Minutes of Council Meeting

Council Minutes 16 August 2021

9 Council Reports

9.1 City Development

9.1.1 172-210 Burwood Highway, Burwood East (Lot 2 PS 314233B) Buildings and works to extend existing shopping centre, display of internally illuminated and electronic business identification sign and associated alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1

FILE NUMBER: WH/2006/304/D
ATTACHMENT

SUMMARY

This section 72 planning permit amendment application proposes to extend the western end of the Burwood One Shopping Centre northwards- expanding the retail area, and southwards- expanding the multi-deck car park, and to display additional business identification signs. The planning permit amendment application was advertised, and a total of five objections were received. The objections raised issues with amenity impacts, trees and the historic operation and approvals for the Shopping Centre. A Consultation Forum was held on 16 March, 2021 chaired by Councillor Skilbeck, at which the issues were explored, however no resolution was reached between the parties. Subsequently to the Forum, Councillor Skilbeck has called this application in to be decided by Council. 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 Section 72 Amendment application be supported, subject to conditions.

Council Resolution

Moved by Cr Skilbeck, Seconded by Cr Carr

That Council:

A. Being the Responsible Authority, having caused Application WH/2006/304/D for 172-210 Burwood Highway, BURWOOD EAST (Lot 2 PS 314233B) to be advertised and having received and noted the objections is of the opinion that amending Planning Permit WH/2006/304 (issued for buildings and works (to extend existing shopping centre), use of the land for a restricted recreational facility (gymnasium), variation of easement, a reduction in car parking requirements and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1) to allow for buildings and works to extend the existing shopping centre, display of internally illuminated and electronic business identification signs and associated alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1 is acceptable and should not unreasonably impact the amenity of adjacent properties.

B. Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant an Amendment to Planning Permit WH/2006/304 under the Whitehorse Planning Scheme to the land described as 172-210 Burwood Highway, BURWOOD EAST (Lot 2 PS 314233B, updating the Plans, Preamble and Conditions as follows:

· Amend Preamble to include:

Display of internally illuminated and electronic business identification signs

· Amend Conditions:

- Condition 1.p) Amended to the following wording:

p) Submit revised landscape plans showing planting of the following:

i. Indigenous vegetation including trees and ground covers to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

ii. Planting of indigenous trees with a maximum height of 2m along the Blackburn Road frontage.

iii. Details of discussions undertaken with surrounding residents in relation to trees beside the car park extension.

iv. Details of future management of the trees beside the car park extension.

v. Updated landscaping surrounding the extended areas which will provide screening and softening of the built forms and works, and be appropriate to the growing conditions and topography on site.

- Condition 1 – Add part 1 z):

z) Delete the central (9 x 10.5 metre) business identification sign from the north façade.

- Condition 1 – Add part 1 aa):

aa) The new pedestrian access ramp to be designed to meet DDA guidelines in accordance with Standard AS 1428.1-2009 Design for access and mobility, and VicRoads Accessibility (DDA) Guidelines Volume 3.

- Condition 1 – Add part 1 bb):

bb) The new pedestrian crossing to be designed as per the relevant standards/guidelines including line marking, signs, sight lines, lighting etc.

- Condition 1 – Add part 1 cc):

cc) Details of the construction materials, colours and finishes of the acoustic screen to be shown on the elevations and cladding schedule. The acoustic screen construction and locations are to be compliant with the recommendations detailed in Section 7 of the Acoustic Report prepared by Acoustic Logic and dated 9/10/2020, plus the acoustic screen added to the open south and east facing elevations of Basement Level 01.

- Condition 1 – Add part 1 dd):

dd) The column locations to be dimensioned and shown to comply with the requirements of ‘Diagram 1’ of Clause 52.06-8.

- Condition 1 – Add part 1 ee):

ee) Plans updated to clearly indicate which signs are approved to be internally illuminated or electronic, and to indicate that the illumination levels of internally illuminated and electronic signs will comply with the maximum values under AS4282:1997 – Recommended Maximum Values of Light Technical Parameters for Control of Obtrusive Light.

- Condition 1 – Add part 1 ff):

ff) The Basement 01 Mezzanine Level (top level) of the extended car park to have the car park balustrade raised to 1.7 metres above the finished floor level.

Condition 1 – Add part 1 gg):

gg) Details of direction signs and/or boom gates to be shown on the plans to demonstrate how the car park extension can be closed off in the night time period(between 10pm and 7am).

- Condition 1 – Add part 1 hh):

hh) The plans and elevations to consistently dimension the west elevation of the car park extension to be set back 5.1 metres from the west boundary.

Condition 2 - Amended to the following wording:

The requirements of the endorsed Waste Management Plan (WMP) must be implemented by the owners and occupiers of the site for the duration of the development’s operation in accordance with this permit, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any revision of the WMP or changes to the approved waste system of the development require Council approval.

- Condition 4 - Amended to the following wording:

Prior to the commencement of buildings or works on the land, a Construction Management Plan, detailing how the owner will manage the environmental and construction issues associated with the development, must be submitted to and approved by Council.

The Construction Management Plan must be prepared and managed by a suitably qualified person who is experienced in preparing Construction Management Plans in accordance with the City of Whitehorse Construction Management Plan Guidelines.

When approved the Construction Management Plan will form part of this permit and must be complied with, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The owner of the land is to be responsible for all costs associated with the works to be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Construction Management Plan.

- Condition 18 – Amended to the following wording:

Discharge of stormwater from the land will be required by means of an underground pipe drainage system designed on the basis of a 10 year average storm recurrence interval and discharging into an approved outlet in a street or an underground pipe drain to the requirements of the Responsible Authority.

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

- Condition 20 – Amended to the following wording:

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. The requirement for on-site detention will be noted on your stormwater point of discharge report, or it might be required as part of the civil plans approval.

- Condition 25 – Amended to the following wording:

Detailed stormwater drainage and/or civil design for the proposed development are to be prepared by a suitably qualified civil engineer and submitted to the Responsible Authority for approval prior to occupation of the development. Plans and calculations are to be submitted with the application with all levels to Australian Height Datum (AHD). All documentation is to be signed by the qualified civil engineer.

Certification by the Consulting Engineer that the civil works have been completed in accordance with the design plans and specifications is required by the Responsible Authority subsequent to the completion of all the works.

· Add the following new Conditions to the Permit, after Condition 40: and numbered accordingly:

41. A Tree Management Plan (TMP) written in accordance with AS4970-2009 must be submitted to Council prior to the commencement of all buildings and works. The report must detail how Trees 4 - 11 will be protected pre, during and post construction, and must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority (RA) and written by a qualified arborist with a minimum Diploma in Horticulture (Arboriculture).

42. No building or works shall be commenced (and no trees or vegetation shall 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 must form part of this permit. This plan must 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 building is occupied.

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

43. All landscaping and tree planting in accordance with the endorsed landscape plan must be completed prior to the occupation of the approved extension to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

44. The garden areas shown on the endorsed plan and schedule must only be used as gardens and must be maintained in a proper, tidy and healthy condition to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. If any planted trees or shrubs die or are removed, they must be replaced within two months and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

45. The car park extension must not be utilised for vehicle parking between 10pm and 7am on any day, and access to this area must be restricted (utilising signs, boom gates and/or other methods) in the hours before 10pm in order to ensure that all parked cars are cleared prior to 10pm each day.

Details of direction signs and/or boom gates to be shown on the plans to demonstrate how the car park extension can be closed off in the night time period (between 10pm and 7am).

46. Prior to the commencement of any building or demolition works, an amended Sustainability Management Plan (SMP) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The SMP must be generally in accordance with the SMP submitted with this application unless otherwise provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The SMP and Development Plans must contain and demonstrate:

a) A Green Star Design and As Built v 1.3 Scorecard that exceeds an acceptable overall score of 45 points. Supporting assessments and calculations that pertain to credits claimed associated with ‘Energy’, ‘Water’, and ‘Stormwater’ criteria must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

b) An Integrated Water Management Assessment addressing stormwater quality performance in addition to ensuring that the Responsible Authority’s collective integrated water management expectations and requirements pursuant to Clauses 34 and 44 of the State Environment Protection Policy (Waters) are satisfied.

c) Appropriate access indicating the location and ensuring accessibility to maintain and service integrated water management systems demonstrated on Development Plans.

d) That prior to the commencement of development and works, a BCA Section J or JV3 Energy Efficiency Assessment with documentation status detailed as Issued for Tender. Any changes to the Issued for Tender BCA Section J or JV3 Energy Efficiency Assessment documentation must be approved, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The BCA Section J or JV3 Assessment will indicate energy efficiency performance with respect to the development’s reference/base case. The assessment is required to exceed, as a minimum, the National Construction Code 2019 Building Code of Australia requirements and include indicative commitments towards thermal performance (i.e. R-values), artificial lighting and glazing (i.e. U- and SHGC- values). The inclusion of renewable energy systems to demonstrate performance must be demarcated from the assessment.

e) LED light fittings used to provide artificial lighting and designed to exceed National Construction Code 2019 Building Code of Australia requirements.

f) Energy efficient heating, cooling and hot water systems indicating the associated COP and EER values or energy efficiency star ratings.

g) Double glazing for all external windows.

h) A commitment to divert at least 80% of construction and demolition waste from landfill.

i) Use of low Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) and formaldehyde products.

j) Timber species intended for use as decking or outdoor timber are not unsustainably harvested imported timbers (such as Merbau, Oregon, Western Red Cedar, Meranti, Luan, Teak etc.) and meet either Forest Stewardship Council or Australian Forestry Standard criteria with a commitment provided as an annotation on Development Plans.

k) Where measures cannot be visually shown, include a notes table or ‘ESD Schedule’ on Development Plans providing details of the requirements (e.g. % energy efficiency improvement, energy and water efficiency ratings for heating/cooling, hot water and plumbing fittings and fixtures etc.).

