Minutes of Council Meeting - Monday, 28 November 2022

“Whitehorse City Council acknowledges the Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung people of the Kulin Nation as the traditional owners of the land we are meeting on and we pay our respects to their Elders past, present and emerging and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders from communities who may be present today.”

2 Welcome

The Mayor welcomed all

3 Apologies

Nil

4 Disclosure of Conflict of Interests

None disclosed

5 Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meetings

Minutes of the Council Meeting 14 November 2022

Council Resolution

Moved by Cr Skilbeck, Seconded by Cr Cutts

That the minutes of the Council Meeting 14 November 2022 having been circulated now be confirmed.

Carried Unanimously

6 Public Presentations

6.1	C Adams, Burwood East speaking in support of Council Retirement Villages in Whitehorse.

6.2	R Gillespie, Mitcham speaking in opposition to 50 Glenburnie Road, Mitcham

6.3	R Hood, Vermont speaking in opposition to 50 Glenburnie Road, Mitcham

6.4	Mr Collens, Vermont speaking in opposition to 50 Glenburnie Road, Mitcham

6.5	M Constantine from M-Co. Town Planning speaking in support to 50 Glenburnie Road, Mitcham

7 Petitions and Joint Letter s

Cr Munroe advised that he had received a petition from the Whitehorse Active Transport Action Group (WATAG) regarding safe crossing points in Blackburn Road at Heath Street and The Avenue. 734 people have signed this petition.

In accordance with Council’s Governance Rules, the petition does not meet the criteria of a valid petition as the petition is an electronic petition without signatories or addressed and the matter beyond the powers of the Council as the streets highlighted are not the responsibility of Whitehorse City Council.

The matter was not resolved upon however Council officers have committed to write to the Department of Transport (DoT) about this matter and forward to the DoT a copy of the petition for its consideration and response.

WATAG as the petition signatory will be advised of this action.

8 Public Question Time

8.1

D Mason, Mitcham

Question 1

Recently I had to have my house foundations renewed due to subsidence caused by waterlogged soil. I believe that most of the water has come from Heatherdale Reserve as the land falls towards my property.

It is my understanding that landowners should prevent unreasonable water flow onto neighbouring properties and that if this causes loss or damage I can apply to VCAT seeking an order to stop this or seek compensation.

Given Council is the land manager for Heatherdale Reserve I would like to know what the Council will be doing to protect my property in the future.

Response

In some locations, ground water is present. Council is responsible for reasonably managing surface stormwater flows. There is an open channel drain along the property line of Heatherdale reserve with the Churinga Avenue properties that provides protection of adjoining properties from stormwater that flows overland. There are a number of trees and other vegetation in the reserve that will assist with water absorption.

The issues being experienced by some of the Churinga Avenue properties adjoining the boundary of Heatherdale Reserve look to be the result of groundwater or other seepage. The significant rainfall over recent months is likely to have increased the amount of water in the ground. There are many properties within the municipality that have groundwater close to the surface. While recognised as a challenge, it is up to the property owner to ensure that any building that is constructed is designed for the ground conditions.

8.2	K Montgomery, Forest Hill
Question 1	Though I asked this question at a recent meeting the answer was inappropriate to the question. Please answer the question correctly. Why have Whitehorse council taken up a lobbying position for the overdevelopment of Davy Lane Reserve, evident in an email from the Vermont South Cricket Club, in contravention of the impartiality and receptiveness to honest community feedback expected from council?
Response	Question taken on notice with a written response to be provided to Ms Montgomery.
Question 2	Again a recent question asked by me was not answered appropriately. Please answer the question asked. Precisely how many games and training sessions for women's and girls' cricket and football were cancelled in the last three years due to the unavailability of Davy Lane reserve?
Response	Question taken on notice with a written response to be provided to Ms Montgomery.

8.3

P Carter, Box Hill North

Question 1

Council have advised that ‘a thorough evaluation and review of the ERR Program is completed before any further ERR Routes are designed and implemented’

In the interests of Council and the community having a comprehensive understanding, would officers please advise the detailed scope (ie instructions to Consultants or Council officers as to what aspects should be considered) of the ‘thorough evaluation and review of the ERR’, including the estimated costs to undertake the review.

Response

Council officers’ priority is to deliver the current ERR project by June 2023. The consultant evaluation brief will be prepared during the first half of the 2023 calendar year.

9 Notices of Motion

Nil

10 Urgent Business

Nil

11 Council Reports

11.1 1 Lagoona Court, BLACKBURN (LOT 3 LP 114506)– Tree removal within the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 2

City Planning and Development

Director City Development

FILE NUMBER: WH/2022/15
ATTACHMENT

SUMMARY

This application proposes the removal of two (2) indigenous trees located within the rear setback of the site under the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 2 (SLO2). The subject trees have been identified as Eucalyptus ovata – Swamp Gum species. The trees are located on the rear (western) site boundary. Both trees were assessed as being in poor health and structure and having come towards the end of their useful life expectancy (ULE).

The assessment by Council’s Consulting Arborist indicates that both trees have experienced a number of failures and have subsequently formed cavities in several locations within both trees. Remedial works, including pruning have been undertaken over a long period of time to reduce the likelihood of tree failure however branches on the trees continue to fail. Due to the poor structure of both trees and history of branch failure, remedial works are not considered to be possible and so removal of the subject trees is recommended.

The application was advertised, with a total of 25 objections received from surrounding properties. The objections raised issues with the proposed removal of vegetation. A Consultation Forum was held online on 10 August 2022 chaired by Councillor Massoud, at which the issues were explored, however no resolution was reached between the parties.

This report assesses the application against the relevant provisions of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, as well as taking into consideration objector concerns and Council’s consulting arborist’s assessment. The proposal is recommended for support as the structure of the trees is poor, and they cannot be remediated. Removal will allow for the replacement planting of two canopy trees with a mature height of at least fifteen metres to offset the loss of the subject trees and to contribute to the long-term landscape character of the site and surrounds.

Council Resolution

Moved by Cr Massoud, Seconded by Cr Skilbeck

That Council:

A. Being the Responsible Authority, having caused Application WH/2022/15 for 1 Lagoona Court, BLACKBURN (LOT 3 LP 114506) to be advertised and having received and noted the objections is of the opinion that the granting of a Planning Permit for “Tree Removal within the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 2” 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 1 Lagoona Court, BLACKBURN (LOT 3 LP 114506) for the Tree removal within the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 2, subject to the following conditions:

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

a) The removal of Trees 3 and 4 (Eucalyptus ovata – Swamp Gum).

b) The planting of two (2) canopy trees on the existing site plan. Both trees must be located within the rear private open space of the dwelling.

c) The replacement trees shown for planting are to be selected from the tree species list below:

· Yellow Box (Eucalyptus melliodora)

· Yellow Gum (Eucalyptus leucoxylon)

· Wallangara White Gum (Eucalyptus scoparia)

· Peppermint Gum (Eucalytpus radiata)

· Red Flowering Ironbark (Eucalytpus siederoxylon rosea)

d) All new trees must be planted at a minimum height of 1.5 metres.

All of the above must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Once approved these plans become the endorsed plans of this permit.

2. Only Trees 3 and 4 (Eucalyptus ovata – Swamp Gum) may be removed under this permit.

All existing trees to be retained and trees required by this permit to be planted are be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

3. Prior to removal of any trees or vegetation on site, a report from a suitably qualified expert (in Zoology or similar) must be submitted to the Responsible Authority that assesses the trees for nesting hollows and areas of habitat, and provides recommendations for how to manage such nesting hollows/habitat and birds/mammals that are nesting or living in the trees. These recommendations could include methods to ensure birds/mammals are safely relocated, as well as timing for when trees should be removed to be post nesting season. This report once endorsed forms part of the permit.

4. The replacement planting must be of good quality, correctly maintained and planted within loose native soil mix and in a location that supports its long-term retention and growth

5. The ongoing maintenance of the replacement tree must be undertaken to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. If the planted tree dies or is removed, it must be replaced within two months and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

6. The applicant/property owner is required to contact Council’s Statutory Planning Enforcement team in writing after the completion of both tree removal and replacement planting to arrange for an inspection.

7. This permit will expire if the tree removal is not completed within twelve (12) months from the date of issue of this permit.

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

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

MELWAYS REFERENCE 62 B1

Applicant: Ms N C Gualtiera

Zoning: Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 1

Overlays: Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 2

Relevant Clauses:

Clause 11 Settlement

Clause 12 Environment and Landscape Values

Clause 15 Built Environment and Heritage

Clause 21.05 Environment

Clause 22.04 Tree Conservation

Clause 32.09 Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 1

Clause 42.03 Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 2

Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

Ward: Lake

Aerial image of the subject site

BACKGROUND

History

The permits on file for the subject site are as follows:

WH/2012/728 – Removal of one (1) tree. This application lapsed 24 December 2012No information is available in the application file regarding the tree proposed to be removed as part of this application.

Authority to remove the following trees without the requirement for a planning permit was issued by Council’s Planning Enforcement Team on

17 January 2022:

· Pyrus usseriensis (Manchurian Pear) – Indicated as Tree 1 in the arborist report submitted by the applicant.

· Eucalyptus sp. (Eucalyptus) – Indicated as Tree 2 in the arborist report submitted by the applicant.

The removal of the above trees was authorised due to the vegetation presenting an immediate risk of personal injury or damage to property, and therefore exempt from the provisions of Clause 42.03-2 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme.

The Site and Surrounds

The subject site is located on the western side of 1 Lagoona Court in Blackburn, approximately 35m north of the intersection to Canterbury Road. The site is located within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 1 (NRZ1) and within the ‘Bush Environment’ Character Area. The site is impacted by the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 2.

Lagoona Court is lined with a significant canopy tree coverage with a number of large trees located on the eastern and western side of Lagoona Court. This fits with the Bush Environment Character of the site and surrounds. The area surrounding the site is an established residential area, comprising a mix of single and double storey dwellings.

The site has a frontage of approximately 28.5m to Lagoona Court, depth of approximately 27.5m on the northern boundary and 23m on the southern boundary. The site has a total area of 680sqm. The site is impacted by a 2.44m wide sewage and drainage easement located on the western and southern boundary of the site. The site is occupied by a double storey dwelling. The site is moderately vegetated and contains a number of canopy trees of varying heights and a mixture of native and exotic origin, two (2) of these trees identified under this application as proposed for removal.

Planning Controls

Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 2 (SLO2)

In accordance with Clause 42.03 of the Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 2, a planning permit is required to destroy, remove or lop a tree.

This does not apply to:

· A tree having a single trunk circumference of 0.5 metre or less at a height of one metre above ground level.

· The pruning of a tree for regeneration or ornamental shaping.

· A tree which is dead or dying to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

PROPOSAL

It is proposed to remove two (2) indigenous trees located in the rear setback of the site along the eastern boundary of the site. The two trees proposed for removal are Eucalyptus ovata – Swamp Gum.

Details of the trees proposed for removal protected under the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 2 are outlined in the table below:

Tree No.

Species

Common Name

Height

Truck circumference (DBH)

Health / structure

Useful life expectancy

Eucalyptus ovata

Swamp Gum

10-15m

43cm

Poor health and structure

5-10 years

Eucalyptus ovata

Swamp Gum

5-10m

41cm

Poor health, fair structure

5-10 years

It has come to light during the writing of this report that the above information (contained in Attachment 3) was not included in the advertising documentation. This was an administrative oversight by the responsible officer.

CONSULTATION

Public Notice

The application was advertised by mail to the adjacent and nearby property owners and occupiers and by erecting notices to the Lagoona Court frontage. Following the advertising period 25 objections (25 objector properties) were received.

The issues raised are summarised as follows:

· Contravenes the provisions of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, specifically the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 2 and Local Planning Policy Framework.

· Neighbourhood character concerns within the Bush Environment Precinct

· Limited information provided in the applicant’s arborist report regarding trees proposed for removal and replacement planting species

· Past pruning/lopping of trees located on the subject site.

· Loss of native habitat and existing canopy tree coverage as result of the removal.

Consultation Forum

A Consultation Forum was held online via Zoom on 10 August 2022. Approximately 15 objectors, the applicant and Council Officers attended the meeting. The meeting was chaired by the Ward Councillor – Councillor Massoud.

Key points discussed during the forum related to the removal of vegetation, sufficiency of replacement planting and the limited information provide in the applicant’s arborist report.

The following action items from the forum were raised:

· The permit for the proposed removal will be conditioned to ensure the landscaping requirements of the Bush Environment and Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 2 are maintained.

· Council to discuss with consulting arborist to determine whether alternative measures to the removal of the subject trees are viable.

· Council’s Planning Officers to work with applicant, Council’s Arborist and Council’s Tree Education Officer to determine suitable tree replanting

Referrals

External

No external referral authorities were required as part of the application.

Internal

The application was referred to and reviewed by Council’s consulting arborist, who was supportive of the application. A summary of the assessment comments are below:

Both trees are Eucalyptus ovata - Swamp Gum. I have assessed them as being poor in health and structure and as having come to the end of their useful life expectancy (ULE). Both trees have suffered a considerable amount of branch failures, with one large branch recently failing into the backyard of the neighbour’s property

Due to the number of failures, cavities have formed in several locations within both trees. This has reduced the structural integrity of the trees making further failures highly likely. The property owners have pruned the trees overtime to reduce the likelihood of failure, however branches continue to fail.

Due to the overall poor structural condition of the trees and that they have a history of branch failures, and that more failures are likely, these trees are no longer worthy of retention.

DISCUSSION

The key considerations in this application include the extent of the tree removal proposed, proposed replacement planting and whether it is an acceptable outcome in the context of the planning scheme provisions.

The primary control, being the Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 2 (SLO2) requires protection of landscape character attributed to the quality of the environment, which includes vegetation notable for its height, density, maturity and high proportion of Australian native trees.

