Ordinary
Council Meeting
To be held in the
Council Chamber
Nunawading Civic Centre
379 Whitehorse Road Nunawading
on
Monday 25 June 2018
at 7:00pm
Members: Cr
Andrew Davenport (Mayor), Cr Blair Barker, Cr Bill Bennett,
Cr Raylene Carr, Cr Prue Cutts, Cr Sharon Ellis, Cr Tina Liu,
Cr
Denise Massoud, Cr Andrew Munroe, Cr Ben Stennett
Ms Noelene Duff
Chief Executive Officer
|
Audio Recording of Meeting and Disclaimer
Councillors and members
of the public please note that in order to provide greater access to Council
debate and decision making and encouraging openness and transparency:
- Formal Public Committee and
Council meetings are audio recorded and the recordings (except for
Confidential meetings) are uploaded and available on Council’s
website
- Opinions expressed or statements
made by individual persons during a meeting are not the opinions or
statements of Whitehorse City Council and therefore Council accepts no liability.
|
Ordinary Council Meeting 25
June 2018
AGENDA
1 PRAYER
1a Prayer
for Council
We give thanks, O God, for the Men and Women of the past whose
generous devotion to the common good has been the making of our City.
Grant that our own generation may build worthily on the foundations
they have laid.
Direct our minds that all we plan and determine, is for the
wellbeing of our City.
Amen.
1b Aboriginal
Reconciliation Statement
“In the spirit of reconciliation, Whitehorse City Council
acknowledges the Wurundjeri people as the traditional custodians of the land we
are meeting on. We pay our respects to their Elders past and present.”
2 WELCOME
AND APOLOGIES
3 DISCLOSURE
OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
4 CONFIRMATION
OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS
Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting 21 May 2018
and Confidential Ordinary Council Meeting 21 May 2018.
|
RECOMMENDATION
That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting
21 May 2018 and Confidential Ordinary Council Meeting 21 May 2018 having been
circulated now be confirmed.
|
5 RESPONSES
TO QUESTIONS
Ordinary Council Meeting 25
June 2018
6 Notices
of Motion
6.1 Notice of Motion No 110 -
Cr Munroe
|
That
Council:
1. Acknowledges the receipt on 21 May
2018 of the Box Hill City Oval Venue Improvement Plan developed by the Box
Hill Hawks Football Club, circulated to Councillors and the Chief Executive
Officer.
2. Notes that the Plan has a focus on
removing barriers to female participation.
3. Notes that Whitehorse is one of
eight Eastern Melbourne Councils and four football leagues partnering with
AFL Victoria to develop a regional strategy which will assist in the planning
and provision of facilities both locally and regionally across the
eastern region for football.
4. Notes the intention of the Hawthorn
Football Club to enter a women's team in the AFLW competition in 2020.
5. Is open to exploring the concept of
City Oval being a premier sporting facility in the Eastern Region for
VFLW/AFLW competitions.
6. Will ensure that City Oval remains
available for summer cricket.
7. Request officers explore the broad
project scope of both the Box Hill Hawks proposal (item 1) and the impact of
Hawthorn Football Clubs intention to enter AFLW, including:
a. Assessment of the business case for the Box Hill Hawks
proposal (item 1) including a greater understanding of the scope of works
including VFL requirements and costs to develop VFL standard facilities
b. Peer
review of the Club’s probable costs including life cycle costs
including ongoing operational cost impacts for council
c. Conditions
associated with Council’s obligations as Crown Land Manager for City
Oval
d. An
initial assessment of any planning and building requirements that may
apply
e. Impact on current leases and seasonal licences
|
7 Petitions
7.1 Supervised crossing for
Orchard Grove, Blackburn South - Orchard Grove Primary School
A petition signed by 902 signatories has been received
requesting Council consider approving a Supervised Crossing on Orchard Grove,
Blackburn South.
|
RECOMMENDATION
That the petition be received and referred to the
General Manager City Development for appropriate action and response.
|
8 Urgent
Business
Ordinary Council Meeting 25
June 2018
9 Council
Reports
9.1 City
Development
Strategic Planning
9.1.1 Amendment
C175 to the Whitehorse Planning Scheme (Box Hill Metropolitan Activity Centre
Built Form Guidelines) - Consideration of Panel report and future work
ATTACHMENT
SUMMARY
Amendment C175
to the Whitehorse Planning Scheme sought to implement the Box Hill Metropolitan
Activity Centre Built Form Guidelines. Exhibition of the Amendment took place
in February / March 2017 and 206 submissions and proforma responses were
received. A Panel hearing was held from 24 July to 4 August 2017 to consider
the submissions.
This report
informs Council about the report of the Planning Panel, which recommends that
Amendment C175 be adopted as exhibited subject to the following changes:
· Abandon the changes to Clause 21.07 Economic
Development and Clause 22.07 Box Hill Metropolitan Activity Centre; and
· Abandon the Design and Development Overlay
The Panel
supported the proposed rezoning of land.
It is
recommended that Amendment C175 is abandoned by Council. This report also
acknowledges that a program of future work for the Box Hill Metropolitan
Activity Centre has been referred to the 2018/19 budget process.
|
RECOMMENDATION
That Council, having considered the Panel Report:
1. Abandon Amendment C175 and notify the
Minister for Planning of Council’s decision.
2. Note the program of future work for the Box
Hill Metropolitan Activity Centre included in the 2018/19 budget process.
3. Continue advocating to the State Government
about upgrading the Box Hill Transit Interchange as a result of the ongoing
designation of Box Hill as a Metropolitan Activity Centre and furthermore the
Amendment C175 Panel Report which discusses the importance of the
interchange.
4. Advise
all submitters of this resolution in relation to the Panel Report for
Amendment C175.
|
background
The Box Hill
Transit City Activity Centre Structure Plan (the Structure Plan) was adopted by
Council in June 2007. It provides a framework for development that represents
Council’s and the community’s aspirations for the Box Hill
Metropolitan Activity Centre (MAC). The vision for Box Hill is that:
Box Hill will
be sustainable, safe and accessible to all. It will be a distinctive, vibrant,
diverse, inclusive, participatory, caring and healthy community where you live,
work and enjoy – day and night (page 11).
The Structure Plan
identifies a number of precincts within Box Hill to guide implementation,
namely Activity Precincts and Built Form Precincts. The Activity
Precincts define preferred land use activities, while the Built Form Precincts
define the preferred built form outcomes by area.
Overall, Council
is satisfied with the Structure Plan and its operation. However, the Structure
Plan, when it was adopted in 2007, would not have anticipated the scale and
pace of development that Box Hill has experienced, and continues to,
experience. While the Structure Plan provides some guidance around the built
form of development, with the exponential development that has unfolded since
adoption of the Structure Plan, Council identified that it required more detail
on the outcomes sought, particularly in Built Form Precinct F (see Figure
1). Built Form Precinct F contains limited building height guidance
intended as a catalyst to renewal and increased density in the precinct. Built
form outcomes in this area are expressed as follows:
Major
Development Precinct: Taller buildings permitted enabling increased density.
Heights must not cause overshadowing of Key Open Spaces, Residential Precincts
A or B or residential areas beyond the study area. Transitional heights to be
provided at edges of the precinct to respect the scale of neighbouring
precincts (page 58).
In many instances,
the scale of new development within Built Form Precinct F has not always been
sensitive to the contextual expression of height and in particular, transition
of height across the precinct towards its interface with other built form
precincts. Therefore more guidance than what was provided in the Structure Plan
was sought on its potential built form outcomes.
The Box Hill
Metropolitan Activity Centre Built Form Guidelines (the Guidelines) were
prepared to provide such guidance and direction on the built form and qualities
of future development and the public realm in key areas of the MAC. The
Guidelines considered building outcomes such as setbacks and frontages, view
lines, heights and relationship to the public realm and building qualities such
as articulation, depth, separation, overshadowing, landscaping and pedestrian
and vehicle access. These Guidelines were based around a framework of urban
design objectives, having analysed for example, the current and emerging
development patterns with the aid of a 3D model, subdivision, the location of
key public spaces, topography and view lines, and the character of the
different precincts of Box Hill, including its historical development.
Amendment C175 proposed to
implement the Guidelines by introducing a new Schedule 6 to Clause 43.02 Design
and Development Overlay (DDO) into the Whitehorse Planning Scheme (Planning
Scheme) and applying it to Precincts B, C, D, E and F the Structure Plan area,
as shown in Figure 1.
Figure
1 – Built Form Precincts within Box Hill Transit City Activity Centre
Structure Plan
Amendment C175 also proposed to
rezone various properties in the Structure Plan area broadly in line with the
Structure Plan and to make minor changes to Clause 21.07 (Economic Development)
and Clause 22.07 (Box Hill Metropolitan Activity Centre) in the Planning Scheme
to reference the Guidelines.
Exhibition of the Amendment took
place from 16 February until 17 March 2017. At the meeting on 15 May 2017
Council resolved to request the appointment of an independent Planning Panel to
consider the submissions received to the Amendment. The Panel Hearing was
convened between 24 July and 4 August 2017.
All submissions were referred to
the Planning Panel and 30 submitters spoke at the Panel Hearing. The Panel
heard from a variety of submitters, including local residents, Vicinity
Centres, Vic Track, Epworth Health Care and Box Hill Institute.
The Panel Report (refer attachment
1) was received by Council on 6 October 2017 and was released to the public on
13 October 2017, in accordance with the Council policy of releasing Panel
reports within 7 days of receipt.
DISCUSSION
Panel Report
The Panel recommended that
Whitehorse Planning Scheme Amendment C175 be adopted as exhibited, subject to
the following changes:
1. Abandon
the changes to Clause 21.07 and Clause 22.07.
2. Abandon
the Design and Development Overlay.
The Panel summarised their
conclusions under the following headings:
· Strategic
justification of the Amendment
· Strategic
justification of the built form requirements
· Appropriateness
of the proposed rezonings
· Appropriateness
of the proposed changes to Clause 21.07 and Clause 22.07
· Issues
with the DDO
Strategic justification of the
Amendment
The Amendment proposed to implement
discretionary controls into the Planning Scheme and the proposed DDO included
preferred heights and setbacks. The Panel noted that “many submissions
from local residents argued that height controls should be mandatory rather
than discretionary. On the other hand, many of the landowners within the
activity centre supported the discretionary approach adopted in the
Amendment” (p10 Panel Report).
The Panel acknowledged that the
discretionary approach by the Guidelines, and therefore DDO, were consistent
with Planning Practice Note 60 – Heights and setback controls for
Activity Centres, and supported the discretionary approach, in principle.
However the Panel did not reject the possibility of a future amendment seeking
mandatory controls across some of the MAC.
The Panel noted that Box Hill is a
MAC, a health and education precinct and has a key transport interchange, which
is the busiest interchange outside of the CBD. The interchange is contained
within the Vicinity Centres’ site which is on a long term lease from
VicTrack. Vicinity Centres submitted that it will take significant levels of
investment to achieve its desired redevelopment outcomes and that the proposed
Amendment would limit the shopping centre’s redevelopment opportunity.
Many individual land owners also raised concerns with the proposed
discretionary height limits.
The Panel concluded that State
Planning Policy clearly requires investment and growth to be focused in Box
Hill and the Amendment may limit the redevelopment potential of the
Interchange. The Panel agreed that the development of a DDO has significant strategic
support, it is specifically recommended by the Structure Plan, and there is
strategic support for the application of a DDO with discretionary controls.
Council acknowledges the Panel
conclusion regarding the development of a DDO. Council sought, and still seeks,
to encourage investment and development in the state designated MAC, however
urban transformation in Box Hill is occurring at a much faster rate than
originally anticipated by the Structure Plan. Council is therefore concerned
about the ability of the area to balance the need for investment and growth
whilst creating a liveable, vibrant and attractive State significant
metropolitan centre, and seeks to provide more detailed information and
guidance on preferred future built form outcomes in central Box Hill. The
Guidelines would also improve planning certainty for the community and
developers; the latter consistently seeks direction from Council on building
outcomes such as building height and setbacks. This work was also intended to
form the basis of a DDO for the centre.
Strategic justification of the
built form requirements
The Panel concluded that the
Structure Plan and the Guidelines are contradictory on a number of built form
controls and these would need to be addressed if the Amendment were to proceed.
The Panel also concluded that the
Guidelines do not adequately document why certain design choices had been made.
In particular they commented on the lessons that could be learnt from other
cities, specifically those with higher density areas with an attractive public
realm. The Panel comments that “managing urban development is more like
gardening than buying clothes, and good gardeners will look to see what grows
well in other gardens with the same soil and aspect” (p18, Panel Report).
The Panel felt that the Guidelines
are confusing in respect to strategic sites. The Panel sees no point in
including certain sites, such as the Cambridge Street and Bruce Street
carparks, within the DDO if they are also the subject of a separate planning process
that will introduce built form controls for those sites.
The Panel believes that the
proposed heights do not seem to make obvious sense and they could not identify
any rationale for the proposed heights in the Guidelines. The Panel could not
find the strategic justification for the Amendment in the Guidelines and
therefore they concluded that the Guidelines lack strategic rigor and are not
an appropriate basis for an Amendment.
Appropriateness of the proposed
rezoning
The Panel noted that there were few
submissions about the proposed rezoning. The Panel report records that Epworth
Heathcare and Vitalhealth Australian Property Trust supported the rezoning from
the Residential Growth Zone, but questioned the appropriateness of the Mixed
Use Zone (MUZ) as a planning permit is required for Hospital and Medical Centre
uses in the MUZ. These parties argued that this is not an efficient rezoning,
given that the site has been included in a Health and Education Precinct, and
the Special Use Zone (SUZ) would have been preferred as this zone allows for a
specific schedule and this zone has been used for other health precincts in
metropolitan Melbourne.
The Panel concluded that the
proposed rezoning to MUZ is appropriate, but that Council should give future
consideration to rezoning the Epworth site to a SUZ. The Panel noted that there
were no submissions about the proposed rezoning of 450 Elgar Road to the
Commercial 1 Zone (C1Z). The Panel resolved that the current zone is an anomaly
as the site is the only parcel on the northern side of Whitehorse Road that is
not in the C1Z or PUZ. The Panel therefore concluded that the proposed rezoning
to the C1Z is appropriate.
Appropriateness of the proposed
changes to Clause 21.07 and Clause 22.07
The Panel stated that the Guidelines
should only be included as a reference document in the Planning Scheme if they
support decision making and are consistent with the Structure Plan. The Panel
noted that no submissions specifically addressed the changes to the planning
policy; rather they focused on the impacts of the Amendment on their individual
sites and outlined the discrepancies between the Structure Plan and the
Guidelines.
The Panel previously concluded that
they do not support the Guidelines, and therefore they do not support the
proposed changes to the local policy. The Panel recommended that the changes to
Clause 21.07 and Clause 22.07 be abandoned.
Issues with the DDO
The Panel had previously concluded
that the Guidelines were not soundly based and as a result they did not support
the content of the proposed DDO. Notwithstanding this assessment, the Panel
also included commentary on the specific provisions referred to in the DDO,
such as the design objectives, exemption for permits, general requirements,
heights, setbacks, landscaping, heritage and key views.
The Panel believed that there were
a number of issues with each section of the DDO which makes it unsuitable for
inclusion in the Planning Scheme. Furthermore, the Panel stated that the
concerns are about the content of the DDO, rather than the form and layout. The
Panel concluded that the issues associated with the content of the schedule
therefore do not make it possible to edit the exhibited version without
changing the Amendment.
Response to Panel’s recommendations
Officers are disappointed with the
nature of the Panel report, including the tone of the language used, the glib
remarks and the unnecessary rhetoric found throughout the report.
Officers note the Panel comments
about the inconsistencies that may arise between the Structure Plan and the
proposed DDO, as well as the formatting changes that would be required,
irrespective of any changes to content, as a result of the recent adoption of
the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes.
The new Ministerial Direction on
the Form and Content of Planning Schemes was gazetted in April 2017, after the
exhibition of Amendment C175. Officers acknowledged the timing of the new
Ministerial Direction and that the proposed DDO was inconsistent with the form
expressed in the Ministerial Direction. Officers accept that the proposed DDO
would require redrafting to align with the Ministerial Direction.
The Panel was
highly critical of the design choices made in the Guidelines. As outlined
in the ‘Background’, these Guidelines were based around a framework
of urban design objectives, formulated after thorough assessment of the
existing conditions, emerging development trends, perceived issues and
opportunities with development evolution, and acknowledgement of Box
Hill’s valued character. Officers are disappointed that the Panel has
such a vastly different opinion on the fundamental design approach and
decisions taken by the consultants in preparing the Guidelines.
The Panel Report contained a number
of criticisms towards Council processes. The Panel commented that the proposed
controls were not subject to a peer review even though such a review had been
suggested to Council prior to exhibition. The suggestion to peer review the
Guidelines and proposed DDO was made shortly before the Panel Hearing. Given
the number of experts engaged by submitters for the Panel Hearing at this time,
many of whom would be potential candidates to undertake any such review,
Council ascertained that it was not possible to engage a peer review at such
short notice.