Once submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the SMP will form part of the endorsed plans under this permit.

The requirements of the SDA must be demonstrated on the plans and elevations submitted for endorsement, and the requirements of the SDA must be implemented by the dwelling owners and occupiers of the site when constructing and fitting out the dwellings and for the life of the dwellings in accordance with this permit, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the SDA may occur without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

47. The location and details of the signs shown on the endorsed plan must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

48. The advertising signs are to be constructed and maintained to the satisfaction of Responsible Authority. If the signs are in a state of disrepair they must, at the direction of the Responsible Authority, be removed from the site.

49. The intensity of the light/illumination in the internally illuminated advertising sign permitted must be limited so as not to cause distraction of motorists in adjoining streets or loss of amenity in the surrounding area, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

50. The signs must not:

a) Dazzle or distract drivers due to their colouring;

b) Be able to be mistaken for a traffic signal because it has, for example, red circles, octagons, crosses or triangles;

c) Be able to be mistaken as an instruction to drivers.

51. The signs must not contain any flashing light.

52. No bunting, streamers and festooning are to be displayed on the subject site to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

53. The faces of the displayed business identification signs are to be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

54. Prior to works commencing the Applicant/Owner is to submit design plans for all proposed engineering works external to the site. The plans are to be submitted as separate engineering drawings for assessment by the Responsible Authority.

55. 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 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.

56. The qualified civil engineer when undertaking civil design must ensure that the landscape plan/s and drainage plan/s are compatible. The stormwater drainage and on site detention system must be located outside the tree protection zone (TPZ) of any trees to be retained.

57. Certification must be provided from a suitably qualified structural engineer that ensures that the works do not affect the structural integrity of the stormwater pipe and retaining wall before or after construction.

58. A drainage/floodway easement must be created over the overland flow path / floodway (shown in hatched red on the plans by Elenberg Fraser Drawing Number A097.1B Revision 1 dated 2/12/2020) and shown on the title to the benefit of Whitehorse City Council.

Transport for Victoria Conditions (Reference: PPR 35103/21):

59. Luminance Standard

a) During the operation of the signs, the following maximum average luminance and Threshold Increment values must not be exceeded:

*Lighting condition*	*Max average luminance (cd/m²)*	*Max %*	*Adaptation Luminance*
*Full sun on face of signage*	*No limit*	-	-
*Daytime luminance*	*6000*	-	-
*Morning and evening twilight, and overcast weather*	*700*	-	-
*Night time*	*350*	*20%*	5

§ Note 1: Threshold increment as defined and calculated in AS4282

§ Note 2: Twilight is a defined as the period when the sun is below the horizon but light from the sun is still indirectly visible. When the sun is 18 degrees or more below the horizon the amount of visible light is very low, and this is defined as night time.

60. Electronic Sign

a) The electronic sign must be dimmable and have a suitable control system to enable maximum lighting levels to be set or adjusted if deemed necessary by the Responsible Authority and the Head, Transport for Victoria.

b) Where illuminated during the day, the electronic sign must be fitted with Photocell/s (light sensor/s) that measure the ambient light and control system technology that enables the luminance of the sign to automatically adjust relative to the measured ambient light level.

c) Any changes to brightness levels must be applied during an image transition, not while an image is being displayed.

61. Image changes

a) Where the graphical content or colours will change between successive advertising images, the average luminance change between the new image and the previous image must not exceed 30%.

62. Operational Parameters for Electronic Sign

a) The content displayed must remain static for at least 30 seconds before it can be changed.

b) The transition from one displayed content to another must be instantaneous.

c) Electronic sign must not display content:

i. Giving the illusion of continuous movement.

ii. Capable of being mistaken for traffic signals or traffic control devices, including red, amber or green circles, octagons, crosses or triangles.

iii. Capable of being mistaken as an instruction to a road user, including the wording stop, give way, slow down, turn left or turn right (apart from the display of parking location information).

iv. With a flashing background, flashing text, flashing images, blinking or fading or brightening elements.

v. Contain any animation/ moving images.

vi. Capable of being interpreted as projections beyond the face of the advertising screen such as through 3D technology.

vii. Consisting of present time or other temporary update information relating to news, weather, or time.

viii. Containing video, movie or television broadcasts.

d) The advertising area must not be split into two screens with different messages.

e) The sign and any displayed advertisement must not include any ancillary extension, embellishment or accessorisation within or outside the display area unless the Head, Transport for Victoria has agreed to in writing prior to its installation.

f) The use of sound or motion to activate any sign is not permitted.

g) The use of sound to interact with road users is not permitted.

h) The electronic sign must not dazzle or distract road users due to its colouring.

i) In the event of an attack by a computer hacker or similar resulting in unauthorised display of content or any other display malfunction, the affected sign or signs must shut down and cease any form of visual output until the malfunction is repaired.

63. Lighting Compliance Record

a) The operator must keep a Lighting Compliance Record of the operation of the sign. This must be provided to the Head, Transport for Victoria within 5 days of a written request. The Lighting Compliance Record must include:

i. The sign’s luminance (cd/m² or as a percentage of its maximum luminance) in minimum 10-minute intervals.

ii. The sign’s photocell (light sensor) reading of the ambient light in minimum 10-minute intervals.

iii. For each different set of images displayed (image loop), a compliance report demonstrating that the luminance change between images is less than or equal to 30%.

iv. All record information must be time and date stamped to show the time of measurement.

v. Compliance Records must be maintained for a minimum of 12 months.

Expiry Conditions:

64. This permit, as it relates to signs, will expire if the signs not constructed and displayed within four years from the date of this permit.

65. This permit, as it relates to signs, expires fifteen years after the date it is issued. Upon expiry of this permit as it relates to signs, the approved signs and the structures built specifically to support and illuminate them must be removed.

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

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

b) The development is not completed within four 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 provision of Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

· Add new Permit Notes:

Permit Notes:

Waste:

A. Waste collections for this development are to be completed internally by Private waste collection contractor.

B. Council issued bins will not be required for this development.

C. Waste collection vehicles are to enter and leave the developed site in a forward direction.

D. Mobile Garbage Bin usage is to be shared by the occupiers of the development.

E. The approved Waste Management Plan will be the model for adoption in this development and the design & as-built aspects needs to account for what is approved in the Waste Management Plan. Any revision of the Waste Management Plan or changes to the approved waste system of the development requires Council approval.

F. Every rateable tenement is liable to pay for municipal charges irrespective of the level of collection services provided by Council.

G. All aspects of the waste management system including the transfer on bins for collection is to be the responsibility of the occupiers, caretaker, manager and/or the body corporate – not the collection contractor.

Asset Engineering:

H. The design and construction of the stormwater drainage system up to the point of discharge from an allotment is to be approved by the appointed Building Surveyor. That includes the design and construction of any required stormwater on-site detention system. The Applicant/Owner is to submit certification of the design of any required on-site detention system from a registered consulting engineer (who is listed on the Engineers Australia National Professional Engineer Register or approved equivalent) to Council as part of the civil plans approval process.

I. The requirement for on-site detention will be noted on the stormwater point of discharge report, or it might be required as part of the civil plans approval.

J. All proposed changes to the vehicle crossing are to be constructed in accordance with the submitted details, Whitehorse Council’s Vehicle Crossing General Specifications and standard drawings

K. Report and consent – Any proposed building over the easement is to be approved by the Responsible Authority prior to approval of the building permit. If Report and Consent contradicts with the Planning Permit, amendment of the Planning Permit might be required.

L. Report and consent – Land Liable to Flooding is to be approved by the Responsible Authority prior to approval of the building permit. If a change of minimum floor levels for is required, amendment of the Planning Permit might be required.

M. The Applicant/Owner is to accurately survey and identify on the design plans all assets in public land that may be impacted by the proposed development. The assets may include all public authority services (i.e. gas, water, sewer, electricity, telephone, traffic signals etc.) and the location of street trees or vegetation. If any changes are proposed to these assets then the evidence of the approval is to be submitted to Council and all works are to be funded by the Applicant/Owner. This includes any modifications to the road reserve, including footpath, naturestrip and kerb and channel.

N. The Applicant/Owner must obtain a certificate of hydraulic compliance from a suitably qualified civil engineer to confirm that the on-site detention works have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans, prior to Statement of Compliance is issued.

O. There is to be no change to the levels of the public land, including the road reserve or other Council property as a result of the development, without the prior approval of Council. All requirements for access for all-abilities (Disability Discrimination Access) are to be resolved within the site and not in public land.

P. No fire hydrants that are servicing the property are to be placed in the road reserve, outside the property boundary, without the approval of the Relevant Authority. If approval obtained, the property owner is required to enter into a S173 Agreement with Council that requires the property owner to maintain the fire hydrant.