The landscape character objectives to be achieved under this Overlay are to retain the dominance of vegetation cover, retention and regeneration of native vegetation and wildlife habitat, and to ensure a reasonable proportion of the lot is free for tall trees in a natural garden setting.

In this context, the following considerations have been given weight in this assessment:

· What is the policy framework for the vegetation removal?

· Can the extent of vegetation removal be justified?

· What is the role of the replacement planting?

State and Local Planning Policy Framework

Objectives under Clause 12.05-2S (Landscapes) seek to protect and enhance significant landscapes that contribute to character, identity and sustainability of environments identified as significant. To achieve this objective, the policy provides strategies which seek to ensure that development does not detract from the natural qualities of significant landscape areas and recognise the natural landscape for its aesthetic and environmental value.

The retention of existing trees contributes to the identified landscape value of the site and surrounds as recognised under Clause 12.05-2S and the Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 2.

Policy under Clause 21.05 (Environment), makes the connection between natural, visual and built environment. This connection influences neighbourhood character, landscape qualities, climate and health and wellbeing for individuals in the area. The landscape qualities are identified as contributing factors towards improving open space areas for passive and active recreation and the conservation and enhancement of trees and their canopy coverage is identified as integral to maintaining and achieving the above-mentioned elements.

The Tree Conservation Policy at Clause 22.04 (Tree Conservation) in its objectives refer to minimising the loss of significant trees and promoting the regeneration of established trees as a valued resource in the Whitehorse area. Policy and performance standards in respect of tree retention and regeneration are provided within this clause and will be discussed within the assessment section of this report.

Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 2

The subject site falls within the Significant Landscape Overlay – Schedule 2 (SLO2) which seeks to ensure the key objectives of retaining the dominance of vegetation coverage, retention and regeneration of vegetation to protect habitat, ensuring sufficient space is provided and kept tree of buildings for tall trees to be planted, and encouraging a tree-dominated landscape are achieved.

The Significant Landscape Overlay is recognised as an important part of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, and as such considerable weight is placed upon an application’s ability to meet the objectives and decision guidelines of this overlay.

Tree Removal

The application seeks permission to remove two trees (Eucalyptus ovata – Swamp Gum) protected under the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 2. Two additional trees (Pyrus ussuriensis – Manchurian Pear & Eucalyptus sp. – Eucalypt) included in the original application have been assessed as being dangerous by Council’s Planning Enforcement and therefore exempt from planning permission for removal. The applicant seeks the removal of the Swamp Gums due to safety and risk concerns should the trees fail.

The main consideration in this element of the assessment relates to whether the proposed removal meets the objectives of the SLO2 provisions, most relevant to this consideration include ‘to retain the dominance of vegetation cover in keeping with the bush character environment’ and ‘to encourage the retention and regeneration of native vegetation for the protection of wildlife habitat.’

The trees proposed for removal have been assessed as being in poor health, poor structure and as having come to the end of their useful life expectancy (ULE). Both trees have a significant history of branch failures

Due to this ,cavities have formed in several locations which has reduced the structural integrity of the trees which makes further failures highly likely.

Council’s consulting arborist has confirmed that both trees are unlikely to respond/recover through remediation works (including pruning, watering, lopping or other measures) based on their age and existing structural issues. The applicant has pruned the subject trees over-time to reduce the likelihood of failure however future pruning of the subject trees will no longer continue to ensure the ongoing safety of the subject trees.

It is recognised that the removal of the subject trees will have a landscape impact for the area surrounding the site however the trees are very close to the end of their useful life expectancy with risk of failure and risk to people/property outweighing their retention in the landscape.

The subject trees are currently in a state of decline which is likely to result in their death over the next few years. Significantly, once a tree is assessed as ‘dead or dying’ by the Responsible Authority, it is exempt from requiring a planning permit for its removal pursuant to the exemptions outlined in the SLO2 provisions. Capturing the opportunity at this time for replacement planting within the subject site as a condition of permit, ensures replacement planting can be managed and protected into the future. This will contribute to a positive, long term outcome for the landscape character of the area.

Maintenance of Trees, Tree Canopy and Replacement Planting

The removal of the two subject trees would result in a cumulative loss to the landscape given that the trees are the only two tall upper canopy trees located at the subject site. Therefore, it is the officer opinion that a minimum of two (2) native canopy trees with a mature height of at least fifteen (15) metres be planted to offset the loss of the subject trees.

The site was subdivided in the 1970’s and is 680m² in area. Its existing conditions include the house, a 2.4m easement along the southern and eastern boundaries, and a swimming pool located on the northern boundary between the house and the boundary. These pre-existing conditions of the site makes the decision guideline of the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 2 of one upper canopy tree per 150sqm difficult to achieve.

Council’s planning officers undertook a site inspection with the Tree Education Officer and identified two locations on the site where upper canopy tree could be successfully accommodated in two separate areas located near the north eastern and south-eastern boundaries of the site. The configuration of the allotment has resulted in an irregular shaped rear yard with setbacks which are limited compared with other lots in the area surrounding the site, which subsequently poses significant challenges for replacement planting opportunities.

Finally, there is currently limited space for tree planting within the front setback coupled with existing mature vegetation and the location of an overhead power line on the eastern side of Lagoona Court which makes the planting of upper canopy trees impractical. Whilst the vegetation located on the frontage is not upper canopy vegetation, it makes a significant contribution to the landscape character of the site.

By requiring two replacement canopy trees with a mature height of at least fifteen metres to be planted, the loss of the two subject trees on the site will be offset over time. Given the constraints of the site which have been outlined and that two upper canopy trees are proposed to be removed, the replacement planting of two upper canopy trees is an acceptable outcome for the site.

A nominated list of appropriate species, similar to the trees proposed for removal, would be required to fit the ‘Bush Environs’ Neighbourhood Character Guidelines of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme. This has been included as a condition of permit, should one be granted.

Through supporting the tree removal as proposed, the replanting, over time will ensure the re-establishment of canopy trees that provide a presence of vegetation within the subject site and wider streetscape. The existing lower canopy trees within the front setback of the subject site will maintain the leafy vegetated appearance to the public domain whilst the replacement trees establish.

A condition would require the replacement planting to occur within twelve (12) months of the removal being undertaken, or as otherwise agreed by the Responsible Authority to allow for planting at an optimal time of the year.

Response to Objections

Tree Removal and the Whitehorse Planning Scheme

In response to the concern around tree removal, conditions would be included within any planning permit requiring the replanting of two (2) canopy trees with a mature height of at least fifteen metres.

As assessed earlier in this report, both trees proposed for removal are supported due to their low useful life expectancy and potential risk of failure.

Conditions would be included within the planning permit for offset planting to occur within six (6) months of removal (or as otherwise agreed to in writing by the Responsible Authority). This will mitigate the impact to the landscape character by allowing for replacement planting within the rear setback of the site to become more established over time whilst retaining an acceptable level of tree canopy throughout the area surrounding the subject site.

The trees proposed to be planted would ensure the subject site would continue to make a significant contribution to the existing and preferred landscape character of the subject site and surrounds over time.

The assessment above demonstrates that the proposal, with conditions, meets the landscape character objectives within the Whitehorse Planning Scheme to retain and regenerate the established tree canopy in significant landscape areas.

Impacts to amenity, character and landscape from tree removal and replanting

Concerns were raised by the objectors during the Consultation Forum regarding the loss of highly visible trees in the streetscape.

The decision guidelines under SLO2 suggest to have one canopy tree capable of growing to a mature height of at least fifteen metres for every 150sqm of site area. Using this calculation, the size of the subject site would equate to 4.5 such trees being suggested. Despite the outlined constraints on the site, two suitable locations on the site for the planting of upper canopy trees have been identified within the site. The existing lower canopy trees within the front setback of the subject site will maintain the leafy vegetated appearance to the public domain whilst the replacement trees establish.

Given the applicant seeks the removal of two trees on the site and the existing site conditions, the planting of two canopy trees to offset the loss of the subject trees will enable an acceptable outcome and enable a recovery of the existing neighbourhood and landscape amenity.

Limited information provided in applicant’s arborist report regarding trees proposed for removal and replacement planting species

Council’s consulting arborist has concluded that the overall poor condition and age of the subject trees results in the trees being no long viable.

It has also come to light during the writing of this report that the detailed tree list information (contained in Attachment 3) was not included in the advertising documentation. Whilst this was an administrative oversight by the responsible officer the information has nonetheless been considered in the assessment of this application.

Whilst limited information has been provided regarding potential replanting species, any approval issued for the site will require the planting of two canopy trees to offset the loss of the subject trees. The acceptable replanting species will be chosen in accordance with the requirements of the Bush Environment and Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 2.

Tree retention measures and impact of decking on the health of the tree

A request was received from objectors attending the forum to investigate alternative tree management methods in an attempt to retain and remediate the two protected trees proposed for removal, and to investigate whether the decking located on the site impacted the health of the subject trees. These concerns were forwarded to Council’s Consulting Arborist, with the following summarised advice received:

Remedial works:

· The trees are past the point of remedial works, with any further pruning or lopping works likely to cause more issues to the tree in the future.

· This species are in some ways fragile, in that once they start to fail and form decay they will continue. These tree species do not compartmentalise decay very well and therefore results in decay spreading around the tree.

· The subject trees have exceeded their useful life expectancy.

Additionally, the arborist has confirmed that the existing decking and hard surfacing has not caused any impact on the subject trees.

Past pruning and lopping of trees on the site

The property owners have pruned the subject trees overtime, which can be carried out without the requirement for a planning permit under the provisions of the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 2 in accordance with the Australian Standard AS4373-2007 Pruning of Amenity Trees.

Authority to remove the Pyrus usseriensis (Manchurian Pear) and Eucalyptus sp. (Eucalyptus) without the requirement for a planning permit was issued by Council’s Planning Enforcement Team on 17 January 2022 due to having been assessed as being dangerous.

CONCLUSION

The proposal is considered to be an acceptable response that satisfies the relevant provisions contained within the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, in including the State and Local Planning Policies and the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 2.

The proposal is consistent with the Whitehorse Planning Scheme as the trees are in poor condition and structure and have exceeded their useful life expectancy (ULE). Mediation works would not improve the condition of the subject trees. The removal of the subject trees will enable replacement planting to offset the loss of amenity, landscape contribution and habitat for the site through conditions to the permit.

A total of 25 objections were received as a result of public notice and all of the issues raised have been discussed as required.

It is considered that the application should be approved.

Attachment

1 Site Plan

2 Arborist Report

3 Tree List

Whitehorse City Council

Council Minutes 28 November 2022

11.2 50 Glenburnie Road, MITCHAM (LOT 2 LP 37448)– Construction of four double storey dwellings and associated tree removal

City Planning and Development

Director City Development

FILE NUMBER: WH/2021/1191
ATTACHMENT

SUMMARY

This planning permit application proposes the construction of four double storey dwellings, removal of protected trees and buildings and works within 4 metres of protected trees. The application triggers a planning permit pursuant to the provisions of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 1 and the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 7.

This application was advertised and a total of 26 objections were received. The objections raised issues with neighbourhood character, loss of vegetation, visual bulk, amenity impacts (overlooking and privacy), traffic impacts and stormwater management.

In response to concerns raised by Council Officers and objectors, amended sketch plans were submitted by the applicant for discussion purposes. These plans include the following key changes from the plans originally advertised:

• Dwelling 2 garage relocated to the rear (west) of this dwelling, and associated redesign of this dwelling.

• Dwellings 2 and 3 amended to provide a minimum 2 metre setback from the south boundary at the ground level

• Provision of a more substantial landscape break between Dwellings 2 and 3.

A Consultation Forum was held online via Zoom on 1 September 2022 chaired by Councillor Cutts. A copy of the amended sketch plans was attached to the Forum invitations sent out to the objectors, and these plans were discussed at the Forum. The objectors’ concerns were explored, and the applicant offered to make some concessions, including providing visitor car spaces on site, however no resolution was reached between the parties at the Forum.

The application has been referred to internal department for comments. Council’s consulting arborist has supported the proposed removal of the trees as they are considered to either have structural issues or provide little landscape contribution. Permit conditions are required to minimise the construction impacts on the longevity of the remaining trees within the site and neighbouring property, including those within the road reserve. Council’s Asset Engineer, Transport Engineer, Environmentally Sustainable Development Officer, and Waste Management Team have reviewed the proposed development and are supportive subject to conditions.

This report assesses the application against the relevant provisions of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, including the provisions of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone 1, Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 7, Residential Development Policy, Tree Conservation Policy, Environmental Sustainable Development Policy, Clause 55 (ResCode), Clause 53.18 (Stormwater Management in Urban Development) and Clause 52.06 (Car Parking), as well as the objector concerns.

It is recommended that the application, based on the circulated amended sketch plans be supported, subject to conditions, in particular to include the provision of two on-site visitor car spaces as discussed at the Forum, improve the landscaping outcomes, remove the front fence and alter the cladding colours.

MOTION

Moved by Cr Cutts, Seconded by Cr Stennett

That Council:

Being the Responsible Authority, having caused Application WH/2021/1191 for 50 Glenburnie Road, MITCHAM (LOT 2 LP 37448) to be advertised and having received and noted the objections is of the opinion that the granting of a Planning Permit for the construction of four double storey dwellings and associated tree removal is not acceptable and will unreasonably impact on the neighbourhood character and the amenity of adjacent properties.

Issue a Notice of Refusal to Grant a Permit under the Whitehorse Planning Scheme to the land described as 50 Glenburnie Road, MITCHAM (LOT 2 LP 37448) for the construction of four double storey dwellings and associated tree removal, on the following grounds:

The proposal is contrary to the State Planning Policy Framework contained with the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, particularly in relation to:

Clause 12.05-2S (Landscapes)

Clause 15 (Built Environment and Heritage).

