Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting

Ordinary Council Minutes 15 October 2018

9 Council Reports

9.1 City Development

Statutory Planning

9.1.1 15 McKeon Road, MITCHAM (LOT 5 LP 52907) – Construction of a three storey building to be used as a medical centre (existing) at ground floor and two dwellings (one on each of the upper floors)

FILE NUMBER: WH/2018/521
ATTACHMENT

SUMMARY

This application was advertised on 20 July 2018, following which a total of twenty-seven (27) objections were received. The objections raised issues with regard to neighbourhood character, parking and traffic and amenity impacts. A Consultation Forum was held on 21 August 2018 and chaired by Councillor Andrew Davenport, at which the issues were explored, however, no consensus was reached between the parties. Following the Consultation Forum, Councillors Ben Stennett & Prue Cutts decided to call this matter in to a Council meeting.

This report assesses the application against the relevant provisions of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, as well as the objector concerns. It is recommended that the application be refused.

Council Resolution

Moved by Cr Cutts, Seconded by Cr Stennett

That Council:

A. Being the Responsible Authority, having caused application WH/2018/521 for 15 McKeon Road, Mitcham (Lot 5 LP52907) to be advertised and having received and noted the objections, is of the opinion that granting a Planning Permit for the construction of a three-storey building to be used as a medical centre (existing) at ground floor and two dwellings (one on each of the upper floors) is not acceptable and will unreasonably impact on the neighbourhood character and amenity of adjacent properties.

B. Issue a Notice of Decision to Refuse to Grant a Permit under the Whitehorse Planning Scheme to the land described as 15 McKeon Road, Mitcham (Lot 5 LP52907) for the construction of a three-storey building to be used as a medical centre (existing) at ground floor and two dwellings (one on each of the upper floors) on the following grounds:

1. The proposal does not meet the objectives of the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 4 as:

a) The building has not been designed to facilitate a lively, attractive and safe local activity centre, and assist in improving its economic viability.

b) The building has not been designed to respond to the immediate environs, reflective of the role of the commercial centre and enhance the character of the surrounding residential area. The three storey building would be prominent, out of place and inconsistent with the role of this small neighbourhood activity centre.

c) The proposed three-storey building would not fit into the prevailing streetscape rhythm, building scale and height of the adjoining and adjacent buildings.

d) The design details of the building would not provide a high quality and visually interesting interface with the streetscape and the surrounding residential area

2. The layout fails to provide for safe and convenient access to and egress from the laneway in accordance with Clause 52.06 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme.

Carried Unanimously

MELWAY REFERENCE 48 K

Applicant: Frank Garrubba

Zoning: Commercial 1 Zone

Overlay: Design and Development Overlay Schedule 4

Relevant Clauses:

Clause 11 Settlement

Clause 15.01-1R Urban Design

Clause 15.01-2S Building Design

Clause 16. Housing

Clause 17.02 Commercial

Clause 21.07 Economic Development

Clause 22.06 Activity Centres

Clause 43.02 Design and Development Overlay Schedule 4

Clause 52.06 Car Parking

Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

Ward: Springfield

background

History

The former City of Nunawading issued a planning permit (NUN3009) on the 14^th November 1985 authorising the use of the existing shop for the purpose of a medical centre (existing naturopath clinic) with one practitioner conducting consulting sessions at any one time. When this permit was granted, there was no requirement for on-site parking to be provided and the existing naturopath clinic was therefore considered to have a full parking waiver.

The planning application (WH/2016/866) which sought planning permission from the City of Whitehorse to alter the existing building and construct a three-storey building to be used as a medical centre (existing naturopath clinic) and two dwellings (on each upper level) was supported by Council officers. There were four (4) objections to the application. Council’s decision was reviewed by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) following an appeal by an objector (Meade v Whitehorse CC [2017] VCAT 1854) and directed that no permit be granted.

The Site and Surrounds

The subject site is located on the eastern side of McKeon Road, approximately 35 metres north of Quarry Road in Mitcham. The site has a frontage of 6.25 metres to McKeon Road, 29.86 metres in length, and a total site area of 173m². The site and surrounds are shown in the images at Attachment 3.

The subject site is currently occupied by a single storey building, occupied by a single practitioner medical centre (naturopath clinic). The rear portion of the site is vacant and is currently enclosed by a chain mesh fence.

A 3.6-metre wide laneway, managed by Council, extends past the rear (eastern boundary) of the site. This laneway provides access to each of these commercial properties. There is currently no vehicle access to the site from McKeon Road. Figure 4 (attachment 3) shows the views into the lane from Quarry Road.

The commercial properties within this centre include a café/restaurant, a milk bar, offices, shops, and a naturopath clinic (subject site). A shared pool of 90° angled parking for 14 cars is available in McKeon Road in front of the shops. One of the parking spaces is subject to ¼ hour restrictions between 8:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday to Friday and 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Saturday. Another shared pool of 90° angled parking for 6 cars is available in Quarry Road to the south of the milk bar (23 McKeon Road). In total, 20 car spaces serve this commercial centre.

The residential properties in the surrounding area are zoned Neighbourhood Residential and are contained within a Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 6 (SLO6) that recognises the existing canopy vegetation in the neighbourhood as a distinct character.

The original houses in the area were built in the early post-war decades (the 1950s and 60s) but many have been replaced with infill medium density housing over the last 30 years. Opposite the site is a cluster of single storey brick units at 26-28 McKeon Road. Behind the site, separated by the laneway, is a single storey dwelling at 33 Quarry Road.

Permit Triggers

The land is zoned Commercial 1 (C1Z). Pursuant to Clause 34.01-4 (Commercial 1 Zone), planning approval is required for buildings and works. The use of land for a medical centre (existing naturopath clinic) and for upper-level apartments (accommodation) is as-of-right.

The land is also affected by Schedule 4 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO4). Pursuant to Clause 43.02-2, a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Planning Policy Framework

Clause 11

Clause 11 (Settlement) states that planning is to ‘anticipate and respond to the needs of existing and future communities’, recognise the need for ‘diversity of choice, economic viability, a high standard of urban design and amenity’, land use and transport integration, and facilitate ‘sustainable growth that takes full advantage of existing settlement patterns and investment in commercial infrastructure and services’.

Clause 15.01-1R

Clause 15.01-1R (Urban design-Metropolitan Melbourne) aims ‘to create a distinctive and liveable city with quality design and amenity.’ This objective is to be achieved by way of supporting the creation of well-designed places that are memorable, distinctive and liveable and integrating place making practices into road space management.

Clause 15.01-2S

Clause 15.01-2S (Building design) aims to achieve building design outcomes that contribute positively to the local context and enhances the public realm through ensuring the site analysis provides the basis for the consideration of height, scale and massing of new development, ensuring development responds and contributes to the strategic context of its location, minimising the detrimental impact of development on neighbouring properties, ensure the form, scale and appearance of development enhances the function and amenity of the public realm.

Clause 16 (Housing)

16. (Housing) states that planning should provide for housing diversity, and the efficient provision of supporting infrastructure, ensure the long term sustainability of new housing, including access to services, walkability to activity centres, public transport, schools and open space and include provision of land for affordable housing

Clause 17.02

Clause 17.02 (Commercial) has the objectives to encourage development that meets the communities needs for retail, entertainment, office and other commercial services. This objectives is to be achieved by way of planning for an adequate supply of commercial land in appropriate location, locating commercial facilities in existing activity centres and providing small scale shopping opportunities that meet the needs of local residents and workers in convenient locations.

Local Planning Policy

Clause 21.07-1

Clause 21.07-1 (Economic development) states:

“Small-scale neighbourhood centres play an important social and community role. They should be the focus of social interaction and provide for community facilities and spaces.

There will, however, be small neighbourhood centres that may no longer be viable. Some small centres contain several vacant shops or non-retail uses which fail to provide for the daily needs of the surrounding community. Furthermore, they are run down and can become targets for vandalism, which is of some concern given that residential properties directly abut them. These centres need to be further assessed as to whether it is appropriate to develop these centres as mixed use precincts with an appropriate mix of uses which help providing meeting places such as cafes, community facilities and even small scale residential development specifically in the form of ‘shoptop’ housing. The amenity of these centres can be vastly improved by high quality design, minimisation of signage and streetscape improvements.”

Clause 21.07-2

Clause 21.07-2 (Key issues) identifies the key issues associated, among others, with local shopping centres. The objectives of Clause 21.07-3 is to ensure all shopping centres are safe, attractive and are developed in accordance with their role, to support the transition to local commercial premises where operations of home-based businesses are no longer suited to residential locations. The strategies to achieve these objectives include:

· Ensure that development and use in shopping centres are appropriate to the role and function of the centre.

· Investigate and encourage shoptop housing and other appropriate development in Neighbourhood Activity Centres (NACs).

Clause 22.06

Clause 22.06 (Activity centres) aims to:

· Ensure that land use and development in activity centres reinforce, and are appropriate to, the role of the centre;

· Ensure that each centre responds to the needs of the community;

· Ensure that new retail floor space reflect retail demand and considers the impact on the retail hierarchy and the planned role and function of other activity centres;

· Maintain and enhance the role of activity centres as a community focus.

Pursuant to Clause 22.06-3, in relation to small Neighbourhood Centres, it is a policy that:

· Smaller neighbourhood centres continue to focus on providing limited convenience retailing;

· The redevelopment and renovation of existing buildings and shop fronts, and other works, be encouraged to improve the visual amenity and streetscape of these centres and respond to the character of surrounding areas;

· Office and residential uses be encouraged in appropriate centres where the retailing function is declining.

Overlays

Schedule 4 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO4), applies to all Neighbourhood Activity Centres (NAC). The objectives of the DDO4 are to ensure:

· New development is designed to facilitate a lively, attractive and safe local activity centres, and assist in improving its economic viability;

· New development is designed to respond to the immediate site environs, reflect the role of the centre and enhance the character of the surrounding residential area;

· New buildings incorporate design details that provide a high quality and visually interesting interface with the streetscape and the surrounding residential area, addressing issues of amenity, functionality, adaptability and accessibility;

· New buildings create a complementary interface to enhance the public realm;

· New development is designed to minimise potential off-site impacts such as noise (including from services), overlooking, access to sunlight, and light spillage on adjoining residential properties.

DDO4 contains a map at (Attachment 4) categorising each of the NAC and a table setting out preferred maximum height, setbacks, and built-form outcomes for each category NAC.

The NACs categorisation map shows that this NAC is within Category of 1A, which is a ‘small-medium neighbourhood centre on a standard width road’. This is the lowest category of NAC in terms of the size of the centre and road type. The key characteristics of a Category 1a are at Attachment 4:

The built-form guidelines relevant to this NAC are as shown below:

Particular Provisions

Clause 52.06 (Car parking)

Pursuant to Clause 52.06, before a new use commences, the number of car carking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5 must be provided, to the satisfaction of the responsible authority, on the land, or in accordance with a permit issued under Clause 52.06-3.

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5, one car space to each one or two bedroom dwelling and 3.5 spaces to each 100sqm of leasable area of a medical centre should be provided.

Clause 58 (Apartment development)

Provisions in this clause apply to an apartment development if the apartment development is in the Commercial 1 Zone. The purpose of this clause is:

· To implement the Municipal Planning Strategy and the Planning Policy Framework.

· To encourage apartment development that provides reasonable standards of amenity for existing and new residents.

· To encourage apartment development that is responsive to the site and the surrounding area.

THE PROPOSAL

The application seeks approval to construct a three-storey building on the land that will be used for a medical centre (existing naturopath clinic) at the ground floor and two apartments one on each of the upper floors.

In summary, the proposal includes the following:

· Total floor area of 376 square metres

· The ground floor will be occupied by the existing medical centre (naturopath clinic) on a floor area of 157 square metres

· The first floor will be occupied by a 2 bedroom apartment with a floor area of 116 square metres.

· The second floor will be occupied by a 2 bedroom apartment with a floor area of 103 square metres.

· Secluded Private Open Space of 12 square metres is provided with a balcony to each apartment.

· 2 car parking spaces within the rear half of the building.

· Maximum building height of 10.57m.

· The ground floor is setback zero (0) metres from the front (McKeon Road) and 1 metre from the rear (Laneway).

· The first floor is set back 2.17 metres from the front and is set back 1 metre from the rear. The balcony is within the front setback.

· The second floor is set back 3 metres from the front and is set back 6 metres from the rear.

· There are two windows at the second floor to face the north.

· There are two windows at the first and second floors to face the east.

· The site coverage of 97%.

· Non-pervious area of 3%

· Access to the car spaces is via the laneway.

CONSULTATION

Public Notice

The application was advertised by mail to the adjacent and adjoining property owners and occupiers and by erecting a notice to the McKeon Road frontage. Following the advertising period, twenty-seven (27) objections (Objector properties) were received. The issues raised are summarised as follows:

Neighbourhood character

· Appropriateness of the three-storey building in this area.

· Bulk and massing

Traffic and car parking

· Traffic impacts within the commercial centre

· Pedestrian safety

· Use of laneway vehicle access

Amenity impacts

· Visual bulk

· Overlooking

· Noise

· Traffic

Other matters

· Whether title boundaries are accurate.

· Potential precedent for future three-storey buildings.

· Interpretation of boundary when applying DDO4.

Consultation Forum

A consultation forum was held on 21^st August 2018. Approximately fourteen (14) objectors attended the meeting, in addition to Cr Davenport, Cr Ben Stennett, Cr Prue Cutts, planning officers and the landowner. The Consultation Forum was chaired by Councillor Davenport.

The issues raised with the proposal were grouped under broad categories of neighbourhood character, traffic and car parking, amenity issues and other matters with all parties afforded the opportunity to provide commentary on each concern. The landowner was also given an opportunity to respond to objector concerns. A number of potential resolutions were discussed between parties however no formal resolution was reached.

Internal referral

Transport Engineer

The application was referred to the Council’s Transport Engineering team who have reviewed the proposal and do not support the proposal as the vehicle access to and from the laneway is constrained.