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 61 K7

Applicant: Burwood One Development

Zoning: Commercial 1 Zone

Overlays: Design and Development Overlay Schedule 4

Relevant Clauses: Clause 11 Settlement

Clause 12 Environment and Landscape Values

Clause 13 Environmental Risks and Amenity

Clause 15 Built Environment and Heritage

Clause 17 Economic Development

Clause 18 Transport

Clause 21.05 Environment

Clause 21.07 Economic Development

Clause 22.01 Heritage Buildings and Precincts

Clause 22.02 Visual Amenity and Advertising Signs

Clause 22.04 Tree Conservation

Clause 22.06 Activity Centres

Clause 22.10 Environmentally Sustainable Development

Clause 52.02 Signs

Clause 52.06 Car Parking

Clause 52.34 Bicycle Facilities

Clause 53.18 Stormwater Management in Urban Development

Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

Ward: Eley

Subject site

North

BACKGROUND

History

The existing East Burwood Kmart Plaza commenced operation in 1969 and aside from the addition of an auto service function and garden centre outlet, did not undergo substantial alteration until the mid-1990s.

In April 1996 the Minister for Planning approved Amendment L79 to the Nunawading Planning Scheme, which facilitated the development of an additional 5000 square metres of retail floor space and allowed a number of commercial uses to establish within this area without the need for further planning approval. This was translated into a site-specific control under the Local Section of the Planning Scheme, which limited the gross floor area of the centre to 15,500 square metres. Additional controls included a prescribed car parking rate, the requirement to ensure development was in accordance with an endorsed Concept Plan as well as further requiring the submission of a plan of development to address issues of amenity and landscaping.

In addition to the above, the amendment allowed the rezoning of the lower car park area at the western end of the land from Residential C to Restricted Business Zone, which was consistent with the remainder of the site.

In November 1996, Council approved the Development Plan as required by the specific controls subject to a number of conditions which required further details pertaining to landscaping and waste management.

On 5 August 1999 the new format Whitehorse Planning Scheme was approved by the Minister for Planning. The new Planning Scheme deleted the site-specific provisions under the Local clause and the controls over approved uses and construction of the buildings and works were translated into a transitional planning permit, which was issued on 13 August 1999.

Planning Permit WH/2006/304 was issued by VCAT on 24 March 2008, and allows for buildings and works (to extend existing shopping centre), use of the land for a restricted recreational facility (gymnasium), variation of easement, a reduction in car parking requirements and alteration to access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1.

Secondary consent was granted on 3 December 2010 to amend plans to show retention of existing loading dock area including modifications, increase in floor space and number of car parking spaces and general buildings and works. An amended ‘site plan and ground level plan’ included a notation for a 10m setback from the property at 49 Witchwood Crescent, to be compliant with Condition 1.y) of the permit.

An application to amend the planning permit pursuant to Section 87 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 was approved by the Tribunal on 15 June 2011. The amendment to the permit allows for changes to the operating hours and staff numbers of the gymnasium, increase in medical practitioner numbers, increase in the number of seats and a new carwash in the multi deck car park.

A number of secondary consents to update the approved plans have been granted since 2011.

A Section 72 Amendment to amend Condition 11 to allow the gym to operate 24 hours daily was approved on 26 February, 2014.

A Section 72 Amendment to amend Condition 17 to allow the permitted restaurant seating to be allocated to more than one tenancy was approved on 19 February 2015.

Section 57 Amendment to the current application

On 17 May 2021, the applicant lodged a Section 57 Amendment to this Planning Permit application, proposing to amend the application to internally illuminate the proposed business identification signs on the north and east facades. Additional notice of this application was not required as a result of this amendment. These facades face Burwood Highway and the existing car park, and it is therefore considered that the internal illumination of these signs will not result in an increase in material detriment to any person.

The Site and Surrounds

The subject site is the shopping centre known as Burwood One located on the south-west corner of the intersection of Burwood Highway and Blackburn Road, Burwood East. The site is generally rectangular, with a frontage to Burwood Highway of 271 metres and a frontage to Blackburn Road of 189 metres, producing a site area of 58,732m². The land is described as Lot 2 of Plan of Subdivision 314233B, and is not encumbered by any restrictive covenants. Several easements are located on the site:

· Easement E1 is a 3.05-4.40 metre wide drainage easement which abuts the central portion of the western boundary, and is setback 2.06 metres from the southern portion of the western boundary and runs parallel to the southern boundary at a 4.4 metre setback for a distance of 39.97 metres, then tapers to an abuttal with the south boundary, ceasing at 58.01 metres from the south-west corner of the lot.

· Easement E3 is a 3.05 metre wide sewerage easement that abuts the western boundary for a length of 42.43 metres to the north of the south-west corner of the lot, and abuts the southern boundary for a length of 85.69 metres to the west of the south-east corner of the lot.

· Easement E2 is a 3.05 metre wide drainage and sewerage easement that covers the overlapping section of Easements E1 and E3.

A VicTrack substation, described as Lot 1 on the above Plan of Subdivision, is located at the north-west corner of the subject site.

The subject site has a significant slope, falling 8 metres from the north-eastern corner to the south-western corner, where the subject site has been significantly excavated below the level of the adjacent dwellings. The building level titles on the plans (such as “Ground Level” and “Basement Level”) are titles that are not meant to be descriptive, and are merely names for floor levels which are consistent across the subject site and also consistent with previous Planning Permits.

In the vicinity of the proposed extension, the Ground Level is elevated well above the natural ground level. This is because the designation of the “Ground Level” for the buildings on the site originates in the original Kmart building located at the higher portion of the land to the east of the subject site. As the site slopes down towards the west, the Ground Level becomes elevated, and the “Basement” levels below are constructed above ground. This results in the built form along the western boundary including parts of Basement Level 02 and Basement Level 01 situated above the natural ground level.

Vehicle access to the subject site is provided at two points along Burwood Highway, including a signalised intersection opposite Holland Road at the north-western corner, and one (unsignalised) access point to Blackburn Road at the south-eastern corner of the site which provides access to both car parking and the loading bay. The Vermont South tram route 75 runs along Burwood Highway.

The Burwood One Shopping Centre includes a Kmart, Coles and Aldi supermarkets, speciality shops, food and drink premises, and associated uses such as a gym and medical centre. The shopping centre is arranged in a horseshoe shape around a central at-grade car park and further basement and multideck car parking is provided at the south-west of the site. The site accommodates 26,584m² of retail floor area, served by 1,006 car spaces.

The site abuts residential lots to the south, comprising single and double storey detached dwellings. To the west, the southern portion of the western boundary abuts detached dwellings, while Witchwood Gully Reserve adjoins the northern portion of the western boundary, with residential land lots situated west of this reserve. At the south-west corner of the subject site, the adjacent residential lots are significantly elevated above the excavated ground level on the Burwood One site.

To the north, across Burwood Highway and to the east across Blackburn Road, the surrounding land is predominantly residential, with some exceptions, including a service station located at the north-west corner of the intersection of Burwood Highway and Blackburn Road, and a Church, retirement village and motel located to the east of the subject site.

Planning Controls

The proposal triggers the need for a Planning Permit under the following clauses of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme:

Commercial 1 Zone

Pursuant to Clause 34.01-4, a Planning Permit is required for buildings and works.

Design and Development Overlay Schedule 4

Pursuant to Clause 43.02-2, a Permit is required for buildings and works.

Signs

Pursuant to Clause 52.05 – a Permit is required to construct or display an internally illuminated and an electronic sign, and to display over 8m² of business identification signs

Land Adjacent to a Road Zone Category 1

Pursuant to Clause 52.29-2, a Permit is required to alter (intensify) access to Burwood Highway, which is a Category 1 road.

PROPOSAL

The application proposes extensions to the front (north) and rear (south) of the western side of the existing Burwood One Shopping Centre and associated new internally illuminated and electronic business identification signs.

This application is sought as Section 72 Amendment to the existing Planning Permit, as this permit includes a number of on-going use conditions which control elements of the Burwood One operation including operating hours of medical centre and restaurant uses. Given the extent of these on-going operational conditions, the current proposal is sought as an amendment to the existing Permit, rather than new Planning Permit, so that the one set of operational conditions can continue to apply to the consolidated extension.

The proposed Amendment application comprises extensions at the north-west and south-west corners of the lot (indicated on the site plan below), and additional signs:

North-West Corner:

· Elevated two storey extension to the ground and first floor retail levels of the existing building, which will be elevated above the existing east-west vehicular accessway located along the Burwood Highway frontage which connects the Basement Level 02 car park with the central at-grade car park beside the Burwood Highway frontage, comprising:

o At Basement Level 01 and part Basement Level 02, the existing vehicle access way and car park entrance will be decked over, supported by black columns partially clad with textured metal panels on the front elevation.

o At the Ground Level, a 1,421m² extension accommodating a mini major tenancy and food and beverage uses, accessed internally from the existing food court and externally via a travellator from the at-grade car park to the east.

o At the First Floor, a 1,503m² extension for a mini-major tenancy, to be accessed via the existing lift.

· The alignment of the existing vehicle accessway below this extension is not proposed to alter.

· The extension will reduce the setback of the north-west corner Shopping Centre from Burwood Highway from 20 metres to 3 metres.

· The existing pedestrian crossing over the internal vehicle accessway which connects the Burwood Highway footpath to the Ground Level retail tenancies is proposed to be relocated eastwards. Six new bicycle spaces are proposed along the Burwood Highway frontage at the top of the new pedestrian path.

· The extension will match the height of the existing Shopping Centre building, rising to 19.4 metres above the ground level at the north (front) elevation.

· The extended façade will be clad with white mesh over concrete, and will feature large windows with curved mesh screens at the ends of each window on the north facade.

· Two new in-ground grease traps will be located below car spaces in the Basement Level 02 car park, serving the new tenancies.

· Ten new staff bicycle spaces located in the Basement Level 02 car park, with two new showers for staff added to the existing end of trip bicycle facilities located in the Basement Level 01 car park near the existing staff bicycle store.