The proposal is contrary to the Local Planning Policy Framework contained in the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, particularly in relation to the following Clauses:

Clause 21.05 (Environment);

Clause 21.06 (Housing);

Clause 22.03 (Residential Development);

Clause 22.04 (Tree Conservation)

The proposal fails to meet the landscape character objective and the decision guidelines of the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 7. In particular, the site layout fails to offer sufficient tall tree planting opportunities throughout the centre of the site, and the building forms, materials, finishes and front fencing fails to achieve an inconspicuous profile within the landscape.

The built form and building bulk of the new dwellings are excessive, and insufficient boundary setbacks are provided, contrary to the preferred neighbourhood character requirements of the Bush Environment precinct guidelines and policy requirements at Clauses 21.06 (Housing) and 22.03 (Residential Development).

The proposed development will not adequately respect the existing and preferred neighbourhood character and amenity of the area, failing to meet the purpose and decision guidelines of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

The development fails to meet the following Objectives and Standards of Clause 55 (including Standards as varied by Schedule 1 to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone):

Neighbourhood Character

Site Coverage

Landscaping

Internal Views

Design Detail

The increased vehicle movements and likely on-street car parking demand will conflict with the operation and landscape character of Glenburnie Road.

The Motion was put to the vote and was LOST

A Division was called.

Division

For

Cr Carr

Cr Cutts

Cr McNeill

Cr Stennett

Against

Cr Barker

Cr Davenport

Cr Lane

Cr Liu

Cr Massoud

Cr Munroe

Cr Skilbeck

On the results of the Division the motion was declared lost

The substantive motion was put to the vote and became the Council Resolution as follows:

Council Resolution

Moved by Cr Munroe, Seconded by Cr Davenport

That Council:

A Being the Responsible Authority, having caused Application WH/2021/1191 for 50 Glenburnie Road, MITCHAM (LOT 2 LP 37448) to be advertised and having received and noted the objections is of the opinion that the granting of a Planning Permit for the construction of four double storey dwellings and associated 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 50 Glenburnie Road, MITCHAM (LOT 2 LP 37448) for the construction of four double storey dwellings and associated tree removal, subject to the following conditions:

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

a) A full set of revised drawings that reflect the changes detailed in the discussion plans dated 24 August 2022, including:

i. Dwelling 2 garage relocated to the rear (west) of this dwelling, and associated redesign of this dwelling.

ii. Dwellings 2 and 3 amended to provide a minimum 2 metre setback from the south boundary at the ground level

iii. Provision of a more substantial landscape break between Dwellings 2 and 3.

b) Reinstate the steps within Dwellings 2 and 3 ground levels, as per the advertised plans (dated 7 April 2022) in order to limit the height of finished floor levels above natural ground levels.

c) The provision of two visitor car spaces on the site:

i. One visitor car space be positioned between the garages of Dwellings 1 and 4, and the separation between these garages increased from 3.4 to 3.5 metres to accommodate the car space. One visitor car space to be positioned west of the Dwelling 2 garage.

d) Visitor spaces to be paved with grasscrete (concrete lattice with lawn growing between) or similar.

e) All buildings and works (including soil level changes) to be set back from the north boundary fence, so the encroachment into the 7.2 metre TPZ of Tree 25 is less than 10%.

f) All buildings and works (including soil level changes) to be set back a minimum of 1.6 metre from the south boundary fence, where within the 2.3 metre TPZ of Tree 46.

g) Deletion of the front fence.

h) Where within the TPZ of Tree 5, the proposed driveway must be constructed at grade (no more than 100mm in depth) and using a permeable material.

i) The upper level internal facing highlight windows to be located 1.7 metres above finished floor level (instead of the nominated 1.6 metres).

j) The width of the garage door openings to be annotated on the plans.

k) The pedestrian doors to garages to open outwards so as to not obstruct the dedicated car parking area.

l) The accessway ramp grades to be nominated on the plans.

m) The provision of a fixed and durable freestanding overlooking screen above the south boundary fence opposite the Dwelling’s 2 and 3 master bedrooms. The screen must have a maximum of 25% openings and must extend to a minimum height of 1.7 metres above finished floor levels of these rooms.

n) The plans to show the locations (refer Appendix 1) and TPZs of the following additional trees within the road reserve:

i. Tree 53 - Corymbia ficifolia (Flowering Gum) TPZ: 2 metre radius

ii. Tree 54 - Eucalyptus nicholii (Narrow Leafed Peppermint) TPZ: 2 metre radius

iii. Tree 55 - Hymenosporum flavum (Native Frangipani) TPZ: 2 metre radius

o) The cladding colours for all dwellings to utilise muted and earthy tones that will blend in with the landscape.

p) Locations of letter boxes and meter boxes positioned clear of the sight line triangle shown on the plans.

q) Plans annotated to indicate that the construction measures and tree protection requirements specified by the Tree Protection Plan will be observed at all times.

r) Development plans to reflect all sustainability features indicated in the amended Sustainable Design Assessment. Where features cannot be visually shown, include a notes table providing details of the requirements (ie. energy and water efficiency ratings for heating/cooling systems and plumbing fittings and fixtures, etc)

s) Notation on site plans indicating that all obscured glazing be manufactured obscured glass. Obscure film being applied to clear glazing will not be accepted.

t) The landscape plan amended to show:

i. The planting of predominantly indigenous species.

ii. The density of landscaping across the site increased to include dense shrubs and substantial understorey plantings, particularly within the site frontage, to ensure the site provides an appropriate contribution to the landscape character.

iii. The use of a wide variety of species to support biodiversity and mitigate the effects of climate conditions on individual species.

iv. The planting of substantial bushy shrub species adjacent to the front elevations of Dwellings 1 and 2 to mitigate the visual impact of the elevated finished floor levels in these locations.

v. The planting of at least six additional trees capable of reaching mature height of at least 15 metres. Total of 12 trees comprising existing and new.

vi. Canopy trees to be located within designated garden beds.

vii. All trees are to have a minimum height of 1.5 metres at the time of planting, and should be planted clear of easements, a minimum 3.5 metres away from dwellings and a minimum 1.5 metres from property boundaries.

All of the above must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Once approved these plans become the endorsed plans of this permit.

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. Prior to the occupation of the approved buildings, landscaping and tree planting must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed landscape plan that forms part of this permit, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

5. Prior to the commencement of any site works, including demolition and excavation, the Responsible Authority must be provided with evidence that a Project Arborist has been engaged as part of the ongoing consultant team to oversee all buildings and works, and to ensure the development does not have a detrimental impact on the ongoing health and stability of the trees to be retained. The Project Arborist must have a qualification in arboriculture and hold a minimum Diploma in Horticulture (Arboriculture).

6. Prior to the commencement of any buildings or works, a Tree Protection Plan (TPP) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the TPP will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The TPP must be written in accordance with the requirements set out on Page 21, under Section 5.2 Tree Protection Plan in AS4970-2009 Protection of Trees on Development Sites, and must include (but not be limited to) the following:

a) Tree Protection Zone Fencing Measures for all retained trees on the subject site, surrounding lots and within the road reserve.

b) Detail how Trees 1-14, 18, 25, 26, 29, 31-38, 41, 46 and 49 will be protected pre-construction, during the construction stage (including landscaping) and post construction, and must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

c) Detail how excavation works within the Tree Protection Zones of Trees 1-11, 25, 37, 38 and 41 (and any other trees on the site or in the road reserve shown to be retained on the plans) will be undertaken and how tree roots will be managed, so that the health and stability of trees are not adversely impacted now or into the future.

d) Detail where services and utility connections (such as drainage and stormwater pipes and underground electrical and telecommunication cables) will be located and how they will be installed. These are to be located outside of the Tree Protection Zone. If services are required to be installed within the Tree Protection Zones of Trees 1-14, 18, 25, 26, 29, 31-38, 41, 46 and 49, these services must be bored under the tree protection zone, or installed using hydro excavation under the supervision of the Project Arborist.

e) Any works to the existing vehicle crossover must be undertaken under the supervision of the Project Arborist

f) Any tree pruning is to conform to AS4373-2007 Pruning of Amenity Trees and the work is to be performed by a suitably qualified arborist (AQF Level 3, minimum).

All of the above requirements for the Tree Protection Plan must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Asset Engineering

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

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

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. Any works to the vehicle crossing must be constructed as per Council standards with a pipe, headwalls and trench grate where the crossover traverses the swale drain along Glenburnie Road, in accordance with the diagram in Appendix 2.

Waste Management

14. The requirements of the endorsed Waste Management Plan (WMP) must be implemented by the owners and occupiers of the site for the life of the dwellings, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any revision of the WMP or changes to the approved waste system of the development require Council approval.

15. Any Mobile Garbage Bin (MGB) placements proposed on Glenburnie Road for on-street bin collection service must not cause any obstruction to any infrastructure or cause any danger to traffic/pedestrians. Bins are not to be placed within 1 metre of any infrastructure and are to have a height clearance of 4 metres for collection.

16. If the criteria for the on-street bin collection services is unable to be met and the service is rendered inoperable, then the waste collection service will revert to an external Private waste collection service and an amended WMP must be resubmitted to Council for approval.

Environmentally Sustainable Development

17. Prior to the commencement of any buildings or works, an updated Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. This SDA must be generally in accordance with the SDA submitted with the application, but amended to include the following changes:

a) Reverse cycle electric heating and cooling systems to include a minimum 4 star energy efficiency rating. Gas heating is discouraged.

b) Hot water systems to be energy efficient electric solar or heat pump.

c) 32 Amp power is to be supplied to the garage of each dwelling for future EV car charging.

d) Solar photovoltaic panels with capacity maximised for the available roof area.

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

The requirements of the SDA must be demonstrated on the plans and elevations submitted for endorsement. Prior to the occupation of the development, the development must be constructed in accordance with the endorsed Sustainable Design Assessment to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, and the approved dwellings must operate in accordance with this document, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the Sustainable Design Assessment may occur without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

18. Before the development starts, a Construction Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, detailing how the owner will manage the environmental and construction issues associated with the development, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority.

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

The Construction Management Plan must:

a) Require all vehicles associated with the construction of the approved development to access the subject site from the north, to minimise impacts to street trees overhanging the Glenburnie Road reserve to the south.

Require all trees and understorey vegetation in the road reserve to be protected from construction impacts, and nominate locations for construction worker and construction vehicle parking and access, and storage of construction materials on the subject land (or elsewhere to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority), clear of the Tree Protection Zones of retained trees as per the Tree Protection Plan requirements. When approved, the Construction Management Plan will be endorsed and will form part of this permit and must be complied with, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, to the extent that this is in the control of the owner of the land. The owner of the land is to be responsible for all costs associated with the works to be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the approved Construction Management Plan.

The provisions, recommendations and requirements of the approved Construction Management Plan must be implemented and complied with to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

20. The development must be provided with external lighting capable of illuminating access to each garage and car parking space. Lighting must be located, directed and shielded and of limited intensity that no nuisance or loss of amenity is caused to any person within and beyond the site.

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

22. 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:

A. The construction or reinstatement of crossovers is to be to Council standards and at the full cost of the permit holder.

B. The design and construction of letterboxes is to accord with Australian Standard AS-NZ 4253-1994.

C. The lot/unit numbers on the “Endorsed Plan” are not to be used as the official street address of the property. All street addressing enquiries can be made by contacting our Property Team on 9262 6470.

Asset Engineering

D. 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.

E. 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.

F. 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

G. 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.

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

I. 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.

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

K. Redundant vehicle crossing(s) must be removed at the same time as the construction of any new vehicle crossing(s), prior to the completion of development works and where access to a property has been altered by changes to the property.

L. Floor levels must be amended if vehicle access to the garage cannot be achieved. The architect and/or designer must ensure that vehicle access is to conform to the Australian Standards for Off-Street Parking (AS/NZS 2890.1:2004)

Waste Management

M. Waste collections for this development are to be completed externally by Council’s waste collection contractor.

N. Council issued bins will be required for this development.

O. Mobile Garbage Bin usage is based on individual usage by the occupiers of the development.

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

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

CARRIED

A Division was called.

Division

For

Cr Barker

Cr Davenport

Cr Lane

Cr Liu

Cr Massoud

Cr Munroe

Cr Skilbeck

Against

Cr Carr

Cr Cutts

Cr McNeill

Cr Stennett

On the results of the Division the motion was declared carried

Appendix 1 – Locations of Trees 53-55:

Appendix 2 – Crossover construction diagram:

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.

MELWAYS REFERENCE 49 A12

Applicant: Mad Men Developments Pty Ltd

Zoning: Neighbourhood Residential Zone, Schedule 1

Overlays: Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 7

Relevant Clauses:

Clause 11 Settlement

Clause 12 Environment and Landscape Values

Clause 15 Built Environment and Heritage

Clause 16 Housing

Clause 18 Transport

Clause 21.05 Environment

Clause 21.06 Housing

Clause 22.03 Residential Development

Clause 22.04 Tree Conservation

Clause 32.09 Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 1

Clause 42.03-2 Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 7

Clause 52.06 Car Parking

Clause 53.18 Stormwater Management in Urban Development

Clause 55 Two or More Dwellings on a Lot or Residential Buildings

Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

Ward: Simpson

Subject site

BACKGROUND

History

There has been one previous Planning Permit (WH/2010/566) issued to the subject site on 28 September 2010, allowing the removal of two trees and lopping of one tree.

In relation to the current application, after the advertising process, the applicant submitted amended sketch plans, dated 24 August 2022, for discussion purposes in response to concerns raised by Council Officers and objectors. These plans include the following key changes from the plans originally advertised:

• Dwelling 2 garage relocated to the rear (west) of this dwelling, and associated redesign of this dwelling.