The Panel was critical of the lack
of engagement with relevant stakeholders during the development of the proposed
DDO. Council regularly meets with representatives from the Epworth Eastern, Box
Hill Institute and Vicinity Centres (which operates the shopping centre)
through the Box Hill First stakeholder group and also individually and
therefore believe that the necessary understanding of the different
requirements was already established prior to the commencement of the
Guidelines. Additionally these stakeholders were sent correspondence during the
exhibition period of the Amendment, which sought their comments about the
Amendment.
Furthermore, Council believes that substantial
weight has been given by the Panel to key landowners within the Box Hill MAC,
yet the Panel made fleeting commentary about the submissions from the
community. In particular the Panel remarked that the justification for
particular height limits is “particularly troubling for the major
sites” being the shopping centre and interchange, Epworth Eastern and the
Box Hill Institute (Executive Summary of Panel Report). Whilst Council strongly
supports the development of the Box Hill MAC in line with local and state
planning policy, there was little recognition of the local community
participation in, and sentiment about, the amendment. Council continues to
receive feedback from the community about the level of development occurring in
Box Hill. This feedback is received directly via councillors, the local media
and through other project consultation on matters not directly related to Box
Hill that has occurred since the Guidelines were exhibited. Council has also
been made aware about a petition has been lodged with the State Government,
requesting that the Minister for Planning place a moratorium on development in
Box Hill until a plan for the area can be established. This highlights the
views about development held by the community.
Finally, officers are concerned
that no direction has been provided in the Panel Report to the State Government
about its significant role within Box Hill. The Panel notes that “the
SPPF clearly requires investment and growth to be focused on Box Hill”
and that “the interchange is the busiest outside of the CBD…and
patronage levels of both bus and train stations are predicted to increase
substantially in line with the redevelopment of the MAC” (p 7 of Panel
Report). Yet the Panel failed to acknowledge that largely State funded infrastructure
needs to keep pace with this growth.
Council has consistently advocated to
State and Federal governments about investing in Box Hill and in particular,
has lobbied to upgrade the transit interchange for over 15 years. As mentioned
previously, Council encourages investment and growth in the MAC; however this
needs to be matched by investment from other levels of government.
The most recent advocacy work
involved meeting with Federal and State Government MPs in Box Hill in April
2017 to present the preliminary business case for the redevelopment of the Box
Hill Transport Interchange and Town Centre, on behalf of the Box Hill First
stakeholder group. It is therefore disappointing that there was no recognition
in the Panel Report of this advocacy work, nor that the impetus for
redevelopment of the interchange lies with the State Government.
The Panel supported the proposed
rezoning of land of various properties in the Structure Plan area broadly in
line with the existing Structure Plan, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure
2 – Rezoning proposed by Amendment C175
Officers do not believe it is appropriate
to proceed with the rezoning without the DDO and policy changes. Officers
believe that the rezoning from the RGZ to the MUZ is intrinsically linked to
the proposed DDO and therefore officers do not believe that the rezoning should
be implemented without any additional built form controls.
The proposed MUZ
(as exhibited) does not have any height controls and therefore there would be
the ability to develop buildings in excess of the development anticipated by
the current zone without any guidance or direction around the quality of the
built form or public realm. Specifically, there would be limited guidance about
building setbacks, frontages and heights. Building heights was raised as a key
issue by submitters and proforma responses and therefore if this part of the
Amendment is abandoned, the limited information about preferred building
heights in the commercial areas, particularly Built Form Precinct F, will cause
further uncertainty in the community about the preferred building heights in
the Box Hill MAC.
After review of
the Panel Report, officers believe that the Amendment has been caught by both
political imperatives espoused by current planning policy in Plan Melbourne
and a number of recent changes in key metropolitan areas around delivery of
planning controls for major growth. This is evidenced by the work at
Fishermen’s Bend (draft Amendment GC81) to develop floor area ratios,
floor area uplift and maximum height controls and the use of plot ratios as
part of the central city built form controls (Amendment C270 to the Melbourne
Planning Scheme) for public benefits. The public benefits could be realised
through the delivery of affordable housing, open space or nominated community
infrastructure hubs.
Implications
of Panel’s recommendation
Council officers met with officers
from the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) to discuss
the Panel report and, more broadly, the future planning for the Box Hill MAC.
Officers from DELWP advised that the Amendment, as it was exhibited and
reviewed by the Planning Panel, is unlikely to be supported by the Minister for
Planning if it was presented for approval.
There was also discussion about the
need to revisit the built form guidelines for the Box Hill MAC, taking on board
the guidance from the Panel Report. This could include updated demographic and
economic data and forecasts to support a program of future work for the centre.
This work may allow for the preparation of interim planning controls for parts
of the Box Hill MAC.
Officers from DELWP discussed
reviewing the Structure Plan, based on the age of the document and the current
level of development activity that has surpassed previous development and
population projections for Box Hill. DELWP officers also advised that they
could assist with an internal review of future work or planning scheme
amendment by the Plan Melbourne team and the department’s urban
designers.
Council has undertaken
a project with funding from the Victorian Planning Authority’s (VPA) Streamlining
for Growth Program to investigate the potential for an
infrastructure contributions mechanism in the Box Hill MAC. The investigation
included a gap analysis of community infrastructure, transport
infrastructure, public open space and the public realm information needed to
support a contributions mechanism.
The analysis also reviewed existing
strategies and found that some of the strategic documents needed updating to
support an infrastructure contributions mechanism, including the Structure
Plan. The gap analysis concluded that “while this is the most recent
Structure Plan for Box Hill, the change that has occurred in the last 10 years
warrant a review of objectives, goals and guidelines. This plan should be
updated to provide a current Structure Plan for the area to guide the future
development of the area”.
Proposed next steps
Council officers suggest a
two-pronged approach to progress the strategic work for the Box Hill MAC:
· Step
1 involves finalising the current planning scheme amendment.
· Step
2 involves future strategic work.
Step 1: Planning Scheme Amendment C175
Under section 27 of the Planning and
Environment Act 1987, Council must consider the Panel Report before
deciding whether or not to adopt the Amendment. Council may adopt the Amendment
(with or without changes), adopt part of the Amendment or abandon the
Amendment.
If Council decides not to accept the
Panel’s recommendation, it must give reasons for this when it submits the
adopted Amendment to the Minister for Planning for approval. Council officers
have identified several options available to Council regarding Amendment C175:
Option 1
|
Summary
|
Adopt the
Amendment, as exhibited, and submit the Amendment to Minister for Planning
for approval
|
|
Benefits
|
This option will
progress the work that Council has undertaken so far regarding the built form
of development and the quality of the public realm in the Box Hill MAC.
This option will
provide guidance about building outcomes for developers and the community.
|
|
Issues
|
This option
ignores the majority of the Panel’s recommendations and Council will
require strong justification to pursue the exhibited Amendment without making
any changes.
Given the
Panel’s recommendations, it is unlikely the Minster for Planning will
approve the Amendment.
Officers from
DELWP have also indicated that the Amendment is unlikely to be supported in
its current form.
|
Option 2
|
Summary
|
Split the Amendment into two parts:
· Part 1 – adopt the exhibited part of the Amendment
comprising the proposed rezoning
· Part 2 – abandon the part of the Amendment comprising the
proposed schedule to the DDO and the changes to Clause 21.07 and Clause 22.07
|
|
Benefits
|
This option is
consistent with the Panel’s recommendations and therefore is most
likely to be approved by the Minister for Planning.
This option also
maximizes the benefit for future developers in the MAC, as it rezones land
from the RGZ to the MUZ, which does not have any guidance of height.
|
|
Issues
|
If the proposed DDO and changes
to Clause 21.07 and Clause 22.07 are abandoned, there will be limited
guidance or direction in the commercial areas, particularly Built Form
Precinct F (Major Development Precinct), of the Box Hill MAC available to the
community or land owners about qualities of buildings and the public realm in
the Box Hill MAC. Built Form Precinct F covers the largest area within the
Box Hill MAC (approximately 54.2 hectares), therefore this option would leave
approximately 40% of the centre without built form guidance.
Specifically, there will be
limited guidance about building qualities such as setbacks, frontages and
heights. Building heights was raised as a key issue by submitters and
proforma responses and therefore if this part of the Amendment is abandoned,
the limited information about preferred building heights in the commercial
areas will cause further uncertainty in the community about the preferred
building heights in the Box Hill MAC.
However, the proposed rezoning
and DDO are considered inherently linked and officers do not believe it is
appropriate to proceed with the rezoning without the DDO and policy changes.
If the sites are rezoned to MUZ, this will remove any guidance on height and
therefore there would be limited guidance on the built form of future
development. The default discretionary height of 4 storeys will remain in the
objectives of the RGZ.
|
Option 3
|
Summary
|
Abandon the Amendment in its entirety
|
|
Benefits
|
This option is
consistent with the majority of the Panel recommendations.
It provides
Council the opportunity to undertake further work about built form and the
public realm in the Box Hill MAC, subject to budget considerations.
|
|
Issues
|
This option does
not pursue any part of the Amendment, including the proposed rezoning which
was supported by the Panel. The proposed rezoning is broadly consistent with
the Structure Plan. However, the proposed rezoning to MUZ is considered
intrinsically linked to the proposed DDO and therefore officers do not
believe that the rezoning should be implemented without any additional built
form controls.
The proposed MUZ (as exhibited)
does not have any height controls and therefore there would be the ability to
develop buildings in excess of the development anticipated by the current
zone without any guidance or direction around the quality of the built form
or public realm. Officers do not believe that this is appropriate. The
retention of the RGZ will retain a discretionary building height of 4 storeys.
|
Council officers recommend Option 3.
Step 2: Future strategic planning work
At its meeting on
18 June 2007, Council adopted the Structure Plan. The Structure Plan
was finalised after review of community feedback received during display of the
Draft Plan during November/December 2006. The population projections and the
development activity currently occurring in the Box Hill MAC have surpassed the
projected population and development in the Structure Plan.
After consideration of the Panel
Report, officers recommend that further work be undertaken in the next
financial year regarding built form within the MAC. This may form a component
of the work which has been referred to the 2018/19 budget process to update the
Structure Plan and review the future vision for the MAC..
Officers have conducted discussions
with DELWP and the VPA to determine the scope of the future work. It is anticipated that a future program of works could
include, as a minimum:
1. A 3D Model
A 3D model to capture the existing
circumstances, projects under construction, projects approved and seriously
entertained projects in a series of layers.
2. Document
review and gap analysis
A review of relevant documents and
gap analysis of existing documents and information, including, but not limited
to:
· Box Hill Transit Centre Activity Centre Structure Plan
· Draft Box Hill Built Form Guidelines which were the
basis for Amendment C175
· Documentation exhibited as part of Amendment C175
· Expert Evidence provided to panel for Amendment C175
· Panel Report for Amendment C175
3. Revised guidelines /
planning scheme controls
The
program of works is intended to produce revised built form guidelines, leading
to the application of new planning controls through a future amendment to the
Planning Scheme. This phase would incorporate the commissioning of the
necessary work to undertake this. The structure of the work would take into
account the feedback in the Panel Report about future work. It is envisaged
that this would require, but not limited to, the following:
· Review and
identification of key strategic directions for the MAC, development trends/VCAT
approvals and discussion on planning implications of emerging development
trends for the strategic directions;
· Discussion on
strategic planning gaps and tools needed to manage high density development in
Box Hill context;
· Benchmarking
against other recent planning scheme amendments;
· Discussion of
emerging best practice approaches and options for managing cumulative impacts
of development, including plot ratios, mandatory or discretionary height
limits, dwelling density targets, land use mix ratios and potential
implications for investment and development.
· Discussion of
available planning tools and instruments for planning scheme implementation;
· Development
capacity analysis and future built form modelling.
CONSULTATION
Exhibition of the Amendment
occurred in the form prescribed by the Planning and Environment Act 1987
and took place from Thursday 16 February 2017 until Friday 17 March 2017. A
total of 206 submissions and proforma responses were received towards the
Amendment.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Step 1: Planning Scheme
Amendment C175
Council is required to pay for all
costs associated with the independent Planning Panel hearing, including any
expert witnesses and/or representation in support of Council at the Panel
hearing.
Council was represented at the
Panel hearing by legal counsel and called an expert witness in planning and
urban design to assist Council and the legal representation at the Panel
Hearing. The costs associated with the Planning Panel (approximately $73,500
for the hearing itself) were funded from the current 2017/18 budget.
Council would be required to pay a
fee of $462.20 if Council resolved to submit part, or all, of the Amendment to
the Minister for Planning to approve. If Council resolves to abandon the
Amendment in its entirety, no fee is required to advise the Minister of
Council’s resolution to abandon.
Step 2: Future Strategic
planning work
A new budget initiative of $375,000
has been included in the draft 2018/2019 budget, which is proposed to be
adopted in June 2018. This funding could support various components of a review
of the Box Hill MAC, including an update of the existing Structure Plan,
visioning for the MAC, modelling of existing and anticipated development,
preparation and peer review of revised built form guidelines and expert witness
and legal costs for any future planning panel.
If the future work requires a
planning scheme amendment this could be funded from the proposed 2018/2019
operational budget.
An invitation to tender for the
future strategic work would be sent to consultants after the budget has been
adopted.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The preparation of the Amendment is
consistent with Strategic Direction 2 in the Council Plan 2015-2019 which seeks
to “maintain and enhance our built environment to ensure a liveable
and sustainable city” (page 11).
The implementation of the
Guidelines through the Amendment was intended to provide much needed direction
in relation to the built form outcomes sought by Council and the community in
the major development precinct of the centre. The built form objectives and
rezoning included in the Amendment was intended to complement the Structure
Plan and give statutory strength to the objectives within both the new and
previous work through new provisions in the Whitehorse Planning Scheme.
Whilst officers respect the Panel
commentary about the inconsistencies between the Guidelines and the Structure
Plan, if the proposed DDO is abandoned, there will be limited guidance in the
commercial areas of the Box Hill MAC about built form elements such as setbacks and frontages, view lines, heights and relationship to
the public realm and building qualities such as articulation, depth,
separation, overshadowing, landscaping and pedestrian and vehicle access.
In the absence of any additional controls proposed by the Amendment,
developments will continue to be assessed against the requirements of the
Planning Scheme.
In particular, the
C1Z, which applies to a large part of the Structure Plan area, does not have a
mandatory height limit. Additionally, parcels of land on Nelson Road, Shipley
Street, Bruce Street and Elland Avenue are included in the MUZ, which also does
not have a mandatory height limit. Notwithstanding the above, officers do not
believe that the rezoning of sites from the RGZ to the MUZ should proceed in
isolation without the proposed DDO, as this would allow for development in
excess of that intended for the area. This would also allow development to
proceed without any built form controls.
Therefore,
officers suggest the most appropriate course of action is to abandon the
amendment and undertake further strategic work for the Box Hill MAC, which will
contemplate the planning policies that have changed at both Local and
State levels since the Structure Plan was originally prepared. A future work
program would also ensure that any future built form controls would comprise
contemporary policy to support the development of the Box Hill MAC as a
sustainable and liveable activity centre.
CONCLUSION
Amendment C175 proposed to
implement the Built Form Guidelines by introducing a new Schedule 6 to Clause
43.02 (Design and Development Overlay) into the Planning Scheme and applying it
to Built Form Precincts B, C, D, E and F as identified in the Structure Plan.
The Amendment also proposed to
rezone various properties in the Structure Plan area broadly in line the
Structure Plan and to make minor changes to Clause 21.07 (Economic Development)
and Clause 22.07 (Box Hill Metropolitan Activity Centre) in the Planning Scheme
to reference the Guidelines.
The Panel Report
recommends that the Amendment be adopted as exhibited, subject to abandoning
the bulk of the amendment being the proposed DDO and changes to the policy in
the Planning Scheme. Officers respect the recommendations of the Panel; however
express concern with the tenor of the report.
For the reasons outlined in this
report, it is recommended that Amendment C175 be abandoned. As part of this
recommendation, all submitters are to be advised accordingly.
It is recommended that future
strategic work for the Box Hill MAC is referred to the 2018/19 budget process
for consideration.
Attachment
1 Whitehorse C175
Panel Report ⇨ 
Ordinary Council Meeting 25
June 2018
9.1.2 Residential
Corridor Built Form Study
ATTACHMENT
SUMMARY
Council has engaged planning consultants Ethos Urban to
undertake the Residential Corridors Built Form Study. The study looks to
determine built form guidelines for those areas in the municipality along key
road corridors.
The study has included background analysis of existing
development, planning permits, VCAT cases and site visits. The study has been
introduced to the community via a project bulletin and a short survey.
The study is now progressing to further community
engagement on the draft built form options. This report seeks Council
endorsement to proceed to community engagement.
|
RECOMMENDATION
That Council endorse the
Draft Whitehorse Residential Corridors Built Form Study for the purposes of
seeking community feedback through a formal community engagement program.
|
background
Council engaged planning
consultants Ethos Urban in late 2017 to undertake the Residential Corridor
Built Form Study, which was a new budget initiative in the 2017/2018 Council
budget.