South-West Corner:

· A two-deck extension above the existing open car park at Basement Level 02, which has been excavated into the natural contours of the site, and slopes upwards towards the south boundary.

· The existing Basement Level 02 car park will be reconfigured to position columns to support the extension.

· The existing Basement Level 01 car park will be extended southwards to within 8.5 metres of the south boundary, providing a 5.1 metre setback along the western boundary, but with the acoustic screens protruding into this setback.

· Insertion of a new Basement Level 01 Mezzanine above the extended Level 1 car park, accessed via a ramp from Basement Level 01.

· Provision of 98 additional car spaces.

· Tree 1 (Eucalyptus citriodora 19 metres high) located on the south boundary is to be removed.

· Acoustic screens are proposed along the western elevation and south-west corner of the car park at Basement Level 01.

· The car park decks will be partially open, featuring concrete balustrades typically 1.2 metres high and acoustic panels.

· The overall height of the extended car parks will be 10.5 metres (to the top of the balustrade of the mezzanine level) above the existing excavated ground level on the subject site, and 11.5 metres to the top of the lift and stairwell located at the north-west corner, which continues the height of the existing Basement Level 01 wall in this location.

Signs:

· West elevation:

o Business identification sign 17.4 metres wide x 2 metres high above the roof level.

o Business identification sign 20.7 metres wide x 4 metres high on the ground level façade.

· North elevation:

o Internally illuminated business identification sign 17.8 metres wide x 2.3 metres high at the top of the north-east corner.

o Internally illuminated business identification sign 9 metres wide x 10.5 metres high central to the façade.

o Internally illuminated business identification sign 25.5 metres wide x 5.4 metres high on the western end of the ground level façade.

· East elevation:

o Internally illuminated business identification sign 11.3 metres wide x 1.3 metres high at the top of the north-east corner.

o Electronic LED sign 3.4 metres wide x 8.6 metres high central to the façade.

o Internally illuminated business identification sign 8.3 metres wide x 1.4 metres high above the glazing at the south-east corner.

CONSULTATION

Public Notice

The application was advertised by mail to the adjacent and nearby property owners and occupiers and by erecting three notices on site: one facing Burwood Highway, one facing Blackburn Road, and one facing Witchwood Reserve. Following the advertising period five objections were received.

The issues raised are summarised as follows:

· Amenity impacts:

o Noise of delivery trucks and cars 24/7 (including horns and screeching tyres) impacting on the residential amenity of the lots to the rear

o Loading bay noise and noise of truck refrigeration units.

o Noise impacts during Covid-19 restrictions are not an accurate representation of the usual noise emissions

o Light impacts from car headlights

o Overshadowing

o Extensions will block air flow

o Overlooking and loss of privacy to the neighbouring residential lots

o Visual bulk presenting to neighbouring residents

o Reduced air quality and increased odours from additional traffic exhaust fumes

o Insufficient boundary setbacks from adjacent residential lots

· Trees:

o The submitted Arborist Report indicates that the existing trees are causing displacement to adjoining residential lots

o Loss of green space and landscaping

· Insufficient time to prepare objections around Christmas time.

· Contrary to previous approvals//enforcement on the site

· Non-planning matters:

o Negative impact on surrounding property values

o No commercial demand

Consultation Forum

A Consultation Forum was held on 16 March, 2021, chaired by Councillor Skilbeck, and attended by planning officers. Five objectors attended the meeting, along with six representatives for the applicant including planning consultants, project managers, the Burwood One General Manager and the architect.

At the Forum, the objectors expanded on the concerns set out in their written submissions. In relation to the noise concerns, one objector requested that Burwood One provide double glazing to the windows of adjacent residents. Objectors raised concerns regarding the existing noise impacts of delivery trucks and cars in the existing car parks. Objectors advised they had measured the noise of trucks within the existing loading bay at 90 decibels, and that the running of refrigerator units in delivery trucks and the waste compactor associated with the existing site operation contributed to significant noise impacts to neighbouring residents. Objectors felt that the perforated mesh acoustic screening utilised on the existing car parks was not effective.

The applicant advised that it was anticipated that the proposed extension would generate an additional two delivery trucks per hour attending the site. In addition, the proposed car park would adopt the recommendations of the acoustic report submitted with the application, which included the car park floor to be finished to reduce the screeching of tyres, and acoustic screening utilised on the Basement Level 01 west and south-west façade which includes perforated metal cladding on the interior face, backed with insulation and a solid panel on the exterior. It was noted that the acoustic report did not recommend double glazing neighbour’s windows, but the applicant would pass this suggestion on to the owners of the Shopping Centre.

Objectors raised concerns regarding overlooking of their backyards and loss of security. The applicant noted that the Planning Scheme does not control overlooking from a car park, as this is not a habitable area where people will dwell for extended periods, but the applicant committed to raising the car park balustrade from 1.2 to 1.7 metres in height, in response to overlooking concerns.

In response to objector concerns regarding the size of the existing trees along the perimeter of the subject site, including their shading impacts and potential damage to properties, the applicant advised that they were willing to explore resident ideas for future of the trees along the shared boundaries.

Referrals

External

Transport for Victoria

No objection, subject to sign conditions limiting the luminance of the advertising signs and the operation of the electronic sign, and also requiring a Lighting Compliance Record to be maintained.

In addition, Transport for Victoria has noted that the application proposes to modify the pedestrian crossing on the car park and access ramp connecting to the existing bus stop on Burwood Highway. The access ramp should be designed to meet DDA guidelines in accordance with Standard AS 1428.1-2009 Design for access and mobility, and VicRoads Accessibility (DDA) Guidelines Volume 3. The pedestrian crossing should be designed as per the relevant standards/guidelines including line marking, signs, sight lines, lighting etc.

Internal

Engineering and Environmental Services Department

· Transport Engineer

§ The location of the proposed columns next to the proposed parking bays have not been dimensioned and a condition is required to ensure these are located so that they are not within the area shown in ‘Diagram 1’ of Clause 52.06-8 to improve access to a parked vehicle.

§ Parking provision is compliant.

· Waste Engineer

The submitted Waste Management Plan is approved, subject to standard conditions.

· Assets Engineer

No objection, subject to conditions

Planning Arborist

Tree 1 (to be removed). This tree is showing some signs of stress. In addition, there are limited areas in which to see it. Based on the proposal and that the tree is stressed, there is no objection to its removal.

ESD Advisor

The submitted Sustainability Management Plan is approved, subject to standard conditions.

DISCUSSION

Consistency with State and Local Planning Policies

The subject site is an existing shopping centre that is well-connected to public transport and the road network. State policy encourages the intensification of employment generating uses in areas with these locational characteristics close to where people live, in particular Clauses 11.03-1S Activity Centres and 15.01-4R Healthy Neighborhoods - Metropolitan Melbourne).

Clause 13.05-1S Noise Abatement seeks to strike a balance between protecting community amenity and allowing development by ensuring that development is not prejudiced and community amenity is not reduced by noise emissions, using a range of building design, urban design and land use separation techniques as appropriate to the land use functions and character of the area.

Clause 15.01-2S Building Design includes the Objective to achieve building design outcomes that contribute positively to the local context and enhance the public realm. The proposed extension to the existing shopping centre will update the building façade to Burwood Highway and improve the retail offerings on site, but this must be balanced with consideration of the residential interfaces adjoining the proposed car park extension to the rear.

Similarly, the Activity Centres Policy at Clause 22.06 identifies the contribution activity centres make to the local economy and seeks to encourage their long term viability through development and land uses that contribute to their adaptation, redevelopment and economic growth.

Clause 21.07 - Economic Development, also seeks to increase the number and diversity of employment opportunities in the municipality, specifically identifying retail and office activities as an area where opportunities can been created.

Design and Built Form

North-West Corner

The proposed two storey extension to the ground and first floor retail levels of the existing shopping centre at the western end of the Burwood Highway frontage will accommodate a mini major tenancy and food and beverage uses (total area 1,421m²) at the Ground Floor, and a further 1,503m² mini-major tenancy at the First Floor. The additional floor area is supported by the required car parking provision of an additional 98 car spaces. The applicant has stated that the extension is sought to enhance the role and function of the site and to provide additional retail offerings to meet the needs of the local neighbourhood. The extension and enhancement of the retail floor area is broadly supported by state and local economic development and activity centre policies outlined above.

The retail extension protrudes forward of the existing front (north) façade of the shopping centre and will be elevated above the existing east-west vehicular accessway on the Burwood Highway frontage which connects the Basement Level 02 car park with the central at-grade car park. The existing façade in this location is dominated at the lower level (Basement Level 02) by metal grilles facing the existing auto repairs tenancy and the entrances to the basement car parks. At the upper levels, the existing façade includes a range of materials including timber-look cladding and glazing utilising blue-toned glass at the top level (Level 1).

The proposed façade will be supported by black steel columns and the extension will be primarily clad with pearl white textured metal panels over concrete, which will screen the lower portion of the existing accessway along the frontage, and will face the two new retail levels. Large areas of glazing are proposed wrapping around the western corner to the top level, and around the eastern corner serving both extended retail levels. The textured metal cladding will provide curved screens to portions of this glazing, providing organic curves to the northern (front) façade detail.

A new pedestrian entrance is proposed at the ground level on the western façade, with a protruding awning above the entrance serving as an architectural statement indicating the entry, and linking to a new pedestrian accessway across the car park and up a pedestrian ramp to the bus stop on Burwood Highway.