• Dwellings 2 and 3 amended to provide a minimum 2 metre setback from the south boundary at the ground level

• Provision of a more substantial landscape break between Dwellings 2 and 3.

The sketch plans will be discussed in this report, and given effect through permit conditions, should Council form the view to issue a permit..

The Site and Surrounds

The subject site is located on the west side of Glenburnie Road, 120 metres south of the intersection with Langford Avenue.

The site is generally rectangular in shape with a frontage of 33.3 metres to Glenburnie Road, and a maximum boundary length of 72 metres, yielding a total site area of 2,393m².

The site slopes by approximately 6.5 metres from the north-west down the south-east corner of the site.

The site currently accommodates a double storey brick dwelling with a hipped tile roof. An attached garage is located to the front of the building. A 0.75 metre high timber fence extends across the site’s frontage and sits behind a densely vegetated road reserve.

The surrounding area is residential in nature and consists of an undulating topography. The natural landscape of Glenburnie Road and the adjacent streets contain remnant indigenous and native trees and understorey vegetation. The tree canopy encloses the space and creates the impression of homes being sited within the landscape rather than trees being planted around homes. Buildings are a mix of styles with few front fences interrupting the overall bush landscape.

The era and style of dwellings along Glenburnie Road is varied, and the street contains a mixture of single and double storey weatherboard, brick, and render dwellings, with hipped or gable style roof forms constructed of either concrete tiles or corrugated steel. Feature gables that present to the street are frequent features.

Double storey dwellings are also common, and large upper-level components are found on several of the properties within the immediate surrounding area (including the existing dwelling on the subject site). Double storey sheer walls are also present on several of the nearby properties.

Within the immediate context, the following is observed:

North

· The adjoining lot to the north, at 42-48 Glenburnie Road, contains a dwelling and outbuilding, protected by Heritage Overlay, Schedule 296 on a lot 4,800m²in size. The heritage dwelling is known as Minamere.

· Planning permit WH/2018/45 was issued at the direction of VCAT (Golden Oak Mitcham P/L v Whitehorse CC) allowing the construction of six additional dwellings (total of seven dwellings) on this lot, and associated vegetation removal, as shown on the snip below from the ground floor endorsed plans.

· The development permitted under this permit is currently under construction and includes two new single storey dwellings in proximity to the common boundary, with Dwelling 6 (at the front of the site near the common boundary) setback 10 metres from Glenburnie Road and between 1.3 and 1.9 metres from the boundary with the subject site. Dwelling 5 is located towards the rear of the site near the common boundary, and is setback between 2.7 and 5.7 metres from the common boundary.

South

· The adjoining lot to the south, at 52 Glenburnie Road, contains a single storey dwelling. The dwelling is setback approximately 17 metres from Glenburnie Road and 3.5 metres from the common boundary.

· Vehicle access is via a crossover and driveway adjacent to the lot’s north boundary with a number of outbuildings located adjacent to the common boundary and within the rear yard.

West

· Two lots adjoin the subject site to the west.

· The lot at 29 Halls Parade contains a large, single storey dwelling setback approximately 14 metres from the common boundary.

· The lot at 31 Halls Parade contains three dwellings. The rear dwelling is setback approximately 3 metres from the common boundary.

Planning Controls

Neighbourhood Residential Zone, Schedule 1

In accordance with Clause 32.09-6 of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, a permit is required for the construction of two or more dwellings.

Clause 55 applies to ‘Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings’. Schedule 1 to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone includes variations to the requirements of Clause 55. This includes variations to B8 (Site coverage), B9 (Permeability), B13 (Landscaping), B17 (Side and rear setbacks), B18 (Walls on boundaries), Standard B28 (Private Open Space) and B32 (Front fences) of Clause 55.

Under Clause 32.09-4 a development must meet a minimum garden requirement of 35%. The development plans indicate a compliant garden area of 1218m² or 50.8%.

Under Clause 32.09-10, the building height must not exceed 9 metres and the building must contain no more than 2 storeys at any point. A building may exceed the maximum building height by up to 1 metre if the slope of the natural ground level, measured at any cross section of the site of the building wider than 8 metres, is greater than 2.5 degrees.

Although the slope of the site would allow a 10 metre building height, the proposed dwellings are all two storey and have a maximum height of 9 metres, in compliance with this requirement.

Significant Landscape Overlay, Schedule 7

Pursuant to Clause 42.03-2 a permit is required for:

· The removal of a tree having a single trunk circumference of 0.5 metre or less at a height of one metres above ground level.

A summary of the trees on the subject site that require a planning permit to be removed under the SLO7 follows:

Table 1 – Trees requiring a permit to be removed under the SLO7

Tree No.	Species	DBH (cm)	Height (m)	Condition
17	Eucalyptus camaldulensis – River Red Gum	63	12	Medium Retention Value
20	Syzygium smithii – Lilly Pilly	23	6	Low Retention Value
21	Pittosporum eugenioides – Tarata	30	6	Low Retention Value
22	Prunus shirotae – Flowering Chery	17	6	Low Retention Value
23	Camellia japonica - Japanese camellia)	24	4	Medium Retention Value
24	Ilex aquifolium – Holly	17	3	Low Retention Value
28	Loptospermum lanigerum – Woolly Teatree	20	4	Low Retention Value
39	Group of 3 trees- Callistemon, Cotoneaster, Melaleuca squamosa	21	5	Low Retention Value
44	Pyrus communis – Common pear	25	4	Low Retention Value
45	Ficus carica – Edible fig	34	3	Low Retention Value
47	Citris x paradisi - Grapefruit	17	2	Low Retention Value
48	Pyrus communis – Common pear	21	5	Low Retention Value
52	Magnolia x soulangeana – Saucer magnolia	17	4	Low Retention Value

• Note 1: D.B.H = Trunk Diameter at Breast Height. A 16cm DBH = 0.5 metre trunk circumference)

• Note 2: Tree No. 50 is a Tree Fern, not a tree, and so is not considered to be protected under the SLO7.

• Note 3: The following trees on the subject site do not trigger the requirement for a permit for removal under SLO7 as they have a single trunk circumference of 0.5 metre or less at a height of one metre above ground level: Trees 15, 16, 19, 27, 30, 40 and 51.

Table 2 – Proposed buildings and works within four metres of protected trees

Tree No.	Species	DBH (m)	Height (m)	Location	TPZ encroach -ment
1	Eucalyptus goniocalyx - Long-leaved Box	50	11	Road reserve	<10%
9	Quercus palustris - Pin Oak	32	11	Road reserve	>10%
10	Quercus palustris - Pin Oak	33	10	Road reserve	>10%
12	Cinnamomum camphora – Camphor Laurel	33	9	52 Glenburnie Rd, frontage	0%
13	Syzygium smithii – Lilly Pilly	18	7	Subject site, front south boundary	0%
14	Liquidambar styraciflua – American sweet gum	42	12	52 Glenburnie Rd, frontage	9%
18	Abies alba – Silver fir	36	9	Subject site, centre frontage	6.4%
25	Agonis flexuosa – Willow myrtle	60	8	42-48 Glenburnie Rd	12.6%
26	Pittosporum eugenioides - Tarata	32	7	42-48 Glenburnie Rd	0%
29	Cotinus spp. – Smoke bush	18	5	42-48 Glenburnie Rd	0%
31	Banksia marginata – Silver banksia	42	6	42-48 Glenburnie Rd	4.5%

Tree No.	Species	DBH (m)	Height (m)	Location	TPZ encroach -ment
32	X 2 Photinia serratifolia – Chinese Hawthorn	26	6	42-48 Glenburnie Rd	0%
33	Eucalyptus polyanthemos – Red Box	53	11	42-48 Glenburnie Rd	0.6%
34	Pittosporum undulatum – Sweet pittosporum	30	7	42-48 Glenburnie Rd	0%
35	Acer negundo – Box Elder	25	7	42-48 Glenburnie Rd	0%
36	Quercus palustris – Pin Oak	58	13	29 Halls Pde	0%
37	Fraxinus excelsior – Golden Ash	41	8	Subject site, rear boundary	5.7%
38	Grevillea robusta – Silky Oak	39	13	Subject site, rear boundary	1.6%
41	Thuja orientalis – Oriental thuja	50	8	3/31 Halls Pde	9.5%
42	Cinnamomum camphora - Camphor laurel	16	4	3/31 Halls Pde	0%
46	Acer rubrum cv. – Red maple cultivar	19	8	52 Glenburnie Rd, rear	16%
49	2 x Pittosporum undulatum – Sweet pittosporum	24	7	52 Glenburnie Rd, rear	2.1%

• Note: D.B.H = Trunk Diameter at Breast Height. A 16cm DBH = 0.5 metre trunk circumference)

Schedule 7 to the Significant Landscape Overlay sets out a number of ‘permit triggers’ for buildings and works. These ‘trigger’ requirements are not mandatory, rather they require a permit application to allow consideration of the merits of the proposal.

The building (roofed area) coverage, hard surface (comprising driveway, paths, constructed landings and water tanks) coverage and permeable area figures differ slightly from the circulated sketch plans, as they are based on calculations undertaken by Council Officers.

Table 3 – Proposed SLO7 Permit Triggers for Buildings and Works

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

Permit requirement

Measure

The total area covered by buildings does not exceed 35% of the site area.

The building site coverage is 37.16%

Permit triggered

The works, comprising hard surfaced and impervious areas (including tennis courts and swimming pool, but excluding buildings) are less than 15 per cent of the site area.

There is no declaration of hard surfaces however the hard paved surfaces have been calculated by officers at 14.5%

No permit trigger

The buildings or works are setback more than 4 metres from any tree for which a permit is required to remove, destroy or lop under the provisions of this schedule.

The buildings and works occur within 4 metres of trees

1, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 18, 25, 26, 29, 31-38, 41, 42, 46 and 49

Permit triggered (refer to table 2 above)

PROPOSAL

The application proposes the construction of four double storey dwellings. The dwellings are detached, with Dwellings 1 and 2 fronting Glenburnie Road with Dwellings 3 and 4 positioned towards the rear. The key features of the proposal include:

· The dwellings are accessed via a centrally located driveway, which offers vehicle access to all dwellings, each of which are provided with a double-width garage.

· Dwellings 1 and 2 propose front setbacks of 10.1 and 10.5 metres respectively.

· Side setbacks vary between 1.2 and 4.7 metres and rear setbacks vary between 10.4 and 12.5 metres.

· The dwellings each provide for an open plan kitchen, meals and family room, formal living area, guest bedroom suite and laundry at ground level, and master bedroom suite, two further bedrooms, leisure room and bathrooms at upper level.

· External materials include white painted weatherboard cladding to ground and upper level (Dulux Lexicon Quarter), Colorbond cladding (Monument – dark grey), and feature stone cladding to verandah supports.

· Overall building heights vary between 7.2 and 9 metres.

· No alteration to the existing crossover.

· A 1 metre high white masonry pier and black metal picket front fence.

· A building (roofed areas) coverage of 37.16%.

· A hard surface coverage (including driveway, paths, landings and water tanks) of 14.5%

· A site permeability of 48.7%.

· A Garden Area of 50.8%.

· Removal of 13 numbered protected trees (refer to Table 1). As ‘Tree 39’ is a group of three trees, this equates to the removal of a total of 15 actual trees.

· Retention of four trees on the subject site (refer to Table 2).

· Buildings and works within 4 metres of 22 numbered protected trees, which is 24 actual trees, as this list includes two pairs of trees grouped under the one Tree number (refer to Table 2).

CONSULTATION

Public Notice

The application was advertised by mail to the adjacent and nearby property owners and occupiers and by erecting notices to the Glenburnie Road frontage. Following the advertising period 26 objections were received.

The issues raised are summarised as follows:

· Amenity impacts:

o Overlooking

o Overshadowing

· Neighbourhood Character:

o Not in keeping with the unique bushland character of the street

o Excessive building bulk and insufficient setbacks.

o White coloured cladding and front fence are out of keeping with the environment

o Negative cumulative impact of recent development in the area

· Car parking and traffic:

o No on-site visitor parking provided, and restricted on-street parking available

o The unmade landscaped verges, which are Common Ground managed by the Residents Association and Council, will experience more pressure to be converted into on-street parking. Common Ground landscaped paths are unmade and most pedestrians use the roadway

o Increased traffic through surrounding streets.

· Landscaping:

o Excessive tree removal and loss of habitat. Some trees, such as Tree 17, could be retained

o Construction impacts to retained trees.

o Insufficient open space areas for landscaping and tall trees

o Planted trees may not be maintained in the long term

· Not in keeping with the Planning provisions

· Non-planning matters:

o Set an undesirable precedent

o Surface water runoff must be captured in drains to prevent increased flooding to lower lots on the east side of Glenburnie Road

o Construction impacts on the street, parking, traffic flow and security.

o Large construction vehicles could damage overhanging street trees

o Loss of views

o Loss of sense of community

o Physical and mental health impacts to surrounding residents

In response to Council and objector concerns, the applicant submitted the amended sketch plans referenced above. These sketch plans were circulated to all submitters prior to the Forum for discussion purposes.

Consultation Forum

A Consultation Forum was held via Zoom on 1 September 2022, chaired by Cr Cutts. Eight objectors, the applicant’s planning consultant and two planning officers attended the meeting.

At the Forum, the circulated amended sketch plans were discussed and the objectors expanded on the concerns raised in the objections received. Additional points raised included:

· On-street car parking on Glenburnie Road is very limited, as a result of the landscaping of the common property verges. The additional visitor car parking demand generated by the proposed 4 dwellings cannot be accommodated on the site and there are limited on-street parking opportunities for visitors.

· Increased traffic on Glenburnie Road, which is largely a single lane wide.

· Landscaping species should all be indigenous.