Waste Engineer

The application was referred to the Council’s Waste Engineering team who have reviewed the proposal and Waste Management Plan and do not object to the proposal, subject to recommended waste management conditions.

Assets Engineer

The application was referred to the Council’s Assets Engineering team who have reviewed the proposal and do not object to the proposal, subject to standard conditions. They have noted that the slope of the entrance to the garage from the laneway must be investigated to comply with access regulations for vehicles.

DISCUSSION

Previous VCAT Decision

The previous application for the site was very similar to that being considered under the current application. The applicant has sought to change the building design to address the design issues highlighted by the VCAT decision, however, the changes made do not significantly change the proposal from the plans considered by VCAT. This is relevant, as the Tribunal detailed the failings of the original proposal, and in particular, how it had not shown enough regard to the principals of the DDO, nor the built form character of this activity centre. The Tribunal, in its decision noted:

· The three storey building height is not in accordance with the planning scheme aspirations as the development does not respond to its immediate context and the role of the commercial centre. In regard to this ground of refusal, the Tribunal referred to one of the objectives of Schedule 4 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO4) which is ‘to ensure new development is designed to respond to the immediate site environs, reflect the role of the centre and enhance the character of the surrounding residential areas’ (paragraph 9). Whilst accepting 11 metres (three storeys) is the preferred maximum height, in this case, the Tribunal stated that ‘the building height is not the deciding factor about the acceptability or otherwise of a design for a more intensive development on the site’ (paragraph 19).

· The setbacks are not acceptable.

The Tribunal was not satisfied with the proposed setbacks. In relation to the frontage, it states ‘the proposal is described as an addition to the existing building, yet there are quite substantial changes that effectively create a whole new street frontage presentation’ (paragraph 22).

In relation to the upper front setback, the Tribunal states ‘the front setback of the third storey does not comply with the DDO4 table. The descriptive provision in Section 2.0 of DDO 4 prefers ‘recessed upper levels… to reduce the appearance of building bulk’. Overall, the new building is very close to the street. The combination of the top two floor levels creates a building bulk that is at odds with the intact original single storey streetscape (paragraph 23).

In relation to streetscape presentation, the Tribunal found that the proposal was not a good design outcome as it did not achieve the DDO4 design objectives. The brick parapet is an existing consistent feature across the commercial frontages, and particularly those adjacent to this site. Therefore the Tribunal emphasised that greater effort should be made to incorporate as much of the original streetscape presentation as possible (paragraph 24-27).

Referring to the side setbacks, the Tribunal acknowledged that there are no preferred side setbacks specified in the DDO4 table. However, it stated that incorporation of some setbacks for part of the second and third floor levels from the south side boundary with windows (including bedroom windows) facing across those setback areas is not acceptable as it places a burden upon the ability of the adjoining land to the south to develop to its full potential in accordance with DDO4. It added that this is not a fair or equitable development outcome (paragraph 28 and 29).

The Tribunal also found that the rear setback of the third storey does not comply with the DDO4 table. It sought the upper level to be over 7.5 metres in height and setback a minimum of 5 metres from the rear ground building footprint (paragraph 30).

The Tribunal accepted the design of the car spaces, which are effectively sitting alongside each other but are also staggered so that one is located further within the site than the other.

In relation to waste management, the Tribunal stated that a private collection should be incorporated into the design by way of a waste management plan.

In determining the merit of this second application, the bar has been set higher by virtue of the strong commentary provided by the Tribunal in its decision. The expectations are quite explicit in how the proposal failed to achieve an acceptable outcome, and as such the proposed development has not gone far enough to address the issues raised at the previous VCAT decision. Particular concerns are:

· Whilst accepting 11 metres (three storeys) is the preferred maximum height, the Tribunal states that the building height is not the deciding factor about the acceptability or otherwise of a design for a more intensive development on the site.

· In relation to the upper front setback, it was the Tribunal’s view that upper levels should be recessed to reduce the appearance of building bulk. It goes on to state that the combination of the top two floor levels create a building bulk that is at odds with the intact original single storey streetscape.

· In relation to the streetscape presentation, the Tribunal stated that the brick parapet is an existing consistent feature across the commercial frontages and greater effort should be made to incorporate as much as of the original streetscape presentation as possible.

Planning Scheme

Planning Policy Framework

The construction of a three storey mixed-use building can be considered under the planning policy framework, which encourages higher density development within walking distance of shops, recreation facilities and public transport. The proposal also accords with the planning policy frameworks which seeks to anticipate and respond to the needs of existing and future communities, recognises the need for diversity of choice and economic viability.

However, the proposed design has responded poorly to the strategic context of this small neighbourhood activity centre which is surrounded by low profile residential developments. In particular, the proposal fails to meet the aims of Clauses 15.01-1R, 15.01-2S, 16 and 17.02 which specifically state the following:

- ‘Respond to its context in terms of character to minimise detrimental impacts on the amenity and built environment’.

- ‘Contribute positively to the local context’s height, scale and massing’.

- ‘Minimise the detrimental impacts on neighbouring properties’.

- ‘Ensure the form, scale and appearance enhance the function and amenity of the public realm’.

Local Planning Policy

Clause 21.07-1 identifies that small-scale neighbourhood centres play an important social and community role. The clause also encourages a mix of uses at some small centres if those centres are proving viable in the long run with retail uses. In a review of land use, this centre is already mixed with a number of uses including food and drink premises, offices, shops and the like. Based on current occupancy and activity levels, the centre has a high degree of activation and use. The purpose of Commercial 1 includes ‘providing for residential uses at densities complementary to the role and scale of the commercial centre. Clause 21.06 specifically states that each activity centre should respond to the need of the community. This is the one of the smallest activity centres according to the NAC categorisation. The purpose of these centres is to provide retail commercial services to meet the local community’s needs. From the development details, it appears that only 14.87% of the total floor area of the building is set aside for commercial use.

Zoning

The C1Z provides little guidance regarding the appropriate height of the building as it primarily controls the use of land. The decision guidelines require consideration of overlooking and overshadowing, streetscape and provision of car parking, but no benchmarks or outcomes are provided to assist in determining whether a proposal is acceptable.

Therefore, greater weight is given to the local planning policy and DDO4 in forming a position as to whether the proposed three-storey building is acceptable in its current form.

DDO4 and NAC Urban Design and Built Form Guidelines

This small neighbourhood activity centre has a consistent architectural style, height and massing. The centre does not have an eclectic, mixed, or changing streetscape. It is acknowledged that the site has capacity for further changes to enhance the role of the centre (community needs). The recently constructed buildings near the centre are two stories in height. Therefore, it presents as a sensitive precinct with a consistent, intact character, one which continues to be respected by newer development. Beyond the immediate commercial buildings, the area is further defined by a consistent residential character of single and double storey dwellings and medium density development that reflects its location within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone to the north, east, south and west of the site. In particular, this small neighbourhood activity centre has a low scale of single storey and fine-grain articulation.

Whilst the DDO4 and C1Z provide a framework for higher density developments, it is considered that the appropriate approach is to undertake a contextual analysis. The objectives of the DDO4, the NAC General Urban Design and Built Form Guidelines provide a useful contextual framework for the assessment, and on that basis, it is considered that the three-storey building would not be acceptable. Particular concerns include the following:

· The building has not been designed to facilitate a lively, attractive and safe local activity centre, nor assist in improving its economic viability. Whilst residential development on top of commercial buildings is generally acceptable in a commercially zoned land that is close to public transport, with regard to a small commercial centre like this, (This is a low category NAC fully occupied by primarily commercial activities) the proposal should ensure that the residential use will assist in revitalising the local centre. From the development details it appears that the proposal to use 85.13% of the total floor area for residential is not considered to be ‘providing commercial/retail services’ to the local community and, therefore the proposal is a deviation from the primary role of this centre.

· The new building is poorly designed and does not address and provide an active frontage to the public realm as the front windows do not allow lively internal uses visible from the outside, or interaction to/with the street.

· The upper floors have not been designed to allow for adaptation to a commercial use in the future, for example by provision of allowance for future services, signage car parking and loading needs etc.

· The new building has not been designed to reflect the role of the centre and enhance the character of the surrounding residential area. Design objectives of DDO4 include ‘to ensure new development is designed to respond to the immediate site environs, reflect the role of the centre and enhances the character of the surrounding residential areas’. Although the three-storey design response technically satisfies the numerical requirements of the preferred maximum building height and setbacks in DDO4, the new development has not responded to its immediate context and the role of the centre. Although the front setback is numerically compliant with the DDO4 table, which seeks a minimum of 3-metre setback from upper levels over 7.5 metres in height, the building is considered to be too close to the road and creates a building bulk that is at odds with the intact original single storey streetscape. As this is the first new development in this commercial strip and the relevant setback descriptive provision in section 2.0 of DDO4 prefers ‘recessed upper levels to reduce the appearance of building bulk’, the building should be set back beyond the minimum 3-metre set back.

· The form and scale of the frontage of the new building are not respectful of the prevailing single storey nature of commercial buildings of this activity centre. This is a low scale commercial centre and is cohesive because of its consistent single storey streetscape that comprises predominantly brick facades, shop fronts and brick parapets. As the proposal is to construct a new building, it is not demonstrated how the existing brick parapets will be retained.

· Whilst some growth is required to facilitate the on-going role of the commercial centre, the upper floor does not respect the adjacent residential character to the east of the site. The proposal technically meets the numerical setback requirements, however the building presents as too close to the residential properties due to the narrowness of the laneway and shallow setback of the existing residential buildings from the laneway. Therefore, the development does not maintain a pedestrian scale of development at the building’s rear and will create visual impacts when viewed from the surrounding dwellings to the east (across the laneway).

· The design details of the new building will not provide a high quality and visually interesting interface with the streetscape and the surrounding residential area. The design response has not demonstrated a high standard of good design that complements the existing centre and surrounds. In particular, it has not utilised materials, colours and finishes that complement the appearance and character of the existing centre and local area that comprise predominantly brick facades, traditional shop fronts and brick parapets.

· Although it is acknowledged that the north and south walls may become party walls in the future, it is considered that they should be articulated with variation in surface textures, colours and/or material given their ‘blank-wall’ presentation to the street and adjacent residential properties at this point in in time.

· Robust high-quality materials and detailing have not been used to ensure that the building remains attractive and functional over time. The use of ‘Colorclad’ for the external walls of the second floor poses maintenance difficulties over time due to their inaccessibility.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the history of this site does provide context for what may ultimately be considered an acceptable outcome. The previous VCAT decision sets important direction for both the applicant and planning officers in the matters to be considered.

In this instance, the proposal has not appropriately addressed the requirements and direction provided by the planning scheme, nor has it given the necessary consideration to the matters identified by VCAT.

The proposal therefore, has been assessed and is considered to be inconsistent with the relevant planning controls and policies, including planning policy framework, local planning policies, DDO4 and NAC general urban design and built form guidelines. In particular, the proposed built-form and overall design is considered to be unacceptable and will not integrate well with the existing built-form and character design details.

A total of twenty-seven (27) objections (objector properties) were received as a result of public notice and all of the issues raised in these objections have been discussed in this report.

It is considered that the application should be refused in this instance for the reasons specified above.

Attachment

1 Advertised Plans ⇨

2 Meade v Whitehorse CC [2017] 1854 ⇨

3 Aerial Image, Site & Surrounding Photos ⇨

4 NAC Categorisation ⇨

Whitehorse City Council

Ordinary Council Minutes 15 October 2018

9.1.2 28 Thomas Street, Mitcham (LOT 8 LP 6626) – Demolition of existing house, construction of new single dwelling on the lot and tree removal

FILE NUMBER: WH/2017/1050
ATTACHMENT

SUMMARY

This application was advertised, and a total of 6 objections were received. The objections raised issues with heritage, detail and information shown on the plans, and amenity impacts. A Consultation Forum was held on 19 July 2018 chaired by Councillor Cutts, at which the issues were explored, however no resolution was reached between the parties. This application has been called in by Councillor Cutts.

This report assesses the application against the relevant provisions of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, as well as the objector concerns. It is recommended that the application be supported, subject to conditions.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

A. Being the Responsible Authority, having caused Application WH/2017/1050 for 28 Thomas Street, Mitcham (LOT 8 LP 6626) to be advertised and having received and noted the objections is of the opinion that the granting of a Planning Permit for the demolition of existing house, construction of new single dwelling on the lot and tree removal is acceptable and should not unreasonably impact the amenity of adjacent properties.

B. Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit under the Whitehorse Planning Scheme to the land described as 28 Thomas Street, Mitcham (LOT 8 LP 6626) for the demolition of existing house, construction of new single dwelling on the lot and tree removal, subject to the following conditions:

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

a) The location of Tree A – Betula pendula (Silver Birch) including TPZ of 2.0 m and SRZ of 1.5 m to be notated on the development plans and landscape plan in accordance with Attachment 3 of the permit.

b) The locations of Structural Root Zones and Tree Protection Zones in accordance with condition 6, with all nominated trees clearly identified and numbered on both site and landscape plans, and the requirements of conditions 6 to be annotated on the development and landscape plans.

c) Removal of the 3.0 m rear easement incorrectly shown on plans

d) Alteration of the front fence to a 1.2 m high vertical timber batten fence supported by steel posts to reflect the same style of vertical timber battens on the dwelling façade.

e) Amended landscape plan in accordance with condition 3.

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

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

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

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

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

i. Providing a complete garden scheme;

ii. Softening the building bulk;

iii. Providing some upper canopy for landscape perspective;

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

v. A schedule of the botanical name of all trees and shrubs proposed to be retained and those to be removed incorporating any relevant requirements of condition No. 1;

vi. The proposed design features such as paths, paving, lawn and mulch;

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

viii. Landscaping in accordance with this approved plan and schedule shall be completed prior to the occupation of the development;

ix. The height and details of the proposed retaining walls clearly notated.

d) Reduction in height of the screen planting along the front boundary fence to a maximum height of 0.9 metre.

e) Replacement of the proposed compacted gravel area above the western retaining wall with planting.

f) Relocate the proposed canopy tree in the south western corner of the rear private open space to the rear north western corner of the site.