The study looks to determine
appropriate built form guidelines for those areas in the municipality along key
road corridors where land in the Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) interfaces with
land in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) and the General Residential
Zone (GRZ).
The study focuses primarily on the
major east-west tram and road corridors, where there is an interface between
the RGZ and GRZ or NRZ to the rear or side. Specifically, this project is
looking at Burwood Highway, generally between Elgar Road, Burwood and Hanover
Road, Vermont South and Whitehorse Road in Mont Albert, Laburnum and
Nunawading. The study areas are outside existing activity centres such as Box
Hill and Tally Ho.
Ethos Urban presented to Council at
the Strategic Planning session on 5 March 2018. This session provided an
overview of the project including background analysis of existing development,
planning permits and VCAT cases, as well as an introduction to good design that
could occur in the study area.
DISCUSSION
The consultants have now prepared a
draft urban design vision, urban design principles and draft built form options
for the key road corridors to test with the community during a formal community
engagement process (attached). These are based on development / planning permit
analysis, analysis of VCAT decisions, consideration of current planning policy
including Plan Melbourne and the new State government apartment guidelines, and
the phase 1 community engagement.
The draft Urban Design Vision is
that:
“The Residential Corridors
along Whitehorse Road and Burwood Highway will showcase the best of
contemporary design, reflecting the quality and key landscape
attributes of the surrounding suburbs. The interfaces with adjoining
residences will be sensitively managed with space for substantial
landscaping and careful attention to minimising potential amenity impacts”
The draft Urban Design principles
include:
· Enhance
sensitive interfaces to adjoining residential properties and open space
· Architectural
excellence
· Sense
of human scale to frontage
· Solar
access to public open space
· Integrated
frontages
· Equitable
access to amenity
· Adequate
servicing
The draft built form options
include:
· 6
storey maximum (mandatory);
· 5
metre minimum front building setback, with an additional 3 metre setback above 4
storeys allowing increased potential for tree planting and a reduction in
overlooking and overshadowing of adjoining properties;
· 4.5
metre minimum side building setback for development over 4 storeys, with levels
above 4 storeys setback an additional 4.5 metres (totalling 18m between
buildings at upper levels); and
· 9
metre minimum rear building setback for development over 4 storeys allowing for
increased tree planting and a reduction in overlooking and overshadowing of
adjoining properties.
CONSULTATION
The project was introduced to the
community within the study area in late March 2018 through the distribution of
a newsletter, which included information about the project, including the aims,
study area and where to find further information. The project was also
advertised in the Whitehorse Leader and through a project webpage on the
Council website.
This phase of the project included
a short survey to identify what residents value about their area. The survey
was open until midnight on Sunday 22 April 2018 and received 397 responses
(including 13 hard copy responses). The survey responses have been collated as
part of the background analysis.
The second phase of community
engagement is proposed to be held in the coming weeks. This phase will include
notification to all owners and occupiers within the study area, as well as
those who nominated to be on the project mailing list. Notification will also
involve advertisement in the Whitehorse Leader and updating the project
webpage.
Two drop-in information sessions
are proposed: one in the northern part of the municipality and one in the
southern part of the municipality. These sessions are scheduled to ensure land
owners from the northern and southern parts of Whitehorse have an opportunity
to participate. The drop-in sessions will be staffed by Council officers and
the consultants and allow interested parties to discuss the project and draft
options. Councillors are welcome to attend.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The study was included as a new
budget initiative in the 2017/2018 Council budget. The total allocated project
budget is $80,000, excluding GST.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
In October 2014 new residential
zones came into effect in the municipality with gazettal of Amendment C160. The
Minister for Planning approved Council’s new residential zones with some
changes to the schedules to the RGZ. Council had originally included a 3 storey
(11m) maximum for Schedule 1 and a 4 storey (13.5m) maximum for Schedule 2 to
the RGZ. The proposed mandatory heights were removed by the Minister prior to
approval of Amendment C160.
Since the introduction of the new
zones, concern has been raised about the planning outcomes in areas zoned RGZ
along key road corridors in the municipality, particularly where the RGZ
interfaces with more traditional residential development in the NRZ, and to a
lesser extent the GRZ. Where Council had intended for there to be a 3 or 4
storey outcome, VCAT is now approving developments greater than this, and in
some cases, with unsympathetic built form.
The provisions of the RGZ are
therefore providing inadequate guidance for built form, zone transition and
building height in these areas. This has prompted the need to undertake further
strategic work on design guidelines to support the implementation of further
planning controls, such as a potential Design and Development Overlay (DDO).
The study is intended to result in
a set of guidelines and planning controls that provide certainty to both
property owners and developers along and interfacing with these growth
corridors.
CONCLUSION
The Residential Corridor Built Form
Study is a key budget initiative in the 2017/2018 Council budget. Consultants
have undertaken background research, including site visits and analysis of
data, to formulate draft built form options for the key road corridors in the
municipality.
It is recommended that Council
endorse the draft vision, urban design principles and built form options for
the purposes of seeking community feedback during a formal community engagement
process during July and August 2018.
Attachment
1 Phase 1
Engagement Findings ⇨ 
2 Consultation
version ⇨ 
Ordinary Council Meeting 25
June 2018
Engineering
and Environmental
9.1.3 Discontinuing
Council's 'Fair Trade Community' Certification
FILE NUMBER: 18/89752
SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to
seek approval from Council to discontinue Council’s ‘Fair Trade
Community’ annual certification with the Fair Trade Association of
Australia and New Zealand (FTA) from 2018/19 onwards. The report,
instead, recommends that Council continues to endorse Council’s support
for fair trade through advocacy in the community, and for increased fair trade
and ethical procurement within Council regardless of certification.
|
RECOMMENDATION
That Council:
1. Approves the discontinuation of
Council’s certification with the Fair Trade
Association of Australia and New Zealand (FTA) so that Council is no longer a certified “Fair Trade
Community”.
2. Continues to support and promote fair trade and ethical
procurement and practices internally within Whitehorse City Council, and
advocates for fair trade externally to the Whitehorse community regardless of
certification.
|
background
The City of Whitehorse has been a
certified Fair Trade Community since 3 June 2011. This certification by the
Fair Trade Association of Australia and New Zealand (FTA) means that Council
meets minimum requirements to demonstrate support for farmers and workers in
developing countries; and to advocate for fair trade internally within its
organisation and in the Whitehorse community.
Whitehorse is required to meet six
“minimum requirements” set by the FTA (see Appendix) and to pay an
annual certification renewal fee of $900 to maintain its Fair Trade Council
certification.
An internal review of
Council’s Fair Trade Community certification was conducted in October
2017. The review detailed contributing factors that lessen the value of this
certification to both Council and the community, potentially exposing Council
to reputational risk should certification be continued.
These factors include:
· After
progressing well for the first 2 years, Council has not always satisfied all of
6 minimum certification requirements. Some of the certification requirements
involved actions by external organisations beyond the control of Council, while
others required additional Council resources to those available that year, or
projects were not fully implemented because of other (competing) Council
priorities;
· A
similar scenario applied to other organisations within Whitehorse such as faith
based organisations or schools that commenced participation in Council’s
Fair Trade Community program. So the anticipated partnering arrangements that
were intended to expand fair trade interest and actions within the Whitehorse
community didn’t eventuate as planned;
· The
Fair Trade Association of Australia and New Zealand did not provide the
expected level of support to certified organisations like Whitehorse City
Council to facilitate all of the program requirements. The FTA did not monitor
or follow-up certification requirements due to a chronic lack of staff and
resources at the FTA.
· The
lack of participation by other Councils, government departments and private
organisations in recent years in becoming certified as Fair Trade organisations
has further weakened the relevance and reach of the FTA Fair Trade
certification program at this time.
Council has consistently promoted fair trade through a range
of activities each year during Fair Trade Fortnight. Activities have included
displays and taste-tests of Fair Trade products at different Council venues;
purchase of Fair Trade t-shirts, tea and coffee; films about Fair Trade;
incentives to buy Fair Trade products at local businesses (mainly coffee);
competitions in local schools, Fair Trade storytelling in libraries; developing
and distributing a fair trade resource booklet, and last year’s very
successful Fair Trade fashion events.
Each year the community participation in Council’s
Fair Trade Fortnight is good and the level of interest in the community is
still evident. However the requirements to remain a Fair Trade certified
Council no longer seem relevant nor meaningful, so Council support for an
alternative approach is sought.
DISCUSSION
Continuous achievement of the 6
minimum certification requirements in the FTA’s Guidelines (see Appendix)
is not considered to be practicable for Council, so it is timely to review
Council’s ongoing commitment to remain a Fair Trade certified Council.
Despite Council not meeting all the
certification requirements each year, the FTA has continued to grant renewals
of Council’s Fair Trade certification on payment of the annual renewal
fee. This raises questions about the validity of FTA certification and
potentially exposes Council to reputational risk.
Continuing to advocate for Fair
Trade principles and the use of Fair Trade products is an action in Whitehorse
Council’s Sustainability Strategy 2016-2022. However to achieve all of
the requirements to remain a certified Fair Trade Council would require
significant additional efforts to recruit local organisations and businesses to
be involved in the Fair Trade program and to get and maintain commitment from
local organisations to increase their use of Fair Trade products. Challenges
exist for Council to significantly increase its use of Fair Trade products
beyond current levels and to drive the program, as well as measuring the growth
in the number of local Fair Trade organisations and fair trade product use
across Whitehorse.
This level of activity is beyond
current level of Council resources, as over time, other sustainability-focussed
programs have become a more urgent or higher priority for Council.
Council has received limited
support from the FTA over the past two years as the FTA has seemingly lacked
leadership, direction and resources. As a result, the FTA has been unable to:
· Provide
support to certified organisations to help them understand and meet their
certification obligations;
· Audit
the certifications that it has awarded to organisations, thereby lessening the
value and integrity of certification;
· Partner
with other leading fair trade bodies to keep abreast of local and national fair
trade developments and initiatives; and
· Provide
access to a cohesive and collaborative fair trade network of organisations
From discussions at the FTA’s annual general meeting
on 12 April 2017 and lack of decisive action since, this lack of resourcing and
process at FTA does not seem likely to change.
There is also a declining number of
other Councils that are taking up or maintaining their Fair Trade Community
status. Whitehorse is currently one of only two Victorian Councils with this
status, the other being the City of Yarra. The City of Yarra, though certified
since 2005 does not publicise its Fair Trade status and has not dedicated
sufficient staff resources to ensure that certification requirements are
maintained. Manningham City Council was previously Fair Trade certified,
however it has not renewed its certification since FY2016/17 due to lack of
community interest and support. The City of Adelaide is also currently looking
to discontinue its certification.
All the above considerations have
led to this report’s recommendation that Council discontinues its Fair
Trade Community certification with the FTA.
Council does not need to be
certified as a Fair Trade Community to demonstrate its commitment to fair trade
principles. Council will still be able to fulfil its strategic commitment to
fair trade by continuing to advocate for fair trade in the community, to
increase Council’s fair trade and ethical purchases, and to continue to
advocate generally for fair trade.
Council may wish to consider
participating in an alternative recognition scheme that is available via
Fairtrade Australia New Zealand in the future. Organisations can register to be
recognised as a “Fairtrade Supporting Workplace”. To be a Fairtrade
Supporting Workplace, organisations are simply required to offer Fairtrade
products (e.g. tea, coffee, hot chocolate) to staff and visitors. There are no
other reporting requirements or obligations beyond this. Council already
procures Fair Trade t-shirts for Spring Festival and offers Fairtrade coffee to
staff at the Civic Centre and the Box Hill Town Hall.
As there is still community
interest in supporting and advocating for Fair Trade, it is recommended that
Council should continue to demonstrate its commitment to Fairtrade advocacy and
practices, regardless of certification. Council will still be able to fulfil
its strategic commitment to fair trade principles by continuing to advocate for
fair trade in the community and internally, and through its ongoing purchases
of Fair Trade products.
CONSULTATION
Council staff have been involved in
discussions with the FTA since December 2017 regarding potential options for
continuing Council’s certification. Discussions have also been held with
other Councils regarding their status as Fair Trade orgnisations, and their
intentions about continuing with Fair Trade certification
The Fair Trade program within
Council is a joint initiative between the Investment and Economic Development
team and the Sustainability team. The managers of both teams endorse the
recommendations of this report.
FINANCIAL
IMPLICATIONS
Discontinuation of Fair Trade
Community certification with the FTA will enable Council to save $900 annually
in certification renewal fees. The Sustainability budget will continue to allow
for fair trade advocacy, regardless of certification.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Council’s Whitehorse
Sustainability Strategy 2016-2022 and Economic Development Strategy 2014-2019
contain actions to increase the sustainability of the community and local
businesses, and to increase the purchase of environmentally-friendly and sustainable
products. The Procurement Policy includes Council’s commitment to
supporting Fair Trade and to encourage the purchase of Fair Trade products
where appropriate.
APPENDIX
Fair Trade Association
Australia and New Zealand
FAIR TRADE COMMUNITIES
Guidelines for
Towns/Councils
Becoming
a Fair Trade Community is a way to support and promote Fair Trade and be
recognised for it.
Becoming a Fair Trade
Town/Council is a great way of acknowledging a commitment to Fair Trade. It
also enables groups that are promoting Fair Trade to have their work
recognised. Once receiving recognition, Fair Trade Communities also receive
on-going support and updates from the Fair Trade Association.
Requirements
The Fair Trade Communities
Guidelines consist of minimum requirements, suggested initiatives, and progress
reporting.
Minimum requirements must
be met in order for the community to receive its’ initial Fair Trade
Communities recognition.
Suggested initiatives are
not necessary for obtaining or maintaining recognition. However, the community
is encouraged to pursue the additional suggestions as a means of broadening the
influence of Fair Trade products and principles, as an organisation and within
the broader community.
An annual progress report
is required from each recognised Fair Trade Community, which addresses its Fair
Trade achievements, challenges and goals as outlined in the provided template.
There is an annual Fair Trade
Council / Town accreditation fee.
For the Purpose of the Fair Trade Community program, The
Fair Trade Association recognises the following Fair Trade systems:
|
1.The World Fair Trade
Organisation (WFTO).
WFTO members are accredited as
Fair Trade Organisations and can be recognised by the WFTO
logo.
http://www.wfto.com
2. Fair Traders of
Australia (FToA).
FToA is a system that endorses
Fair Trade Association members in Australia who are committed to and assessed
as compliant with international Fair Trade principles in line with the
WFTO.
http://www.fairtraders.org.au
|
|
|
3. Fairtrade
International.
Fairtrade International is
responsible for setting product standards,
Fairtrade Certification and
labelling.
http://www.fairtrade.net
Fairtrade ANZ licenses businesses in Australia and New Zealand to put
the Fairtrade Certified™ mark on products that
have been certified by Fairtrade
International.
http://www.fairtrade.com.au
|
|
Note that when the term ‘Fair Trade’ is used
below, we are referring to products that have been accredited under one of the
above three systems.
Minimum Requirements:
1. The
Town’s Council passes a resolution stating council’s support for
Fair Trade and commits to working towards meeting the remaining minimum
requirements within 12 months.
2. Fair Trade
tea and coffee (Fairtrade certified coffee and tea in Australia) is served as
the default option through council’s central procurement (meetings, in
offices, and in tea rooms and canteens).
3. A Fair
Trade Steering Group is convened to further the understanding and use of Fair
Trade within the local area. The Steering Group should ideally include a
council representative (allocated as the official liaison) and other
representatives of the areas schools, faith groups, community organisations and
local businesses.
4. A range of
Fair Trade products are readily available in the area’s shops and
supermarkets and are served in local cafés and catering establishments.
The general target for this goal is to initially achieve one retail outlet
stocking Fair Trade products per 5000 of the population.
5. There must
be a number of other recognised Fair Trade Communities within the Council area
(including, schools, faith groups, workplaces and other organisations).The
minimum requirement is at least two Fair Trade Communities within a council
area, and for larger councils at least one Fair Trade Community per 5000 of the
population.
6. The Council
provides education and promotion about Fair Trade to its staff and
constituency. This should include:
a) Use
of Fair Trade promotional materials: eg. Placing Fair Trade Association’s
posters on noticeboards, stickers placed in retail windows and information
leaflets provided to a number of businesses and organisations. Resources can be
obtained from the Fair Trade Association’s website:
www.fta.org.au/printable-resources.html
www.fta.org.nz/printable-resources.html
b) Highlighting
Fair Trade through the Council website, publications, and other outlets.
(Including placing the Fair Trade Council/Town logo on the council website).
c)
At least one Fair Trade focused event is conducted by the Council per year
(suggested initiatives below). Photos, videos and information from these events
can be provided to the Fair Trade Association to be shared with our wider
community.
d) The Council and the Steering
Group should attract media coverage and popular support for the campaign. A
folio of relevant media items, such as council media releases or news items
from local papers should be collated and presented to the Fair Trade
Association with the Fair Trade Towns application.
Suggested Initiatives
1. The Fair
Trade Council and Steering Group engage with additional local organisations to
grow the number of recognised Fair Trade Communities within the council area
(over and above Minimum Goal 5).