The proposed extension will extend the existing retail centre 24.6 metres northwards to within 3 metres of Burwood Highway. The building height of the proposed extension varies with the sloping topography of the site, but will have a maximum height of 19 metres at the Burwood Highway frontage (north-west corner), 21.7 metres to the west elevation, and 16 metres to the east elevation, facing the central car park. The extension is off-set 16.9 metres from the west boundary to the substation located between Burwood One and Witchwood Gully reserve.

The Design and Development Overlay Schedule 4 (DDO4) classifies Burwood One as a Category 3 Activity Centre: a large car-based centre on a main road. The preferred built form requirements for Category 3 Activity Centres set out in the DDO4 are:

· Maximum height: 21.5 metres (6 storeys)

· Front setback: zero for lower levels, with upper levels over 14.5 metres high setback 3 metres from the front boundary.

· Side and rear setbacks (abutting residential lots): 5 metres for lower levels, with the setback heavily landscaped, and upper levels over 14.5 metres high setback 3 metres from the ground level footprint.

· Built form outcome: The scale of the development to provide an appropriate interface to surrounding residential properties

Although matching the existing shopping centre height, the proposal will slightly exceed (by 0.2 metres) the preferred maximum building height under the DDO4, and this is acceptable as the excess building height is located at the north-west corner which is the lowest point of the land interfacing with the non-sensitive substation and Burwood Highway. It is noted that the proposed extension effectively contains only three storeys, rather than the six storeys referenced in the DDO4, and this is due to the high floor-ceiling heights provided to commercial uses. The built form setbacks of this north-western extension are compliant with the requirements of the DDO4, providing a 3 metre front setback to Burwood Highway.

Overall, the proposal will balance the building form at the north-east corner of the site, where a zero front setback is provided to Burwood Highway. The extension represents a contemporary addition which will blend harmoniously with the existing commercial architecture of the retail centre. The white textured metal cladding will unite successfully with the neutral tones of the existing shopping centre façade, and the glazed portions of the façade will activate the frontage.

In accordance with Clause 22.10 Environmentally Sustainable Development Policy, the proposed extension is required to achieve best practice ESD outcomes. Council’s ESD Advisor has indicated that the proposed development and submitted Sustainable Design Assessment are reasonably compliant, and conditions will ensure that Council’s ESD expectations are upheld through the building construction process and operation.

South-West Corner:

At the south-west corner of the site, a two level extension is proposed above the existing Basement Level 02 open car park at the rear of the site. As shown in the photo below, the existing car park in this location is cut significantly into the site, and is generally lower than the surrounding residential lots, which are elevated above the subject site.

The existing carpark layout will be reconfigured to accommodate column locations, and the existing Basement Level 01 car park will be extended southwards by 30 metres, generally maintaining the existing 5 metre west boundary setback (5.1 metre setback provided) and providing an 8.9 metre setback to the south boundary. An access ramp from the Basement Level 01 car park will provide access to a Basement Level 01 Mezzanine car park which will not otherwise connect to the remainder of the car parking area, as it will sit at a lower level than the adjacent Lower Ground Level car park to the north. This top car park level will be unroofed.

The applicant has confirmed that the face of the car park is typically set back 5.1 metres from the west boundary, and an inconsistency is included on the submitted plans: the 4.8 metre west boundary setback dimension on plan A098.1b is incorrect, as the measurement is referencing the middle of the acoustic screen construction beyond the gap for ventilation. A condition will require this to be corrected and the setbacks shown consistent with the other plans.

Aside from the 11.5 metre high lift and stairwell at the north-east corner, the car park extension will have a maximum height of 11 metres (from the excavated lowest level to the top of the raised 1.7 metre balustrade of the Basement 01 Mezzanine level). The height of the extension reduces towards the south boundary, as the existing surface level of the Basement Level 02 car park slopes upwards towards this boundary.

As the carpark is excavated into the original ground level, the overall building height above natural ground level will vary substantially with the slope of the land. This is demonstrated by the south (rear) elevation shown below, which has been annotated to show the top of the south boundary fence as a red line, indicating that only the top levels of the car park (Basement Level 01 and Basement Level 01 Mezzanine) will be higher than the south boundary fence.

The table below provides details of the proposed car park height and interface with the surrounding lots at various locations:

Location	Proposed car park setback from boundary	Proposed car park balustrade height/Diagram
47 Witchwood Crescent	5.1m to the balustrade. 4.4m to the protruding acoustic screen	Lift and stairwell 8 metres above ground level at the property boundary. Car park balustrade proposed to be 5.5 metres above ground level at the property boundary. (The conditioned 0.5 metre increase in the balustrade height to 1.7 metres (to screen overlooking) will increase the car park balustrade height to 6 metres above ground level at the property boundary.)
45 Witchwood Crescent	5.1m to the balustrade. 4.4m to the protruding acoustic screen	5 metres above ground level at the property boundary. (The conditioned 0.5 metre increase in the balustrade height to 1.7 metres (to screen overlooking) will increase the car park balustrade height to 5.5 metres above ground level at the property boundary.)
Cross-section showing interface with No. 45 Witchwood Crescent West boundary fence coloured red	5.1m to the balustrade. 4.4m to the protruding acoustic screen

Location	Proposed car park setback from boundary	Proposed car park balustrade height/Diagram
West elevation (interface with No. 43-47 Witchwood Crescent) Basement Level 02 is mainly below ground level. West boundary fence coloured red
35 Dorothy Street	8.9m to the balustrade and 8.2m to the protruding acoustic screen	6.5 metres above ground level at the property boundary. (The conditioned 0.5 metre increase in the balustrade height to 1.7 metres (to screen overlooking) will increase the car park balustrade height to 7 metres above ground level at the property boundary.)
37 Dorothy Street	8.9m to the balustrade and 8.2m to the protruding acoustic screen	7.5 metres above ground level at the property boundary. (The conditioned 0.5 metre increase in the balustrade height to 1.7 metres (to screen overlooking) will increase the car park balustrade height to 7.5 metres above ground level at the property boundary.)
Cross-section showing interface with No. 37 Dorothy Street South boundary fence coloured red	8.9m to the balustrade and 8.2m to the protruding acoustic screen

The car park extension will be served by a new lift and stairwell located on the west elevation which will have a maximum height of 8 metres above the ground level at the west boundary in this location. These elements are only 5.5 metres wide at the west elevation, and represent a very small component of the overall area of the car park extension. The new lift and stairwell height continues the existing building height of the adjacent shopping centre in this location.

The new car park levels are proposed to be clad with concrete panels forming balustrades typically 1.2 metres high (conditioned to be raised to 1.7 metres at the top level) and acoustic screening panels along the western elevation and south-west corner of the car park at Basement Level 01. The acoustic panels will intrude 0.7 metre into the boundary setbacks. A total of 98 additional car spaces will be provided. No trolley bays are to be located in the extended car park.

The extension requires the removal of four trees which currently grow within the car park area, including a 19 metre high Eucalyptus citriodora (Tree 1) which is located 19 metres from the south boundary within the existing car park area, and three small trees planted in the car park.

The proposed car park extension complies with the required DDO4 boundary setbacks, providing a 5.1 metre wast boundary setback (consistent with the existing 5 metre setback) from the residential interface on the west boundary, and providing an 8.5 metre south boundary setback. The proposed car park extension has an 8 metre maximum built form height above natural ground level (to the lift and stairwell, and along part of the south elevation), and an maximum height of 11.5 metres above the excavated lowest Basement 2 Level. At the lowest part of the south boundary, the proposed car park presents as 8 metres above the ground level at the boundary, with the majority of the car park cut into the existing topography to some extent, limiting the height presenting to surrounding residential lots, as detailed in the table above. Overall, the car park is well below the 21 metre allowable height in the DDO4.

The car park provides a low scale building form which is consistent with the scale of surrounding residential development, and as such it complies with the requirement to interface appropriately with residential land.

The submitted shadow diagrams indicate that the shadows cast by the extended car park will fall within existing boundary fence shadows between 9am and 3pm at the Equinox, which would comply with the requirements of ResCode which is utilised as a guideline in this instance, as there are no equivalent standards to assess overshadowing from commercial premises.

Amenity

The objectors to this application primarily expressed concerns regarding the amenity impacts of the proposed car park extension, in particular the noise from cars and trucks traversing the extended car park, glare from headlights, overlooking and odours from vehicle exhausts.

Glare from headlights will generally be screened by the concrete car park balustrades which are proposed at 1.2 metres high and will be conditioned to be increased to 1.7 metres in height at the top level. The solid acoustic screens at Basement Level 01 will also shield direct headlight glare, and the lowest Basement Level 02 is predominantly below ground level and screened by retaining walls and boundary fencing. The eastern end of the south elevation of Basement Level 01 is not required to have acoustic screening, and this is located at one of the lowest points of the subject site, resulting in an open section of the car park which would allow for headlight glare to impact on adjoining residential lots a minimum of 8.5 metres to the south. In order to address this, a condition will require the provision of additional acoustic screening to the open south and east facing elevations of Basement Level 01, which will have the additional benefit of improving acoustic amenity at this interface.

The provision of natural ventilation to the car park will disperse vehicle exhaust emissions, and the landscaped boundary setbacks will further assist with limiting the transmission of exhaust fumes.

It is noted that there have historically been amenity issues associated with the existing loading bay operation and noise emissions from refrigerated vehicles parking on the site. The existing loading bay is not proposed to alter, although it is noted that the additional floor area will result in additional loading operations on the site. The shopping centre use is an existing circumstance and the intensification of that use does not require planning approval, except for an amendment to the existing restrictions on gymnasium memberships, number of medical practitioners or seats on the restaurant at the north-east corner of the site, none of which are sought as part of this application.