4. Unless with the prior written consent, all tree planting and landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be completed prior to the occupation of the development to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

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

a) Tree Protection Zone distances:

i. Tree A - 2.0 metre radius from centre base of tree;

ii. Tree 1 – 5.4 metre radius from centre base of tree;

iii. Tree 11 – 2.0 metre radius from centre base of tree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. All stormwater drains and on-site detention systems are to be connected to the legal point of discharge to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the occupation of the building/s. The requirement for on- site detention will be noted on your stormwater point of discharge report, or it might be required as part of the civil plans approval.

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

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

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

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

11. All treatments to prevent overlooking must not include ‘Translucent film’ on windows and must be in accordance with Standard B22 of Clause 55.

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

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

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

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

Permit Notes

Engineering Assets

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council Resolution

Moved by Cr Cutts, Seconded by Cr Stennett

That Council:

A. Being the Responsible Authority, having caused Application WH/2017/1050 for 28 Thomas Street, Mitcham (LOT 8 LP 6626) to be advertised and having received and noted the objections is of the opinion that the granting of a Planning Permit for the demolition of existing house, construction of new single dwelling on the lot and tree removal is acceptable and should not unreasonably impact the amenity of adjacent properties.

B. Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit under the Whitehorse Planning Scheme to the land described as 28 Thomas Street, Mitcham (LOT 8 LP 6626) for the demolition of existing house, construction of new single dwelling on the lot and tree removal, subject to the following conditions:

c) Removal of the 3.0 m rear easement incorrectly shown on plans

d) Alteration of the front fence to a 1.2 m high vertical timber batten fence.

e) Amended landscape plan in accordance with condition 3.

f) All vertical cladding on external elevations to be replaced with horizontal cladding material.

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

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

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

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

i. Providing a complete garden scheme;

ii. Softening the building bulk;

iii. Providing some upper canopy for landscape perspective;

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

v. A schedule of the botanical name of all trees and shrubs proposed to be retained and those to be removed incorporating any relevant requirements of condition No. 1;

vi. The proposed design features such as paths, paving, lawn and mulch;

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

viii. Landscaping in accordance with this approved plan and schedule shall be completed prior to the occupation of the development;

ix. The height and details of the proposed retaining walls clearly notated.

d) Replacement of the proposed compacted gravel area above the western retaining wall with planting.

e) Relocate the proposed canopy tree in the south western corner of the rear private open space to the rear north western corner of the site.

a) Tree Protection Zone distances:

i. Tree A - 2.0 metre radius from centre base of tree;

ii. Tree 1 – 5.4 metre radius from centre base of tree;

iii. Tree 11 – 2.0 metre radius from centre base of tree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. All treatments to prevent overlooking must not include ‘Translucent film’ on windows and must be in accordance with Standard B22 of Clause 55.

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

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

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

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

Permit Notes

Engineering Assets

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

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

CARRIED

A Division was called.

Division

For

Cr Bennett

Cr Carr

Cr Cutts

Cr Ellis

Cr Liu

Cr Massoud

Cr Stennett

Against

Cr Barker

Cr Davenport

Cr Munroe

On the results of the Division the motion was declared carried

MELWAYS REFERENCE 48 A8

Applicant: Matrix Architects

Zoning: Neighbourhood Residential Zone, Schedule 4 (NRZ4)

Overlays: Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 9 (SLO9), Heritage Overlay (HO179)

Relevant Clauses:

Clause 11 Settlement

Clause 12 Environment and Landscape Values

Clause 15 Built Environment and Heritage

Clause 21.05 Environment

Clause 21.06 Housing

Clause 22.01 Heritage Buildings and Precincts

Clause 22.03 Residential Development

Clause 22.04 Tree Conservation

Clause 42.03 Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 9

Clause 43.01 Heritage Overlay – reference 179

Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

Ward: Springfield

Subject site

6 Objector Properties

North

BACKGROUND

History

Planning Permit WH/2015/1019 was issued on 1 May 2017 following a Council Meeting on 20 March 2017, for ‘Demolition of the existing dwelling and buildings and works to construct two (2) double storey dwellings’. The permit issued with the requirement to reduce dwellings 1 and 2 to single storey. The permit is still active with an expiry date for commencement of 1 May 2019. It has not been acted upon at this time.

The Site and Surrounds

The subject site is located on the west side of Thomas Street, approximately 50 metres south of the intersection with Harrison Street. The site is generally rectangular in shape with a frontage of 15.2 metres, a depth of 58 metres and an overall site area of 882 square metres.

The subject site contains a gable roofed single storey weatherboard dwelling with concrete tiled roof constructed circa 1950s and is typical of post-World War 2 housing. The site contains existing vegetation as identified within the Arboricultural Report prepared by Sherrin Bishop dated 26 April 2018 which provides an assessment of 13 trees mainly consisting of low scale exotic species located within the subject site. Three trees are protected under the Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 9 (SLO9). The site is sloping with a rise of approximately 1.95 metres from the front (east) boundary to the rear (west) boundary. No easements are located on the site.

The subject site is located within the Thomas Street Heritage Overlay Precinct (HO179). The Thomas Street heritage precinct comprises the properties with a frontage to Thomas Street remaining from the late Edwardian and the inter-war period constructed prior to 1939. The Thomas Street heritage precinct is of local historic and aesthetic significance to the City of Whitehorse as a good expression of the major growth in housing in Mitcham during the late Edwardian and particularly the immediate post-World War 1 era as expressed by single storey detached largely Californian Bungalow style housing.

The adjoining lot to the north contains two single storey brick dwellings at 1/26 and 2/26 Thomas Street and a more recently constructed single storey weatherboard dwelling to the south at 30 Thomas Street. These dwellings are located within the Thomas Street heritage precinct and are affected by the HO179. The adjoining lot to the west at 26 Harrison Street contains a medium density housing development consisting of six single storey dwellings.

Planning Controls

The State Planning Policies at Clauses 11 (Settlement), Clause 12 (Environment and Landscape Values), Clause 15 (Built Environment and Heritage) and Clause 16 (Housing) aim to encourage consolidation of existing urban areas whilst respecting neighbourhood character and heritage.

The Local Planning Policy Framework at Clause 21.06 (Housing) identifies the site as located within the ‘Limited Change Area’. It is also identified under Clause 22.03 (Residential Development) Under Clause 22.03 (Residential Development), the site is located in a Bush Suburban Precinct 6 which encourages a preferred character of ‘low scale dwellings set within established largely exotic garden settings’.

Clause 22.04 (Tree Conservation) outlines the importance of retaining significant trees within a development where it is practical to do so. The policy includes the preferred minimum distances between trees and buildings/ hard surfaces, replanting and suggested design response for hard surfaces close to retained trees.

In accordance with Clause 43.01-1 (HO179) of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme a permit is required to demolish or remove a building and construct or carry out works (including construction of a front fence).

There is no permit required under the Neighbourhood Residential Zone or under Clause 54 (ResCode) for a single dwelling as the lot area exceeds 500 square metres.

Clause 65 provides guidelines that must be considered before deciding on an application to ensure the proposal will produce acceptable outcomes. These guidelines include the Planning Policy Framework (PPF recently amended under Planning Scheme Amendment VC148 on 31 July 2018), the purpose of the Zone and overlays and the orderly planning of the area and the effect on the amenity of the area.

PROPOSAL

The application involves the demolition of the existing dwelling and buildings and works for the construction of a single dwelling (including front fence) and tree removal.

The plans currently before Council for consideration in determination of the application are Revision P3 prepared by Matrix Architects, dated 26 April 2018.

Amended application plans (including a section 50 amendment to the application to include tree removal and buildings and works within 4m of a protected tree under SLO9) were submitted to Council in response to officer concerns outlined in the further information letter and in response to issues raised by Council’s Heritage Advisor prior to advertising of the application.

The amended decision plans show:

· A new dwelling which is part single storey with a double storey element to the rear with a swimming pool and decked alfresco living areas to the north and west side of the dwelling.

· The dwelling is contemporary in design featuring a vertical timber and horizontal cement weatherboard cladding on the gable frontage with pitched iron roof forms with no eaves and flat roof front porch at the dwelling entry.

· The dwelling is provided with minimum side setbacks of 1.83 metres to the north and 2.0 metres to the southern side boundary at ground floor. The dwelling is setback 9.4 metres from the street and a minimum 11.4 metres from the rear site boundary.

· The first floor level is setback approximately 26.5 metres from the front of the dwelling at ground floor and recessed from ground floor a distance of 2.2 metres on the northern and southern side elevations

· Vehicle access through a modified vehicle crossover on the southern side of the property frontage.

· A double garage on the southern side boundary which is set back from the dwelling frontage.

· A garden area of 52% or 458.8 sqm (with no eaves proposed).

· The removal of trees and shrubs numbered 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 with trees 8 and 10 requiring a permit for removal.

· Buildings and works (front fence and retaining wall) within 4m of protected trees 1 (street tree) and tree 11 located within the site.

· The dwelling ground floor level will have a maximum building height (roof ridge height) on the front (east) elevation of 6.9 metres and a maximum ridge height of 5.8 metres on the southern side elevation.

· The second storey located at the rear of the dwelling will have a maximum ridge height of 7.4 metres on the southern side elevation and 6.8 metres on the west (rear elevation) above natural ground level due to the depth of the cut on the western elevation

· A 1.2 metre high rendered fence with steel blade infill is proposed along the front site boundary.

In accordance with Clause 42.03-2 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, a planning permit is required for tree removal (Trees 8 and 10) and buildings and works within 4m of a tree requiring a permit for removal under the SLO9 (Tree 1 and Tree 11). Trees 8 and 10 are described as follows:

Tree No.

Species

Height (m)

Retention value

Recommendation

Pyrus species (Pear tree)

Medium

Poor structure - Canopy lopsided from overcrowding by neighbouring trees and loss of foliage from possums

Unknown

(DBH 116 cm)

Medium

Located within proposed site cut and retaining wall

CONSULTATION

Public Notice

The application was advertised by mail to the adjacent and nearby property owners and occupiers and by erecting a notice to the Thomas Street frontage. Following the advertising period 6 objections were received.

The issues raised are summarised as follows:

Heritage

· Demolition and contribution of existing house to heritage precinct

· Heritage impacts

· Compliance with “Guidelines for Alterations and Additions to Dwellings” in the Thomas Street Precinct

· Lack of respect for character of Heritage Precinct

· Appropriateness of built form and materials, modern front façade

· Appropriateness of double storey building

· Previous approvals

· Visibility from street and adjoining dwellings

Plans

· Lack of clarity in drawings

· Sightline diagrams and materials schedules and sections of building heights not provided

Amenity impacts

· Loss of skyline view, and potential loss of natural light to adjoining dwelling

· Potential overlooking from ground floor windows

· Proposed canopy tree on southern fence line will overshadow existing solar pool heating

Consultation Forum

A Consultation Forum chaired by Councillor Cutts was held on 19 July 2018. A total of 12 people attended with 8 representing the 6 registered objector properties, and the applicant, site owner, planning consultant and planning officers.

The Chair facilitated discussions around the themes raised in objections. All objector issues were reviewed, however no consensus was reached.

After the Forum, correspondence received from the applicant proposed amendments to the application to address objector concerns that the proposed canopy tree within the rear private open space would overshadow the shed solar panels on the adjoining property to south. The applicant has advised the canopy tree can be located to the north- west corner of the site under a condition of permit.

Referrals

External

No external referrals were required

Internal

Engineering and Environmental Services Department

· Assets Engineer

The advertised plans have been reviewed by Council’s Assets Engineer who has no objection to the proposal subject to standard conditions to be included on any permit to issue.

Planning Arborist

The proposal has been reviewed by Council’s consulting Arborist who has no objection to the proposed tree removal (Trees 8 and 10) or buildings and works within 4m of protected trees (Tree 1 and Tree 11) subject to tree protection conditions to be included in any permit to issue.

It was identified that the structure of Tree 8 is poor and not worthy of retention. It was also identified that an additional tree (Tree A) located on the western adjoining property has not been included on plans however there appears to be no encroachment into the TPZ of this tree and the buildings and works can go ahead in relation to this tree. This will be addressed by a condition of permit requiring Tree A (Silver birch) with a TPZ of 2.0 m to be shown on amended plans and tree protection conditions for this tree. There are no other trees on adjoining properties that will be impacted by the proposal in accordance with the diagram and table within Attachment 3 of the Permit.

Heritage Advisor

The advertised plans have been reviewed by Council’s Heritage Advisor who has no objection to the demolition of the existing dwelling. Council’s Heritage Advisor shares the same view as the applicant’s Heritage Consultant, that the existing dwelling was constructed post World War 2 in the 1950s and therefore does not constitute a contributory building within the Thomas Street Heritage Precinct.

Council’s Heritage Advisor has no objection to the proposed dwelling and is of the opinion that the proposed design is “a well-considered response to the construction of a new dwelling in the Thomas Street Heritage overlay.”

Council’s Heritage Advisor has assessed the new dwelling as being a “contemporary interpretation of the ‘traditional’ gable roofed form of housing in the street and will achieve the desired aims of a) being a distinctly contemporary building in the streetscape that allows easy identification of the earlier houses for which the precinct is significant, and b) through its scale and form, will not dominate or otherwise detract from the significance of the precinct or detract from the significant inter-war streetscape.” Further discussion of the new dwelling against the requirements of the Heritage Overlay provisions is included below.

DISCUSSION

Consistency with State and Local Planning Policies

The proposal is consistent with State and Local Planning Policies which seek to ensure housing stock matches changing demand by widening housing choice; encourage the development of well-designed housing that respects the neighbourhood character and appropriately responds to the surrounding prevailing landscape character and valued built form and cultural context.