2. A local
Fair Trade directory is produced advising where Fair Trade products can be
bought.
3. Publicly
acknowledge a commitment to Fair Trade eg. Erect street signs highlighting the
council / town as a Fair Trade Community; put signage in Fair Trade stockists
store windows.
4. Link in
with your local Fair Trade Network’s Fair Trade Fortnight activity. Information
on your local Network is available on the Fair Trade Association website.
Reporting
1. When
lodging their application for Fair Trade Council / Town accreditation, the
council should present a proposed timeline for the implementation of suggested
initiatives and goals, together with relevant information.
2. Once
recognised as a Fair Trade Community, the Fair Trade Steering Group, in
collaboration with the council, is required to provide an annual report of its
activities using the template provided by the Fair Trade Association.
Fees:
Fair Trade Council / Town annual
accreditation fees in Australia are as follows:
Large Council (More than $70
million in revenue) - $1500
Medium Council (More than $10
million in revenue but less than $70 million) - $1000
Small Council (less than $10
million in revenue) - $500
Ordinary Council Meeting 25
June 2018
9.2 Infrastructure
9.2.1 Tender
Evaluation Report (Contract 30061) Cleaning of Public Toilets and Barbeques
SUMMARY
Council provides 35
conventional public toilet facilities and 18 barbeques throughout the
municipality. There are 12 automated Exeloo public toilets that are cleaned
under a separate contract as these are specialised facilities with unique
levels of service. The services for this contract include opening, closing,
cleaning and providing consumables for conventional public toilets and cleaning
public barbeques on a regular schedule.
This report is to consider tenders received for the
cleaning of public toilets and barbeques and to recommend the acceptance of the
tender received from WC Convenience Management Pty Ltd, trading as WC
Innovations, for the lump sum amount of $230,973.60, including GST for 1 year
commencing on 1 August 2018 with the option to extend on a year-by-year basis
with CPI adjustments for up to an additional 4 years at Council’s
discretion, and to consider the overall expenditure.
|
RECOMMENDATION
That Council:
1. Accept the tender and sign the formal
contract document for Contract 30061 for Cleaning of Public Toilets and
Barbeques received from WC Convenience Management
Pty Ltd (ABN 16 005 671 830) of 13 Horscroft
Place, Moorabbin, trading as WC Innovations, for the tendered amount of
$230,973.60, including GST for 1 year commencing on 1 August 2018 with
the option to extend on a year-by-year basis with CPI adjustments for up to
an additional 4 years at Council’s discretion. The total expected
project expenditure including the contract extension period is $1,215,000,
including GST.
2. Authorise
the Chief Executive Officer to award an extension of this contract, subject
to a review of the contactor’s performance and Council’s business
needs, at the conclusion of the initial 1 year contract term.
|
BACKGROUND
There are
35 conventional public toilet facilities throughout the municipality and 12
automated Exeloo public toilets that are cleaned under a separate contract as
they are specialised facilities with unique levels of service.
All of the
35 conventional toilets are cleaned and stocked with consumables once every day
that they are open. There are periodical major cleans and extra cleans as
required. The opening and closing times vary depending on the classification
and the time of year, with the toilets being open for longer during daylight
saving. The conventional public toilets are in the following classifications:
· 5 Day Facility
1 facility at Council’s Operations Centre
Opened and closed by Council officers Monday to Friday
· 7 Day Facilities at Parks and Sporting Facilities
12
facilities at various parks and sporting facilities
Opened
and closed by contractor every day
· 7 Day Facility at Shopping Centre
1
facility at Britannia Mall, Mitcham
Opened
and closed by contractor every day
· Weekend Facilities
21
facilities at various parks and sporting facilities
Opened
and closed by sporting clubs on the weekends
Can be
opened on request during the week for particular needs
There 14
locations with public barbeques throughout the municipality. There is a total
of 18 barbeque units and 31 hot plates. During daylight saving the barbeques
and surrounds are cleaned every day and during other times of the year they are
cleaned on Saturdays, Sundays and Wednesdays.
This tender evaluation report is
for a contract to open, close, clean and provide consumables for conventional
public toilets and clean public barbeques on a regular schedule. The
contractor will be responsible to provide the service in an efficient,
effective and dependable manner. Services must be performed with maximum regard
for the safety of all persons and the preservation of property.
The contract will be a lump sum per year that is subject to
CPI adjustments. The initial term of the contract is 1 year commencing on 1
August 2018, with the option to extend the contact on a year-by-year basis for
up to an additional 4 years at Council’s discretion.
There are
currently separate contracts for the cleaning of public toilets and barbeques.
Many of the barbeques are located in close proximity to the toilet facilities.
There will be increased efficiencies and improved service levels with a single
contract for the combined cleaning of both toilets and barbeques.
DISCUSSION
Tenders were advertised in The Age
newspaper on Saturday 3 February 2018 and were
closed on Wednesday 28 February
2018. Twenty seven submissions were received.
The tenders were evaluated against
the following criteria:
· The tender offer;
· The tenderer’s experience in the provision of similar
services;
· The tenderer’s capacity to deliver the services;
· The tenderer’s quality standards in the provision of
services; and
· Occupational Health & Safety and Equal Opportunity
(Pass/Fail).
The evaluation criteria were
scored according to the level and quality of tender responses and compliance
with the requirements of the contract to determine the overall capability of
contractors and best value for Council. Tender interviews were conducted for a
short list of tenderers.
The recommended tenderer is WC
Convenience Management Pty Ltd, trading as WC Innovations. WC Innovations is a
Melbourne based company that has been providing a wide range of toilet and
barbeque cleaning services to Councils throughout Australia.
WC Innovations has been
Council’s contractor for the cleaning and maintenance of automated Exeloo
public toilets for the last 15 years. They have provided this service to an
excellent standard, met all the occupational health and safety
requirements with their performance closely monitored and measured through
regular audits, communication and meetings. They have been well resourced and
have promptly attended to contract variations, including additional call outs
that may be required from time to time. They consistently keep Council informed
of issues and are proactive in cleaning and providing Council with daily
reports.
WC
Innovations uses a proprietary reporting
system that can produce daily reports exceeding Council’s requirement for
reporting under this contract and through its GPS vehicle tracking system
allows Council officers managing this contract to track and monitor the
cleaning times of both the public toilets and barbeques.
WC
Innovations will employ full time cleaners
dedicated to this contract and not use part time or casual employees proposed
by other tenderers. This will assist to provide a high quality of service.
The recommended tenderer has been ranked the highest in the
evaluation assessment taking into account criteria about the tenderer’s
experience, capacity and quality standards. The tenderers that submitted lower
prices did not demonstrate that they had the resources that could deliver the
required high quality of service. It is essential that a high quality of
service is provided from a public health perspective and for the reputation of
Council.
WC Innovations is considered to provide the best value for
money for this Contract.
CONSULTATION
The scoping of the services and
evaluation was undertaken with input from the relevant officers within City
Works and Leisure and Recreation Services. The
preferred tenderer’s business viability has been considered.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The contract is a lump sum
for 1 year commencing on 1 August 2018 with the option to extend on a
year-by-year basis with CPI adjustments for up to an additional 4 years at
Council’s discretion.
It is estimated that the expenditure under this contract
over the initial 1 year contract term is $230,973.60,
including GST. This expenditure will increase to approximately $1,215,000,
including GST if the options to extend the contract are exercised.
All costs incurred under this contract will be charged to
the relevant recurrent budgets.
Ordinary Council Meeting 25
June 2018
9.2.2 Tender
Evaluation Report (Contract 30017) New Consultant Panel for the Provision of
Architectural Consultancy Services
ATTACHMENT
SUMMARY
The purpose of this tender report is to appoint a panel
of Architectural consultants to provide Council with architectural design and
allied technical consultancy services for a range of planned building
refurbishment and new projects.
Following a public tender process, a comprehensive
evaluation and assessment has been undertaken and eight Architectural
consultants are now recommended to be appointed to a preferred supplier panel. .
|
RECOMMENDATION
That Council accept the tender and sign the formal contract
document for Contract 30017 for the Provision of Architectural Consultancy
Services received from:
1. Brazel
Haley Maggs Architects Pty Ltd of 67 Rose Street Essendon, VIC. 3040, (ABN:
33 056 162 068)
2. CCG
Architects Pty. Ltd. Suite 234, Level 3, 7-11 The Avenue, Hurstville NSW
2220, (ABN:39 157 777 065)
3. Centrum
Architects Pty Ltd of 376 Punt Road, South Yarra, VIC. 3141,(ABN:40 065 422
835)
4. Cohen
Leigh Architects Pty Ltd of Suite 1, Level 1, 5-13 Melrose Street,
Sandringham, VIC. 3191, (ABN: 83 106 604 648)
5. JMA
Architects Pty Ltd of 140 Gladstone Street, South Melbourne VIC.
3205, (ABN: 59 007 406 206)
6. Katz
Architecture Pty Ltd of 132 Cremorne Street, Cremorne VIC
3121,
(ABN: 92 101 078 415)
7. Mode
Design Corp Pty Ltd of Plaza Level, Mosaic, 826 Ann Street, Fortitude Valley,
QLD 4006, (ABN: 65 112 807 931)
8. Terence
Carey Architects Pty Ltd of First Floor, 84A Sydney Road, Brunswick VIC.
3056, (ABN: 53 005 090 826)
on the basis of tendered schedule of job cost
percentages and hourly rates, for a range of projects located throughout the
municipality for a three year contract at an estimated total contract sum of
$1,500,000 excluding GST..
|
BACKGROUND
Council owns a large number of
buildings which need to be refurbished and upgraded on a cyclic basis to ensure
they continue to provide the level of service expected by the community.
Funding for these projects is allocated annually from the Capital Works
Program.
The purpose of this tender report
is to appoint a panel of eight Architectural consultants to provide
architectural design and allied technical services for a range of planned
building refurbishment and upgrade projects located throughout the
municipality.
The establishment of a panel of
architects is necessary to ensure the timely delivery of building capital works
projects and to enable Council to comply with the requirements of the State
Government's "best value" purchasing legislation.
It is planned to let a three year
Contract, with the option of a two year extension at Council's discretion.
DISCUSSION
Tenders were advertised in The Age
newspaper on Saturday 11th November 2017 and closed on the Monday 4th
December 2017. Twenty-two tenders were received.
The tenders were evaluated against
the following criteria:
· Financial
benefit to Council
· Quality
of work
· Range
of experience
· Methodology,
Quality Assurance and Project Delivery Methods
· Occupational
Health & Safety and Professional Standards
Following a comprehensive
evaluation of the tenders, eight architectural consultants were shortlisted to
be interviewed. Fee structures tendered by the 22 tenderers were assessed
against a sample range of small (up to $300,000), medium (up to $1,000,000) and
large (up to $3.5 million) scale projects, reflective of the types of building
projects routinely delivered by Council.
The tenders received from the
selected eight architectural consultants are considered to provide the best
value for money outcome for this Contract.
The tendered rates will be subject
to rise and fall (CPI) adjustments based on the Melbourne All-groups index
numbers at each anniversary date of the contract, including the optional
extension period, if exercised by Council.
Council will seek lump sum quotes
from panel members for each project and will manage the panel members to work
collaboratively with a team of other consultants and stakeholders nominated by
Council officers for a given project.
CONSULTATION
The directors of all the selected
five new architectural companies were interviewed and skill sets of all the
consultants were confirmed. Council Officers are aware of the quality of
the services provided by the selected three architectural companies that
currently exist on Council’s panel Architectural Consultancy Services.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The financial assessment considered
the job cost percentages, nominated hourly rates and level of involvement by
each staff category within each tender submission. This enabled a comprehensive
range of project cost estimates to be determined for comparative evaluation
purposes.
Based on Council's forward five
year capital works program the estimated value of this contract for the initial
three year term of the contract is $1,500,000 exluding GST.
Funding for the above services contract
will be drawn annually from project budgets approved by Council as part of the
annual Capital budget process. Contract administration and project financial
management will be undertaken by the Major Projects and Buildings Department.
FINANCIAL TABLE
|
|
Budget
|
Expenditure
|
|
Funds for this contract will be
drawn from a range of Capital Accounts allocated for Building projects, with
a total estimated cost of $18,000,000 over 3 years.
|
$1,500,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated expenditure 2018/19
|
|
$500,000
|
|
Estimated expenditure 2019/20
|
|
$500,000
|
|
Estimated expenditure 2020/21
|
|
$500,000
|
|
Total Estimated Expenditure ( ex
GST )
|
|
$1,500,000
|
Ordinary Council Meeting 25
June 2018
9.3 Human
Services
9.3.1 Parkland
Advisory Committees - Extension of Term
SUMMARY
Council has 14 Parkland Advisory Committees (PACs) made
up of volunteers who undertake a diversity of work in Council’s parks and
reserves. Over the past three year term, Officers have been working
closely with Council volunteers including the PACs to develop a training and
induction program to improve Health and Safety and Risk Management processes.
Officers will continue working closely with PACs over the next 12 months to
utilise their expertise, to understand what is working, and some of the key
challenges they face, to undertake a review including the Terms of Reference.
It is recommended that for this to take place, the current term of PACs should
be extended until 30 June 2019.
|
RECOMMENDATION
That Council extend the current term and
membership of active PAC members for another year expiring on 30 June 2019,
under the existing Terms of Reference.
|
BACKGROUND
Council has 14 PACs containing a combined membership of 97
volunteers. The PACs undertake: planting, bushland maintenance, events,
education programs and work with Council Officers with regard to the ongoing
management and planning of Whitehorse open spaces. These tasks vary depending
on the size, character and condition of each site.
All PAC members are appointed through Council endorsement
every 3 years, with the current PACs membership term due to expire on 30 June
2018.
DISCUSSION
Over the past three year term excellent outcomes in the
parks has occurred however there has also been challenges. In addition, new National
Standards for Volunteer Involving Organisations have been developed. This
information will be used to assist Officers in developing a best practice
management framework in partnership with Council volunteers including the
PAC’s moving forward.
Officers have been working closely with Council volunteers
including PACs, to develop a training and induction program to improve Health
and Safety and Risk Management processes. Officers will continue to work with
PAC’s over the next 12 months and will work in partnership to utilise
their expertise to understand what is working, and some of the key challenges.
This will include a review of the Terms of Reference.
For the review to be a comprehensive and thorough process,
the current PAC volunteers will be participating, and it therefore recommended
that the current term of the PACs should be extended until 30 June 2019.
CONSULTATION
Council Officers met with PAC representatives on 23 May 2018
to discuss the review and to commence the discussion about what is currently
working well and some of the key challenges that the PAC’s face. Twenty
representatives from all 14 Advisory Committees were in attendance and actively
participated in workshop groups and provided some great insights and feedback.
Feedback received was that Committee members were appreciative of the
opportunity to meet and enthusiastic about being involved in a review over the
next 12 months. Officers and the broad membership of the PAC’s will work
together over the next 12 months to undertake all of the facets of the PAC
program as well as continue to support the great work that the PACs undertake
in Council’s parks and reserves.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Funding is within
existing operational budgets.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Outcomes of the review of the operation and Terms of
Reference of Parkland Advisory Committees will impact the current Terms of
Reference. A report on the outcomes and recommendations of this process will be
presented to Council at a later date
The Parkland Advisory Committee and Volunteer program has
links with;
· The
Council Vision and Council Plan, and,
· The
Whitehorse Open Space Strategy.
· The
Whitehorse Community Participation Strategy (now sits within the Whitehorse
Health and Wellbeing Plan).
Ordinary Council Meeting 25
June 2018
9.4 Corporate
Reports
9.4.1 Adoption of
the Proposed Budget 2018/19
ATTACHMENT
SUMMARY
This report recommends that
Council adopt the Proposed Budget 2018/19 in accordance with 127 and 130 of the
Local Government Act 1989.
|
RECOMMENDATION
That Council:
A Having:
1. Considered all written submissions;
2. Heard the presentations of submissions;
3. Received the report of the Special
Committee (minutes extract Attachment 1) of its meeting held on 12 June 2018;
and
4. Considered officer comments (as
attached Attachment 2),
now adopt the Proposed
Budget 2018/19 (Attachment 3) in accordance with Section 130 of the Local
Government Act 1989.
B Thank persons making submissions in
writing for their contribution and advise them of the outcome of
Council’s decision.
C Authorise
the Chief Executive Officer to give public notice of Council’s decision
in accordance with Section 130(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 and submit
a copy of the budget to the Minister in accordance with Section 130(4) of the
Local Government Act 1989.
|
background
The Proposed Budget 2018/19 was presented to the Council meeting on 23 April 2018
and public notice advertised, in accordance with Section 129(1) and (3) of the Local
Government Act 1989, in The Age newspaper on Saturday 28 April 2018.
The Proposed Budget 2018/19 was available for public inspection for 28 days after
publication of the notice, in accordance with the Local Government Act 1989
and the Local Government (Planning & Reporting) Regulations 2014.
Submissions regarding the Proposed
Budget 2018/19 were required to be received by Sunday
27 May 2018 for consideration by Council at its Special Committee meeting, held
on Tuesday 12 June 2018. The details of submissions received are contained in
Attachment 1 of this report.