It is acknowledged that in the past, the operation of the existing loading bay has required Planning Enforcement action to ensure that the loading operations do not unreasonably impact on the amenity of surrounding residential lots, however alterations to the existing loading bay layout are not contemplated as part of this application. Subject to the continuation of loading operations compliant with the requirements of previous enforcement action, it is considered that the anticipated increase in loading activity on the site does not warrant the addition of acoustic screening to the existing loading bay.

The proposed car park includes partially open elevations, with concrete balustrades and acoustic screen panels. An acoustic report was submitted with the application which identified that the following acoustic mitigation measures were required to the car park extension:

· 1.2 metre high solid screen around the top carpark level (except for the location of the access ramp (Note that this will be increased to 1.7 metres high as a condition of approval)

· The ramp and carpark surface are to have a broom finish to prevent ‘tyre squeal’.

· Provision of a solid acoustic screen constructed along the western and part of the southern elevation of Basement Level 01, off-set 0.6 metre from the balustrade to provide for ventilation as detailed in the below cross-section which shows the edge of the proposed car park:

Details of the colour and acoustic screen panels fixed to the car park elevation require clarification, and this will form a condition of approval.

Options for the construction of the acoustic screen are detailed in the Acoustic Report, and, if approved, a condition will require the acoustic screen to comply with the Report recommendations. In addition to these recommendations, Section 6.1.2 of the submitted Acoustic Report sets out the vehicle movement and car park usage for the proposed car park, which includes advice that the car park extension will not be used during the night time period (between 10pm and 7am). A condition will require signs and/or boom gates to be shown on the plans to demonstrate how the car park extension can be closed off in the night time period.

Condition 8 of the current Planning Permit requires noise and other emissions to comply with EPA’s State Environmental Protection Policy N-1 (SEPP N-1), and Condition 9 requires plant equipment to be positioned, screened and baffled so that there is no noise disturbance caused to the occupiers of adjoining properties. These conditions have on-going effect. Given that the proposed development will comply with the recommendations of the submitted Acoustic Report and the SEPP N-1, it is considered that there will not be unreasonable acoustic impacts to the adjacent residential lots associated with the proposed extension.

Overlooking from a commercial car park is not restricted by the Planning Scheme or considered to be unreasonable, as this is an area where people do not tend to linger. The acoustic screens utilised will limit the potential for overlooking from the lower car park levels. At the Forum the applicant committed to raising the height of the upper Basement 1 Mezzanine Level car park balustrade from 1.2 to 1.7 metres, in order to screen potential overlooking, in response to objector concerns, and this will form a permit condition. The recommended extension of the acoustic screen to the eastern portion of Basement Level 1 will further screen overlooking opportunities.

It is considered that this proposed shopping centre extension will result in minimal built form and overshadowing impacts, as the 1.2 metre balustrade shown on the plans for the top cap park level does not increase shadowing to surrounding residential lots and has a total 10.5 metre height well below the 21.5 metre height allowed by the DDO4. The condition to raise this balustrade by 0.5 metre (discussed above) will have a limited impact on shadows cast and will also provide for additional acoustic screening of the top car park level. The landscaping if the setbacks along the west and south boundaries will also screen and soften potential views as it matures.

Advertising Signs

In association with the retail floor area extension to the north-west of the site, a number of existing business identification signs will be removed from the north (Burwood Highway) frontage, and a number of new signs are proposed. These have been described in detail in the Proposal section above. Details of the sign faces have not been provided by the applicant as the proposed tenancies have not been let, and this is not unusual for commercial properties. Conditions can ensure that the displayed sign faces are to Council’s satisfaction.

The two signs proposed on the west elevation are not proposed to be internally illuminated, which is appropriate as they will face Witchwood Gully Reserve which is a relatively sensitive interface. The existing west elevation includes some advertising signs, and the proposed signs will maintain a similar scale to the existing signs which are to be retained.

On the Burwood Highway (north) elevation, the proposed internally illuminated business identification signs will provide for business identification and will enliven the façade. On the east elevation (facing the central car park, the proposed internally illuminated business identification signs are complemented by an electronic LED sign. This sign is proposed to show static images with a dwell time of 30 seconds per image and an instantaneous transition time. No animated images are proposed for this sign.

The electronic sign was referred to Transport for Victoria who have not objected to this sign, subject to conditions which will be included on a permit, should a permit issue. As this electronic faces inwards to the central car park, it will have reduced visibility from Burwood Highway. The combination of static images and an instant (i.e. - not animated) transition will limit the effect of any animation associated with the changing images of this sign. Given the scale of the proposed built form and the overall size of the Burwood One Shopping Centre, the proposed electronic sign is supported.

Council’s Visual Amenity and Advertising Signs Policy aims to preserve visual amenity by avoiding signage clutter and excessive advertising on buildings ensuring that advertising signs do not become the dominant element in built forms. It is considered that the proposed signs on the north elevation will unreasonably dominate the proposed extension, as the signs are positioned to cover the majority of the unglazed portion of this façade, as shown on the montage below which depicts the signs on both the north and west elevations of the extension.

The proposed north façade has an area of approximately 850m², of which approximately 22% is proposed to be glazed, and 32% proposed to be utilised for business identification signs. It is considered that covering nearly one third of the front façade with advertising signs is excessive, especially when the additional signs on the west and east facades are considered. Therefore, the central sign (9 x 10.5 metres) should be removed.

Subject to this alteration, the proposed signs are considered acceptable. It is noted that the north elevation faces residential lots across Burwood Highway, however the road reserve is 57 metres wide in this location, and illuminated at the signalised intersection with Holland Road, and so the additional internally illuminated advertising signs is unlikely to detrimentally impact on the streetscape character in this location. Permit conditions, including those imposed by Transport for Victoria, will be included to ensure that the intensity of lighting used for the internally illuminated signs will not unreasonably impact on the amenity of the area and the safety of the adjacent road.

Landscaping and Tree Removal

Council’s Planning Arborist has noted that Tree 1 (19 metre high Eucalyptus citriodora) located near the south boundary is showing signs of stress and has no objection to its removal.

The objectors expressed concerns regarding the size of the existing trees around the perimeter of the subject site, including the overshadowing they caused to surrounding residential lots and potential damage from tree roots. Council’s Planning Arborist has indicated that these trees may outgrow their space in the future, but with engineering solutions or management potential future impacts to the garden bed they have been planted in can be managed. These trees provide a visual screen between Burwood One and the surrounding residential lots, and the retention of landscape screening in this location is consistent with the requirements of the DDO4.

At the Consultation Forum, the applicant indicated a willingness to work with individual residents in relation to trees along the boundary interface.

It is noted that the DDO4 requires side and rear setbacks abutting residential lots to be heavily landscaped. Whilst the existing landscaping surrounding the extended areas can be maintained, these areas are likely to be disturbed by the construction process. Some of the existing landscaping is not in good condition, and the additional built form associated with the rear car park extension in particular warrants the provision of a new landscape plan. No landscape plan has been submitted with this application, and a landscape plan will be required to be submitted, should a permit issue. This plan must include details of future management of the trees around the perimeter of the site, and details of discussions undertaken with surrounding residents in relation to these trees.

The existing Condition 5 relates to the original shopping centre extension, requiring the development and landscaping to be completed prior to the commencement of retail use for the original extension, and the existing Condition 10 requires buildings and landscaping to be maintained to Council’s satisfaction. The current Permit does not include detailed landscape plan conditions, and these will be added, in association with the requirement for landscaping around the extensions.

Car Parking, Loading and Bicycle Facilities

Council’s Transport Engineer has confirmed that the proposed 98 additional car spaces meet the statutory requirement of 98 car spaces required 3.5 car spaces per 100m² of leasable floor area for the proposed a 2,800m² extension to the existing retail floor area. The Department of Transport has raised no objection to the associated increase in traffic to Burwood Highway and the Holland Road signalised intersection.

A 3 metre headroom is provided to the extended car park which is sufficient for cars, courier vans and smaller trucks. Burwood One is provided with an existing loading bay which can manage the additional loading and unloading demand from the expanded floor area, and Centre Management will advise all large vehicles to utilise the existing loading bay which has unrestricted height clearance.

Council’s Transport Engineer indicated that the proposed column locations have not been dimensioned and do not appear to comply with the requirements of ‘Diagram 1’ of Clause 52.06-8 to improve access to a parked vehicle. The applicant has reviewed this issue and confirmed that this can be rectified through provision of amended plans, and a condition will give effect to this.

Any requirement for DDA compliant car parking will be assessed via the Building Permit process, and the applicant has advised that their Building Surveyor has indicated that no additional DDA compliant car spaces will be required (and none are provided).

Pursuant to Clause 52.34, the additional 2,800m² floor area requires the provision of 9 staff and 6 visitor bicycle spaces, and end of trip facilities for staff. A total of 16 new bicycle spaces are proposed to be provided (10 for staff and 6 for visitors). The existing shopping centre already provides end of trip staff facilities, and two additional showers are proposed in association with the additional bicycle spaces will achieve compliant outcomes.

Flooding

The subject site is floodprone and the applicant provided a Flood Impact Assessment to Council’s Asset Engineers, who have supported the proposal, subject to conditions. Conditions 18, 20 and 25 on the existing Planning Permit will be amended to reflect the latest conditions, and five new Asset conditions and nine additional Asset Notes will be added to the amended Permit.