Under Clause 21.06 (Housing), the site is included within a ‘Limited Change Area’ and under Clause 22.03 (Residential Development), the site is included within a Bush Suburban Precinct 6. These local policies enable specific characteristics of the neighbourhood, environment and landscape to be protected through greater control over new development. Moreover, architectural, urban design and landscape outcomes must positively contribute to local urban character whilst minimising impacts on neighbouring properties.

The proposed development is consistent with these policies as follows:

· The development of a single dwelling is an appropriate response and retains the existing neighbourhood character, landscape and heritage elements in accordance with the directions of ‘limited change’ areas.

· The development takes the form of replacing an existing dwelling within the heritage precinct with a well-designed contemporary building set within a large garden, consistent with the preferred character statement for Clause 22.03 (Residential Development).

Consideration must also be given to the design response in relation to the site’s inclusion within the Thomas Street Precinct Heritage Overlay. The heritage planning considerations and a response to the concerns of objectors to the proposal will be discussed in the following section of this report.

Heritage Assessment

Local Policy, Clause 22.01 (Heritage Buildings and Precincts) applies to all heritage places, building structures and natural features of heritage significance within the City of Whitehorse which are subject to a heritage overlay where a permit is required under Clause 43.01.

The subject site is located within the Thomas Street Heritage Precinct. The Statement of Significance for the precinct states it is “...of aesthetic and historical significance to the City of Whitehorse as a good expression of the major growth in housing in Mitcham during the late Edwardian and particularly the immediate post World War One era, as expressed by single storey detached largely Californian Bungalow style housing.”

Thomas Street and Cook Road were created following the partial subdivision of a former orchard in the area in 1914. Only two houses were built by 1918, however in the post WW1 era land sales improved significantly, particularly in the 1930s, although on the west side of the street, many of the lots remained unbuilt, with the dwelling on the subject site not constructed until the mid-1950s.

Although the Heritage Citation map (HO179) which is a reference document to Clause 22.01, shows the subject site as a contributory dwelling, as previously discussed, Council’s Heritage Advisor, and an independent heritage assessment provided by Heritage Alliance, are both satisfied that the house was constructed in the mid-1950s and does not constitute Interwar or Edwardian house design. It is therefore not included in the period of construction identified as significant within the Precinct as defined by the Statement of Significance.

Council’s Heritage Advisor has identified the adjoining dwelling immediately to the south at 30 Thomas Street as a recently constructed single storey dwelling and also not contributory. The dwelling further south at 32 Thomas Street is contributory being constructed in 1918. To the north the adjoining two dwellings at 26 Thomas Street were constructed in the 1970’s and 1990’s with dwellings further north at 24 and 22 Thomas Street (corner Harrison Street) both constructed in the 1950’s. As such, all the buildings from number 22 to number 30 Thomas Street are non- contributory to the precinct.

The demolition of the existing structure is acceptable provided the replacement dwelling is sympathetic to the heritage values of the precinct.

Clause 22.01-3 (Heritage Buildings and Precincts) states new buildings and works within a Heritage Overlay:

· Should conserve and be sympathetic to the heritage place identified in the Heritage Overlay Schedule;

· The design and location of new buildings should not adversely impact the heritage value and significance of the buildings or precinct;

· Development on sites adjacent to heritage buildings and precincts be sympathetic to the heritage place in terms of bulk, setbacks, materials, colour scheme and form;

· Care should be taken not to ‘mock’ the heritage building style.

Council’s Heritage Advisor provides the following assessment of the proposed new dwelling under the requirements of Clause 22.01 for the design of New Dwellings and buildings within the Thomas Street Heritage Precinct. Council’s Heritage Advisor is satisfied the proposed dwelling replaces a non- contributory building and that it will make a positive contribution to the value and cohesiveness of the heritage precinct as follows:

Setbacks

The set back of the proposed building from the street boundary is consistent with those of the immediately adjacent buildings and with the street generally. Whilst there is no setback to the south boundary, there is a driveway to the south at No. 30 and a 2.0 m setback to the north boundary and a driveway to No. 26 which serve to maintain the visual separation of the buildings typical in the precinct.

Form, massing and height

Within this context, the proposed building presents a restrained, contemporary interpretation of the gable roof form single-storey building type prevalent in the street. It does not replicate or otherwise directly reference either the late-Edwardian or Californian bungalow styles, which, given its location in the midst of a run of non-contributory buildings, is an appropriate approach. It is consistent with policy that new buildings not ‘mock’ historic buildings and is consistent in scale and form with the dwellings in the street. The scale of the front façade is consistent with the prevailing late-Edwardian and Californian Bungalow building types in the street as is the gable form employed. The projecting bay and small porch roof serve to provide some relief and balance to the façade and also reference similar projecting bays in the street. The 3D images provided on drawing TP14 (Rev P3) illustrate satisfactorily how the building will “sit” in the existing streetscape and how its scale and form is similar to those of the nearby buildings. The new building will not, in my view, “dominate” the streetscape nor detract from the significance of the contributory buildings in the street or the precinct as a whole.

The higher 2-storey section at the rear is sufficiently set back (approximately 37 metres) from the street frontage so as to have minimal visual impact on the streetscape. This is consistent with previous approvals for rear 2-storey additions to single-storey buildings throughout the Heritage Overlay in Whitehorse and second-storey additions are distinctly different from a 2-storey building extending to the front facade

Materials and finishes

Whilst the use of vertical timber battens is not a ‘traditional’ material within the street, its use creates a simple unifying feature across the basic gable form of the façade and serves to provide a relatively restrained aspect to the elevation. Its “undecorated” nature will serve to create a simple understated effect. The cement sheet cladding to the projecting bay emulates a broader form of the weatherboards commonly used in the street. It is not necessary in this instance, due to the nature and cladding materials of the immediately adjacent buildings, to directly reference them.

Details

The proposed building has very restrained detailing which does not directly reproduce any period detailing and, correctly, appears ‘of its time’.

Garages

There is no doubt that the proposal incorporates the garage into the dwelling, however the integration of the door into the façade cladding serves to minimize its visibility, allowing it to become part of the restrained character of the overall façade rather than the typically dominant effect when a contrasting door is incorporated into a façade.

Fences

It is proposed to construct a fence to the front boundary consisting of a low rendered wall with steel palisade-style railings (pickets) above to a height of 1.2m.

Council’s heritage advisor has concerns with the materials proposed for the fence within the context of the street which can be addressed as a condition of permit. Specifically, the following observations and conclusions were made:

Whilst the materials utilised for the house can be justified either as a simple unifying feature or referencing the weatherboard cladding, the combined use of render and steel, directly to the street frontage creates an unnecessary ‘complication’ in the use of materials and form. I recommend that the fence be simplified by removing the rendered base and that consideration be given to employing vertical battens similar to the building façade supported by a steel frame.

Swimming pool/spa

A swimming pool is proposed to be constructed towards the centre of the lot as part of the development.

Council’s Heritage Advisor has stated: I have no objection to the construction of the pools as it will be concealed from the street by the building and fencing.

As outlined above Council’s Heritage advisor supports the proposed dwelling as a replacement of the previous non-contributory dwelling. The proposed dwelling provides a contemporary restrained design which does not seek to replicate period design features of contributory buildings and is sympathetic to the heritage values of the precinct. A condition of permit will be required to amend the front fence details from a rendered and steel palisade fence with steel to a vertical timber batten fence

As discussed above the proposed new replacement dwelling with rear second storey provides a positive response to the policy objectives contained within Clause 22.01 (Heritage Buildings and Precincts) and the purpose and decision guidelines of Clause 43.01 (Heritage Overlay) for new buildings and works as follows:

· The existing dwelling is considered non-contributory and not of heritage significance within the Thomas Street precinct given the house was constructed in the mid-1950s and does not constitute Interwar or Edwardian house design. It is therefore not included in the period of construction identified as significant within the Precinct as defined by the Statement of Significance

· The second storey is not visible from primary views from the street (as demonstrated by sightline diagrams on sheet TP43) due to being located to the rear of the dwelling and will only be visible from oblique angles and viewlines. The double storey element is setback approximately 35 metres from the street frontage and will largely be obscured by the pitched roof form to the dwelling.

· Whilst the dwellings located immediately adjacent to the dwelling have been assessed by Council’s heritage advisor as not contributory or of heritage significance within the Thomas Street precinct, the proposed dwelling is provided with side setbacks to both dwellings of between 1.8 and 2.0 metres at ground floor and 4.1 metres at first floor ensuring the dwelling is well recessed into the site.

· The proposed dwelling is contemporary in design and utilizes design differentiation by the use of materials and form to ensure there is clarity between the architectural period of contributory buildings within the precinct and new development. The use of vertical timber cladding and front gable façade with pitched iron roof form does not seek to replicate but sympathetically interprets the architectural features of contributory Edwardian and inter-war dwellings in a contemporary manner.

Tree impacts

Clause 21.05 (Environment), Clause 22.04 (Tree Conservation) and Clause 42.03 (Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 9) identify trees as being an integral aspect of an existing and preferred character.

The proposed new dwelling requires the removal of trees numbered 8 and 10. As per the submitted arborist report, these trees have ‘medium’ retention value and Council’s arborist is satisfied the trees are appropriate for removal. A landscape plan has been provided demonstrating appropriate screen planting and replacement canopy trees can be achieved and tree protection conditions for trees to be retained will be included as a condition of permit.

Objectors Concerns not Previously Addressed

Plans

An objection raised an issue with lack of clarity of plans and sightlines not being provided. It is noted all required plans for the development have been provided including additional plans not required to be assessed under the Heritage Overlay (shadow diagrams and overlooking). It is also noted that sightline diagrams (Sheet TP43) have been provided and included in the advertised plans which demonstrate no views are available to the second storey from the street due to the distance setback of the second storey to the rear of the dwelling.

Amenity impacts

Objections to the application raised issues of loss of skyline view, potential loss of natural light to adjoining dwellings and overlooking from ground floor windows. The application for a single dwelling is not able to be assessed under Clause 54 Standards under the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) as no permit is required under the Zone provisions with a single dwelling being ‘as of right’ on a lot greater than 500 sqm.

Other Issues

The amended site plans and landscape plan prepared by CX Landscape dated 26/04/2018 incorrectly show a rear 3.0 metre wide easement located along the western boundary which contains a 3.0 metre wide area of compacted gravel behind the retaining wall. The title plan does not include any easement on the lot and therefore the easement and area of gravel will be required to be deleted from site plans via a condition and replaced with additional screen planting along the rear western boundary.

In addition to the above the tall screen planting along the front boundary fence will be required to be reduced in height to 900mm in height to ensure views from the front setback will be maintained within the streetscape to provide appropriate passive surveillance to the street in accordance with neighbourhood character objectives.

CONCLUSION

The proposal for the demolition of the existing dwelling, construction of a new dwelling and tree removal is an acceptable response that satisfies the relevant provisions contained within the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, including the State and Local Planning Policies, Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 9, Heritage Overlay HO179, Clauses 22.03 (Residential development) and Clause 22.04 (Tree Conservation).

A total of 6 objections were received as a result of public notice and all of the issues raised have been discussed above.

It is considered that the application should be approved subject to conditions.

Attachment

1 Advertised Plans ⇨

2 Advertised Heritage Report ⇨

3 Arborist Report ⇨

Whitehorse City Council

Ordinary Council Minutes 15 October 2018

9.1.3 152 Dorking Road and 65 Twyford Street, Box Hill North - Amendment to the current permit which allows 'use and development of childcare centre' to extend hours of operation and increase the maximum number of children and associated reduction in car parking requirements

FILE NUMBER: WH/2003/14254/A
ATTACHMENT

SUMMARY

This application seeks to amend the existing planning permit, to allow an increase in the opening hours, and in the number of children for the child care centre. This triggers the need for one additional car parking space under the planning scheme. The application was advertised, no objections were received. No Consultation Forum was held. This report assesses the application against the relevant provisions of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme. It is recommended that the amendments be supported. This application for amended permit has been called in by Cr Barker.

Council Resolution

Moved by Cr Liu, Seconded by Cr Ellis

That Council:

A. Being the Responsible Authority, having caused Application WH/2003/14254/A for 152 Dorking Road & 65 Twyford Street, Box Hill North to be advertised and having received no objections is of the opinion that the granting of an amendment to the current planning permit which allows 'use and development of childcare centre' to extend hours of operation to 6:30pm (currently 6pm) and increase the maximum number of children from 50 to 55, including associated reduction in car parking requirements, is acceptable and should not unreasonably impact the amenity of adjacent properties.

B. Issue an amended Planning Permit under the Whitehorse Planning Scheme to the land described as 152 Dorking Road & 65 Twyford Street, Box Hill North for Amendment to the current permit which allows 'use and development of childcare centre' to extend hours of operation to 6:30pm (currently 6pm) and increase the maximum number of children from 50 to 55, including associated reduction in car parking requirements., subject to the following amended conditions:

Conditions 1-5 – No change.

Condition 6 (Amended) The maximum number of children attending the site shall not exceed 55.

Condition 7 (Amended) The hours of operation shall generally be 7am to 6:30pm Monday to Friday and between 7am to 6pm Saturdays.

Conditions 8-18 – No change.

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

CARRIED

A Division was called.

Division

For

Cr Bennett

Cr Carr

Cr Cutts

Cr Davenport

Cr Ellis

Cr Liu

Cr Massoud

Cr Munroe

Cr Stennett

Against

Cr Barker

On the results of the Division the motion was declared carried

MELWAYS REFERENCE 47 F6

Applicant: Urbis Pty Ltd

Zoning: General Residential Zone – Schedule 3 (GRZ3)

Overlays: Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 9 (SLO9)

Relevant Clauses:

Clause 13.07-1S Land use compatibility

Clause 17 Economic development

Clause 18 Transport

Clause 19 Education facilities

Clause 21.07 Economic development

Clause 22.05 Non-Residential uses in Residential areas

Clause 32.08 General Residential Zone – Schedule 3

Clause 42.03 Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 9

Clause 52.06 Car Parking

Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

Ward: Elgar

Subject site

0 objector Properties

North

BACKGROUND

History

The following permit history is taken from the delegate report under the original application for the existing permit:

· Planning permit BH/90/4604 was issued on the 4^th of December, 1990 at the direction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and allowed the use of 152 Dorking Road, Box Hill for a Childcare Centre. Amongst other conditions this permit restricted the number of children attending the site to 35 and restricted the hours of operation to 7am to 6pm Monday to Friday.