DISCUSSION
The Proposed Budget 2018/19 is in line with Council’s long-term financial
plan, and ensures that Council continues to meet the community’s demand
for high quality services and facilities while maintaining its financial
sustainability into the future.
The Proposed Budget 2018/19 has
been prepared with emphasis for the coming year on a continuation of service
delivery for our community, providing consistency and support for our
residents. The budget funds a range of community services including health and
family services, home and community services, the maintenance of community
facilities, parks, gardens, playgrounds, infrastructure, waste and recycling
collection, and building and planning services. In addition, the Capital Works
Program provides for a sustainable level of funding for the renewal of the
community’s infrastructure and an investment in major community
facilities such as the development of the Nunawading Community Hub and
redevelopment of the Whitehorse Centre.
The key features of the Proposed Budget
2018/19 are:
An operational
budget that enables the delivery of services to the community including:
· $15.30
million Sustainability, Waste and Recycling
· $14.33
million Home and Community Services
· $12.44
million Leisure Facilities
· $11.13
million Health and Family Services
· $10.67
million ParksWide (maintenance of sports fields, parks and gardens)
· $8.46
million City Works (depot operations, maintenance of footpaths, drains and
roads)
· $7.59
million Planning and Building Services
· $7.27
million Recycling and Waste Centre
· $5.77
million Arts and Cultural Services
· $5.55
million Compliance (Community Laws, parking, school crossings and emergency
management)
· $5.20
million Libraries
· $4.04
million Engineering
· $3.89
million Assets and Capital Works
· $2.56
million Community Development
· $0.94
million Investment and Economic Development
· $0.90
million Parks Planning and Recreation
· $0.53
million Major Projects and Buildings
A $64 million
Capital Works Program comprising:
· $40.80
million for land, buildings and building improvements
· $5.86
million for roads, bridges and off street car parks
· $5.67
million for plant and equipment
· $4.46
million for parks, open space and streetscapes
· $3.15
million for footpaths and cycleways
· $2.38
million for recreational, leisure and community facilities
· $1.93
million for drainage improvements and waste management
KEY PRESSURES AND CHALLENGES
In preparing
this Budget, Council considered a number of external and internal influences.
These include:
· The
average rate increase will rise by 2.25% in 2018/19 in line with the order by
the Minister for Local Government in December 2017 under the Fair Go Rates
System.
· Negotiations
are underway with Council’s recycling collection service provider
resulting from the impact of China’s importation ban on recyclable
materials.
· Significant
price increases are expected for gas and electricity consumption from July in
line with current market rates.
· The
cost of maintaining Council’s infrastructure assets. This is to ensure
that infrastructure assets are provided to support services that are
appropriate, accessible, responsive and sustainable to the community.
· Cost
shifting by other levels of government. Cost shifting occurs where local
government provides a service to the community on behalf of the State or
Federal Governments. Over time, the funds received by Council do not increase
in line with real cost increases.
· A
further 2.25% increase in the State Government landfill levy to an anticipated
cost of $64.70 per tonne, representing a 619% increase over the past ten years.
· Increasing
community expectations for Council to be a leader in environmental
sustainability.
· Continuing
low interest rates in the short to medium term restricting Council’s
ability to generate earnings on cash and investments.
· Enterprise
Agreement wage increase of 2.3% or $26 per week, whichever is greater effective
from September 2018.
CONSULTATION
The Proposed Budget takes into
account community feedback received through various consultations undertaken by
Council. Community consultation is an essential component of the budget process
and feedback from community members helps inform the key decisions made by
Council. In late 2016, Council held an extensive Your Say, Whitehorse
community consultation campaign to inform the development of the current Council
Plan 2017-2021, which drives the focus of activities planned for the
2018/19 year. Other consultations influencing the Proposed Budget include
consultations held as part of the development and review of key Council
strategies and plans, and a Mayoral Budget Consultation event held in February
2018.
Public
submissions
Council received seven formal
submissions/comments on the Proposed Budget 2018/19.
Five people spoke in support of their submission at the Special
Committee meeting.
Submissions were received from the following:
|
Name
|
Issue(s)
Raised
|
|
1
|
Mr K. Weeks
|
- Elgar
Park landscape plan for miniature railway
- Forest
Hill hall hire cost for community groups
|
|
2
|
Mr J. Hinkins
|
Use of
property values as basis for distribution of rates
|
|
3
|
Mr G.
Wathen
|
Walker
Park redevelopment
|
|
4
|
Mr R.
Brown,
Brentford
Square Traders’ Association
|
Brentford
Square car park improvements
|
|
5
|
Ms R.
Pearson
|
Play
space equipment at Jackson Avenue park, Mont Albert North
|
|
6
|
Mr D.
Morrison,
Blackburn
Village Residents’ Group
|
Increased
funding for street trees
|
|
7
|
Mr S. Andersson
|
Funding
for cycling specific projects
|
|
8
|
Mr T. Lammens
|
Funding
for bicycle/pedestrian facilities
|
|
9
|
Whitehorse Active Transport Action
Group
|
Funding
for bicycle strategy
|
|
10
|
Mr M.
Hassett,
Metro-East
Bicycle User Group Inc
|
Funding
for bicycle projects/strategy
|
|
11
|
Ms M.
Liu
|
Box Hill
mall lighting, events and parking fees
|
|
12
|
Mr D.
Tang
|
Box Hill
mall lighting, events and parking fees
|
|
13
|
Ms R.
Chan
|
Box Hill
mall lighting, events and parking fees
|
|
14
|
Mrs K. Cummings
|
Various
issues
|
|
15
|
Ms T.
Tescher,
Whitehorse
Ratepayers and Residents’ Association
|
Various
issues
|
|
16
|
Mr C.
White,
Whitehorse
Ratepayers and Residents’ Association
|
Various
issues
|
The full
text of the submissions are attached, included in Attachment 1.
The following people spoke to their submissions:
|
|
Name
|
|
1
|
Mr K.
Weeks
|
|
2
|
Mr G.
Wathen
Spokesperson,
Walker Park redevelopment
|
|
3
|
Ms K
Orpen on behalf of Mr R. Brown
President,
Brentford Square Traders’ Association
|
|
4
|
Ms E.
Hopper, on behalf of Mr M Hassett,
Treasurer,
Metro-East Bicycle User Group Inc
|
|
5
|
Mr B.
Duvoisin, on behalf of Ms T. Tescher for the
Whitehorse
Ratepayers and Residents’ Association
|
CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED bUDGET
2018/19
Subsequent to approving the Proposed Budget
2018/19 on Monday 23 April 2018, Council has received advice which results in
variations to budget estimates for 2018/19. The Proposed Budget 2018/19 has
been updated to reflect the following major changes:
· The settlement of sale of 517-521 Station Street, Box Hill is still
pending and is now expected to take place in 2018/19 rather than in 2017/18.
The $34.83m gain on sale has been deferred until 2018/19 and interest income
has also been reduced by $230k.
· Council has been notified that half (approximately $2.32 million) of
the estimated 2018/19 Financial Assistance Grant from the Victoria Grants
Commission will be brought forward and paid to Council in June 2018.
· Council’s electricity and gas supply contracts have been
finalised and price increases for 2018/19 are $0.35 million lower than
previously estimated.
· As a result of Council’s resolution on 19 March 2018 to cease
the purchase of green power, budgeted electricity costs have been reduced by
$0.32 million for 2018/19. A new Energy Fund reserve has been established for
the redirection of this expenditure to other Sustainability initiatives to
offset Council’s carbon emissions.
Attachment
1 Extract Special
Committee Minutes 12 June 2018 Inclusive of Submissions ⇨ 
2 Submissions
Summary 2018-19 ⇨
3 Revised Budget
2018-19 ⇨ 
Ordinary Council Meeting 25
June 2018
9.4.2 Council
Plan 2017-2021 - Annual Review and Adoption of the Strategic Resource Plan
2018-2022
FILE NUMBER: 18/67019
ATTACHMENT
SUMMARY
This
report recommends that Council adopt the updated Council Plan 2017-2021, which
incorporates the Strategic Resource Plan 2018-2022. The goals contained within
the Council Plan continue to be relevant and reflective of the broad direction
of Council activity.
|
RECOMMENDATION
That Council:
1. Adopt the updated Council Plan 2017-2021 in
accordance with Sections 125 and 126 of the Local Government Act.
2. Adopt, in principle, the 2018-2022 Strategic
Resource Plan in accordance with Section 126 of the Local Government Act
1989, subject to final approval of the 2018/19 Annual Budget.
3. Acknowledge
that the Strategic Resource Plan contained in the Council Plan 2017-2021 -
Year Two does not commit Council’s resources until the consideration of
the Annual Budget each year.
|
background
Section 125 of the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act) requires
Councils to consider at least once each financial year whether the current
Council Plan requires any adjustment in respect to the remaining period of the Council
Plan 2017-2021. If a proposed adjustment relates to the strategic
objectives (goals), strategies (our approach), or strategic indicators
(measures of success), then the adjustment is subject to a public consultation
process under section 223 of the Act.
Section 125 of the
Act requires the Council Plan to include the Strategic Resource Plan (SRP),
which identifies the resources required to support delivery of Council’s
strategic objectives over the next four years. The SRP must be updated on
an annual basis and must be adopted no later than 30 June each financial year
as per Section 126 (3) of the Act.
DISCUSSION
The annual review has identified
minor adjustments necessary to ensure the Council Plan remains current.
Minor amendments for year two of the Council Plan 2017-2021 are outlined
below:
1. Include on the
front cover ‘Council Plan 2017-2021 – Year Two’
2. Change the
‘Message from the Mayor’ to reflect year two of the Council Plan
2017-2021.
3. Update the photo
within the ‘Message from the Mayor’ to reflect the new Mayor (Cr.
Andrew Davenport).
4. Update
‘Message from the Chief Executive Officer to reflect year two of the
Council Plan 2017-2021.
5. Update demographic
information to reflect 2016 Census data.
6. Update
‘Councillors’ to reflect the new Mayor (Cr. Andrew Davenport).
7. Update ‘The
Organisation’ chart to reflect changes in department title ‘Whitehorse
Home and Community Services’, ‘Arts and Cultural Services’,
‘Leisure and Recreation Services’.
8. Update the
Strategic Resource Plan to reflect the new projections (i.e. Budget 2018/19
Strategic Resource Plan Projections 2019/20, 2020/21 and 2021/22) in line with
the adoption of the Budget 2018/19.
In line with the community
engagement campaign outlined and Council’s Vision 2013-2023, the
Strategic Directions, Goals and Approaches, including the Measures of Success
are all current for year two of the Council Plan 2017-2021.
CONCLUSION
The above changes do
not require Council to produce a public notice under Section 223 (1) (a) of the
Local Government Act 1989.
CONSULTATION
Whitehorse City
Council’s Council Plan 2017-2021 was adopted in June 2017 following
an extensive community engagement campaign, Your Say Whitehorse, which
provided Councillors, community and staff an opportunity to inform and guide
the new Council Plan. Given the comprehensive community engagement campaign and
the recent nature of this engagement no additional consultation is required for
year two of the Council Plan 2017-2021.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The Council Plan 2017-2021
identifies high-level strategies that guide Council’s actions and in
doing so, inform the development of future Council budgets. The Strategic
Resource Plan, included in the Council Plan, aims to ensure that Council
remains financial sustainable now and into the future.
Attachment
1 Council Plan
2017-2021 - Year Two ⇨
2 Strategic
Resource Plan 2018-2022 ⇨
Ordinary Council Meeting 25
June 2018
9.4.3 Review
of Council's Procurement Policy
ATTACHMENT
SUMMARY
The Procurement Policy is designed to inform the public
as to the principles that will apply to all purchases of goods, services and
works by the Council. This report presents a reviewed Procurement Policy
(June 2018) for consideration and endorsement by Council.
|
RECOMMENDATION
That Council adopts the Procurement Policy dated
June 2018, as presented in Attachment 1.
|
background
Section 186A of
the Local Government Act 1989 requires Council to prepare, approve and comply
with a procurement policy that encompasses the principles, processes and
procedures that are applied to the purchase of goods, services and works. The
legislation requires the policy to be reviewed once in each financial year.
A review of the Policy has been
undertaken and a revised policy is attached (see Attachment 1).
The review is consistent with our
procurement strategy of developing a strengthened centre-led, risk-based,
customer focussed and continuous improvement function.
DISCUSSION
It is recognised that effective
procurement management is essential to ensure that Council achieves compliance,
transparency, open and fair competition, value for money and good governance.
The Procurement Policy (the Policy)
encompasses these goals and provides a robust foundation for the conduct of
procurement activities by Council.
Some improvements to the Policy have been proposed to ensure
that it continues to reflect best practice in the Local Government industry for
the purchase of all goods, services and works and will assist Council to
achieve objectives such as sustainable and social procurement, bottom-line cost
savings, supporting local economies and achieving innovation to create better
services for the community. These principles are exemplified in Council’s
Vision 2013-2023.
KEY CHANGES INCLUDE
· Items
3.4 and 7.4 Staff Conduct and Responsibilities / Sound Governance are
critical in order for best practice in procurement to occur. Consideration to
rate-payer money needs to be at the forefront of all decisions made with regard
to procurement. Transparency, fairness and absence of conflict of interest are
all components to achieving this. The policy provides some broad strokes around
how this must be achieved.
· Items
3.13 and 3.14 Information Technology and Property Considerations have
been included to provide some clarity around process and to ensure that Council
is not exposed to any unnecessary risk.
· Item
4.2 General Requirements have been reviewed and Best Offer is now
recommended for purchases up to $10,000. Officers must seek 3 quotes. In the
event that 3 quotes cannot be obtained the Procurement and Contract Specialist
will ensure that “good value” principles are demonstrated and
followed at all times.
· Item
4.5 Exemptions for specialised purchases have been clarified to make it
easier for staff to understand what is acceptable under an exemption and what
is required to go to the open market to meet Council’s requirements under
the legislation. Requests for exemptions will be submitted to the Procurement
and Contracts Specialist for recommendation and approval of the Head of
Finance.
· Item
4.18 Delegations for procurement have been reviewed to allow for
greater efficiency and accountability for individual budgets. Much of Council’s
frequent expenditure is at the lower end and allowing fourth level officers up
to $20k subject to specific consideration and approval will prevent multiple
minor operational orders being escalated through to Managers and General
Managers for approval and will allow for greater efficiency. Previous
delegations were adopted by Council in 2009 and 2015 where there was an
increase for fourth level staff from $3,000 to $5,000. This was the only change
made since 2009 when the policy was first established. Council undertook a
benchmarking exercise and the delegations proposed are commensurate with other
Council’s within the metro and eastern regions.
|
Council Officer
|
Purchase Orders and awarding of Contracts
|
Previous delegation
|
|
Council
|
Unlimited
|
Unlimited
|
|
Chief Executive Officer
|
$750,000
|
$500,000
|
|
General Manager
|
$250,000
|
$200,000
|
|
Manager
|
$125,000
|
$50,000
|
|
*Approved Level 4 Officers
|
$20,000
|
$5,000
|
|
Level 4 Officers
|
$5,000
|
$5,000
|
· Item
5.3 Contract Terms / Terms and Conditions / Security and Insurances
requirements have all been revised to provide greater clarity and direction for
staff and to lower the risk exposure for Council.
· Item
5.12 Receipt of Tenders will be via electronic means only.
· Item
6.3 Weightings for tenders have been revised to better enable Council
to achieve a ‘good value’ outcome. In order for Council to minimise
the total cost of ownership over the lifetime of the requirement and be
consistent with acceptable quality, reliability, delivery and fit for purpose
considerations the lowest price cannot be the sole determinate. In addition
with growing emphasis on legislated standards across a multitude of goods,
services and works it is becoming increasingly difficult to meet our
legislative obligations and accept tenders with the lowest bid on all
occasions.
Having 50% minimum on some
weightings can skew the outcome of a tender evaluation. This may result in a
number of variations to the contract which can be more expensive both in time
and cost or can compromise the quality whereby Council does not meet its
requirements under various legislative standards. This does not mean that
Council does not consider the current rate capping environment when
establishing the weightings on the criteria but rather has a more strategic and
holistic approach.
It is recommended that there is a
mandatory minimum weighting of 30% for price, 30% for capability (ability to
deliver on time, within budget and in-line with Council’s specification)
and 20% for credibility (past history, experience, qualifications), which will
leave an additional 20% available. The remaining 20% can be added to any of the
mandatory criteria (eg: setting price at 50%) or can be allocated to other
areas depending on what the required outcome of the tender is (eg: Technical,
Sustainability, Social or Local). It is expected that standard goods and
services contracts will weight higher for price (eg: stationery).
Council is committed to being
sustainable and the Whitehorse Sustainability Strategy 2016-2022 forms the basis
of Council’s sustainable framework. To further Council’s intent for
sustainable practice the Procurement Policy now includes a firm statement that
‘Council will give preference to local, social and sustainable (including
recycled products) outcomes when commercial viability and fit for purpose can
be obtained.
