of 12 April 2021

 

None submitted.

 

 

10.3       Records of Informal Meetings of Councillors

Deferred to next Council meeting 17 May 2021.

 

11          Reports on Conferences/Seminars Attendance

Nil

 

 

12          Close Meeting

 

Meeting closed at 11:00pm

 

Confirmed this 17th day of May 2021

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________________________

CHAIRPERSON