Objectors Concerns not Previously Addressed

· Noise impacts during Covid-19 restrictions are not an accurate representation of the usual noise emissions

The acoustic measurements logging existing background noise were taken in late September and early October in 2020, when Victoria was still experiencing some restrictions due to Covid-19. As a result, it is expected that there were fewer vehicles on the road and fewer shopping centre customers present at that time than there may have been pre-Covid, so the background noise measurements were likely to be quieter than usual. As the acoustic assessment aims to limit the increase in acoustic impacts above measured background levels, the quieter background levels measured during Covid-19 will result in quieter acoustic impacts allowed, resulting in improved outcomes for surrounding residents.

· Insufficient time to prepare objections around Christmas time.

The notification period for this application commenced with notices being posted on 2^nd December 2020. The notification period concluded on the 8^th January 2021 when the last sign was removed from the site. The Planning and Environment Act 1987 (‘the Act’) does not allow for Notice periods to be extended or relocated as a result of holidays such as Christmas, however Whitehorse Council has chosen to limit notification given over the key Christmas-New Year period. This application had a notice period of 37 calendar day, substantially longer than the 14 day period required by the Act. Furthermore, objections can be submitted up until a decision is made. As such, ample time has elapsed since notification to allow potential objectors to review and respond to this application.

· Contrary to previous approvals on the site

Condition 1 y) of the existing Permit was added by VCAT, requiring: The wall of the ground level must be at least 10 metres from the rear boundary of 49 Witchwood Crescent. In response to Condition 1.y), the ground level (supermarket) setback from the west boundary was increased to 10 metres opposite No. 49 Witchwood Crescent. The two lower level car parks (basement levels) remain at the originally approved 5 metre setback, which is consistent with Condition 1.y), as this condition referred specifically to only the ground level setback needing to be increased.

The originally considered plans for the supermarket extension provided a varied setback to the south boundary of between 42 and 52 metres. Secondary consent approval was given under Council delegation to “square off” the supermarket, to a consistent 42 metres.

· Negative impact on surrounding property values

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and its predecessors have generally found subjective claims that a proposal will reduce property values are difficult, if not impossible to gauge and of no assistance to the determination of a planning permit application. It is considered the impacts of a proposal are best assessed through an assessment of the amenity implications rather than any impacts upon property values. This report provides a detailed assessment of the amenity impact of this proposal.

· No commercial demand

Consideration of commercial demand is outside the scope of the Planning Application process.

CONCLUSION

The proposal for construction of Buildings and works to extend existing shopping centre, display of internally illuminated and electronic business identification sign and associated alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1 is an acceptable response that satisfies the relevant provisions contained within the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, including the State and Local Planning Policies, the Commercial 1 Zone and The Design and Development Overlay Schedule 4.

Subject to the conditions discussed above, the proposal is considered to be an acceptable addition to the existing Burwood One Shopping Centre.

A total of five 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 Development Plans

2 Montages and Sign details

3 Previously Issued Planning Permit

Attendance

The Virtual Council meeting adjourned at 8:31pm for a five minute break, resuming at 8:36pm.

Whitehorse City Council

Council Minutes 16 August 2021

9.3.2 Tender Evaluation (Contract 30299) Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)

SUMMARY

This report is to consider tenders received for the Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Project (Phase 1 - Finance, HR, Payroll and Integration Layer) and to recommend the acceptance of the tender received from Accenture Australia Pty Ltd (ABN 49 096 776 895) for the amount of $13,550,132, including GST over a 10 year period for Phase 1 modules.

Council Resolution

Moved by Cr Skilbeck, Seconded by Cr Lane

That Council accept the tender and signs the formal contract document for Contract 30299 Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Project from Accenture Australia Pty Ltd (ABN 49 096 776 895) of 3 Sussex Street, Barangaroo, NSW 2000 for the tendered amount of $13,550,132, including GST, over a 10 year period for Phase 1 (Finance, HR, Payroll and Integration Layer.)

Carried Unanimously

BACKGROUND

The Whitehorse City Council Strategic Organisational Review identified ERP as one of the foundational elements of the “Good to Great” Transformation.

Council recently reviewed the suitability and capability of its existing core Finance, HR and Payroll systems and developed a business case for change with the assistance of KPMG. The business case identified the requirement to replace a number of its core systems which are either end-of-life, high risk and of indeterminate ongoing vendor support, challenging internal support issues and/or simply do not meet the needs of WCC now or into the future. Further the business case speaks to system integration requirements and a staged consideration of other core software systems in the future years. In parallel, Council produced a new IT Strategy, linked to and mindful of the ERP business case.

In anticipation of the future of Local Government, changes with the Act, increased activity and community expectation, both the ERP business case and IT Strategy initiatives are logical steps for Council to pursue. Building on the 2014 IT Strategy’s achievements, the ongoing work of Council’s Digital Strategy and the synergies discovered throughout the development of the relevant business cases, all these initiatives are interdependent and fully aligned with Whitehorse’s Technology Transformation and ‘Good to Great’ principles.

Positioning Council with a more proactive, holistic, foundational, customer service and efficiency driven mindset, the ERP Project is proposed as a staged, scalable and financially responsible approach. This will enable minimal disruption and risk to the business and allow a progression of modular proposals to be put to Council for consideration and budget approval over a number of budget cycles.

The business case to replace these systems was endorsed by Council in August 2020, with approval obtained to undertake the procurement activity in two phases inclusive of an Expression of Interest (EOI) and a Request for Tender (RFT) process. At this time an independent Probity Advisor was engaged to oversee the probity aspects of the procurement process, as well as an Independent ERP Specialist.

The project aligns with and fully supports Council’s endorsed IT Strategy and Technology Transformation principles.

An indicative cost for the implementation phase was endorsed by Council in August 2020.

The procurement was undertaken in two stages:

Stage 1 – Release of an Expression of Interest (EOI) to the market, requesting interested vendors to respond to the broad requirements of the procurement, and to provide a solid estimate of their proposed pricing. This allowed WCC to validate the required budget for implementing the ERP Project, without having made a definitive procurement decision. Stage 1 was completed on 12 March 2021.

Stage 2 – Release of a Request for Tender (RFT) to the shortlist of vendors determined as part of the evaluation undertaken of the EOI responses. This allowed WCC to complete the evaluation process with high confidence that a contract can be entered into that will closely match WCC’s requirements. The RFT was released to shortlisted vendors on 12 April 2021.

DISCUSSION

The scope of the ERP project is for the provision, implementation and ongoing licensing, maintenance and support of the ERP Platform for Finance, HR and Payroll, and the provision and support for an Integration capability. It is proposed that this will be done through an initial 5-year contract, with the option for a further 5 years.

Evaluation

Council issued an Advanced Tender Notice two weeks prior to the release of the EOI to create market awareness. The EOI was advertised in The Age on 13 February 2021, and documents were made available on the WCC eTender Portal on the same date. The EOI closed 3pm, Thursday 4 March 2021 and an initial compliance review was conducted by the Procurement team.

Fourteen (14) EOI submissions were received. There were four (4) were deemed non-conforming. A further five (5) had significant weaknesses - offering less features and functionality and demonstrating lower capability and credibility and overall scores < 6.

The EOI responses were evaluated against the following criteria:

· The EOI Offer (Preliminary Estimates - not scored in EOI Phase)

· Capability (Ability to meet the requirements of the specification) 75%

· Credibility (Reputation, Experience and Qualifications) 25%

Following an extensive evaluation process, five (5) vendors were shortlisted and recommended to the Tender Evaluation Committee for inclusion in Stage 2, invitation only, RFT process.

1. KPMG T/A KPMG Australia Technology Solutions Pty Ltd (ABN 29 606 612 962)

2. Deloitte Consulting Pty Ltd (ABN 86 611 750 648)

3. Accenture Australia Pty Ltd (ABN 49 096 776 895)

4. TechnologyOne Limited (ABN 84 010 487 180)

5. Discovery Consulting Group Pty Ltd (ABN 30 149 596 467)

The above vendors were issued an invitation to tender on 12 April 2021 and were closed at 3pm, Thursday 3 May 2021. Five (5) tender submissions were received. Two (2) were deemed to be non-compliant

The tenders were evaluated against the following criteria:

· The Tender Offer (Schedule of Rates, Disbursements and Expenses) 50%

· Capability (Ability to meet the requirements of the specification) 50%

Note: Capability is inclusive of:

o The proposed solution

o Vendor implementation services

o Vendor operational support

o Vendor managed services

A comprehensive analysis of the submissions was evaluated by the Tender Evaluation Panel using a ‘Weighted Attribute Method’. Scores were based on the quality of the tender response and the level of compliance with the contract requirements to determine the overall capability of consultants and best value outcome for Council.

Shortlisted vendors from the Tender process were invited to present their product to the evaluation panel and key personnel. The evaluation panel arrived at a consensus score for each of the vendors based on their EOI submission, Tender response, clarifications, presentation and extensive referee and peer review feedback.

The Oracle-based product offering scored best in the EOI stage reaffirming the Evaluation Panel’s early findings. Oracle was identified as the most suitable and comprehensive solution for WCC by 6 out of 12 vendors that proposed a solution. Further, all 3 of the participating ‘Big 4’ Audit & Advisory firms recommended Oracle as the best fit now, and for the longer-term strategic capability for WCC.