The applicant offered to provide on-site visitor parking in response to these discussions, however overall no resolution of the issues raised was reached at the Forum.

Referrals

External

No external referrals were required

Internal

Transport Engineer

Clause 52.06 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme requires the following parking provision for the proposed development:

*Land Use*	*No.*	*Statutory Parking Rate*	*Required Spaces*
Dwellings
· 4 bedroom	4	2 spaces per dwelling	8
· Visitor parking	0	1 space per 5 dwellings	0
		Total Parking Requirement	8

The submitted documentation indicates that eight resident car spaces are proposed to be provided on the site within the garages. The proposed parking provision is therefore sufficient against the Clause 52.06 requirements.

While no on-site visitor car parking is required for this development, it is noted that on-street car parking opportunities in Glenburnie Road are limited due to the nature of this road, which also does not have constructed kerb and channel requiring vehicles to park either fully or partially on the grassed verge.

The expected level of traffic generated by the proposal can be accommodated by Glenburnie Road and in the surrounding local road network.

The vehicle access arrangements to and from all four garages has been checked using a manual turning template and is considered satisfactory.

Minimum internal garage dimensions are met. Doors opening into the garage must not open into the clear internal minimum dimensions.

The proposed ramp grades and dimensions must be provided in accordance with Design standard 3 of Clause 52.06-9 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme. It is noted that no ramp grades have been denoted on the plans.

Waste Engineer

The application has been reviewed by Council’s Waste Management Team. The Waste Management Plan is approved subject to standard conditions and notes included within the permit.

Assets Engineer

The application has been reviewed by Council’s Asset Engineer. The application is supported subject to standard conditions and notes included within the permit.

Concern was raised regarding the alignment of the existing crossover (which is proposed to be retained) as it is not perpendicular to the road reserve, and recommendations for the construction/reconstruction of this crossover were included, as the unmade road reserve requires the provision of headwalls, a pipe and trench grate where the crossover traverses the swale drain along Glenburnie Road.

Planning Arborist

The application has been reviewed by Council’s arborist. The following is a summary of advice:

· The plans must be amended to show the following:

o All buildings and works (including soil level changes) must be set back from the north boundary fence, so the encroachment into the 7.2m TPZ of tree 25 is less than 10%.

o All buildings and works (including soil level changes) must be set back 1.6m from the south boundary fence, where within the 2.3m TPZ of Tree 46.

· No objection to the removal of the trees. Generally they all have low retention value.

· Tree 17 is a large River Red Gum, however it is not worthy of retention as it is unstable at ground level.

· Based on the levels of encroachment (listed in Table 2 above), the proposal can be supported subject to conditions.

Parks & Natural Environment Arborist

· Excavation for the proposed fence within the TPZ of Trees 9 and 10 must be limited to that of the brick piers/posts and must be conducted by hand. If large structural roots are encountered the posts must be moved.

· Any excavation within the TPZ of Trees 2, 5, 9 and 10 must be conducted under the supervision of a minimum AQF Level 5 (or higher) qualified arborist.

· Any works to the crossover must be under arboricultural supervision (minimum AQF Level 5).

· The proposed driveway must be constructed at grade (100mm in depth) using a permeable material within the TPZ of Tree 5.

· Three more juvenile trees in the road reserve must be added to the plans and protected during construction. These are:

o Tree 53 - Corymbia ficifolia (Flowering Gum) TPZ: 2 metres

o Tree 54 - Eucalyptus nicholii (Narrow Leafed Peppermint) TPZ: 2 metres

o Tree 55 - Hymenosporum flavum (Native Frangipani) TPZ: 2 metres

The locations of these trees are shown in Appendix 1 to the permit notes (above).

ESD Advisor

The application has been reviewed by Council’s ESD Officer. The application is supported subject to conditions.

DISCUSSION

Consistency with State and Local Planning Policies

The central issue surrounding this application focuses on whether the proposal successfully resolves the tension between state planning policy, which seeks consolidation within existing urban boundaries with that of local policies which seeks minimal change in a landscape setting.

The relevant State planning policies include:

· The strategic intent of the Planning Policy Framework (PPF) is to encourage infill development that responds appropriately to the context and character of the neighbourhood. Clause 11.01-1S (Settlement) directs infill development to areas that are well serviced, close to activity centres and along existing transport routes.

The site enjoys physical and strategic attributes, which make it suitable for some form of small-scale infill development. The site is a large lot located a short distance north of Canterbury Road which supports various bus routes with other infrastructure including local neighbourhood activity centre (intersection of Boronia Road and Canterbury Road), Vermont Primary School and Vermont Reserve playground. Therefore, the development responds to Clause 11.01-1S and the concept of the ‘20 minute neighbourhood’ sought in Clause 15.01-4R (Healthy neighbourhoods – Metropolitan Melbourne).

· The PPF contains objectives to encourage development of well-designed medium density development that respects neighbourhood character, improves housing choice, makes better use of existing infrastructure and improves energy efficiency of housing. The PPF also recognises the importance of protecting biodiversity and enhancing significant landscapes in Clause 12.05-1S. These are discussed in further detail below.

The relevant local planning policies include:

· The Strategic Framework Plan at Clause 21.04 (Strategic Directions) identifies the site within a ‘Significant Landscape Area’. Clause 21.05 (Environment) contains strategies to protect the special environmental significance of areas such as the Glenburnie Road and Environs, and includes a policy that lot sizes in Bush Environment areas are generally in accordance with 650m².

· Clause 21.06 (Housing) is informed by Council’s Housing Strategy, 2014, and identifies three categories of housing change within the City of Whitehorse. The subject site is located within a ‘Limited Change Area’. Limited Change Areas are to conserve and enhance those elements which contribute to the valued environmental, heritage and neighbourhood character of the place.

· Clause 22.03 (Residential Development) reiterates the above policies and strategies and specifies the built form, landscape and neighbourhood character outcomes sought for the various character precincts. Clause 22.03-4 (Categories of Housing Change) contains strategies for Limited Change Areas which ensure the scale, form and character is to be consistent with the surrounding area and predominately comprise detached houses and semi-detached houses.

· Clause 22.04 (Tree Conservation) applies to all development and includes objectives for ensuring that new development minimises the loss of significant trees and promotes the regeneration of tall trees through the provision of adequate open space and landscaping areas in new development.

The zone, local planning policies and the SLO7 do not prevent change in this area, rather seek to moderate the extent of development to respond to the specific landscape significance of the Glenburnie Road area. Upon assessment of the above provisions, the key issues to assess within this application include:

· Is the proposal an appropriate response to the preferred neighbourhood character?

· Does the proposal provide a positive response to the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 7?

· Does the proposal appropriately provide for sufficient on-site car parking and traffic movements?

These key questions are addressed below.

Design and Built Form

The subject site forms part of the Glenburnie Road and Environs Area which is an atypical suburban area given its Bush Environment character. The City of Whitehorse Neighbourhood Character Study, 2014 summarises the existing architectural style in the area, as ‘mixed, and includes pre-WWII (including heritage significant bungalow dwellings), post-war, 1940s, 1950s and contemporary infill styles. In terms of the landscape setting, ‘Gardens are bushy and informal with predominantly native/indigenous species and large canopy trees. The appearance of vegetated garden areas around buildings is an important feature of this precinct’.

There are a number two storey dwellings in the vicinity of the subject site, including 43, 45, 47, 57A, 64A, 66, and 70 Glenburnie Road. Examples of multi-dwelling development sites exist within Glenburnie Road, including the development to the north and 49 Glenburnie Road. Another nearby development is 31 Halls Parade to the immediate west.

The Neighbourhood Character objectives of ResCode (Clause 55.02-1) () seek to ‘ensure that the design respects the existing neighbourhood character or contributes to a preferred neighbourhood character’. The Design detail objectives (Clause 55.06-1)() also encourage design details to respect the existing and preferred character. Achieving a preferred character is also assisted by the ‘Preferred Character Statement’ outlined within Clause 22.03-5. The Statement for Bush Environment Precinct areas is as follows:

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

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

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

The Bush Environment Precinct is at the top of the neighbourhood character hierarchy and has been specifically targeted for the protection and enhancement of its special environmental and landscape characteristics. This area has been identified as suitable for the least degree of change. The Bush Environment Precinct Guidelines provide a number of design techniques to assist with achieving this preferred character outcome. This includes guidance on retaining established mature trees, and creating a spacious setting through side, rear and internal separation.

The starting point for the layout is to ensure the significant trees are adequately protected and ample spacing around the dwellings is provided to create a generous garden setting. The applicant’s arborist report identifies Trees 37 (Fraxinus excelsior – Golden Ash) and 38 (Grevillea robusta – Silky Oak) as the only ‘high’ retention trees on site, both of which are to be retained. The ‘medium’ retention trees on site are Trees 17 (Eucalyptus camaldulensis – River Red Gum), 18 (Abies alba – Silver fir) and 23 (Camellia japonica – Japanese camellia). Tree 18 is retained and Trees 17 and 23 are proposed to be removed, and their removal is supported by Council’s Arborist who has noted that Tree 17 is unstable at the base.

The site layout provides for the retention of the high and medium value trees appropriate for retention (based on arboricultural advice) and with available permeable garden area (48.7%), there is space for new trees to be planted, which, with the available space, would create a generous garden setting for new trees to establish within. The SLO7 triggers consideration of site coverage where the building coverage exceeds 35% and the hard surfaces exceed 15%, indicating that a combined building and hard surface coverage of up to 50% is allowed as-of-right. The proposed 51.3% only slightly exceeds this figure, and allow for a substantial proportion of the lot to accommodate landscaping and trees.

The proposal relies on the retention of the existing single crossover to service all dwellings on site. This outcome minimises the loss of front garden space and minimises the disturbance to the significant bushy vegetation within the road reserve. Trees 1 – 11 and 53-55 within the road reserve will be retained and as there is significant opportunity within the front setback for further tree planting and landscaping (in addition to the retention of Tree 18), the dwellings will be able to be screened by landscaping within the site frontage. As a result, views of the dwellings will be subservient to vegetation.

The ‘key existing characteristics’ for Bush Environment areas under the City of Whitehorse Neighbourhood study finds established setbacks varying between ‘6-8 from the frontage, 1 – 3 metres from the side with rear setbacks varying between 7 – 20 metres. New and infill developments usually have reduced setbacks’. The development proposes front setbacks of over 10 metres, side setbacks that vary between 1.2 and 4.7 metres and rear setbacks that vary between 10 and 12 metres. This layout will maintain the existing ‘backyardscape’ and provides significant opportunities for landscaping and tall tree planting with the front setback. As such, the siting of the proposed dwellings are respectful to the existing siting pattern within the Bush Environment setting, and allow for the retention of the existing trees with space for new dwellings.

As a means of ‘maintaining and reinforcing the rhythm of spacing between and around buildings and the alignment of buildings along the street’, the Precinct Guidelines encourage dwellings to provide a separation of 3-4 metres within the site and discourage boundary wall development. Dwellings 1 and 4 provide a ground level separation of 3.4 metres and Dwellings 2 and 3 provide a ground level separation of 5 metres.

The 9 metre maximum overall building height is below the 10 metre building height allowed under the zone for a sloping site. The proposed dwellings include pitched roofs, with the central ridgelines only reaching the 9 metre maximum height, and the balance of the proposed dwellings substantially lower, as the dwellings step down with the slope of the land. The proposal does not present a significant height difference to the neighbouring dwellings and other double-storey developments within the local setting.

The proposed dwelling façades are well-articulated, including recessed upper levels, and staggered setbacks across the built form, decorative verandahs, hipped roof forms (with eaves) at ground and upper level, and variation in materials. This prevents visual monotony and visual intrusion within the development and softens the perception of building bulk to the adjoining lots.

The use of weatherboard cladding provides fine grain detailing to the building forms and reflects the character of older style dwellings in the vicinity, including the heritage protected Minamere to the north. However the stark white walls and dark grey coloured roofs proposed will be visually intrusive within the Bush Environment Character, and the use of more muted and earthy toned cladding materials will be required as a condition of approval to ensure the dwellings retain an inconspicuous profile and blend with the landscape (a SLO7 objective).

The site includes a substantial slope upwards from the street, and in the originally advertised plans, all of the proposed dwellings have stepped ground floor levels to keep the finished floor levels as close as possible to the sloping natural ground levels. It is noted that steps within Dwellings 2 and 3 ground levels have been removed in the amended sketch plans, and a condition will require these to be reinstated.

However, even with the stepped ground floor levels, the front facades of Dwellings 1 and 2 present relatively high finished floor levels in relation to the natural ground levels, which are at their lowest point in relation to the dwellings at their frontages. In order to screen the high foundations of Dwellings 1 and 2 presenting to Glenburnie Road, the landscape plan must be amended to require the planting of substantial bushy shrub species adjacent to the front elevations of Dwellings 1 and 2 to mitigate the visual impact of the elevated finished floor levels in this location.

The application proposes a front fence comprising black steel pickets with light grey masonry plinths and on a masonry base. The height of this fence varies with the slope of the land, being generally around 1.2 metres high, but up to 1.7 metres high at the lowest south-east corner.

Council’s Parks & Natural Environment Arborist has indicated that the proposed fence will be a major encroachment to Trees 9 and 10 in the road reserve. Furthermore, the proposed fence height and style are out of keeping with the Landscape Character Objectives of the SLO7 and the Bush Environment character statement, where the use of vegetation is encouraged as an alternative to front fencing, and the presence of a fence will detract from the bushy landscape character which is preferred in the Glenburnie Road precinct. A condition will therefore require that the proposed front fence is removed, to allow for the new landscape plantings within the front setback to flow uninterrupted to the road reserve.