· Item
6.3 Child Safety Standards have been referenced in the policy to
address contractors working in areas where there are children eg: kindergartens
as per the latest legislation.
CONSULTATION
Following recent consultation with
over 100 Managers, Coordinators and Procurement officers across the
organisation, neighbouring Councils and regional networks; amendments have been
made to this policy. All policy additions and amendments recommended were made
by Council to further strengthen purchasing activities and system processes.
Upon adoption at Council, the
revised Policy will be posted on Council’s website and will be made
available to the public in hard copy format at the Whitehorse Civic Centre.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
A key objective
of the Policy is to deliver value for money for Council (and therefore
ratepayers) in the form of social, economic and sustainable benefits.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Procurement
Policy dated June 2018 once endorsed by Council on 25 June 2018 will replace
the current Procurement Policy in Council’s Corporate Policy Manual and
come into effect immediately.
Attachment
1 Draft
Procurement Policy June 2018 Final ⇨
Ordinary Council Meeting 25
June 2018
9.4.4 2018/19
Annual Internal Audit Plan
FILE NUMBER: SF15/939
SUMMARY
Whitehorse City Council’s 2018/19
internal audit plan has been developed by Crowe Horwath. Whitehorse City
Council’s Audit Committee charter requires approval of the annual plan by
Council.
|
RECOMMENDATION
That Council
1. Note the Audit Advisory Committee’s
endorsement of the 2018/19 annual internal audit plan.
2. Approve
the 2018/19 annual internal audit plan.
|
background
Whitehorse City Council’s
internal audit plan is an independent, objective assurance function designed to
add value and improve Council operations. It helps Council accomplish its
objectives by bringing a systematic, disciplined approach to evaluate and
improve the effectiveness of risk management control and governance processes.
Whitehorse City Council’s Audit Advisory Committee (AAC) Charter requires that an annual
internal audit plan be approved by Council each year. The role of the AAC is to
review and monitor the annual program including receiving of audit scopes and
final reports. The Chair of the AAC reports to Council on audit activities on a
six monthly basis.
DISCUSSION
The Annual Internal Audit Plan was
developed by Crowe Horwath in consultation with the Chief Executive Officer,
General Managers, selected managers and the Audit Advisory Committee.
The reviews
proposed have been nominated with consideration of the following key
principles:
· To target areas of greatest importance or concern,
and/or where the potential for improvement, or risks of failure or loss are
greatest.
· To provide a rolling program of internal audit activity that is aligned
to Council’s risk areas as noted in the risk register.
· To take into account the nature and timing of previous internal audit
activity.
· To take into account other review activity such as VAGO’s financial
and performance audits, Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission
(IBAC) reports and reports from Ombudsman Victoria relevant to Local
Government.
· To ensure an appropriate balance between compliance
and process / performance improvement focussed projects.
With these key principles in mind, the following six areas
of focus have been included in the Audit Advisory Committee endorsed 2018/19
annual internal audit plan:
1. Fleet Management
2. Credit Cards
3. IT Security & Access
Controls
4. Privacy & Data
Protection Act Management
5. Asset & Infrastructure
Management
6. Tendering Practices
Ordinary Council Meeting 25
June 2018
9.4.5 Return
and Adoption of 2018 General Valuation
FILE NUMBER: SF16/746#02
SUMMARY
Statutory valuations enable
Council to equitably apportion their annual rate yield to individual
ratepayers. The Valuation of Land Act 1960 currently requires all
Victorian councils to re-value all property within their municipal district
every two years. This report presents to Council for adoption, the
recently completed 2018 General Valuation. This valuation will be used to
apportion rating liabilities in the 2018/19 financial year.
|
RECOMMENDATION
That Council receive and adopt the return of the 2018 General Valuation for all
rateable and non-rateable leviable properties within the City of Whitehorse,
subject to the final certification of the General Valuation by the
Valuer-General Victoria, as shown below:
· 73,431 rateable assessments with total valuations of:
Site Value $
59,669,594,000
Capital Improved Value $
77,928,466,000
Net Annual Value $
3,990,089,515
· 833 non-rateable leviable assessments with total
valuations of:
Site Value $
2,835,073,000
Capital Improved Value $
3,039,444,000
Net Annual Value $
165,355,095
|
background
Council resolved at its meeting on
21 November 2016 to cause a General Valuation of all rateable and non-rateable
leviable land within the City of Whitehorse to be made as at 1 January 2018.
Please note that non-rateable
leviable land means non-rateable properties that are required to pay the Fire
Services Property Levy (FSPL) in accordance with the Fire Services Property
Levy Act 2012.
Council’s appointed
independent Valuers, Matheson Stephen Valuations, have completed the 2018
General Valuation of all rateable and non-rateable properties within the City
of Whitehorse.
The 2018 General Valuation was
completed in accordance with the Valuer-General Victoria’s (VGV)
“2018 Valuation Best Practice Specifications Guidelines”.
VGV is the State Government
authority responsible under the Valuation of Land Act 1960 for auditing
and certifying all General Valuations within Victoria. The auditing
process involves five stages, with certification being undertaken by VGV
following the completion of each stage.
All stages of the 2018 General
Valuation have been completed and submitted to VGV, with VGV having certified
Stages 1, 2, 3 and 4. As part of the certification process, VGV has required an
amendment to some commercial valuations to be included in the Stage 5
submission. Stage 5 has been submitted for audit and is pending VGV
certification.
Council
is compelled to use the 2018 General Valuation for Council rating purposes for
the period from 1 July 2018 until 30 June 2019.
Additionally,
the valuations will be used as the basis for the Fire Services Property Levy
and State Land Tax.
DISCUSSION
The
valuation return comprises 73,431 rateable valuation assessments and 833
non-rateable leviable valuation assessments.
The
rateable valuation assessments include 33 properties classified as
“Recreational Land”, pursuant to the Cultural and Recreational
Lands Act 1963. Whilst these properties are considered rateable, their
cultural and recreational uses qualify them for a charge in lieu of rates.
Non-rateable
leviable valuation assessments are now returned as part of the General
Valuation due to the requirements of the Fire Services Property Levy Act
2012.
Council’s
database has an additional 241 assessments that are classified as non-rateable
non-leviable assessments. Whilst these assessments have been valued, they are
not subject to VGV certification requirements, and are not formally part of the
return of the General Valuation.
The
Council’s 2018 valuation totals are summarised as follows:
|
|
Number of Assessments
|
Site Value
|
Capital Improved Value
|
Net Annual Value
|
|
Rateable assessments
|
73,431
|
$59,669,594,000
|
$77,928,466,000
|
$ 3,990,089,515
|
|
Non-rateable leviable assessments
(required for the FSPL)
|
833
|
$ 2,835,073,000
|
$ 3,039,444,000
|
$ 165,355,095
|
|
General Valuation Total
|
74,264
|
$62,504,667,000
|
$80,967,910,000
|
$ 4,155,444,610
|
|
Non-rateable non-leviable assessments
|
241
|
$ 1,089,667,000
|
$ 1,252,935,000
|
$ 68,294,850
|
|
All Valuations Total
|
74,505
|
$63,594,334,000
|
$82,220,845,000
|
$ 4,223,739,460
|
The
above terms are explained below:
· Rateable
- Subject to council rates and used in council budget.
· Non-rateable
leviable - Not subject to council rates but subject to the FSPL.
· Non-rateable
non-leviable - Not subject to council rates or the FSPL.
In
accordance with Section 157 of the Local Government Act 1989, Whitehorse
City Council use Capital Improved Value (CIV) as its system of valuation rate
base.
The
overall increase to the rateable CIV, between the 2018 and the final 2016
valuation total is 19.0%.
Residential
properties have an average increase in CIV of 18.8%, commercial properties an
average increase of 20.7%, industrial properties an average increase of 20.0%
and cultural and recreational properties an average increase of 26.4%.
The 19.0%
increase in rateable valuation total will not increase the rate revenue
received by Council; however, a redistribution of the rate burden amongst
properties will occur. This redistribution is caused by the valuation movement
variations between property groupings and individual properties.
Declaration
by the Minister for Planning that the General
Valuation is generally true and correct completes all necessary steps to enable the 2018 valuation to be used for rating
purposes for the 2018/19 financial year.
Due to
administrative processes at VGV the Minister’s declaration is expected to
occur after Council resolves to adopt the 2018 General Valuation.
The draft
2018/19 budget was based on there being a total rateable CIV of
$77,909,211,000. Following the VGV audit of Stages 3 and 4, the rateable CIV
has been increased by $19,255,000 to $77,928,466,000.
The 2018
level valuations will appear on the 2018/19 Valuation and Rate notices in
August 2018 and any ratepayers who feel that the valuations assigned to their
property are incorrect will have a two month objection period in accordance
with the Valuation of Land Act 1960. This objection period commences
from the delivery date shown on the Valuation and Rate notice.
CONSULTATION
The General Valuation has been
audited and certified by VGV. Stage 5 is pending certification.
FINANCIAL
IMPLICATIONS
There
will be no increase in revenue to Council as a result of the new general
valuation.
The cost
of Council undertaking the 2018 Revaluation inclusive of contractor costs and
software licence fees, and ancillary costs has been $479,897 (GST exclusive).
Prior to the end of the calendar year, the State Revenue Office, via VGV, will
purchase the General Valuation at an estimated purchase price of $256,000 (GST
exclusive) based on 50% of Council’s cost plus a management fee.
Ordinary Council Meeting 25
June 2018
9.4.6 Adoption
of Instrument of Appointment and Authorisation under the Planning and
Environment Act 1987
SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to
recommend approval of Instrument of Appointment and Authorisation under the
Planning and Environment Act 1987, from the Council to positions in the
organisation.
|
RECOMMENDATION
That Council approve the proposed appointment of
authorised officers pursuant to the Planning and Environment Act 1987 as
attached to this report.
|
background
The proposed Instrument of
Appointment and Authorisation (pursuant to the Planning and Environment Act
1987) has been prepared following advice received from Council’s
solicitors Maddocks and is similar to that used by many Victorian
municipalities.
The Instrument of Appointment and
Authorisation allows Council officers to conduct their normal business in
relation to enforcement of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and to
act and commence proceedings in Council’s name.
These appointments
must be made by resolution of the Council; section 3(6) of the Local
Government Act 1989 defines ‘resolution of the council’ as
including a power exercised under delegation (ie: by the Chief Executive
Officer), however section 188 (2) (c) of the Planning and Environment Act
1987 prohibits authorisations being made under delegation.
The Instruments of Appointment and
Authorisation would come into force once the common seal is affixed to the
Instrument.
CONSULTATION
Relevant staff including General
Manager City Development and Manager Planning and Building were consulted
during the preparation of the proposed Instrument of Appointment and
Authorisation.
FINANCIAL
IMPLICATIONS
There are no financial
implications.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
There are no policy implications.
Whitehorse
City Council
Instrument
of Appointment and Authorisation under the Planning and Environment Act 1987
|
STAFF
|
|
Surname
|
Given
name
|
|
HAMBLIN
|
Joseph
|
|
PAGE
|
Benjamin
|
|
SUTTON
|
Patrick
|
|
TRUONG
|
Hy
|
|
VARVARIS
|
Christos
|
Instrument of Appointment and Authorisation
(Planning and Environment Act 1987)
In this
instrument "officer" means:
a) Joseph Hamblin
b) Benjamin Page
c) Patrick Sutton
d) Hy Truong
e) Christos Varvaris
By this
instrument of appointment and authorisation Whitehorse City Council:
a) Under section 147(4) of the Planning
and Environment Act 1987 - appoints the officer(s) to be an
authorised officer(s) for the purposes of the Planning and Environment Act
1987 and the regulations made under that Act; and
b) Under section 232 of the Local
Government Act 1989 authorises the officer(s) generally to institute
proceedings for offences against the Acts and regulations described in this
instrument.
It is declared that
this instrument -
a) Comes into force immediately upon its
execution; and
b) Remains
in force until varied or revoked.
This
instrument is authorised by a resolution of the Whitehorse City Council on
25 June 2018
|
THE
COMMON SEAL OF THE WHITEHORSE CITY COUNCIL was hereunto affixed
this day of June 2018
in the
presence of:
______________________
Councillor
______________________
Chief
Executive Officer
|
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
|
Ordinary Council Meeting 25
June 2018
9.4.7 Delegated
Decisions April 2018
SUMMARY
The following activity was undertaken by officers under
delegated authority during April 2018.
|
RECOMMENDATION
That the report of
decisions made by officers under Instruments of Delegation for the month of
April 2018 be noted.
|
|
DELEGATION
|
FUNCTION
|
Number for April 2017
|
Number for April 2018
|
|
Planning and Environment Act
1987
|
Delegated Decisions
|
101
|
108
|
|
Strategic Planning Decisions
|
Nil
|
Nil
|
|
Telecommunications Act 1997
|
|
Nil
|
Nil
|
|
Subdivision Act 1988
|
|
15
|
23
|
|
Gaming Control Act 1991
|
|
Nil
|
Nil
|
|
Building Act 1993
|
Dispensations & Applications to
Building Control Commission
|
55
|
37
|
|
Liquor Control Reform Act 1998
|
Objections and Prosecutions
|
Nil
|
3
|
|
Food Act 1984
|
Food Act Orders
|
5
|
1
|
|
Public Health & Wellbeing
Act 2008
|
Improvement /
Prohibition Notices
|
2
|
Nil
|
|
Local Government Act 1989
|
Temporary Road Closures
|
3
|
4
|
|
Other Delegations
|
CEO Signed Contracts between $150,000 - $500,000
|
2
|
1
|
|
Property Sales and Leases
|
2
|
9
|
|
Documents to which Council seal affixed
|
1
|
Nil
|
|
Vendor Payments
|
1104
|
1501
|
|
Parking Amendments
|
4
|
1
|
|
Parking Infringements written off (not
able to be collected)
|
276
|
267
|
DELEGATED DECISIONS MADE ON PLANNING APPLICATIONS APRIL
2018
All decisions are the subject of conditions which may in some
circumstances alter the use of development approved, or specific grounds of
refusal is an application is not supported.
|
Appl No.
|
Date
|
Decision
|
Street
Address
|
Ward
|
Proposed Use or
Development
|
Appl.
Type
|
|
WH/2017/995
|
17-04-18
|
Application Lapsed
|
54B Williams Road
BLACKBURN VIC 3130
|
Central
|
Construction of four double storey
dwellings on a lot
|
Multiple
Dwellings
|
|
WH/2013/127/C
|
23-04-18
|
Delegate Approval - S72 Amendment
|
18 Jolimont Road
FOREST HILL VIC 3131
|
Morack
|
Construction of two double storey
dwellings
|
Permit
Amendment
|
|
WH/2014/870/A
|
16-04-18
|
Delegate Approval - S72 Amendment
|
47 Station Street
BURWOOD VIC 3125
|
Riversdale
|
Construction of three (3) double storey
dwellings and to alter access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1
|
Permit
Amendment
|
|
WH/2014/964/C
|
24-04-18
|
Delegate Approval - S72 Amendment
|
639 Canterbury Road
VERMONT VIC 3133
|
Springfield
|
Construction of five dwellings including
four double storey and one single storey and alteration of access to a road
in a Road Zone (Category 1)
|
Permit
Amendment
|
|
WH/2014/997/A
|
30-04-18
|
Delegate Approval - S72 Amendment
|
71 Severn Street
BOX HILL NORTH VIC 3129
|
Elgar
|
Construction of eight (8) dwellings,
comprising one (1) double storey and seven (7) three storey dwellings and
reduction of visitor car parking requirements
|
Permit
Amendment
|
|
WH/2015/1046/A
|
03-04-18
|
Delegate Approval - S72 Amendment
|
329 Springvale Road
FOREST HILL VIC 3131
|
Springfield
|
Buildings and works to construct six (6)
double storey dwellings across three (3) allotments and alteration of access
to a Road Zone, Category 1
|
Permit
Amendment
|
|
WH/2015/192/A
|
13-04-18
|
Delegate Approval - S72 Amendment
|
29 Aberdeen Road
BLACKBURN SOUTH VIC 3130
|
Central
|
Construction of three (3) double storey
dwellings
|
Permit
Amendment
|
|
WH/2015/967/A
|
30-04-18
|
Delegate Approval - S72 Amendment
|
15 Mitchell Road
MONT ALBERT NORTH VIC 3129
|
Elgar
|
Two proposed double storey dwellings at
rear of existing dwelling
|
Permit
Amendment
|
|
Appl No.
|
Date
|
Decision
|
Street
Address
|
Ward
|
Proposed Use or
Development
|
Appl.