· On the 14^th of December, 1993 a second planning permit BG/92/5057 was issued to extend the Childcare Centre on the site for use by 45 children and with extended hours to allow operation on Saturdays.

· The existing/current Planning permit which the Box Hill Early Learning Centre operates under (WH/2003/14254) was issued 22^nd of July, 2004 for use and development of a childcare centre.

The 2004 decision approved the rear of the neighbouring lot at number 65 Twyford Street, Box Hill North to be consolidated with the existing childcare centre within number 152 Dorking Road and included conditions limiting the maximum number of children to fifty (50) and limiting hours of operation between 7:00am to 6:00pm – Monday to Saturday.

Condition 5 of this permit required the cancellation of the previously issued permits relating to use of the land as a childcare centre as described in the points above.

The conditions of the permit have been acted upon and Planning Permit WH/2003/14254 remains valid.

The Site and Surrounds

Subject site

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Dorking Road with Twyford Street to the north and Trawool Street to its south. The lot has an area of approximately 1286sqm.

The subject site contains a single-storey building which operates as a childcare centre (Box Hill Early Learning Centre) which contains nine on-site car parking spaces accessed via the western boundary into Dorking Road.

Surrounding area

While the properties fronting onto Dorking Road are generally residential, the area immediately adjacent to the subject site also contains a mix of commercial uses with the Trawool Street Neighbourhood Shopping Centre being located immediately to the south.

The Trawool Street Neighbourhood Shopping Centre contains twelve (12) commercially zoned lots which front onto Trawool Street, including a mix of shops and businesses. The lots at numbers 15 and 17 Trawool Street also contain shop-top housing above each ground floor tenancy, forming a three-storey, mixed use building.

Twenty-three (23) angled parking spaces are located outside of these commercial premises. These parking spaces are subject to 1P and 1/4P controls which operate Monday to Saturday. Unrestricted, parallel parking is also available on the southern side of Trawool Street.

Kerrimuir Primary School is located approximately 220m north of the subject site, also fronting Dorking Road Our Lady of Sion College is located approximately 1.2km to the south at the intersection of Dorking Road and Whitehorse Road.

The immediately surrounding lots have seen a modest level of change since the original application based around increased residential densities of a few select sites. The immediately adjoining lots can be described as follows:

South – No.1 Trawool Street

The lot is currently vacant and is located on the north-eastern corner of Dorking Road and Trawool Street. A bus stop is located directly adjacent to the western boundary of this lot along Dorking Road.

This neighbouring lot has been issued with Planning Permit WH/2007/29 at the direction of VCAT on the 28th of July, 2008 for the development of ten (10) dwellings within a three level building. Under this approved development, all vehicle access would be provided via Trawool Street and would therefore allow for the removal of the two double-width crossovers into Dorking Road previously utilised by the service station which has now been removed from the site.

An amendment has been lodged to this permit for changes to the plans and is currently being assessed by planning officers at the time of writing this report.

North – Numbers 154 Dorking Road and 67 Twyford Street

Number 154 Dorking Road contains a single storey brick veneer dwelling located on the south-eastern corner of the intersection between Dorking Road and Twyford Street. This dwelling is orientated west towards Dorking Road with Secluded Private Open Space (SPOS) located on the northern side of the building, facing onto Twyford Street.

The dwelling at number 67 Twyford Street was developed on the rear portion of the lot at number 154 Dorking Road under Planning Permit WH/2011/389 issued 28th October, 2011 for construction of two dwellings on one lot. This dwelling is orientated north towards Twyford Street with an area of SPOS located off the north-eastern corner of the building. Areas adjacent to the common boundary shared with the subject site include a service area to the rear of the garage and on-boundary construction associated with the laundry room and a bathroom at ground floor.

East – Numbers 63 and 65 Twyford Street

These two properties each contain a single-storey, brick dwelling orientated north towards Twyford Street with areas of SPOS to the rear. As outlined earlier in this report, the southern portion of the SPOS associated with number 65 Twyford Street has been amalgamated into the childcare centre under the original application.

West – Opposite side of Dorking Road.

Unrestricted parking is available on both sides of Dorking Road. Properties on the opposite (western) side of Dorking Road from the subject site generally contain single dwelling lots. Number 157 Dorking Road has been developed with two dwellings under Planning Permit WH/2015/1156 for construction of two double storey dwellings, issued on 3rd of August, 2016.

Planning Controls

Clause 32.08 – General Residential Zone Schedule 3

Pursuant to the table of uses under clause 32.08-1 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme (the Scheme) a permit is required for the use of a childcare centre as a Section 2 ‘innominate’ land use.

As outlined earlier in this report, the existing childcare centre operates under the current planning permit and therefore, no new land use considerations are triggered under the provisions of the General Residential Zone.

Clause 42.03 – Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 9

No buildings, works or tree removal are proposed under this application and therefore no permit is triggered under the requirements of the Significant Landscape Overlay.

Clause 52.06 – Car Parking

Pursuant to clause 52.06-1 of the Scheme, before an existing use is increased by the measure specified in Column C of Table 1 in Clause 52.06-5 for that use, the number of car parking spaces required under clause 52.06-5 must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Pursuant to clause 52.06-3 – Permit requirement, a permit is required to: Reduce (including reduce to zero) the number of car parking spaces required under clause 52.06-5 or in a schedule to the Parking Overlay.

Clause 52.06-5 of the Scheme requires 0.22 parking spaces per child to be provided for a child care centre. For the five (5) additional children proposed under this application, this equates to a requirement for one (1) additional car parking space.

PROPOSAL

The application to amend Planning Permit WH/2003/14254 requests the following:

· Condition 6 amended to allow for a maximum of fifty-five (55) children (increased from fifty);

· Condition 7 amended to allow for operation until 6:30pm (increased from 6pm) Monday to Friday.

o No change to hours has been requested for the hours on Saturdays which would remain at 7:00am to 6:00pm as per the existing permit.

CONSULTATION

Public Notice

The application was advertised by mail to the adjacent and nearby property owners and occupiers and by erecting notices to the Dorking Street frontage. No objections were received.

Consultation Forum

No Consultation Forum was held in light of no objections being received.

Referrals

External

The Whitehorse Planning Scheme does not require the proposal to be referred externally under Section 55 of the Act.

Internal

Engineering and Environmental Services Department

· Transport Engineer

The Transport Team support the approval of the proposed development as detailed in this memo.

As detailed in the One Mile Grid report the short fall of one parking space is unlikely to have a significant parking impact in the area nor is an increase of 30 minutes in the hours of operation to 6.30pm.

· Planning Enforcement Unit

The application has been referred to Council’s Planning Enforcement Unit who confirmed that there is no history of complaints recorded against the existing childcare centre.

DISCUSSION

Condition 6 - Increased child numbers and car parking/traffic considerations

With the existing childcare centre having been established as early as 1990, the scope of this application is limited to assessing whether an additional five (5) children would ‘tip the balance’ with regards to amenity impacts from the existing scenario where the childcare centre has operated in its current capacity for approximately fourteen years.

Under the current application, the additional five (5) children results in a requirement for one (1) additional car parking space to be provided on site pursuant to clause 52.06 – Car parking of the Scheme.

With regards to policy direction under the Scheme, clause 22.05-3 states that it is policy that (listed as relevant):

· Adequate provision is encouraged for on-site staff and visitor parking.

The applicant’s Traffic Report from One Mile Grid (dated 15 March, 2018) states that the increase in car parking demand associated with five additional children would be readily accommodated within the surrounding street network and is unlikely to result in significant impacts to the parking amenity of the surrounding area noting that kerbside parking is available on both sides of Dorking Road, Twyford Street and Trawool Street immediately abutting the site.

With regards to traffic generation, the One Mild Grid report indicates that impacts are likely to be negligible based on an increased capacity of five additional children. The report states: the additional five child places could be anticipated to result in a maximum increase of 10 vehicle movements in a peak hour (representing drop off/pick-up activities) or 1 vehicle movement every six minutes. This level of traffic is not anticipated to have a material impact on the operation or safety of the external road network and is considered satisfactory.

These comments are supported by Council’s Traffic Engineering Unit who has stated that the waiver of the single car parking space is unlikely to result in any significant impact to car parking or traffic conditions in the surrounding area.

Overall, it is considered that the increase in numbers to a maximum of fifty-five children is acceptable for the reasons outlined above.

Condition 7 - Increased hours of operation

As outlined earlier in this report, the application proposes to extend the closing time for the childcare centre from 6:00pm to 6:30pm – Monday to Friday, no change to Saturday hours.

The comments received from Council’s Planning Enforcement Unit have stated that there have been no complaints against the operation of the Box Hill Early Learning Centre which indicates that the Centre is well managed with regards to noise and other possible impacts. In conjunction with the proposed changes not receiving any objections following public notice to this application, it is not unreasonable to assume that the Box Hill Early Learning Centre has integrated well with the adjoining residential properties and the local area.

It is unlikely that the additional half an hour would result in unreasonable impacts beyond the existing conditions to the planning permit which allows operation up until 6:00pm noting that condition 9 of the permit requires all lighting to be ‘designed, baffled and located to prevent light from the site casing any detriment to the locality’.

Condition 11 of the permit requires the amenity of the area shall not be detrimentally affected by the use or development through: emission of noise, light, vibration, smell fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, waste water, waste products, grit or oil.

Increasing the hours to 6:30pm would not result in the Centre operating in more sensitive ‘night time’ periods (defined under SEPP controls as being after 10:00pm) in which residents would typically be sleeping and therefore the additional 30 minutes up to 6:30pm is considered to be acceptable.

With regards to the modest extension in operating hours proposed under this application, it is considered that the requirements of conditions 9 and 11 are sufficient to ensure the amenity of the surrounding area continues to be protected.

Overall, the proposed increase in hours is considered to be a modest increase to the existing operation and would be adequately managed by the conditions of the existing planning permit.

CONCLUSION

The proposal for an amendment to the current permit which allows 'use and development of childcare centre' to extend hours of operation to 6:30pm (currently 6pm) Monday to Friday and increase the maximum number of children from 50 to 55, including associated reduction in car parking requirements is an acceptable response that satisfies the relevant provisions contained within the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, including the State and Local Planning Policies, the General Residential Zone and Clause 52.06 of the Scheme.

It is considered that the application should be approved.

Attachment

1 Existing Planning Permit ⇨

2 Endorsed Plan Sheet 1 of 2 ⇨

3 Endorsed Plan Sheet 2 of 2 ⇨

6.1 Notice of Motion No 114 Cr Barker

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

Moved by Cr Barker, Seconded by Cr Liu

That within 6 months of the granting of the amendment to the permit allowing the increase in numbers of children for the child care at 152 Dorking Road and 65 Twyford Street, the Transport Engineering Department is to:

1. Undertake an investigation into the traffic movements, and on-street parking demand on Dorking Road beside the subject site and,

2. If warranted, then commence the process to investigate installing 1 Hour parking restriction (8am-6pm Monday to Friday) signs on the east side of Dorking Rd adjacent to the subject site. This process is to include community consultation with surrounding residents.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Whitehorse City Council

Ordinary Council Minutes 15 October 2018

9.4.9 Delegated Decisions August 2018

SUMMARY

The following activity was undertaken by officers under delegated authority during August 2018.

Council Resolution

Moved by Cr Munroe, Seconded by Cr Massoud

That the report of decisions made by officers under Instruments of Delegation for the month of August 2018 be noted.

Carried Unanimously

DELEGATION	FUNCTION	Number for August 2017	Number for August 2018
Planning and Environment Act 1987	Delegated Decisions	133	167
Planning and Environment Act 1987	Strategic Planning Decisions	Nil	Nil
Telecommunications Act 1997		Nil	Nil
Subdivision Act 1988		34	31
Gaming Control Act 1991		Nil	Nil
Building Act 1993	Dispensations & Applications to Building Control Commission	94
Liquor Control Reform Act 1998	Objections and Prosecutions	Nil	Nil
Food Act 1984	Food Act Orders	7	3
Public Health & Wellbeing Act 2008	Improvement / Prohibition Notices	3	Nil
Local Government Act 1989	Temporary Road Closures	4	11
Other Delegations	CEO Signed Contracts between $150,000 - $500,000	1	1
	Property Sales and Leases	7	3
	Documents to which Council seal affixed	5	Nil
	Vendor Payments	1114	1257
	Parking Amendments	7	1
	Parking Infringements written off (not able to be collected)	290	355

DELEGATED DECISIONS MADE ON PLANNING APPLICATIONS AUGUST 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	Application Type
WH/2018/253	07.08.18	Application Lapsed	5-7 Hirst Street Blackburn Vic 3130	Central	The construction of four double storey dwellings, buildings and works within four metres of vegetation.	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2018/422	15.08.18	Application Lapsed	19 Bennett Street Burwood Vic 3125	Riversdale	Construction of three double storey dwellings, buildings and works within 4 metres of vegetation.	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2018/617	15.08.18	Application Lapsed	10 Meerut Street Mitcham Vic 3132	Springfield	Buildings and works for a driveway and front fence within 4 metres of a protected tree in the SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2015/1143/A	06.08.18	Delegate Approval - S72 Amendment	31 Denis Street Mitcham Vic 3132	Springfield	Proposed two - two storey dwellings	Permit Amendment
WH/2015/475/B	23.08.18	Delegate Approval - S72 Amendment	55 Katrina Street Blackburn North Vic 3130	Central	Reduction of standard car parking requirement associated with a cafe	Permit Amendment
WH/2016/1199/A	22.08.18	Delegate Approval - S72 Amendment	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	Permit Amendment
WH/2016/256/A	06.08.18	Delegate Approval - S72 Amendment	1 Winton Street Burwood Vic 3125	Riversdale	Construction of 11 dwellings comprising 8 three storey and 3 double storey dwellings with basement, removal of easements, and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1	Permit Amendment