Clause 21.05 Environment requires lot sizes in the area affected by the Significant Landscape Overlay in Bush Environment character precincts to be generally in accordance with the prevailing minimum lot size of 650m². In addition, the Bush Environment Precinct Guidelines also encourage subdivision areas to be a minimum of 650m² as a means of achieving the objective of ‘ensuring the spacing and density of dwellings is managed to accord with housing objectives’. Whilst these are not mandatory requirements, the Planning Scheme includes ‘housing objectives’ and states that areas of ‘limited change’ will undergo development in the form of renovations to existing dwellings, replacement dwellings and some limited medium density development. The proposal provides a density of 1:598m² which is slightly less than the preferred density under the SLO7, but it is considered that the proposed site layout achieves a suitable design response, as the proposed dwellings can achieve the siting, design and landscape objectives outlined within the SLO7 and the Bush Environment Precinct.

Subject to the changes discussed above, the proposed development is considered to achieve a satisfactory response to the existing and preferred character of the Bush Environment Precinct.

Landscape Assessment

The subject site is included within the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 7 (Glenburnie Road and Environs). The area is recognised as:

· The natural landscape of the southern end of Glenburnie Road and the adjacent streets and properties is predominately dense remnant indigenous and native trees and understorey vegetation. The tree canopy encloses the space and creates the impression of homes being sited within the landscape rather than trees being planted around homes. Buildings are a mix of styles with few front fences interrupting the overall bush landscape. Glenburnie Road, Grove and Grey Streets are sealed but narrow, with no footpaths or kerbs. The street verges are covered by shrubs and trees creating an informal streetscape. In Glenburnie Road, the essentially single lane width of the street, undulating land and impaired lines of sight have a traffic calming effect and create a pedestrian friendly environment.

The landscape objectives can be summarised as retaining the dominance of vegetation coverage, ensuring a reasonable proportion of the lot is free of buildings and encouraging the use of vegetation as an alternative to front fencing. The Decision Guidelines for the SLO7 require consideration of the potential to achieve an average tree density of one tree with a mature height of over 15 metres per 200m² of site area. For the 2393m² subject site, this effectively requires 12 trees over 15 metres.

The proposed landscape plan includes the planting of 3 trees with mature heights of 20 metres, and 4 trees with mature heights of 10 metres. The proposal also includes the retention of Trees 13, 18, 23, 37, 38 and 43 on the subject site. None of these trees currently achieves a 15 metre height, but it is anticipated that Trees 13 (Lilly Pilly), 18 (Silver Fir), and 38 (Silky Oak) all have the potential to reach mature heights of 15 metres.

Therefore, at least six further tall (15 metre) trees are required to be planted on the subject site, and the submitted landscape plan requires amending (via conditions) to ensure the tall tree coverage on the subject site meets the SLO7 requirements. These must include at least one tree located within each of the secluded private open space areas of Dwellings 1 and 2. In addition, one small tree must be planted between Dwellings 3 and 4 where it will provide a visible landscape separation between these two dwellings when viewed at the end of the central accessway from Glenburnie Road. The proposed site layout provides sufficient space around and between the dwellings to support the required tall trees.

In addition, the proposed landscape plan includes a limited range of species, many of which are not indigenous, and also provide for limited under storey plantings. In order to achieve a landscape response reflective of the preferred and prevailing SLO7 character of Glenburnie Road, further amendments will be required to the landscape plan requiring the planting of predominantly indigenous species, including dense shrubs and understorey plantings, particularly within the site frontage to ensure the site provides an appropriate contribution to the landscape character.

Subject to the improved landscaping response, the site layout, with its deep front setback will ensure the proposed double storey dwellings maintain an inconspicuous profile, which will be further assisted by the retention of vegetation within the road reserve.

Further protection of vegetation in the road reserve will be achieved by requiring all construction vehicles to access the site from the north, traversing the shortest possible length of Glenburnie Road and thereby limiting the potential for such large vehicles to damage the overhanging tree canopies within the Glenburnie Road reserve.

No change to the existing crossover alignment is proposed, however if the existing crossover requires repair as a result of the construction processes, conditions will require any crossover works to be compliant with Council’s Asset Engineering requirements. The site will also be required to adhere to a Construction Management Plan to ensure the site is appropriately controlled through the construction.

Subject to the conditions from Council’s Planning Arborist, the proposed development will have no unreasonable impacts to the trees to be retained (on the subject site and within adjoining lots), in keeping with the requirements of the SLO7.

The total site coverage 37.16% (discussion plans) slightly exceeds the permit trigger of 35% (by 2.16%). The proposed site coverage and available permeable garden area (48.7%) ensures adequate space is retained for tree retention and planting as well as useable space for recreation by residents of the dwellings.

The development of four dwellings provides a positive response to the objectives and decision guidelines contained within Schedule 7 to the Significant Landscape Overlay.

Amenity

Overshadowing

The shadow diagrams submitted with the application demonstrate that the proposal presents very little impact to adjoining areas of secluded private open space. The shadows are largely contained within the subject site throughout the day with small sections of shadow cast over the adjoining carport and outbuildings (not SPOS) within the adjoining lot to the south. With increased setbacks to the south boundary (sketch plans), this will further reduce the impact to the south.

There is are generally no overshadowing impacts to the adjoining lots to the west.

Overlooking

Overlooking is generally compliant with Standard B22 (Overlooking). The following is noted:

· It is recommended a trellis be located on the south fence where opposite the Dwellings 2 and 3 master bedrooms (addressed via a condition of the permit).

· The upper level north-facing windows to Dwelling 1 do not require screening as they are directly adjacent to a single storey dwelling (Unit 6) within the approved development to the north (views are across a roof with no impact to secluded private open space).

· The upper level north facing windows to Dwelling 4 and the upper level south facing windows to Dwellings 2 and 3 are treated to prevent overlooking in accordance with Standard B22.

· The ground and upper level west-facing windows to Dwellings 3 and 4 are setback greater than 9 metres from the boundary, therefore do not require any screening.

· The upper level internal facing windows will be required to be screened to prevent internal views (addressed via a condition of the permit).

Side and Rear Setbacks

The sketch plans show the ground levels as setback between 1.2 metres (family room to Dwelling 1) and 5.5 metres to Dwelling 1 to the north boundary and a minimum of 2 metres to the south boundary.

The upper levels are setback between 2.1 metres (leisure room to Dwelling 1) and 5.61 (bedroom 2 to Dwelling 4) metres to the north boundary and between 3.2 metres (Dwelling 1) and 3.3 metres to Dwelling 3.

The development meets the Standard B17 (Side and rear setbacks) variation of Clause 55 as set out within Schedule 1 to the NRZ.

Car Parking

The proposal has a requirement to provide eight (8) resident car spaces, which is achieved through the provision of a double-width garage for each dwelling. On this basis, the proposal complies with the car parking requirement in Clause 52.06.

The accessway has a compliant minimum width of 3.5 metres (increasing in width to 4 metres at property entrance), and the garages’ internal dimensions exceed the required sizes and provide compliant headroom clearance. Conditions will require the widths of garage openings and the accessway ramp grades to be nominated on the plans. The sketch plans relocate the garage to Dwelling 2, and to ensure for appropriate vehicle turning manoeuvres as a result of the change, a condition of the permit will require swept path diagrams to be provided for this garage.

Overall, the layout and design of the car parking spaces are considered to meet Clause 52.06-9 (Design standards for car parking). Council’s Transport Engineer has required that pedestrian doors opening into the garages to be clear of internal minimum dimensions, which will form a condition requirement.

Objections to the application raised concern with the inability for visitor parking within Glenburnie Road reserve. Whilst the proposal is not required to provide on-site visitor parking, given the existing conditions of Glenburnie Road, which has a narrow roadway, and significant roadside planting and very limited on-street car parking opportunities it is recommended two visitor spaces are provided on the subject site. These will be required to be paved with grasscrete (concrete lattice with lawn growing between) to maintain permeability and limit the additional hard-surfacing, and these spaces will be positioned in locations where significant trees or landscaping could not reasonably be established in association with the proposed site layout, such that they will not undermine the ability of the site to support tall trees and the Bush Environment character of the SLO7.

As such, conditions will require one visitor car space to be positioned between the garages of Dwellings 1 and 4, and the separation between these garages increased from 3.4 to 3.5 metres to ensure a compliant car space width. The second visitor car space will be required to be positioned west of the Dwelling 2 garage.

Objectors Concerns not Previously Addressed

· Negative cumulative impact of recent development in the area

Each application is assessed on its own merits. Although Glenburnie Road is identified as an area for Limited Change, the size of many of the lots on this street provides opportunity for medium density development in keeping with the requirements of the SLO7 and generally in accordance with the preferred minimum lot size of 650m². In addition, new development should be in keeping with the preferred neighbourhood character which is not impacted by recent developments.

· Planted trees may not be maintained in the long term

Standard Permit conditions require the retention of required tree plantings, and as the new trees reach maturity, they will also be protected by the SLO7.

· Loss of wildlife habitat

A condition of the permit requires a strong proportion of new indigenous trees to be planted on site to contribute towards fauna and habitat qualities of the area.

· Loss of sense of community

It does not follow that the introduction of four dwellings on this large lot would erode the sense of community in the area.

· Physical and mental health impacts to surrounding residents

Impacts to physical and mental health are not able to be considered through the Planning process.

· Surface water runoff and potential flooding to lots to the east

The application has been reviewed by Council’s Assets Team, and standard conditions will require stormwater plans to be approved by Council’s Asset Engineers team prior to the commencement of development.

· Construction process

All residential construction noise and amenity impact must comply with relevant EPA and Council local laws. A Construction Management Plan be provided to provide some assurances around addressing impacts during construction. This will include a requirement that vehicles must enter from the north, to minimise impacts to street trees overhanding the road to the south.

CONCLUSION

The proposal for construction of construction of four double storey dwellings and associated tree removal is an acceptable response that satisfies the relevant provisions contained within the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, including the State and Local Planning Policies, the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 1, the Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 7 and Clause 55 (ResCode).

A total of 26 objections were received as a result of public notice and all of the issues raised have been discussed as required.

It is considered that the application should be approved.

Attachment

1 Amended Sketch Plans (Decision Plans) - 50 Glenburnie Road Mitcham

2 Advertised Development Plans - 50 Glenburnie Road Mitcham

3 Advertised Landscape Plan - 50 Glenburnie Road Mitcham

Attendance

Cr Liu left the Chamber at 8:17 pm

Cr Liu returned to the Chamber at 8:18 pm

Whitehorse City Council

Council Minutes 28 November 2022

11.3 Heritage Advisor Annual Report 2021 – 2022

City Planning and Development

Director City Development

FILE NUMBER: SF09/52
ATTACHMENT

SUMMARY

The twenty-first year of work by the Heritage Advisor at Whitehorse is now complete. The purpose of this report is to provide an outline of the work undertaken by the Heritage Advisor for the previous financial year between 1 July 2021 and 30 June 2022. This annual report details the work, tasks and achievements of the Heritage Advisor as specified in the Heritage Advisor Contract with the items listed in Attachment 1 to this report.

Although largely office based, the Heritage Advisor spends a proportion of time on site inspecting heritage properties, meeting with property owners and assessing the impacts of development on the heritage fabric of sites and spaces in the City of Whitehorse. A return to office based activities post the COVID-19 lockdowns has meant that the Heritage Advisor’s site visits have recommenced.

This report provides an overview of the breadth of work that the Heritage Advisor manages and the contribution that the position plays in protecting and promoting heritage in Whitehorse.

Council Resolution

Moved by Cr McNeill, Seconded by Cr Cutts

That Council accepts the report and acknowledges the valuable contribution made by the Heritage Advisor towards the protection and heritage promotion of heritage places across the City

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Key Matters

Key matters considered as part of this report are:

· The status of the current Heritage Advisor Contract

· The primary duties of the Heritage Advisor as specified in the Heritage Advisor Contract, and the tasks and achievements against each of these during the last financial year.

· The contribution of the Heritage Advisor to recent State government big build projects

· The policy and financial implications of Heritage Advisor role

· The implications of not having a Heritage Advisor within Council.

background

This is the twelfth year that Coleman Architects has provided heritage advisory services to Council. Coleman Architects are into the second year of the current contract. The term of the contract is four years with the option for a further one-year extension at Council’s discretion. The Heritage Advisor is located in the Strategic Planning Unit, generally one day per week. The main role of the Heritage Advisor is to provide advice to both planning staff and members of the public regarding development works on properties covered by a Heritage Overlay (HO) within the Whitehorse Planning Scheme. The Heritage Advisor also investigates and provides advice regarding protection of heritage places across the municipality. Council has provided this service since 2002.

Discussion and Options

The role of the Heritage Advisor is primarily to work with the Council to develop and deliver heritage policy and heritage strategies, and provide professional advice to the Council and the community to help deliver good heritage and urban design management in the local government area.

The risk to Council of not engaging the services of a Heritage Advisor include neglecting responsibilities under various pieces of legislation, prolonged outcomes for planning applications in heritage areas, subsequent costs to Council and the permit applicant in terms of resolving disputes, and reputational damage to Council.

Following is an outline of the work, tasks and achievements undertaken by the Heritage Advisor over the last financial year. This responds to the primary duties of the Heritage Advisor as specified in the Heritage Advisor Contract and the items are listed in Attachment 1 to this report.

Heritage advice to property owners – Refer Item a)

The Strategic Planning Unit coordinates the Heritage Advisory Service that is available to owners of properties that are in a Heritage Overlay (HO). The Heritage Advisor leads this service and provides advice and guidance to property owners who are making planning applications for properties affected by the HO. Both the Statutory and Strategic Planning teams promote the benefit of speaking directly with Council’s Heritage Advisor prior to preparing designs or submitting an application to Council.