Type
|
|
WH/2016/1194/A
|
20-04-18
|
Delegate Approval - S72 Amendment
|
659-669 Whitehorse Road
MONT ALBERT VIC 3127
|
Elgar
|
Use the land for food and drink premises
(cafe), construction of 2 or more dwellings in a 5 level building plus
basements, waiver of loading bay, alteration to access to a Road Zone
Category 1
|
Permit
Amendment
|
|
WH/2017/698/A
|
17-04-18
|
Delegate Approval - S72 Amendment
|
25 Tiller Street
BURWOOD EAST VIC 3151
|
Riversdale
|
Proposal for two new double storey
dwelling with associated landscaping, driveways and crossover
|
Permit
Amendment
|
|
WH/2016/1145
|
30-04-18
|
Delegate NOD Issued
|
16 Vernal Avenue
MITCHAM VIC 3132
|
Springfield
|
Buildings and works for the construction
of two dwellings and vegetation removal (trees)
|
Multiple
Dwellings
|
|
WH/2017/150
|
11-04-18
|
Delegate NOD Issued
|
68 Watts Street
BOX HILL NORTH VIC 3129
|
Elgar
|
Construction of three double storey
dwellings, front fence and tree removal
|
Multiple
Dwellings
|
|
WH/2017/271
|
30-04-18
|
Delegate NOD Issued
|
333 Blackburn Road
BURWOOD EAST VIC 3151
|
Morack
|
Construction of five double storey
dwellings above basement, tree removal, reduction in car parking and
alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1
|
Multiple
Dwellings
|
|
WH/2017/479
|
06-04-18
|
Delegate NOD Issued
|
13 Graham Place
BOX HILL VIC 3128
|
Elgar
|
Construction of three (3) double storey
dwellings and tree removal
|
Multiple
Dwellings
|
|
WH/2017/503
|
17-04-18
|
Delegate NOD Issued
|
13 Beddows Street
BURWOOD VIC 3125
|
Riversdale
|
Construction of three double storey
dwellings and associated tree removal
|
Multiple
Dwellings
|
|
WH/2017/624
|
20-04-18
|
Delegate NOD Issued
|
51 Windsor Crescent
MONT ALBERT VIC 3127
|
Elgar
|
Addition and alteration to existing
single storey class 1a dwelling in a heritage overlay
|
Heritage
|
|
Appl No.
|
Date
|
Decision
|
Street
Address
|
Ward
|
Proposed Use or
Development
|
Appl.
Type
|
|
WH/2017/639
|
23-04-18
|
Delegate NOD Issued
|
1 Robinlee Avenue
BURWOOD EAST VIC 3151
|
Morack
|
Mixed-use development (two (2) ground
floor shop tenancies and two (2) first floor dwelling apartments, a car
parking reduction and waiver of loading bay requirements
|
Business
|
|
WH/2017/792
|
30-04-18
|
Delegate NOD Issued
|
48 Alandale Road
BLACKBURN VIC 3130
|
Central
|
Construction of a two storey dwelling and
the removal of trees within a SLO2
|
Special
Landscape
Area
|
|
WH/2017/812
|
14-04-18
|
Delegate NOD Issued
|
2A Smith Street
BURWOOD EAST VIC 3151
|
Riversdale
|
Two double storey dwellings
|
Multiple
Dwellings
|
|
WH/2017/847
|
14-04-18
|
Delegate NOD Issued
|
18 Broomhill Avenue
BLACKBURN VIC 3130
|
Central
|
The construction of two (2) double storey
dwellings
|
Multiple
Dwellings
|
|
WH/2017/849
|
30-04-18
|
Delegate NOD Issued
|
35 Marshall Road
BOX HILL NORTH VIC 3129
|
Elgar
|
Construction of two (2) double storey
dwellings and tree removal
|
Multiple
Dwellings
|
|
WH/2017/854
|
09-04-18
|
Delegate NOD Issued
|
3/613 Whitehorse Road
MITCHAM VIC 3132
|
Springfield
|
Buildings and works to construct three
warehouses and associated alteration (intensification) of access to a road in
a Road Zone Category 1
|
Industrial
|
|
WH/2017/885
|
23-04-18
|
Delegate NOD Issued
|
1 Gibson Street
MITCHAM VIC 3132
|
Springfield
|
Construction of two double storey
dwellings
|
Multiple
Dwellings
|
|
WH/2016/1143
|
26-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
78 Middleborough Road
BURWOOD EAST VIC 3151
|
Riversdale
|
Development of two (six storey) apartment
buildings and associated reduction of car parking requirements and alteration
of access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1
|
Multiple
Dwellings
|
|
Appl No.
|
Date
|
Decision
|
Street
Address
|
Ward
|
Proposed Use or
Development
|
Appl.
Type
|
|
WH/2016/1199
|
06-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
78 Middleborough Road
BURWOOD EAST VIC 3151
|
Riversdale
|
Creation of an access to a road in a Road
Zone Category 1, intersection works to a road in a Road Zone Category 1,
building and works for a retaining wall and associated removal of native
vegetation
|
Other
|
|
WH/2017/1001
|
18-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
35 Thomas Street
MITCHAM VIC 3132
|
Springfield
|
Buildings and works associated with a front
fence, window canopy, alfresco and solar panelling
|
Heritage
|
|
WH/2017/1024
|
13-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
7 Market Street
BOX HILL VIC 3128
|
Elgar
|
Display of business identification and
internally illuminated signage
|
Advertising
Sign
|
|
WH/2017/491
|
13-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
12 Chester Street
SURREY HILLS VIC 3127
|
Riversdale
|
Construction of two double storey
dwellings, removal of trees and buildings and works within 4m of protected
trees
|
Multiple
Dwellings
|
|
WH/2017/551
|
30-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
113 Kenmare Street
MONT ALBERT NORTH VIC 3129
|
Elgar
|
Construction of second double storey
dwelling
|
Multiple
Dwellings
|
|
WH/2017/575
|
13-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
1/259 Burwood Highway
BURWOOD EAST VIC 3151
|
Morack
|
Construct a dwelling on a lot less than
300 square metres and tree removal
|
Single
Dwelling
< 300m2
|
|
WH/2017/623
|
19-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
502 Canterbury Road
FOREST HILL VIC 3131
|
Morack
|
Display an electronic sign
|
Advertising
Sign
|
|
WH/2017/714
|
17-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
54 Menin Road
FOREST HILL VIC 3131
|
Springfield
|
Alterations and additions to an existing
dwelling
|
Special
Landscape
Area
|
|
WH/2017/723
|
20-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
20 Morrie Crescent
BLACKBURN NORTH VIC 3130
|
Central
|
Proposed two dwellings on a lot and one
tree removal
|
Multiple
Dwellings
|
|
WH/2017/840
|
09-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
56 Eley Road
BURWOOD VIC 3125
|
Riversdale
|
Construction of two (2), two storey
dwellings
|
Multiple
Dwellings
|
|
Appl No.
|
Date
|
Decision
|
Street
Address
|
Ward
|
Proposed Use or
Development
|
Appl.
Type
|
|
WH/2017/950
|
10-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
537A Whitehorse Road
MITCHAM VIC 3132
|
Springfield
|
Display of illuminated business
identification signage
|
Business
|
|
WH/2017/951
|
11-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
2/12 Walker Avenue
MITCHAM VIC 3132
|
Springfield
|
Construction of a verandah
|
Single
Dwelling
< 300m2
|
|
WH/2017/998
|
06-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
39 Jeffery Street
BLACKBURN VIC 3130
|
Central
|
Buildings adn works associated with
addition to an existing dwelling and the lopping of one (1) tree
|
Special
Landscape
Area
|
|
WH/2018/101
|
12-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
349 Whitehorse Road
NUNAWADING VIC 3131
|
Springfield
|
Buildings and works associated with the upgrade
of the existing drive-thru facilities, including the display of electronic
signage
|
Residential
(Other)
|
|
WH/2018/111
|
26-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
23 Mitchell Road
MONT ALBERT NORTH VIC 3129
|
Elgar
|
Three lot subdivision
|
Subdivision
|
|
WH/2018/117
|
26-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
109 Husband Road
FOREST HILL VIC 3131
|
Morack
|
Two lot subdivision
|
Subdivision
|
|
WH/2018/147
|
16-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
12 Glenice Avenue
BLACKBURN SOUTH VIC 3130
|
Riversdale
|
3 LOTS SUBDIVISION
|
Subdivision
|
|
WH/2018/156
|
23-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
15-33 Alfred Street
BLACKBURN VIC 3130
|
Central
|
Building and works for the existing
warehouse and ancillary office space
|
Industrial
|
|
WH/2018/158
|
19-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
78 Churchill Street
MONT ALBERT VIC 3127
|
Elgar
|
Externally alter a building (replace
french doors with bi-fold doors)
|
Heritage
|
|
WH/2018/170
|
03-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
51 Lee Ann Street
FOREST HILL VIC 3131
|
Central
|
Vegetation Removal
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/172
|
03-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
11 Owen Street
MITCHAM VIC 3132
|
Springfield
|
To remove one (1) tree (Willow Leaved
Myrtle-Agonis flexuosa)
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/173
|
03-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
11 Owen Street
MITCHAM VIC 3132
|
Springfield
|
To remove one (1) tree (Weeping
Bottlebrush-Callistemon viminalis)
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
Appl No.
|
Date
|
Decision
|
Street
Address
|
Ward
|
Proposed Use or
Development
|
Appl.
Type
|
|
WH/2018/174
|
03-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
11 Owen Street
MITCHAM VIC 3132
|
Springfield
|
To remove one (1) tree (Snow
Gum-Eucalyptus pauciflora)
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/175
|
03-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
11 Owen Street
MITCHAM VIC 3132
|
Springfield
|
To remove one (1) tree (Magnolia-Magnolia
sp.)
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/176
|
03-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
11 Owen Street
MITCHAM VIC 3132
|
Springfield
|
To remove one (1) tree (Japanese
Maple-Acer palmatum)
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/177
|
03-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
11 Owen Street
MITCHAM VIC 3132
|
Springfield
|
To remove one (1) tree (Cherry
Plum-Prunus cerasifera)
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/179
|
09-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
10 Aldinga Street
BLACKBURN SOUTH VIC 3130
|
Central
|
Removal of one tree
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/180
|
04-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
119 Nelson Road
BOX HILL NORTH VIC 3129
|
Elgar
|
Removal of a tree (Eucalyptus nicholii)
under SLO9
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/181
|
09-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
15 Manniche Avenue
MONT ALBERT NORTH VIC 3129
|
Elgar
|
Replace a existing front fence 1650 high
with a new one
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/182
|
03-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
23 Lee Ann Street
BLACKBURN SOUTH VIC 3130
|
Central
|
Tree removal
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/185
|
03-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
849 Canterbury Road
BOX HILL VIC 3128
|
Elgar
|
Buildings and works to an existing
building
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/190
|
03-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
18 Jeffery Street
BLACKBURN VIC 3130
|
Central
|
Tree removal
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/191
|
17-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
926 Whitehorse Road
BOX HILL VIC 3128
|
Elgar
|
Alterations to existing commercial
building and business identification signage
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/194
|
11-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
3 Bridgeford Avenue
BLACKBURN NORTH VIC 3130
|
Central
|
2 lot subdivision to coincide with
development permit
|
VicSmart - Subdivision
|
|
WH/2018/199
|
04-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
1179 Riversdale Road
BOX HILL SOUTH VIC 3128
|
Riversdale
|
Vegetation Removal
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/200
|
11-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
265 Springfield Road
NUNAWADING VIC 3131
|
Springfield
|
Tree removal
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
Appl No.
|
Date
|
Decision
|
Street
Address
|
Ward
|
Proposed Use or
Development
|
Appl.
Type
|
|
WH/2018/202
|
06-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
17 Harris Street
BLACKBURN NORTH VIC 3130
|
Central
|
Removal of a tree (Liquidambar
styraciflua Sweet Gum) protected under SLO9
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/203
|
11-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
10 Great Western Drive
VERMONT SOUTH VIC 3133
|
Morack
|
Removal of one tree
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/204
|
12-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
1081 Riversdale Road
SURREY HILLS VIC 3127
|
Riversdale
|
Front fence within 4 metres of vegetation
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/205
|
13-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
1081 Riversdale Road
SURREY HILLS VIC 3127
|
Riversdale
|
Alter access to a road in a Road Zone
Category 1
|
Residential
(Other)
|
|
WH/2018/210
|
06-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
12 Jackson Avenue
MONT ALBERT NORTH VIC 3129
|
Elgar
|
Removal of tree triggered under VPO2
& SLO9
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/211
|
09-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
42 Nurlendi Road
VERMONT VIC 3133
|
Morack
|
Tree Removal (Corymbia citriodora - Lemon
Scented Gum)
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/214
|
16-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
49 Shady Grove
NUNAWADING VIC 3131
|
Springfield
|
Removal of one tree (tree1 - Pittosporum tenuifolium)
within group of four trees
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/215
|
16-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
49 Shady Grove
NUNAWADING VIC 3131
|
Springfield
|
Removal of one tree (tree 2- Pittosporum
tenuifolium) within group of four trees
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/216
|
16-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
49 Shady Grove
NUNAWADING VIC 3131
|
Springfield
|
Removal of one tree (tree 3 - Pittosporum
tenuifolium) in group of four trees
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/217
|
16-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
49 Shady Grove
NUNAWADING VIC 3131
|
Springfield
|
Removal of one tree (tree 4 - Pittosporum
tenuifolium) within a group of four trees
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/220
|
09-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
43 Park Road
SURREY HILLS VIC 3127
|
Riversdale
|
Removal of a gum tree protected under
SLO9
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/225
|
18-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
9 Parkmore Road
FOREST HILL VIC 3131
|
Morack
|
Removal of one tree
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/228
|
10-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
1 Banksia Street
BLACKBURN VIC 3130
|
Central
|
2 lot subdivision
|
VicSmart - Subdivision
|
|
WH/2018/238
|
12-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
23 Lusk Drive
VERMONT VIC 3133
|
Morack
|
Construction of a front fence within 4m of
a tree
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
Appl No.
|
Date
|
Decision
|
Street
Address
|
Ward
|
Proposed Use or
Development
|
Appl.
Type
|
|
WH/2018/241
|
24-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
3/3 Boondara Road
MONT ALBERT NORTH VIC 3129
|
Elgar
|
Tree Removal
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/250
|
16-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
1 Owen Street
MITCHAM VIC 3132
|
Springfield
|
Buildings and works within 4m of a
protected tree
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/259
|
30-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
24 Victoria Avenue
MITCHAM VIC 3132
|
Springfield
|
Removal of one (1) tree
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/264
|
16-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
46 Shepherd Street
SURREY HILLS VIC 3127
|
Riversdale
|
Removal of a tree protected by SLO9
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/266
|
18-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
45 Dorking Road
BOX HILL VIC 3128
|
Elgar
|
Buildings and works within 4 metres of a
tree
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/271
|
23-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
40 Rutland Road
BOX HILL VIC 3128
|
Elgar
|
Buildings and works within the C1Z
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/279
|
23-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
16 Verona Street
VERMONT SOUTH VIC 3133
|
Morack
|
Removal of one tree in SLO9
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/28
|
05-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
2 Tyrrell Street
MONT ALBERT NORTH VIC 3129
|
Elgar
|
Two lot subdivision
|
Subdivision
|
|
WH/2018/282
|
26-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
10 Alpha Court
MITCHAM VIC 3132
|
Springfield
|
Removal of a tree
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/283
|
27-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
47 Junction Road
BLACKBURN NORTH VIC 3130
|
Central
|
To remove vegetation
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/290
|
30-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
31 Uganda Street
BURWOOD VIC 3125
|
Riversdale
|
Removal of a tree in SLO9
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/291
|
30-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
62 Scott Street
VERMONT VIC 3133
|
Springfield
|
Remove one tree
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/42
|
30-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
515 Belmore Road
MONT ALBERT NORTH VIC 3129
|
Elgar
|
Buildings and works for the construction
of a balcony to an existing double storey dwelling
|
Single
Dwelling
< 300m2
|
|
WH/2018/50
|
06-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
3-5 Starling Street
BURWOOD VIC 3125
|
Riversdale
|
Design and Implementation of signage
externally
|
Advertising
Sign
|
|
WH/2018/52
|
11-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
110 Heatherdale Road
MITCHAM VIC 3132
|
Springfield
|
2 lot subdivision
|
Subdivision
|
|
Appl No.
|
Date
|
Decision
|
Street
Address
|
Ward
|
Proposed Use or
Development
|
Appl.