Appl No.	Date	Decision	Street Address	Ward	Proposed Use or Development	Application Type
WH/2016/553/A	15.08.18	Delegate Approval - S72 Amendment	541 Elgar Road Mont Albert North Vic 3129	Elgar	Construction of two (2) double storey dwellings	Permit Amendment
WH/2016/875/A	06.08.18	Delegate Approval - S72 Amendment	7 Eustace Street Blackburn Vic 3130	Central	Removal of tree and construction of buildings and works associated with the construction of a double carport and verandah	Permit Amendment
WH/2016/887/A	15.08.18	Delegate Approval - S72 Amendment	11 Farleigh Avenue Burwood Vic 3125	Riversdale	Construction of three (3) double-storey dwellings	Permit Amendment
WH/2016/926/A	15.08.18	Delegate Approval - S72 Amendment	14 Roselea Street Box Hill North Vic 3129	Elgar	The construction of six (6) double storey dwellings	Permit Amendment
WH/2017/640/B	27.08.18	Delegate Approval - S72 Amendment	14 Larch Street Blackburn Vic 3130	Central	Construction of a double storey dwelling (within Special Building Overlay)	Permit Amendment
WH/2012/919/A	29.08.18	Delegate NOD Issued	50 Station Street Burwood Vic 3125	Riversdale	Amendment to WH/2012/919 (issued for construction of a three storey building with basement car park, reduction in car parking requirement and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1) to increase floor levels and building height by 0.9 metre, alter entrance ramp, provide stairs to access ground floor terraces and minor layout changes	Permit Amendment
WH/2017/1016	14.08.18	Delegate NOD Issued	27 Parkside Avenue Box Hill Vic 3128	Elgar	Construction of two double storey dwellings	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2017/1035	15.08.18	Delegate NOD Issued	9 St James Avenue Mont Albert Vic 3127	Elgar	Construction of two dwellings on a lot, removal of trees and buildings and works within 4 metres of a tree under the SLO9	Multiple Dwellings

Appl No.	Date	Decision	Street Address	Ward	Proposed Use or Development	Application Type
WH/2017/1052	21.08.18	Delegate NOD Issued	25 Main Street Blackburn Vic 3130	Central	Demolition of a dwelling, buildings and works to construct a single dwelling and tree removal	Neighbourhood Character Overlay
WH/2017/256	17.08.18	Delegate NOD Issued	15 Kintore Crescent Box Hill Vic 3128	Elgar	Buildings and works for construction of five triple storey dwellings, reduction of the visitor car parking space and tree removal	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2017/740	8.08.18	Delegate NOD Issued	762-764 Whitehorse Road Mitcham Vic 3132	Springfield	Construction and use of a 2 storey childcare centre, signage, tree removal and alteration of access to a road in a road zone, category 1	Child Care Centre
WH/2017/960	21.08.18	Delegate NOD Issued	15 Edyvean Street Surrey Hills Vic 3127	Riversdale	The development of two (2) double storey dwellings	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2018/100	22.08.18	Delegate NOD Issued	274-278 Whitehorse Road Nunawading Vic 3131	Springfield	Buildings and works associated with the redevelopment of the existing restricted retail premises, use of the land for a food and drink premises, a reduction in carparking requirements, alterations to access to a road zone category 1, erection and display of business identification signage	Business
WH/2018/15	17.08.18	Delegate NOD Issued	20 Oak Street Surrey Hills Vic 3127	Riversdale	Construction of 2 double storey dwellings including basement level and tree removal	Multiple Dwellings

Appl No.	Date	Decision	Street Address	Ward	Proposed Use or Development	Application Type
WH/2018/322	17.08.18	Delegate NOD Issued	15 Hartigan Street Blackburn Vic 3130	Central	Removal of 10 trees, buildings and works within 4 m of one protected tree (for the purpose of one new double storey dwelling)	Special Landscape Area
WH/2018/373	30.08.18	Delegate NOD Issued	219 Blackburn Road Blackburn South Vic 3130	Central	Removal of five (5) trees on a property covered by the significant landcsape overlay schedule 9	Special Landscape Area
WH/2018/394	31.08.18	Delegate NOD Issued	7 Highview Grove Burwood East Vic 3151	Riversdale	Buildings and works within 4 metres of protected trees and vegetation removal in SLO9	Special Landscape Area
WH/2018/395	15.08.18	Delegate NOD Issued	46 Shepherd Street Surrey Hills Vic 3127	Riversdale	Construction of two double storey residential dwellings and removal of trees.	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2018/413	31.08.18	Delegate NOD Issued	9 Patterson Street Nunawading Vic 3131	Springfield	Removal of Vegetation within a Significant Landscape Overlay - Schedule 2	Special Landscape Area
WH/2018/46	03.08.18	Delegate NOD Issued	141 Eley Road Blackburn South Vic 3130	Riversdale	Buildings and works for construction of two double storey dwellings and tree removal.	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2018/47	27.08.18	Delegate NOD Issued	62-64 Dunlavin Road Nunawading Vic 3131	Springfield	Construction of six, two storey dwellings, removal of trees protected under SLO9	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2016/1173	17.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	78 Middleborough Road Burwood East Vic 3151	Riversdale	Development of a (six storey) apartment building and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2017/1003	22.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	23 Highview Grove Burwood East Vic 3151	Riversdale	The construction of two (2) double storey dwellings, front fence and buildings and works within 4 metres of vegetation.	Multiple Dwellings

Appl No.	Date	Decision	Street Address	Ward	Proposed Use or Development	Application Type
WH/2017/1033	27.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	34 Whitehorse Road Blackburn Vic 3130	Central	Use and development of a child care centre with basement carpark, alteration of road access to a Category 1 Road Zone and tree removal.	Child Care Centre
WH/2017/469	13.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	36 O'shannessy Street Nunawading Vic 3131	Springfield	Amendments to layout of originally advertised plans for construction of two attached double storey dwellings, including alterations to boundary setbacks and driveway location	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2017/791	21.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	16 Clive Street Mitcham Vic 3132	Springfield	The construction of three double storey dwellings	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2017/910	15.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	225 Highbury Road Burwood Vic 3125	Riversdale	Construction of Two (2) Dwellings on a Lot, Alteration of Access to a Road Zone, Category 1 and Removal of Vegetation	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2017/952	13.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	17 Slater Avenue Blackburn North Vic 3130	Central	The construction of two (2) double storey dwellings buildings and works within 4 metres of vegetation and vegetation removal.	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2018/128	20.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	14 Cumming Street Burwood Vic 3125	Riversdale	Construction of Two (2) Double Storey Dwellings and vegetation removal	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2018/151	10.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	4 Boxleigh Grove Box Hill North Vic 3129	Elgar	Development of the land for the construction of two (2) double storey dwellings and associated removal of trees.	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2018/164	16.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	5 Judy Court Vermont Vic 3133	Morack	Construction of three (3) double storey dwellings and removal of trees within SLO9	Multiple Dwellings

Appl No.	Date	Decision	Street Address	Ward	Proposed Use or Development	Application Type
WH/2018/171	28.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	23 High Street Mont Albert Vic 3127	Elgar	Construct and building or carry out works to an existing heritage dwelling, building and works within 4m of vegetation and vegetation removal	Heritage
WH/2018/186	28.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	1000 Whitehorse Road Box Hill Vic 3128	Elgar	Buildings and works to construct a building, use of the site as a place of assembly & alter access to a road zone category 1	Other
WH/2018/198	28.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	1 Judith Street Burwood Vic 3125	Riversdale	Construction of two dwellings and trees removal	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2018/218	06.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	1 South Parade Blackburn Vic 3130	Central	Display an electronic promotion sign	Other
WH/2018/232	31.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	5 Bedford Street Box Hill Vic 3128	Elgar	Construction of three (3) double storey dwellings and removal of trees	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2018/265	20.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	38 Edinburgh Road Blackburn South Vic 3130	Central	Buildings and works, timber entry acess ramp, covered verandah, extension to existing garden shed and resurfacing deck.	Education
WH/2018/312	23.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	49 Denis Street Mitcham Vic 3132	Springfield	Buildings and works (construct a retaining wall) within 4m of protected trees within SLO9	Special Landscape Area
WH/2018/315	09.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	12 Renmark Court Vermont South Vic 3133	Morack	Removal of Vegetation within a Significant Landscape Overlay - Schedule 9	Special Landscape Area
WH/2018/316	20.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	612 Station Street Box Hill Vic 3128	Elgar	Restaurant and cafe licence	Liquor Licence
WH/2018/317	23.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	31 Fowler Street Box Hill South Vic 3128	Riversdale	To construct two dwellings, front fence, remove vegetation and construct a building or construct or carry out works within 4m of trees	Multiple Dwellings

Appl No.	Date	Decision	Street Address	Ward	Proposed Use or Development	Application Type
WH/2018/346	30.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	G01/ 850 Whitehorse Road Box Hill Vic 3128	Elgar	Sale & Consumption of Liquor in association with use of land for the purpose of a Cafe/Restaurant	Liquor Licence
WH/2018/372	30.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	50 Aldinga Street Blackburn South Vic 3130	Central	Removal of five trees on a property covered by the significant landscape overlay	Special Landscape Area
WH/2018/397	02.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	903-905 Canterbury Road Box Hill Vic 3128	Elgar	10 Lot Subdivision (Multi Level Building Development)	Subdivision
WH/2018/405	10.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	23 Dalmor Avenue Mitcham Vic 3132	Springfield	Buildings and works (comprising replacement of a brick and motor driveway with a permeable aggregate driveway and replacement of fencing) within 4m of a protected tree under Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO6).	Special Landscape Area
WH/2018/412	24.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	2 Murray Court Vermont South Vic 3133	Morack	Removal of three trees	Special Landscape Area
WH/2018/436	30.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	3 Charlnet Drive Vermont South Vic 3133	Morack	Subdivision of new apartment building in accordance with approved Development Permit	Subdivision
WH/2018/445	02.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	6 Percy Street Mitcham Vic 3132	Springfield	6 lot subdivision	Subdivision
WH/2018/497	23.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	14 Gordon Street Mont Albert Vic 3127	Elgar	Construct a Building & Carry out Works within a Significant Landscape Overlay - Schedule 9	Special Landscape Area
WH/2018/498	07.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	44 Thornton Crescent Mitcham Vic 3132	Springfield	Buildigns and works (Installation of additional 70 CU.M Cement silo) associated with an existing concrete batch plant	Industrial

Appl No.	Date	Decision	Street Address	Ward	Proposed Use or Development	Application Type
WH/2018/510	30.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	355 Station Street Box Hill South Vic 3128	Riversdale	Removal of 17 protected trees in the Significant Landscape Overlay 9	Special Landscape Area
WH/2018/518	31.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	22 Wavell Street Box Hill Vic 3128	Elgar	Construction of two dwellings and associated vegetation removal	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2018/519	30.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	63 Laburnum Street Blackburn Vic 3130	Central	Development of the land for three (3) new dwellings including associated buildings and works and tree removal.	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2018/528	16.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	19 Selwyn Street Blackburn Vic 3130	Central	Buildings and works within 4 metres of protected trees and vegetation removal	Special Landscape Area
WH/2018/54	21.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	1 Sitar Court Burwood East Vic 3151	Riversdale	Construction of two (2) double storey dwellings and tree removal	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2018/551	30.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	511a Whitehorse Road Mitcham Vic 3132	Springfield	Reduction in Carparking in assocation with use of land as a Medical Centre	Business
WH/2018/558	27.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	125-135 Rooks Road Nunawading Vic 3131	Springfield	30 lot subdivision in 2 stages Stage 1- Lots 17-30, Stage 2- Lots 1-16	Subdivision
WH/2018/559	10.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	19 Rostrevor Parade Mont Albert North Vic 3129	Elgar	Three lot subdivision	Subdivision
WH/2018/560	10.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	14 La Frank Street Burwood Vic 3125	Riversdale	Four lot subdivision	Subdivision
WH/2018/572	30.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	27 Box Hill Crescent Mont Albert North Vic 3129	Elgar	2 lot subdivision	Subdivision

Appl No.	Date	Decision	Street Address	Ward	Proposed Use or Development	Application Type
WH/2018/579	02.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	8 Market Street Nunawading Vic 3131	Springfield	Reduction of required car parking for a medical centre (massage)	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/582	15.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	65 Esdale Street Nunawading Vic 3131	Springfield	Subdivision of Land into Three Lots, in accordance with the approved Development Permit and Plans	Subdivision
WH/2018/594	17.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	25 Beaver Street Box Hill South Vic 3128	Riversdale	Vegetation removal (14 trees)	Special Landscape Area
WH/2018/596	15.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	20 Iris Street Burwood Vic 3125	Riversdale	2 lot subdivision	Subdivision
WH/2018/597	15.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	142 Junction Road Nunawading Vic 3131	Springfield	Two lot subdivision in accordance with approved Dual Occupancy development	Subdivision
WH/2018/618	23.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	1029 Riversdale Road Surrey Hills Vic 3127	Riversdale	2 Lot subdivision	Subdivision
WH/2018/620	21.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	52 Clyde Street Box Hill North Vic 3129	Elgar	3 lot subdivision	Subdivision
WH/2018/628	23.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	34 Purches Street Mitcham Vic 3132	Springfield	To develop the land for the purpose of an ancillary scout hall and associated buildings and works within 4 metres of protected trees and vegetation removal	Other
WH/2018/636	28.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	204 Hawthorn Road Vermont South Vic 3133	Morack	3 Lot subdivision in accoordance with plan of subdivision- PS 824408W	Subdivision
WH/2018/658	15.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	10 Dudley Street Mitcham Vic 3132	Springfield	Removal of Vegetation within a Significant Landscape Overlay - Schedule 9	Special Landscape Area
WH/2018/672	10.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	4 Service Road Blackburn Vic 3130	Central	4 Lot subdivision of development currently under construction	Subdivision
WH/2018/675	29.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	5 Alexander Street Mitcham Vic 3132	Springfield	Three Lot Subdivision	Subdivision
WH/2018/679	30.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	4/30 Burnett Street Mitcham Vic 3132	Springfield	Tree removal within Significant Landscape Overlay - Schedule 9	VicSmart - General Application