Pre-application consultations with potential applicants consistently result in the submission of planning permit applications that need little or no further comment by the Heritage Advisor. This indicates that Council's policy of encouraging potential applicants to meet with the Heritage Advisor prior to finalising their application is successful.

Since a return to the office following the COVID-19 lockdown, the Heritage Advisor has been able to resume face-to-face and on-site meetings, apart from those meetings that have since moved on-line for convenience and time management reasons.

The provision of heritage advice usually entails:

· Visiting a site to assess a proposal and its likely impact on the heritage place.

· Advising property owners and/or permit applicants whether changes are suitable for the property.

· Guiding the choice of materials and finishes selected by applicants for works on heritage buildings.

· Advising appropriate conservation/restoration techniques, particularly for detailing and the materials required for additions and/or alterations; and

· Assessing conservation works as part of the Heritage Assistance Fund.

· Discussing potential alternative use of heritage properties with landowners (63 Woodhouse Grove, Box Hill North and 2 High Street, Mont Albert)

Heritage promotion – Refer Item b)

Heritage Assistance Fund (HAF)

During the 12 months covered by this report to 30 June 2022, the Heritage Advisor was involved with the sixteenth year of the Whitehorse Heritage Assistance Fund (HAF), assessing applications for the 2021/2022 round of funding and providing his evaluation to the Heritage Steering Committee which in turn recommends successful applications.

Heritage Week

In September each year, Council celebrates Heritage Week. The focus of Heritage Week in 2021 was on the post-war and popular culture of the 1950s in the City of Whitehorse. Council hosted a range of events both on-line and in-person that provided insights into what life was like in Whitehorse 70 years ago.

The Heritage Advisor was responsible for the preparation of a digital presentation for Heritage Week, which explored the 1950’s - The Suburban Dream. The presentation was available via Council’s website and gave an insight into post-war housing of the 1950’s.

The Heritage Advisor’s role in this year’s Heritage Week, We Came to Whitehorse, held from 8 – 15 September 2022, will be included in next year’s annual report.

Administration of the planning scheme - Refer Item c)

The Heritage Advisor keeps a record of the advice that he provides on permit applications and general heritage enquiries. Attachment 2 provides an overview of the number of pre-application advice meetings and referral reports for planning permit applications completed by the Heritage Advisor in the last financial year. The statistics are slightly down on last year’s planning application heritage referrals, noting that during the reporting year Melbourne was in COVID lockdown for a total of 3 months. Difficulties sourcing trades and building materials may have influenced this trend and shortages of workers across many industries may be compounding this problem. In addition, the general state of the economy in terms of the cost of living and inflation may have affected people’s financial ability and preparedness to renovate.

The Heritage Advisor also provided advice to the strategic planning team regarding applications under Section 29A of the Building Act 1993 for demolition and provided advice on the appropriateness of seeking interim HO protection to these places. Over the past twelve months, no recommendations were made to the Minister for Planning for interim heritage protection controls in response to an application under S29A.

The Heritage Advisor also provided advice to Council project managers and other officers on preliminary proposals and development guidelines for Council properties, including:

· Box Hill United Soccer Club, Wembley Park, Box Hill – Undertook inspection of the former municipal incinerator, now included in the Heritage Overlay, and discussed options for modifications to improve the amenity for the club.

· Brick laneways, Mitcham – inspected existing conditions and provided advice to the Design and Construction Team.

· Bluestone kerb and channels, Mont Albert – inspected existing conditions and provided advice to the Design and Construction Team on appropriate ongoing repairs and replacement policies.

· 2 High Street, Mont Albert – heritage advice regarding potential demolition of existing dwelling for potential open space.

Sharing of information with planners - Refer Item d)

When preparing referral reports, the Heritage Advisor generally meets with, or speaks to, the planning officer to explain the reasoning behind the heritage comments provided. This assists with the planner’s understanding of heritage principles in order to accurately assess applications. These meetings are followed up with detailed referral notes which are recorded on both the planning and property files for on-going reference.

Change to heritage assets - Refer Item e)

The Heritage Advisor keeps a record of all heritage meetings, enquiries and referrals (summarised in Attachment 2), and of the changes proposed. This provides a snapshot of significant changes to heritage properties that are occurring, for both individual places and within the heritage precincts to enable appropriate monitoring.

In some instances, the Heritage Advisor will request a photographic record of a property as a condition of the planning permit. The photographic record serves as evidence of existing heritage conditions prior to modifications allowed through a planning permit.

Heritage education - Refer Item f)

There generally seems to be a good understanding of heritage issues in the Whitehorse community. This is due in part to heritage promotion exercises such as the Heritage Assistance Fund, Heritage Week and the promotion of heritage on Council’s webpage.

Potential gaps in knowledge relate to a perception about what heritage is. There seems to be a perception in the community that heritage only relates to much earlier, aesthetically pleasing buildings from the Victorian, Edwardian and inter-war eras. However, heritage is not necessarily about the age of a place, but recognising buildings that are important to communities. Modernist innovation in architecture and social/cultural heritage also needs protection in order to leave a legacy for future generations.

Both the Whitehorse and Box Hill historical societies play an important role in storing and sharing historical information. The Heritage Advisor maintains a strong working relationship with the key contacts at the historical societies and engages with them on different heritage matters. Representatives from both of the historical societies are members of the Heritage Steering Committee. Meetings of the Committee are an opportunity to share information with Councillors.

Heritage funding - Refer items g) and h)

Applications for the 2021/2022 round of HAF were open from 18 August 2021 until 29 September 2021 with a total of thirty-nine applications for funding were received.

The Whitehorse Heritage Assistance Fund (HAF) provides financial support to individuals, community groups and organisations for the purposes of improving the condition and appearance of heritage buildings. Such works might include repairing leadlight windows, painting, replacing guttering, rotted door frames, verandahs or front steps.

The seventeenth year of the HAF attracted 39 applications totalling $74,000.

The Heritage Advisor presented the applications for consideration at a meeting of the Heritage Advisory Committee on Wednesday 27 October 2021 via Teams. The committee considered the applications and made recommendations regarding applications for funding under this year’s program. This responsibility is in accordance with the Steering Committee’s Terms of Reference, (as stated in the report under CEO delegation, 31 May 2005.)

The Committee recommended that 23 out of the 39 applications for funding be approved. Approved applications total $40,000 as per the Fund budget.

Maintain lists of trades and specialists - Refer item i)

Sometimes permit applicants will require the services of an independent heritage practitioner to prepare a heritage assessment as part of their planning permit application. In these situations, the Heritage Advisor directs people to the Victorian Heritage Services Directory maintained by the National Trust. This site provides a summary of the of the types of consultants that work in heritage and which type may be relevant for particular requirements, including heritage architects, heritage consultants and heritage builders.

Council’s Heritage Advisor also maintains a list of trades and conservation specialists who have experience in specified areas such as tuck pointing, slate roofing or specialist material suppliers. The Heritage Advisor expands the list as suitably qualified and experienced specialists come to his attention. Some trades have been added to the list through successfully completed HAF projects.

State and Commonwealth registers - Refer Item j)

Places in the municipality currently included on the Victorian Heritage Register (VHR) are:

· Former Burwood Primary School (VHR No. H975)

· Former Standard Brickworks, Box Hill (VHR No.H720)

· Wattle Park (VHR No.H904)

· Former Wunderlich/Monier Terracotta Roof Tiles Complex, Vermont (VHR No. H1008)

· Box Hill Cemetery Columbarium and Myer Memorial (VHR No. H2045)

· Former Wesleyan Chapel, Box Hill North (VHR No. H2010)

· Willis Pipe Organ (in Wesley Uniting Church, Box Hill) (VHR No. H2156)

· Stone Pipe Organ (in The Avenue Uniting Church, Blackburn) (VHR No. H2166)

· All Saints (former Christ Church) Anglican Church, Mitcham (VHR No. H2302)

· Former Chapel of St Joseph, Mont Albert North (VHR No. H2351)

There are currently no places of potential State significance under consideration. However a recent heritage assessment of 1 - 6 Pin Oak Court, Vermont South (Ramsay Street), prepared by GJM Heritage, suggested that Pin Oak Court, in combination with the ATV-O studio in East Burwood, may meet the criteria for inclusion on the VHR.

Anyone can nominate a place or object for inclusion on the VHR and the Heritage Council of Victoria determines what places and objects are included. Heritage Victoria processes applications to register a place or object on the VHR. The Executive Director of Heritage Victoria recommends whether a place or object meets the threshold but the Heritage Council of Victoria, which is an independent statutory body, makes the final determination.

In the past twelve months the Heritage Advisor has continued to provide assistance to Heritage Victoria in relation to the Former Wesleyan Chapel at 147 Woodhouse Grove, Box Hill North (VHR No. H2010), where there is also a current planning permit for the construction of eight dwellings in the Heritage Overlay, and associated vegetation removal.

Promotion of places of historic interest - Refer Item k)

The Heritage Advisor provides advice to Council’s Heritage Program’s Officer, to assist with the interpretation, conservation and restoration of culturally and historically significant places throughout Whitehorse. This assistance ensures that works undertaken on Council owned heritage places accord with heritage specifications.

Most recently, the Heritage Advisor has provided advice on the potential relocation of the war memorials in Box Hill as part of the SLRA project. The Heritage Advisor provided advice on the suitability of alternative locations and the care needed during any future relocation.

The Heritage Advisor’s investigations of individual properties for possible inclusion in a Heritage Overlay and liaison with owners of heritage properties also enhances the knowledge base of the history and cultural significance of the local area.

Advice on places under threat - Refer Item l)

Over the last twelve months, the Heritage Advisor has continued to assist Council in reaching a favourable outcome with the Level Crossing Removals Authority (LXRA) for the level crossing removal at Mont Albert. The Heritage Advisor has attended several meetings with Council Officers addressing the potential relocation and appropriate uses for the Mont Albert Station, and attended meetings with the LXRA. This project has involved investigations and discussions about the potential Avenue of Honour in Churchill Street, which the level crossing construction work has affected.

The Heritage Advisor has also continued to be involved with ongoing discussions and meetings regarding the likely impacts of the State Government’s Suburban Rail Loop (SRL) project on heritage assets at the two new station locations proposed in Whitehorse at Box Hill and Burwood. SRL project will have impact on the Box Hill Commercial precinct (HO244) and the former Burwood Skyline Drive-In Cinema (HO281). The Heritage Advisor has worked with Council officers to review the relevant draft Heritage Impact Assessments and provided feedback to the SRL and their consultants.

In addition to providing advice on these large infrastructure projects, the Heritage Advisor has undertaken assessments of residential properties under threat of potential demolition. Applications under S29A of the Building Act 1993 for report and consent for demolition often trigger an assessment but investigation may also be initiated based on information from concerned members of the community or alerted through a planning permit application process.

These assessments are prepared in accordance with Planning Practice 1 (PPN1), which outlines the specific heritage criteria used for the assessment of the heritage value of the heritage place. In accordance with PPN1, the heritage process leading to the identification of the place needs to clearly justify the significance of the place as a basis for its inclusion in the Heritage Overlay.

Places which the Heritage Advisor has undertaken detailed assessments in the last year to determine if they would achieve the required thresholds for inclusion in the Heritage Overlay are:

· 2 Gawler Court, Mont Albert

· 7 Garden Avenue, Mitcham

The Heritage Advisor also provided preliminary heritage advice on Pin Oak Court, Vermont (Ramsay Street) before Council appointed GJM Heritage Consultants to make a full assessment.

Heritage recommendations and implementation in Whitehorse - Refer Items m) and n)

On 21 September 2020, Council adopted the Heritage Framework Plan. The Heritage Framework Plan 2020 will guide heritage planning in the City of Whitehorse over the next 10 years. The Framework prioritises future heritage projects and highlights tasks that will improve heritage protection and services to the community. The purpose of the Whitehorse Heritage Framework Plan 2020 is to:

· Identify the status of heritage planning in the City of Whitehorse including remaining areas needing protection.

· Identify opportunities to improve the identification, protection, management and promotion of heritage assets in the City of Whitehorse.

· Identify and prioritise future heritage work in the municipality.

A number of tasks from the Heritage Framework Plan are already underway including pre-planning for a desktop review of the Potential Heritage List to establish scope of further study. The precincts mapping exercise to identify the contributory buildings was also one of the tasks of the Heritage Framework Plan; the fieldwork for this exercise is now complete and the maps and subsequent report are being finalised. This may result in some buildings that were previously identified as being ‘contributory’ now being ‘non-contributory.’ A future planning scheme amendment may be required to correct these anomalies and any other planning scheme changes that result from the Framework Plan. The ‘heritage’ page on Council’s website has been updated and maintenance is ongoing to ensure information, and advice is up to date.

Heritage library – Refer Item o)

A library of heritage publications and technical literature is kept and maintained within the Strategic Planning Unit. This library has also been transferred to Council’s electronic document management system and relevant information, including Council’s Heritage Studies, is in the process of being added to Council’s website. The library includes photos of good examples of alterations/additions to heritage properties and infill development in heritage precincts. The Heritage Advisor is continually collecting and adding information.

Strategic Alignment

Policy

Planning Policy Framework

Clause 15 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme refers to Built Environment and Heritage. The objective at Clause 15.03-1S is to ensure the conservation of places of heritage significance. The strategies to achieve this objective that are of relevance to this report are:

· Identify, assess and document places of natural and cultural heritage significance as a basis for their inclusion in the planning scheme.

· Provide for the protection of natural heritage sites and man-made resources.

· Provide for the conservation and enhancement of those places that are of aesthetic, archaeological, architectural, cultural, scientific or social significance.

· Encourage the conservation and restoration of contributory elements of a heritage place.

· Ensure an appropriate setting and context for heritage places is maintained or enhanced.