Type
|
|
WH/2018/60
|
12-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
35 Springfield Road
BOX HILL NORTH VIC 3129
|
Elgar
|
2 lot subdivision to coincide with
development permit
|
Subdivision
|
|
WH/2018/7
|
18-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
33 Orient Avenue
MITCHAM VIC 3132
|
Springfield
|
Construction of one two storey dwelling
and two single storey dwellings
|
Multiple
Dwellings
|
|
WH/2018/83
|
09-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
1/58A Severn Street
BOX HILL NORTH VIC 3129
|
Elgar
|
Three lot subdivision
|
Subdivision
|
|
WH/2018/84
|
11-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
8 Hawkins Avenue
MONT ALBERT NORTH VIC 3129
|
Elgar
|
Two (2) Lot Subdivision
|
Subdivision
|
|
WH/2018/89
|
11-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
71 Peter Street
BOX HILL NORTH VIC 3129
|
Elgar
|
Three (3) Lot Subdivision
|
Subdivision
|
|
WH/2018/97
|
19-04-18
|
Delegate Permit Issued
|
8 Farleigh Avenue
BURWOOD VIC 3125
|
Riversdale
|
3 lot subdivision
|
Subdivision
|
|
WH/2017/690
|
23-04-18
|
Delegate Refusal Issued
|
64 Blackburn Road
BLACKBURN VIC 3130
|
Central
|
The construction of three (3) double
storey dwellings, the removal of trees under the Significant Landscape
Overlay, Schedule 2 and the alteration of access to a road located in a Road
Zone, Category 1
|
Multiple
Dwellings
|
|
WH/2018/1
|
10-04-18
|
Delegate Refusal Issued
|
41 Pembroke Street
SURREY HILLS VIC 3127
|
Riversdale
|
Development of the land for the
construction of four (4) dwellings and buildings and works (SLO9)
|
Multiple
Dwellings
|
|
WH/2018/11
|
18-04-18
|
Delegate Refusal Issued
|
10 Gibson Street
MITCHAM VIC 3132
|
Springfield
|
Construction of two, two storey dwellings
|
Multiple
Dwellings
|
|
WH/2018/189
|
09-04-18
|
Delegate Refusal Issued
|
8 Windsor Crescent
SURREY HILLS VIC 3127
|
Elgar
|
Removal of one tree
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/207
|
10-04-18
|
Delegate Refusal Issued
|
2 Karwitha Street
VERMONT VIC 3133
|
Morack
|
remove one tree within SLO9
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2018/212
|
10-04-18
|
Delegate Refusal Issued
|
42 Nurlendi Road
VERMONT VIC 3133
|
Morack
|
Tree Removal (Corymbia maculat - Spotted
Gum)
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
Appl No.
|
Date
|
Decision
|
Street
Address
|
Ward
|
Proposed Use or
Development
|
Appl.
Type
|
|
WH/2018/249
|
30-04-18
|
Delegate Refusal Issued
|
8 Norfolk Street
BLACKBURN NORTH VIC 3130
|
Central
|
removal of tree
|
VicSmart
- General Application
|
|
WH/2001/12607/B
|
18-04-18
|
Withdrawn
|
970-972 Whitehorse Road
BOX HILL VIC 3128
|
Elgar
|
Amendment to Planning permit
WH/2001/12607 (issued for development of land for the purpose of internally
illuminated advertisement, use of the land for the sale and consumption of
liquorfor a restaurant and dispensation form the provision of carparking in
accordance with the endorsed plans and subject to the following conditions)
to include increase in patron numbers, reduction in carparking and extension
to licenced area. external alterations to building facade, advertising
signage
|
Permit
Amendment
|
|
WH/2012/146/F
|
09-04-18
|
Withdrawn
|
101/712 Station Street
BOX HILL VIC 3128
|
Elgar
|
Amendment to development of a nine (9)
storey building plus basement car park to change convenience store to place
of assembly (internet cafe) and increase the reduction in car parking
|
Permit
Amendment
|
|
WH/2016/756/A
|
26-04-18
|
Withdrawn
|
13 Malvern Road
MONT ALBERT VIC 3127
|
Elgar
|
Construction of two double storey
dwellings
|
Permit
Amendment
|
|
Appl No.
|
Date
|
Decision
|
Street
Address
|
Ward
|
Proposed Use or
Development
|
Appl.
Type
|
|
WH/2017/856
|
18-04-18
|
Withdrawn
|
201 Canterbury Road
BLACKBURN VIC 3130
|
Central
|
Construction of Three (3) Double Storey
Dwellings, Alteration of Access to a Road Zone, Category 1 and Vegetation
Removal
|
Multiple
Dwellings
|
|
WH/2018/272
|
19-04 -18
|
Withdrawn
|
75 Springfield Road
BLACKBURN NORTH VIC 3130
|
Central
|
removal of trees prior to demolition and
rebuilding of home
|
Special Landscape Area
|
BUILDING
DISPENSATIONS/APPLICATIONS APRIL 2018
|
Address
|
Date
|
Ward
|
Result
|
|
19 Edinburgh Road, Blackburn South
|
19-04-18
|
Central
|
Consent Granted R427
|
|
21 Slater Avenue, Blackburn North
|
20-04-18
|
Central
|
Consent Granted R414
|
|
24 Edinburgh Road, Blackburn South
|
13-04-18
|
Central
|
Consent Granted R414
|
|
26 Edinburgh Road, Blackburn South
|
17-04-18
|
Central
|
Consent Granted R414
|
|
26 Wreford Road, Blackburn South
|
17-04-18
|
Central
|
Consent Granted R424
|
|
40 Surrey Road, Blackburn North
|
20-04-18
|
Central
|
Consent Granted R409, R427, R417, R424
|
|
45 Koonung Road, Blackburn North
|
19-04-18
|
Central
|
Consent Granted R424, R409
|
|
51 Bindy Street, Forest Hill
|
19-04-18
|
Central
|
Consent Granted R409
|
|
7 Norvel Street, Blackburn
|
20-04-18
|
Central
|
Consent Granted R411, R414
|
|
8 Selwyn Street, Blackburn
|
04-04-18
|
Central
|
Consent Granted R409
|
|
15 Aberdeen Road, Blackburn South
|
13-04-18
|
Central
|
Consent Refused R424, R427
|
|
5 Peter Avenue, Blackburn North
|
23-04-18
|
Central
|
Consent Refused R416, R410
|
|
1 Cairo Road, Mont Albert North
|
26-04-18
|
Elgar
|
Consent Granted R414
|
|
14 Twyford Street, Box Hill North
|
27-04-18
|
Elgar
|
Consent Granted R409, R420
|
|
15 Linda Avenue, Box Hill North
|
13-04-18
|
Elgar
|
Consent Granted R414
|
|
21 Boxleigh Grove, Box Hill North
|
16-04-18
|
Elgar
|
Consent Granted R414, R424
|
|
47 Woodhouse Grove, Box Hill North
|
26-04-18
|
Elgar
|
Consent Granted R414
|
|
5 Mitta Street, Box Hill North
|
13-04-18
|
Elgar
|
Consent Granted R408
|
|
526 Station Street, Box Hill
|
20-04-18
|
Elgar
|
Consent Granted R513
|
|
948 Whitehorse Road, Box Hill
|
12-04-18
|
Elgar
|
Consent Granted R604
|
|
511A Belmore Road, Mont Albert North
|
13-04-18
|
Elgar
|
Expired R604
|
|
59 Kerrimuir Street, Box Hill North
|
27-04-18
|
Elgar
|
Expired R417, R418
|
|
20 Redhill Avenue, Burwood East
|
12-04-18
|
Morack
|
Consent Granted R409
|
|
49 Hanover Road, Vermont South
|
19-04-18
|
Morack
|
Consent Granted R427
|
|
5 Wilkinson Street, Burwood East
|
23-04-18
|
Morack
|
Consent Granted R409
|
|
56 Husband Road, Forest Hill
|
23-04-18
|
Morack
|
Consent Refused R424
|
|
17 Mira Street, Blackburn South
|
06-04-18
|
Riversdale
|
Consent Granted R427
|
BUILDING
DISPENSATIONS/APPLICATIONS APRIL 2018 (CONT)
|
Address
|
Date
|
Ward
|
Result
|
|
19-21 Burwood Highway, Burwood
|
09-04-18
|
Riversdale
|
Consent Granted R604
|
|
7 Donald Road, Burwood
|
17-04-18
|
Riversdale
|
Consent Granted R409
|
|
17 Mira Street, Blackburn South
|
06-04-18
|
Riversdale
|
Consent Refused R424
|
|
192 Elgar Road, Box Hill South
|
13-04-18
|
Riversdale
|
Expired R604
|
|
2 Sycamore Street, Box Hill South
|
30-04-18
|
Riversdale
|
Expired R409
|
|
10 Browns Road, Nunawading
|
19-04-18
|
Springfield
|
Consent Granted R414
|
|
327 Canterbury Road, Forest Hill
|
23-04-18
|
Springfield
|
Consent Granted R424
|
|
49 Denis Street, Mitcham
|
04-04-18
|
Springfield
|
Consent Granted R409
|
|
2/377-383 Springfield Road, Nunawading
|
19-04-18
|
Springfield
|
Consent Refused R411
|
|
5 Alern Court, Nunawading
|
20-04-18
|
Springfield
|
Consent Refused R424
|
|
92 Heatherdale Road, Mitcham
|
23-04-18
|
Springfield
|
Consent Refused R409
|
DELEGATED
DECISIONS MADE ON STRATEGIC PLANNING MATTERS – APRIL 2018
Under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 - Nil
REGISTER OF CONTRACTS SIGNED BY CEO DELEGATION APRIL
2018
|
Contract
|
Service
|
|
Contract 30050
|
Home Maintenance
Services
|
REGISTER OF PROPERTY
DOCUMENTS EXECUTED APRIL 2018
|
Property
Address
|
Document Type
|
Document Detail
|
|
Leases
|
|
|
|
25 Standard Avenue, Box Hill
|
Lease
|
Whitehorse City Council as landlord - expiring 30 June
2017
|
|
Licences
|
|
|
|
Part 15 Barwon Street, Box Hill North
|
Licence
|
Whitehorse City Council as licensor - expiring 25 March
2019
|
|
Land Transfer
|
|
|
|
Land Adjacent 55 Dorking Road, Box Hill
|
Client Authorisation for Transfer of Land
|
Sale of land
Section 189 Local Government Act 1989
|
|
Land Adjacent 55 Dorking Road, Box Hill
|
Goods Statutory Declaration
|
Duties Act 2000
|
|
Fire Services Property Levy (FSPL)
|
|
|
|
826-834 Whitehorse Road, Box Hill
|
Not applicable
|
Land use changed from 'Commercial' to
'Vacant Land'
|
|
Rateability Changes
(Section 154 of the Local Government Act
1989)
|
|
|
|
22 Greenglade Court, Blackburn North
|
Exempt-Minister's residence
|
Salvation Army owned property used as
minister's residence
|
|
38 Charlton Street, Blackburn North
|
Exempt-Minister's residence
|
Salvation Army owned property used as
minister's residence
|
|
23 McKean Street, Box Hill North
|
Property Now Rateable
|
Former minister's residence sold. New
occupant
|
|
830-834 Whitehorse Road, Box Hill
|
Property Now Rateable
|
Former charitable use. New occupant
|
REGISTER OF DOCUMENTS AFFIXED WITH THE COUNCIL SEAL
– APRIL 2018
Nil
PARKING RESTRICTIONS APPROVED BY
DELEGATION APRIL 2018
Address: Whitehorse
Road, Mont Albert: from eastern boundary of 780 Whitehorse Road to western boundary of 780 Whitehorse Road – south
side
Previously: 2
‘Clearway, 7am to 9am, Monday to Friday and No Stopping’ parking spaces
Now: 2
‘Works Zone, 7am to 5pm, Monday to Saturday’ parking spaces
VENDOR PAYMENT SUMMARY
– SUMS PAID DURING APRIL 2018
|
Date
|
Total
Issued
|
Payments (direct debit, cheques or electronic funds
transfer)
|
Transaction Type EFT/CHQ/DD
|
|
05/04/2018
|
$3,163.88
|
12
|
EFC
|
|
05/04/2018
|
$29,995.45
|
10
|
CHQ
|
|
06/04/2018
|
$460,051.60
|
46
|
EFT
|
|
06/04/2018
|
$3,646.30
|
2
|
EFT
|
|
10/04/2018
|
$92,441.13
|
2
|
EFT
|
|
12/04/2018
|
$5,517.95
|
14
|
EFC
|
|
12/04/2018
|
$98,809.36
|
73
|
CHQ
|
|
12/04/2018
|
$2,186,742.87
|
358
|
EFT
|
|
13/04/2018
|
$2,225,742.31
|
359
|
EFT
|
|
17/04/2018
|
$6,826.27
|
2
|
EFT
|
|
19/04/2018
|
$9,328.65
|
12
|
EFC
|
|
19/04/2018
|
$87,786.19
|
47
|
CHQ
|
|
19/04/2018
|
$282,384.61
|
46
|
EFT
|
|
20/04/2018
|
$36,679.41
|
1
|
EFT
|
|
26/04/2018
|
$342.50
|
1
|
EFC
|
|
26/04/2018
|
$342.50
|
1
|
EFC
|
|
26/04/2018
|
$6,944.63
|
17
|
EFC
|
|
26/04/2018
|
$116,579.25
|
68
|
CHQ
|
|
26/04/2018
|
$4,865,665.11
|
430
|
EFT
|
|
|
|
|
|
GROSS
|
$10,518,989.97
|
1501
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monthly
Lease Payments
|
$37,546.66
|
|
|
|
Direct
Debit Payments
|
$157,201.53
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CANCELLED
PAYMENTS
|
$2,194,061.27
|
-366
|
|
|
NETT
|
$12,907,799.43
|
1135
|
|
10 Reports
from Delegates, Special Committee Recommendations and Assembly of Councillors
Records
10.1 Reports
by Delegates
(NB: Reports only from Councillors
appointed by Council as delegates to community organisations/committees/groups)
|
RECOMMENDATION
That
the reports from delegates be received and noted.
|
10.2 Recommendation
from the Special Committee of Council Meeting of 12 June 2018
10.3 Record
of Assembly of Councillors
|
Meeting Date
|
Matter/s Discussed
|
Councillors Present
|
Officers Present
|
Disclosures of Conflict of Interest
|
Councillor /Officer attendance following disclosure
|
|
21-05-18
6.30 – 7.00pm
|
Councillor Informal Briefing Session
· Contractual
Matter
· Councillor
Request/Privacy
|
Cr Davenport (Mayor & Chair)
Cr Barker
Cr Bennett
Cr Carr
Cr Cutts
Cr Ellis
Cr Liu
Cr Massoud
Cr Munroe
Cr Stennett
|
N Duff
J Green
P Warner
P Smith
A De Fazio
H Rowlands
J Russell
|
Nil
|
Nil
|
|
04-06-18
5.50-6.05pm
|
Amendment C175 Box Hill Built Form
Guidelines
|
Cr Davenport (Mayor & Chair)
Cr Barker
Cr Bennett
Cr Carr
Cr Cutts
Cr Ellis
Cr Liu
Cr Massoud
Cr Munroe
|
N Duff
J Green
P Warner
P Smith
A De Fazio
K Marriott
A Egan
V McLean
|
Nil
|
Nil
|
|
04-06-18
6.30- 9.15pm
|
Strategic Planning Session
· Scouts
Halls on Council Land
· Capital
Works Update
· Review
of Councils Procurement Policy
· Finance
Report as at 30 April 2018
· Strategic
Property
|
Cr Davenport (Mayor & Chair)
Cr Barker
Cr Bennett
Cr Carr
Cr Cutts
Cr Ellis
Cr Liu
Cr Massoud
Cr Munroe
Cr Stennett (left the meeting at 9.05pm)
|
N Duff
J Green
P Warner
T Wilkinson
P Smith
A De Fazio
G Loftus
S Hewett
S Cann
J Cushing
T Peak
R Atai
|
Nil
|
Nil
|
|
Meeting Date
|
Matter/s Discussed
|
Councillors Present
|
Officers Present
|
Disclosures of Conflict of Interest
|
Councillor /Officer attendance following disclosure
|
|
12-06-18
5.30-6.10pm
|
Residential Corridor Built Form Study
|
Cr Ellis (Chair)
Cr Barker
Cr Bennett
Cr Carr
Cr Cutts
Cr Liu
Cr Massoud (arr. 5.40pm)
Cr Munroe (arr. 5.40pm)
|
N Duff
J Green
P Warner
P Smith
A De Fazio
K Marriott
A Egan
V McLean
J Hansen
|
Nil
|
Nil
|
|
12-06-18
6.30-8.00pm
8.50-10.05pm
|
Councillor Briefing Session
· Special
Committee Agenda/Other Business
· Draft
Council Agenda 25 June 2018
· General
Matter - Meeting with Federal Members of Parliament 17-20 June 2018,
Canberra
· 2018/19
Budget Submissions Councillor Discussion
|
Cr Davenport (Mayor & Chair)
Cr Barker
Cr Bennett
Cr Carr
Cr Cutts
Cr Ellis
Cr Liu
Cr Massoud
Cr Munroe
Cr Stennett
|
N Duff
J Green
P Smith
P Warner
T Wilkinson
A De Fazio
S Freud
J Russell
K Marriott
A Egan
V McLean
S Cann
J Blythe
S Smith
S Hewett
|
Nil
|
Nil
|
|
RECOMMENDATION
That the record of
Assembly of Councillors be received and noted.
|
11 Reports
on Conferences/Seminars Attendance
|
RECOMMENDATION
That the record of reports on
conferences/seminars attendance be received and noted.
|
12 Confidential
Reports
|
RECOMMENDATION
That in
accordance with Section 89 (2) (d) of the Local Government Act 1989 the
Council should resolve to go into camera and close the meeting to the public
as the matter to be discussed relates to contractual matters.
|
12.1 CONTRACTUAL
MATTER
13 Close Meeting