Appl No.	Date	Decision	Street Address	Ward	Proposed Use or Development	Application Type
WH/2018/699	15.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	36 Jolimont Road Forest Hill Vic 3131	Morack	Two (2) lot subdivision	VicSmart - Subdivision
WH/2018/703	30.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	12 Ernest Street Blackburn Vic 3130	Central	Two (2) lot subdivision	Subdivision
WH/2018/706	22.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	1 Wilkinson Street Burwood East Vic 3151	Morack	Buildings and works (construct a front fence) within 4m of protected vegetation within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/709	02.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	1 Fawcett Street Mitcham Vic 3132	Springfield	Removal of one tree within Significant Landscape Overlay - Schedule 9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/714	02.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	3 Florence Road Surrey Hills Vic 3127	Riversdale	Removal of one tree in the Signficant Landscape Overlay 9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/716	27.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	75 Valda Avenue Mont Albert North Vic 3129	Elgar	Buildings and works (front fence) within 4m of protected vegetation within SLO9 & VPO2	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/723	27.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	3/14 Beaver Street Box Hill South Vic 3128	Riversdale	Buildings and works (construct a decking extension) in Special Building Overlay	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/724	02.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	20 Winton Street Burwood Vic 3125	Riversdale	Removal of one (1) tree with SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/73	30.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	10 Gladys Street Nunawading Vic 3131	Springfield	Construction of two double storey dwellings on a lot, removal of and buildings and works within 4 metres of trees protected under SLO9	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2018/736	02.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	32 Cadorna Street Box Hill South Vic 3128	Riversdale	Removal of Melaleuca bracteata - Black Tea-tree within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/739	02.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	32 Cadorna Street Box Hill South Vic 3128	Riversdale	Removal of Liquidambar styraciflua - Sweet Gum within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/744	02.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	17/12 Irvine Street Mitcham Vic 3132	Springfield	Removal of one (1) tree within SLO9 & VPO3	VicSmart - General Application

Appl No.	Date	Decision	Street Address	Ward	Proposed Use or Development	Application Type
WH/2018/745	02.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	4 Sharrow Road Mitcham Vic 3132	Springfield	Remove one (1) tree within SLO6	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/746	06.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	25 Walbrook Drive Vermont South Vic 3133	Morack	Removal of one tree within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/748	10.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	22 Trinian Street Vermont Vic 3133	Morack	Removal of Syzygium smithii - Lilly Pilly (Tree 1) within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/751	02.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	15 Mitchell Street Blackburn North Vic 3130	Central	Removal of one (1) tree within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/760	02.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	17 Cromwell Court Blackburn Vic 3130	Springfield	Remove one (1) tree within SLO2	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/761	07.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	11 Glen Valley Road Forest Hill Vic 3131	Springfield	Remove one (1) tree within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/762	08.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	1/3 Wridgway Avenue Burwood Vic 3125	Riversdale	Remove one (1) tree within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/763	10.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	1/1 Arcadia Street Box Hill South Vic 3128	Riversdale	Remove Cupressocyparis leylandii - Leyland Cypress within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/764	10.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	1/1 Arcadia Street Box Hill South Vic 3128	Riversdale	Remove Prunus serrulata - Oriental Cherry within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/765	10.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	1/1 Arcadia Street Box Hill South Vic 3128	Riversdale	Remove Ligustrum lucidum - Broad-leaf Privet within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/766	10.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	1/1 Arcadia Street Box Hill South Vic 3128	Riversdale	Remove Pittosporum undulatum - Sweet Pittosporum within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/767	10.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	1/1 Arcadia Street Box Hill South Vic 3128	Riversdale	Remove Acer negundo - Box Elder within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/768	10.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	1/1 Arcadia Street Box Hill South Vic 3128	Riversdale	Remove Cupressus arizonic - Arizona Cypress within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/769	10.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	1/1 Arcadia Street Box Hill South Vic 3128	Riversdale	Remove Pittosporum undulatum - Sweet Pittosporum within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application

Appl No.	Date	Decision	Street Address	Ward	Proposed Use or Development	Application Type
WH/2018/770	22.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	40 High Street Nunawading Vic 3131	Springfield	Remove one (1) tree within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/776	16.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	5 Maltby Walk Burwood Vic 3125	Riversdale	Remove one (1) tree within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/777	21.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	6 Hannaslea Street Box Hill Vic 3128	Elgar	Buildings and works (external paint) within Heritage Overlay HO101	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/778	21.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	8 Wildwood Avenue Vermont South Vic 3133	Morack	Removal of one (1) tree within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/781	07.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	2 Boulton Road Blackburn Vic 3130	Central	Construct a carport associated with a dwelling within SLO2	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/783	22.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	17-23 Stevens Road Vermont Vic 3133	Morack	Buildings and works (construct a front fence) within 4m of protected vegetation within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/784	24.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	7a Burnett Street Mitcham Vic 3132	Springfield	Buildings and works for the construction of a verandah to an existing dwelling on a lot less than 500 square metres	Single Dwelling < 300m2
WH/2018/785	15.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	1 Somerset Court Blackburn South Vic 3130	Riversdale	Removal of one (1) tree within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/786	15.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	1 Somerset Court Blackburn South Vic 3130	Riversdale	Removal of one (1) tree within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/787	10.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	22 Trinian Street Vermont Vic 3133	Morack	Remove Sysygium smithii - Lilly Pilly (Tree 2) within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/788	22.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	47 Combarton Street Box Hill Vic 3128	Elgar	Buildings and works (front fence) within Heritage Overlay	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/799	15.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	23 Cromwell Street Burwood Vic 3125	Riversdale	Two Lot Subdivision	VicSmart - Subdivision
WH/2018/800	17.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	83 Percy Street Mitcham Vic 3132	Springfield	Two Lot Subdivision	VicSmart - Subdivision

Appl No.	Date	Decision	Street Address	Ward	Proposed Use or Development	Application Type
WH/2018/816	21.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	27 Vogue Avenue Vermont South Vic 3133	Morack	Two lot subdivision	VicSmart - Subdivision
WH/2018/817	22.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	352 Station Street Box Hill South Vic 3128	Riversdale	Buildings and works (construction of an outbuilding) within 4m of protected vegetation within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/819	17.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	3 Duckham Street Blackburn Vic 3130	Central	Removal of one (1) tree within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/820	28.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	15 Victor Crescent Forest Hill Vic 3131	Morack	3 lot subdivision	Subdivision
WH/2018/822	22.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	4 Arna Street Blackburn Vic 3130	Central	Removal of one (1) tree within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/828	17.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	1 Unley Court Vermont Vic 3133	Morack	Buildings and works (construct an extension to existing dwelling) within 4m of protected vegetation within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/831	17.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	3/2 John Street Blackburn Vic 3130	Central	Remove one (1) tree within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/833	21.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	38 Kenmare Street Mont Albert Vic 3127	Elgar	Two lot subdivision	VicSmart - Subdivision
WH/2018/838	17.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	56 Broughton Road Surrey Hills Vic 3127	Riversdale	Buildings and works (construct a new front fence) within 4m of protected vegetation within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/844	21.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	18 O'shannessy Street Nunawading Vic 3131	Springfield	2 lot subdivision	VicSmart - Subdivision
WH/2018/845	21.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	5/15 Badenoch Street Blackburn Vic 3130	Central	Removal of one (1) tree within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application

Appl No.	Date	Decision	Street Address	Ward	Proposed Use or Development	Application Type
WH/2018/846	21.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	55 Witchwood Crescent Burwood East Vic 3151	Riversdale	2 lot subdivision in accordance with plan of subdivision - ps821957c	VicSmart - Subdivision
WH/2018/847	22.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	30 O'shannessy Street Nunawading Vic 3131	Springfield	Removal of one (1) tree within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/848	21.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	22 East India Avenue Nunawading Vic 3131	Springfield	Removal of one (1) tree within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/850	22.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	13 Churinga Avenue Mitcham Vic 3132	Springfield	Buildings and works (construct a carport) within SLO9 & VPO1	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/853	28.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	20/634-644 Mitcham Road Vermont Vic 3133	Springfield	Buildings and works (internal alterations) within Industrial 3 Zone	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/857	27.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	83 Wattle Valley Road Mitcham Vic 3132	Springfield	Removal of one (1) tree within SLO6	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/858	28.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	8 Kent Close Blackburn North Vic 3130	Central	Buildings and works (construction of garage) within 4m of protected vegetation with SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/861	22.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	51 Rosalind Crescent Blackburn Vic 3130	Central	Removal of one (1) tree within SLO2	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/862	27.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	8 Inverness Avenue Burwood Vic 3125	Riversdale	Removal of one (1) tree within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/863	22.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	1/6 Springfield Road Blackburn Vic 3130	Central	Removal of one (1) tree within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/864	27.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	43 Court Street Box Hill Vic 3128	Elgar	Removal of one (1) tree within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/872	30.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	9 Badenoch Street Blackburn Vic 3130	Central	Removal of one (1) tree within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application

Appl No.	Date	Decision	Street Address	Ward	Proposed Use or Development	Application Type
WH/2018/873	30.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	77 Parer Street Burwood Vic 3125	Riversdale	Removal of one (1) tree within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/875	30.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	6 Albert Street Mitcham Vic 3132	Springfield	Removal of one (1) tree within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/877	31.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	12a Wolseley Crescent Blackburn Vic 3130	Central	Sweet pittosporum tree too close to driveway, fence and house	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/878	30.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	1/151 Springfield Road Blackburn North Vic 3130	Central	Removal of one (1) tree within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/879	30.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	6 Menzies Street Box Hill Vic 3128	Elgar	Removal of vegetation	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/881	30.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	51 Wattle Valley Road Mitcham Vic 3132	Springfield	Buildings and Works (front fence) within 4m of protected vegetation within SLO6	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/887	30.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	16 Collina Street Mitcham Vic 3132	Springfield	Removal of one tree	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/897	31.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	68 Harrison Street Box Hill North Vic 3129	Elgar	Removal of one (1) tree within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/900	30.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	35 Victoria Crescent Mont Albert Vic 3127	Elgar	Buildings and Works (front fence) within 4 metres of protected vegetation within the Significant Landscape Overlay - Schedule 9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/901	29.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	7 Morley Crescent Box Hill North Vic 3129	Elgar	2 lot subdivision in accordance with existing planning permit	VicSmart - Subdivision
WH/2018/905	31.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	103 Kenmare Street Mont Albert North Vic 3129	Elgar	Removal of one (1) tree within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/92	30.08.18	Delegate Permit Issued	28 Hillside Crescent Blackburn Vic 3130	Central	Development of a two storey dwelling and tree removal	Single Dwelling < 300m2

Appl No.	Date	Decision	Street Address	Ward	Proposed Use or Development	Application Type
WH/2017/863	08.08.18	Delegate Refusal Issued	3 Talbot Street Mitcham Vic 3132	Springfield	The construction of four (4) double storey dwellings	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2017/890	08.08.18	Delegate Refusal Issued	14 Efron Street Nunawading Vic 3131	Springfield	Development of Seven (7) Double Storey Dwellings on a Lot, Buildings and Works within Four (4) Metres of Protected Tree's under the Significant Landscape Overlay - Schedule 9 and Buildings and Works within a Special Building Overlay	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2018/258	10.08.18	Delegate Refusal Issued	129-133 Burwood Highway Burwood Vic 3125	Riversdale	Construction of a part five storey and part six storey apartment building plus basement car park, and alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2018/49	27.08.18	Delegate Refusal Issued	31 Cumming Street Burwood Vic 3125	Riversdale	Construction of six, two storey dwellings, removal of trees and buildings and works within 4 metres of trees protected under SLO9	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2018/64	24.08.18	Delegate Refusal Issued	551 Middleborough Road Box Hill North Vic 3129	Elgar	Construction of two, two storey dwellings, buildings and works within 4 metres of a tree and the removal of trees within SLO9	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2018/738	02.08.18	Delegate Refusal Issued	32 Cadorna Street Box Hill South Vic 3128	Riversdale	Removal of Corymbia ficifolia - Flowering Gum within SLO9	VicSmart - General Application
WH/2018/671	02.08.18	No Permit Required	Mm 3/1 Main Street Box Hill Vic 3128	Elgar	Liquor license on premises	Liquor Licence

Appl No.	Date	Decision	Street Address	Ward	Proposed Use or Development	Application Type
WH/2014/763/E	29.08.18	Withdrawn	850 Whitehorse Road Box Hill Vic 3128	Elgar	Buildings and works to construct a building comprising two towers of 36 storeys and 26 storeys plus rooftop plant and four levels of basement car parking (including a residential hotel, dwellings and commercial uses), use of land for accommodation and a restricted recreation facility (gym), and associated reduction of car parking requirements	Permit Amendment
WH/2015/1126/A	24.08.18	Withdrawn	25 Holland Road Blackburn South Vic 3130	Central	Lodged as amendment, needed to be a new planning application - Use and development of land for a child care centre and display of business identification signage	Permit Amendment
WH/2017/1002	28.08.18	Withdrawn	5 Birkby Street Box Hill North Vic 3129	Elgar	Construction of two double storey dwellings, buildings and works within 4 metres of protected vegetation and associated vegetation removal	Multiple Dwellings
WH/2017/604	27.08.18	Withdrawn	429 Springvale Road Forest Hill Vic 3131	Morack	The construction and use of two display homes and associate car park	Residential (Other)
WH/2018/202/A	24.08.18	Withdrawn	17 Harris Street Blackburn North Vic 3130	Central	Removal of a tree (Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum) protected under SLO9	Permit Amendment
WH/2018/718	24.08.18	Withdrawn	409 Mont Albert Road Mont Albert Vic 3127	Elgar	Removal of trees within an interim significant landscape overlay	Special Landscape Area