Further, when implementing a large enterprise system there are two key risk areas. These are the product itself, and the capabilities of the implementation partner (the vendor). The Evaluation Panel agreed, based on the RFT responses and the presentations, that the Oracle suite of products, including the 3^rd party payroll systems were more suitable, and offered better future options for modular scalability. This meant that the decision was based on the capabilities of the vendor and their project resource focus and allocation throughout the implementation coupled with price. Implementation will include the allocation of a Continuous Improvement resource to ensure processes and system use are optimised.

Accenture Australia Pty Ltd was deemed to provide the best value outcome for Council. Accenture is the #1 Oracle System Integrator globally, delivering more than 7,000 Oracle projects to date and according to global research houses such as IDC and Forrester are named as implementation and support leaders for Oracle cloud applications. They have successfully completed similar works for other public and private sector organisations and have provided comprehensive responses to all WCC questions. Reference checks have been undertaken with the preferred vendor’s past and current clients as part of the evaluation process. WCC’s Probity Advisor has had oversight of the procurement and evaluation processes. Accenture are considered to provide the best value for money for this contract.

CONSULTATION

The formulation of the ERP Business Case involved extensive consultation with business units across a multitude of disciplines across Council via workshops, individual meetings and written feedback. Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) and Evaluation Panel members brought specific discipline knowledge to the both the EOI and RFT specification and evaluation phases.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The KPMG Business Case provided an estimate of $9.55M for the 2 year implementation phase – covering vendor implementation costs, licensing and support including WCC internal resource costs for the project. This guidance along with a 10 year cost estimate of $18.0M for Phase 1 was provided to Council in August 2020 and again at the March 2021 budget weekend.

The Long Term Financial Plan has factored this guidance of $18.0M over 10 years with indicative benefits projected at $14.5M.

(10 Year projections now encapsulating Accenture’s implementation and ongoing licencing, support and maintenance coupled with internal costs for ERP Phase 1 are currently less than the Business Case of $18.0M, including a 10% contingency on implementation costs.)

Financial Analysis of submitted pricing schedules revealed a vast diversity in the allocation of resources, effort and the phasing of such. Accenture provided the strongest project resource focus and allocation across the project lifecycle, and this gave the Evaluation Panel an increased level of confidence that their approach was likely to have the lowest implementation risk and provided the greatest chance of success. The corresponding effect of this desirable focus is a bias to towards higher upfront costs in Years 1 and 2. However, with lower licensing and support costs, 10 year costs are within LTFP estimates and near identical to the next best performed vendor. The Panel strongly believes that the sharper focus on discovery, planning and overall project and change management will reduce the likelihood of rework and unexpected costs in the longer term.

The table below represents the two year implementation phase and, with contingency, is slightly over Budget.

Note however the 2021/22 Budget was constructed prior to Request for Tender completion and under-estimated Year 1 expenditure - with a corresponding reduction in 2022/23. The 2021/22 timing increment will be managed in the context of other Transformation and Information Technology cash flows.

$’m		2021/22		2022/23	Total Implementation
Budget		2.09		7.46	9.55

Proposed
Human Resources - Internal	0.88		1.21		2.09
Accenture Implementation	2.74		4.11		6.85
Licencing & Maintenance	0.00		0.31		0.31
Contingency (10% of implementation)	0.27		0.41		0.68
Proposed	Sub-Totals	3.89		6.04	9.93
Variance		(1.80)		1.42	(0.38)

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The ERP Project is consistent with Council’s commitment to Technology Transformation and was procured in accordance with Council’s Procurement Policy.

Meeting Date

Matter/s Discussed

Councillors

Present

Officers Present

Disclosures of Conflict of Interest

Councillor /Officer attendance following disclosure

19.07.21

6:30-7:00pm

Councillor Informal Briefing

· Urgent Business

· Late Agenda Item 9.4.1 Project Update Main Street Bridge Reconstruction

Cr Munroe (Mayor & Chair)

Cr Barker

Cr Carr

Cr Cutts

Cr Davenport

Cr Lane

Cr Liu

Cr McNeill

Cr Massoud

Cr Skilbeck

Cr Stennett

S McMillan

J Green

S White

T Johnson

S Cann

J Russell

C Altan

N Jones

Nil

26.07.21

6:00-7:30pm

Virtual Shaping Whitehorse Panel Presentation and Workshop

Cr Munroe (Mayor & Chair)

Cr Barker

Cr Carr

Cr Cutts

Cr Davenport

Cr Lane

Cr Liu

Cr McNeill

Cr Massoud

Cr Skilbeck

Cr Stennett

S McMillan

J Green

T Johnson

S Cann

S White

D Seddon

A Andresson

Z Tropiano

B Upston

J Cushing

J Blythe

C Bolitho

N Brown

J Merrett

Nil

02.08.21

6:30-9:15pm

Councillor Briefing

· Major Projects Progress Update

· 2020-21 Capital Works Program Review

· Level Crossing Removal Project

Cr Munroe (Mayor & Chair)

Cr Barker

Cr Carr

Cr Cutts

Cr Davenport

Cr Lane

Cr Liu

Cr McNeill

Cr Massoud

Cr Skilbeck

Cr Stennett

S McMillan (Joined at 6:50pm)

J Green

S White

T Johnson

S Cann

J Russell

S Belmore

N Brown

I Kostopoulos

A DaCampo

P Cummings

Nil

Meeting Date

Matter/s Discussed

Councillors

Present

Officers Present

Disclosures of Conflict of Interest

Councillor /Officer attendance following disclosure

09.08.21

6:30-9:30pm

Councillor Briefing

· Delegated Committee: Other Business

· Whitehorse Business Grants Program 2021 Round Three

· Community Satisfaction Survey Results 2021

· Tender Evaluation (Contract 30299) Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)

· Draft Council Agenda 16 August 2021

Cr Munroe (Mayor & Chair)

Cr Barker

Cr Carr

Cr Cutts

Cr Davenport

Cr Lane

Cr Liu

Cr McNeill

Cr Massoud

Cr Skilbeck

Cr Stennett

S McMillan

J Green

T Johnson

S Cann

S White

C Altan

J Russell

K Marriott

J Hansen

I Kostopoulos

D Shambrook

M Bishop

D Seddon

R Hood

M Ackland

B Upston

R Andresson

R Johnston

Cr Davenport declared a Conflict of Interest in Notice of Rescission 6.1, Notice of Motion 6.2, and Notice of Motion 6.3 due to his employment with the tenderer.

Cr Stennett declared a conflict of interest in Item 9.4.1 Rotary Overseas Recycling Playground Program Review as he is a member of the Rotary Club

Having declared a conflict of interest in item 6.1 Cr Davenport was removed from the virtual meeting at 7:13pm prior to discussion on the item and was readmitted to the virtual meeting at 7:15pm.

Having declared a conflict of interest in item 6.2 Cr Davenport was removed from the virtual meeting at 7:20pm prior to discussion on the item and was readmitted

to the virtual meeting at 7:22pm

Having declared a conflict of interest in item 6.3 Cr Davenport was removed from the virtual meeting at 7:23pm prior to discussion on the item and was readmitted

to the virtual meeting at 7:25pm.

Having declared a conflict of interest in item 9.4.1 Rotary Overseas Recycling Playground Program Review, Cr Stennett was removed from the virtual meeting at 9:13pm prior to discussion on the item, and readmitted to the virtual meeting at 9:16pm.

	Budget	Expenditure

Total Budget	8000

Marketing (Postcard and advertising)		1000
Grant writing workshop (Virtual) – presenter external x 2		2000
Translation of guidelines and application forms		2500
Smarty grants simplified Chinese application form TBC		2500
Sub Total Expenditure

Total Expenditure		8000

Aqualink	Operations	Capital	Total (inc GST)	Specification of rates	Capital	Total (inc GST)
Year One	$250,545	$11,000	$261,555	$217,536	$11,000	$228,536
Year Two	$253,050	$38,500	$291,550	$222,975	$38,500	$261,475
Year Three	$255,581	$251,900	$507,481	$228,550	$251,900	$480,450

Action	Impact	Benefit
Modernising of the underpinning business systems	Increased functionality Increased stability Increased compatibility Increased collaboration Increased mobility	Increased productivity Better Customer Service Reduced downtime Reduced errors and conflicts Work anywhere, anytime
Closing licensing gaps	Increased cost	Risk mitigation
Software Assurance	Ongoing support	Stable, reliable systems
Ability for payments over 3 years	Reduced upfront costs	Better cost management
Ongoing supplier relationship	Value Added services	Better service

	2018/19	2019/20	2020/21	2021/22	Budgeted 2021/22	2022/23	2023/24
Operational 1088 2885	311,685	311,685	311,685	476,077	476,077	476,077	476,077
True Up* n900 6708	52,800	57,100	84,000	121,000	121,000	96,866	25,269
No. of Users	700	745	780	905		1250	1340
Contract Commitments	700	700	700	905		905	905

	Budget	Expenditure
Capital Works Funding 2019/20 (W602)	$280,000
Capital Works Funding 2020/21 (X602)	$1,255,000
Capital Works Funding 2021/22 (Y602)	$1,255,000
Victorian Government World Game Facility Fund	$500,000
Total Budget	$3,290,000
Preferred tenderer’s lump sum offer (including GST)		$2,124,107
Less GST		-$193,101
Net cost to Council		$1,931,006
Provisional Sum Items		$272,500
Allowance for latent conditions		$100,000
Landscaping		$50,000
Project Preliminaries, Authorities Fees and Charges		$89,500
Design & Service Consultant Fees		$222,500
Project Management Fees		$210,000
Construction Contingency (10%)		$220,350
Total Expenditure		$3,095,856

Projected Budget Surplus	$194,144