BUILDING DISPENSATIONS/APPLICATIONS AUGUST 2018

Address	Date	Ward	Result
14 Larch Street, Blackburn	20.08.18	Central	Consent Granted 79
2 Stewart Avenue, Blackburn South	23.08.18	Central	Consent Granted 83
20 Cootamundra Crescent, Blackburn	03.08.18	Central	Consent Granted 74
21 Hartigan Street, Blackburn	17.08.18	Central	Consent Granted 92
22 Elder Street, Blackburn	24.08.18	Central	Consent Granted 74
22-24 Blackburn Road, Blackburn	14.08.18	Central	Consent Granted 116
30 Charlotte Street, Blackburn South	14.08.18	Central	Consent Granted 82
30 Charlotte Street, Blackburn South	14.08.18	Central	Consent Granted 79
34 Bond Avenue, Blackburn South	15.08.18	Central	Consent Granted 89
9 Goodwin Street, Blackburn	13.08.18	Central	Consent Granted 80
19 Norway Avenue, Blackburn	31.08.18	Central	Consent Refused 74
22 Elder Street, Blackburn	24.08.18	Central	Consent Refused 79
30 Charlotte Street, Blackburn South	14.08.18	Central	Consent Refused 80, 81, R84, 74
7 Jessie Street, Blackburn North	10.08.18	Central	Consent Refused 74
12 Blenheim Avenue, Mont Albert	23.08.18	Elgar	Consent Granted 89
14 Gordon Street, Mont Albert	28.08.18	Elgar	Consent Granted 74,76,80
22 Rutland Road, Box Hill	16.08.18	Elgar	Consent Granted 116
27 Pendle Street, Box Hill	13.08.18	Elgar	Consent Granted 80, 74
3 Gilbert Street, Mont Albert	22.08.18	Elgar	Consent Granted 79
35 Victoria Crescent, Mont Albert	22.08.18	Elgar	Consent Granted 89
38 Second Avenue, Box Hill North	10.08.18	Elgar	Consent Granted 92, 89
503 Belmore Road, Mont Albert North	10.08.18	Elgar	Consent Granted 79, 85
51 Mckean Street, Box Hill North	31.08.18	Elgar	Consent Granted 74
66 Boondara Road, Mont Albert North	06.08.18	Elgar	Consent Granted 79, 75, 80
7 Chessell Street, Mont Albert North	28.08.18	Elgar	Consent Granted 92
88 Watts Street, Box Hill North	23.08.18	Elgar	Consent Granted 82
997-1003 Whitehorse Road, Box Hill	02.08.18	Elgar	Consent Granted 116
13 Cunningham Street, Box Hill	03.08.18	Elgar	Consent Refused 89
24 Peter Street, Box Hill North	01.08.18	Elgar	Consent Refused 89
503 Belmore Road, Mont Albert North	10.08.18	Elgar	Consent Refused 80, 74
7 Chessell Street, Mont Albert North	29.08.18	Elgar	Consent Refused 89
8 Hotham Court, Mont Albert	24.08.18	Elgar	Consent Refused 89
1 Unley Court, Vermont	27.08.18	Morack	Consent Granted 79, 76
10 Great Western Drive, Vermont South	22.08.18	Morack	Consent Granted 74, 75
16 Hutchinson Street, Burwood East	23.08.18	Morack	Consent Granted 85
3 Chippendale Terrace, Burwood East	22.08.18	Morack	Consent Granted 74, 76
79 Husband Road, Forest Hill	09.08.18	Morack	Consent Granted 74
36 Aubrey Street, Vermont	23.08.18	Morack	Consent Refused 74, 79
1/2 Rawlings Street, Surrey Hills	27.08.18	Riversdale	Consent Granted 79
10 Trent Court, Burwood East	30.08.18	Riversdale	Consent Granted 74
16 Hastings Avenue, Blackburn South	16.08.18	Riversdale	Consent Granted 76
167 Highbury Road, Burwood	20.08.18	Riversdale	Consent Granted 86, 74
8 Crockerton Court, Blackburn South	16.08.18	Riversdale	Consent Granted 79

Address	Date	Ward	Result
13 Mirabella Crescent, Box Hill South	24.08.18	Riversdale	Consent Refused 74
14 Oakham Avenue, Burwood East	14.08.18	Riversdale	Consent Refused 74
16 Hastings Avenue, Blackburn South	16.08.18	Riversdale	Consent Refused 74
18 Byron Street, Box Hill South	07.08.18	Riversdale	Withdrawn 74
1 Fawcett Street, Mitcham	01.08.18	Springfield	Consent Granted 79
1/36 Luckie Street, Nunawading	28.08.18	Springfield	Consent Granted 74, 76
11 Owen Street, Mitcham	20.08.18	Springfield	Consent Granted 80
29 Owen Street, Mitcham	01.08.18	Springfield	Consent Granted 76, 80, 79
6 Abelia Street, Forest Hill	16.08.18	Springfield	Consent Granted 79
6 Browns Road, Nunawading	27.08.18	Springfield	Consent Granted 89
62 Cochrane Street, Mitcham	30.08.18	Springfield	Consent Granted 79
68a Shady Grove, Forest Hill	03.08.18	Springfield	Consent Granted 74
80 Glenburnie Road, Vermont	31.08.18	Springfield	Consent Granted 74
29 Owen Street, Mitcham	01.08.18	Springfield	Consent Refused 74
311 Springfield Road, Nunawading	09.08.18	Springfield	Consent Refused 74
32 Reserve Avenue, Mitcham	09.08.18	Springfield	Consent Refused 79

DELEGATED DECISIONS MADE ON STRATEGIC PLANNING MATTERS AUGUST 2018

Under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 – Nil

REGISTER OF CONTRACTS SIGNED BY CEO DELEGATION AUGUST 2018

Contract Number	Service
Contract 30108	Utilities Management – Embedded Utilities Officer - Carbonetix Pty Ltd

REGISTER OF PROPERTY DOCUMENTS EXECUTED AUGUST 2018

Property Address	Document Type	Document Detail
Leases
31B Surrey Drive, Box Hill	Lease	Office, reception and storage associated with swimming school
Licences
Part 31 Surrey Drive, Box Hill	Licence	Licence - Swim School Operations at Aqualink Box Hill
Fire Services Property Levy (FSPL)
Fire Services Property Levy - Compliance Certification	2017/18 Statement of Compliance	Certification to the State Revenue Office that Council has complied with the Fire Services Property Levy Act 2012

REGISTER OF DOCUMENTS AFFIXED WITH THE COUNCIL SEAL AUGUST 2018

Nil

PARKING RESTRICTIONS APPROVED BY DELEGATION AUGUST 2018

Address: Antonio Park Off-street Car Park: from 32m north of Whitehorse Road to 44m north of Whitehorse Road – south side

Previously: 5 ‘Unrestricted’ parking spaces

Now: 5 ‘2-Hour, 9am to 5pm, Monday to Friday’ parking spaces

VENDOR PAYMENT SUMMARY – SUMS PAID DURING AUGUST 2018

Date	Total Issued	Payments (direct debit, cheques or electronic funds transfer)	Transaction Type EFT/CHQ/DD
02/08/2018	$34,571.75	1	EFC
02/08/2018	$10,192.35	33	EFC
02/08/2018	$55,076.74	44	CHQ
02/08/2018	$272,653.98	42	EFT
02/08/2018	$10,870.45	35	EFC
06/08/2018	$5,775.00	2	EFT
09/08/2018	$12,835.67	14	EFC
09/08/2018	$32,889.16	25	CHQ
09/08/2018	$86,535.57	2	EFT
09/08/2018	$941,684.18	271	EFT
15/08/2018	$546,446.92	1	EFT
15/08/2018	$20,048.45	1	EFT
16/08/2018	$11,916.15	20	EFC
16/08/2018	$39,630.59	45	CHQ
16/08/2018	$522,304.14	61	EFT
16/08/2018	$4,340.00	1	EFT
20/08/2018	$794,871.89	1	EFT
23/08/2018	$574.81	5	EFC
23/08/2018	$81,253.88	62	CHQ
23/08/2018	$440,184.67	68	EFT
30/08/2018	$16,976.30	13	EFC
30/08/2018	$59,086.90	60	CHQ
30/08/2018	$3,610,303.80	446	EFT

GROSS	$7,632,665.21	1257

Monthly Lease Payments	$36,099.28
Direct Debit Payments	$229,169.16

CANCELLED PAYMENTS	-$15,483.05	-48
NETT	$7,882,450.60	1209

Attendance

Cr Barker returned to the Chamber at 9.13pm.

[1] Data sourced through VicRoads Road Crash Information System (RCIS)

² Data sourced through id Community Demographic Resources website, forecast.id.com.au/whitehorse/home

	Deaths
Pedestrian	10
Motorcyclist	4
Driver	2
Bicyclist	1
Passenger	0
All Road Users	17

	Budget $ (Incl. GST)	Tendered $ (Incl. GST)
Supply, removal and installation	850,000	595,000
Disposal of old machines	0	8,500
New signage	0	16,500
Maintenance – 5 years	250,000	300,000
Licensing & Communications – 5 years	110,000	330,000
Total	1,210,000	1,250,000

	Budget $	Expenditure $
Capital Works Funding Account No.( 2017-390)	850,000
Recurrent maintenance Schedule (five years)	250,000
Recurrent communications/licensing Schedule (five years)	110,000
Total Budget	1,210,000
Preferred tenderer’s lump sum offer (including GST)		595,000
Disposal and New Signage		25,000
Preferred tenderer’s 5 year maintenance program		300,000
Preferred tenderer’s communications/licensing Schedule (five years)		330,000
Less GST		-125,000
Total Expenditure Over 5 years)		1,125,000

	Billabong	Frank Sedgman	Elgar	Eram	Tyrol
DAMPAC Support	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Community For	20	0	5	2	15
Community Opposed	18	0	0	0	23
Totals	38	0	5	2	38
Recommendation	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No

	Budget 2019/20

Total Budget	$15,000

Total Expenditure	$15,000

SUMMARY

background

DISCUSSION

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Attachment

5.1 Mr Kevin Earl asked one question in relation to reported hazards and Council’s liability.
	The Acting Chief Executive Officer, Mr Jeff Green responded to the question on behalf of Council, informing Mr Earl that a written response would be provided once more detail was provided by Mr Earl.

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

	2015/16	2016/17	2017/18	2018/19	2019/20	2020/21
Operational	227,647	227,647	227,647	311,685	311,685	311,685

Meeting Date	Matter/s Discussed	Councillors Present		Officers Present		Disclosures of Conflict of Interest	Councillor /Officer attendance following disclosure
17.09.18 5:30-6:00pm	North East Link Project	Cr Davenport (Mayor & Chair) Cr Barker Cr Bennett Cr Carr Cr Cutts Cr Liu Cr Massoud Cr Munroe		N Duff J Green N Brown T Wilkinson P Smith A De Fazio S Freud L McGuinness		Nil	Nil
17.09.18 6:30-7:00pm	Councillor Informal Briefing Session · Notice of Rescission No 113 – Cr Massoud	Cr Davenport (Mayor & Chair) Cr Barker Cr Bennett Cr Carr Cr Cutts Cr Liu Cr Massoud Cr Munroe Cr Stennett		N Duff J Green N Brown T Wilkinson P Smith A De Fazio S Freud J Russell R Johnson S Cann		Nil	Nil
24.09.18 6:30-8:30pm	Councillor Workshop Council Land	Cr Davenport (Mayor & Chair) Cr Barker Cr Bennett Cr Carr Cr Cutts Cr Liu Cr Massoud Cr Stennett		N Duff J Green N Brown T Wilkinson P Smith T Peak L Hall P Warner		Nil	Nil
01.10.18 7:00–10:10pm	Strategic Planning Session · Major Project Councillor Reference Group · Insurance Overview · Capital Works Update · Financial report as at 31 August 2018 · Privately Constructed Community Buildings on Council Land	Cr Massoud (Chair) Cr Barker Cr Bennett Cr Carr Cr Cutts Cr Ellis Cr Munroe Cr Stennett		N Duff J Green N Brown P Smith J Russell S Belmore A Merzvinskis M Ackland P Bennett D Kerwin M Federico S Cann S Hewett P Warner G Loftus		Nil	Nil
08.10.18 3:00-4:30pm	Box Hill First Meeting	Cr Davenport (Mayor & Chair) Cr Barker Cr Bennett Cr Carr Cr Massoud Cr Liu		(ACEO) J Green (AGMCD) K Marriott N Brown P Smith W Gerhard D Shambrook J Capomolla D Vincent Smith		Nil	Nil
Meeting Date	Matter/s Discussed		Councillors Present		Officers Present	Disclosures of Conflict of Interest	Councillor /Officer attendance following disclosure
08.10.18 5:30-6:30pm	Whitehorse Tree Controls		Cr Davenport (Mayor & Chair) Cr Barker Cr Bennett Cr Carr Cr Cutts (arrived at 5.40pm) Cr Ellis Cr Liu Cr Massoud Cr Munroe		(ACEO)J Green (AGMCD) K Marriott N Brown A Egan V Mclean J Hansen	Nil	Nil
08.10.18 7:00 – 7:55pm	Councillor Briefing Session		Cr Davenport (Mayor & Chair) Cr Barker Cr Bennett Cr Carr Cr Cutts Cr Ellis Cr Liu Cr Massoud Cr Munroe Cr Stennett		J Green (AGMCD) K Marriott N Brown P Smith J Russell R Anania L McGuiness C Hui N Rogers T Peak S Morison D Schoner M Wilson	Nil	NIl