The work of the Heritage Advisor encompasses these strategies, particularly through referral advice for planning applications in heritage overlay areas, through the assessment of HAF applications and through the provision of heritage advice to the owners and occupiers of heritage properties in Whitehorse.

Local Planning Policy Framework

Clause 21.05 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme relates to Environment. There are issues of natural environment, visual environment and the built environment all of which are important to the City of Whitehorse. One of the Key Issues identified at Clause 21.05-2 is Heritage Protection.

The Environment objectives are listed at Clause 21.05. An objective that relates to this report is at Clause 21.05-3 and states:

· To protect and enhance areas with special natural, environmental, cultural or historic significance for the future enjoyment of the community.

The strategies at Clause 21.05-4 to achieve this objective include:

· Providing controls to protect and enhance areas of environmental significance.

· Identifying those buildings, structures and features of historical significance within the municipality.

These strategies will implemented by:

· Applying a Heritage Overlay to the buildings and structures listed on the Victorian Heritage Register and identified in City of Whitehorse heritage reviews.

The work of the Heritage Advisor proactively addresses the strategies at Clause 21.05-4 of the Whitehorse Planning Scheme. The Heritage Advisor has the knowledge and experience to identify potential heritage places and undertake assessments to determine whether heritage protection through planning scheme controls is necessary.

Whitehorse Council Plan 2021-2025

The work of the Heritage Advisor supports Strategic Direction 4: Our Built Environment, Movement and Public Places of the Council Plan 2021 – 2025. In particular, it supports the following objectives of these strategic objectives:

Objective 4.1: Assets facilities and urban design of a quality that provides the highest levels of utility and enhances the connection between the built, natural, heritage and social environments.

The Strategy to achieve this objective is:

Strategy 4.1.2 - Prepare strategies and guidelines that set expectations for the quality of development and urban design outcomes for a place.

Historic buildings, places and objects are a critical part of the identity of the City of Whitehorse and contribute to the character and liveability of the municipality. Identifying and protecting historic buildings, landscapes and objects is therefore a vital function of Council for current and future generations. Council’s Heritage Advisor identifies places of potential significance and provides advice on adaptions to heritage places, ensuring that heritage features are not lost through development pressures.

Whitehorse 2040 Community Vision

The following themes and key priorities of the Whitehorse 2040 Community Vision are relevant to the role of Council’s Heritage Advisor:

Theme 6: Whitehorse is an Empowered Collaborative Community

Key Priority 6.1 is relevant to this report – Engage with the community collaboratively to hear their views on what needs to be done.

The Heritage Advisor works with the community to keep them informed of opportunities for heritage funding through the HAF and access to the Heritage Advisory Service. Exhibited changes to the planning scheme allow the views of the community to be included in the planning scheme amendment process.

SUPPORTING REPORT DETAILS

Legislative and Risk Implications

There are no legal or risk implications arising from the recommendation contained in this report.

Equity, Inclusion, and Human Rights Considerations

In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues.

Community Engagement

Through the Strategic Planning Unit, the Heritage Advisor involves the Heritage Steering Committee in significant heritage projects and decisions. This allow the Steering Committee to provide comment and advice on the heritage work of the municipality. The Committee for the reporting year comprised:

· Two Councillors – Cr Cutts and Cr Stennett (July to November 2021) and Cr Cutts and Cr McNeill (November 2021 – present)

· Mr William Orange (Box Hill Historical Society)

· Ms Vicki Jones Evans (Whitehorse Historical Society)

· Council’s Strategic Planner (Whitehorse City Council)

The Heritage Advisor provides input to the Heritage Steering Committee on matters such as Heritage Assistance Funding and the preparation of plans or frameworks that guide heritage planning in Whitehorse such as the Heritage Framework Plan 2020.

No community engagement was specifically required for this report.

Financial and Resource Implications Heritage Advisor Contract

After a competitive tender process for Heritage Advisory Services early in 2020 Coleman Architects was the successful tenderer for the current contract (Contract 30227) which was signed on 19 February 2020. The Contract commenced on 1 March 2020 and will end on 29 February 2024 or 28 February 2025 if the one (1) year extension is exercised.

There has been a steady increase to the Heritage Advisor’s workload, due to some notable planning activities and emerging heritage issues, including:

· Legislative changes including the introduction of VicSmart Approvals that have a 10-day permit process mean that the Heritage Advisor needs to prioritise these applications. Although VicSmart approvals are for straightforward planning applications they still require review and the preparation of referral notes by the heritage advisor.

· State Government projects such as the North East Link, Level Crossing Removal Project (Surrey Hills and Mont Albert stations) and more recently the Suburban Rail Loop has required a great deal of input from the Heritage Advisor including attending meetings, reviewing impact statements and preparing written submissions. These projects often take more than the Heritage Advisor’s allotted one day per week. Work on these projects continues.

· An increased awareness of ‘heritage’ in the Whitehorse community, (either through Council’s promotion of heritage or by other means) has led to a steep rise in the number of enquiries about places under threat of demolition. This, coupled with an increased number of applications for Report and Consent under S29A of the Building Act, has required the Heritage Advisor to undertake unplanned heritage assessments within extremely tight deadlines.

· At its meeting on 21 September 2021 Council adopted the Heritage Framework Plan which will guide Heritage Planning in Whitehorse for the next 10 years. There are a number of key recommendations in this Plan, some of which have been addressed; however, some of the larger initiatives such as a review of the ‘potential heritage list’ will require greater involvement by the Heritage Advisor.

· The work of the Heritage Advisor also increases in September every year when there is an influx of applications for the Annual Heritage Assistance Fund. During this period, the Heritage Advisor assesses approximately 50 applications for funding in order to make a presentation and recommendations to the Heritage Advisory Committee.

These activities have significantly increased the Heritage Advisor’s workload, particularly the State government projects which, although will affect Whitehorse, are additional to the role’s core functions. This additional load means that the Heritage Advisor often works additional unbudgeted hours to complete all of the jobs at hand. The Heritage Framework Plan, adopted in 2020, also contains a considerable work program.

In response to the increase in heritage related work, Council a 2022/23 Budget Initiative Request included an increase in the Heritage Advisory Service from 1 to 2 days per week for a 2 year period. The net cost to Council of this initiative is $150,000. The additional day per week will ensure that responses to statutory planning referrals, both standard and VicSmart are more timely. It will also allow the Heritage Advisor to progress the work program set out in the adopted 2020 Heritage Framework Plan.

Heritage Assistance Fund

The Whitehorse Heritage Assistance Fund (HAF) provides financial support to owners and occupiers of eligible buildings covered by a Heritage Overlay to assist in maintenance and enhancement of heritage places. Applicants can seek funding of up to 100 per cent of the total cost of the project, with the maximum grant per application being $2000. The annual budget for the Heritage Assistance Fund is $40,000.

Heritage Framework Plan

The total expenditure to achieve all of the tasks outlined in the Heritage Framework Plan 2020 is approximately $647,000 over a period of 10 years. In order to effectively and economically address the issues identified in the Framework Plan the identified tasks were prioritised. Priority was determined by assessing relative urgency of each tasks and the logical order in which they should be undertaken. In adopting the Heritage Framework Plan on 21 September 2020, Council also resolved to:

Refer projects from the Heritage Framework Plan 2020 to future annual budget preparation processes for consideration.

Task four of the Framework is a heritage study of priority A and priority B places on Council’s ‘potential heritage list.’ This is the second most costly element of the Draft Framework, estimated at approximately $300,000 across the 2022/2023 and 2023/2024 budgets but is also considered to be very important in achieving a more transparent account of Council’s existing heritage places and potentially a decrease in the number of ad-hoc investigations into potential heritage places at a time when they may be under threat.

Innovation and Continuous Improvement

There are no Innovation and Continuous Improvement matters arising from the recommendation contained in this report.

Collaboration

No collaboration was required for this report.

Conflict of Interest

Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter.

Conclusion

The Heritage Advisor provides valuable knowledge and advice to the community and internal stakeholders. The advice provided to property owners prior to lodging a planning permit application ensures a smoother planning permit application process.

The Heritage Advisor has had significant input into major State government projects affecting Whitehorse, including the SRL and the Mont Albert Level Crossing Removal projects. The Heritage Advisor manages a large caseload that extends to counter and on-site meetings and planning and executing tasks outlined in the Whitehorse Heritage Framework Plan 2020.

The role of the Heritage Advisor is fundamental to Council achieving the key objectives under Strategic Direction 4 of the Council Plan as well as meeting various other strategies and legislative requirements associated with the Whitehorse Planning Scheme, the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the Heritage Act 2017, the Adopted Heritage Framework Plan 2020 and the Building Act 1983.

Attachment

1 Duties and functions of the Heritage Advisor

2 Summary of Heritage Advisor Planning Advice and Referral Reports 2021/2022

Whitehorse City Council

Council Minutes 28 November 2022

11.8 Councillor Appointments to Organisations and Community Bodies

Governance and Integrity

Director Corporate Services

ATTACHMENT

SUMMARY

Each year, Council appoints Councillor Representatives to various internal and external committees, organisations and other bodies for the forthcoming year.

These committees provide an important mechanism for consultation with the community and key stakeholders. Internal committees and networks provide advice to Council but do not make formal decisions.

Appointments for the committees and other bodies are required; this report outlines how many appointments are needed, the term and whether a substitute is needed. The attachment outlines the purpose of the Committee and how often it meets to assist Councillors with time commitments.

It is proposed to conduct a full review of Council committees and membership requirements in the first half of 2023.

The Mayor called for nominations on each Committee, where there was more than the required nominations received votes were taken in order of the nominations.

Following are the appointments to each committee and details of where votes were required:

Committee

Delegate

Whitehorse Manningham Regional Library Corp.

(Two Councillors, new two year term commencing 2022)

Votes:

Cr Skilbeck	Received 3 votes
Cr Davenport	Received 6 votes
Cr Liu	Received 2 votes

Cr Davenport received a majority of votes and was appointed as the delegate.

A further vote was put for the second delegate.

Cr Skilbeck	Received 6 votes
Cr Liu

Cr Skilbeck was appointed the second delegate.

Cr Davenport

Cr Skilbeck

Whitehorse Sports and Recreation Network

Votes:

(Two Councillors, new two year term commencing 2022)

Cr Stennett	Received 7 votes
Cr Cutts	Received no votes
Cr Carr	Received 1 votes

Cr Stennett received a majority of votes and was appointed as the delegate.

Cr Cutts	Received 6 votes
Cr Carr	Received 5 votes

Cr Cutts received the majority of votes and was appointed the second delegate.

Cr Stennett

Cr Cutts

Municipal Association of Victoria

(One Councillor and One substitute Councillor)

Cr Munroe

Substitute: Cr Lane

Whitehorse Business Group

(Two Councillors)

Cr Munroe

Cr Massoud

Victorian Local Governance Association

(One Councillor and One substitute Councillor)

Cr Massoud

Substitute: Cr Lane

Eastern Affordable Housing Alliance

(One Councillor, new two year term commencing 2022)

Cr Massoud

Eastern Alliance for Greenhouse Action (EAGA) Executive Committee

(One Councillor)

Votes:

Cr McNeill	Received 1 vote
Cr Barker	Received 5 votes
Cr Liu	Received 5 votes

Cr McNeill was eliminated with the lowest number of votes.

A further vote was put.

Cr Barker	Received 6 votes
Cr Liu

Cr Barker received majority of votes and was appointed.

Cr Barker

Eastern Region Group

(Mayor, Deputy Mayor and CEO)

Cr Lane, Mayor

Cr Cutts, Deputy Mayor

Eastern Transport Coalition

(One Councillor)

Cr Liu

Metropolitan Transport Forum

(One Councillor)

Cr McNeill

Substitute: Cr Munroe

CEO Employment Matters Committee

(All Councillors)

All Councillors

Audit and Risk Committee

(Two Councillors)

Cr Barker

Cr Skilbeck

Heritage Steering Committee

(Two Councillors)

Cr McNeill

Cr Stennett

Visual Arts Advisory Committee

(Up to Two Councillors as Co-Chairs)

Cr Carr

Cr Stennett

Whitehorse Disability Advisory Committee (WDAC)

(Two Councillors, One as Chair)

Cr McNeill

Cr Massoud

Whitehorse Reconciliation Advisory Committee

(One Councillor as Chair)

Cr Massoud

Domestic Animal Management Plan Advisory Committee

(Two Councillors)

Cr Carr

Cr Barker

Substitute: Cr Massoud

Major Projects Councillor Reference Group

(All Councillors)

All Councillors

Environment and Sustainability Reference Group

(Two Councillors, One as Chair)

Votes:

Cr Cutts	Received 9 votes
Cr McNeill
Cr Massoud

Cr Cutts received a majority of votes and was appointed as the delegate.

A further vote was put for the second delegate.

Cr McNeill	Received 1 vote
Cr Massoud	Received 10 votes

Cr Massoud was appointed the second delegate.

Cr Cutts

Cr Massoud

Tree Assistance Fund Decision Panel

(Two Councillors)

Cr McNeill

Cr Stennett

Community Grants Program

(The Mayor and five Councillors)

Cr Lane, Mayor

Cr Carr

Cr Cutts

Cr Davenport

Cr Munroe

Cr Stennett

Local Government Working Group on Gambling

(Two Councillors

Cr Massoud

Cr Barker

Council Resolution

Moved by Cr Barker, Seconded by Cr Liu

That Council:

1. Determine Councillor Representative Appointments to the committees, organisations and other bodies.

2. Advise the committees, organisations and other bodies of the Councillor Representative appointments.

3. Notes a review of the Committees is being undertaken and that a further report will be presented to Council in 2023.

Carried Unanimously

Key Matters

· The Local Government Act 2020 (the Act) does not reference advisory committees and it is up to each Council to determine what committees it requires except for:

§ The Audit and Risk Committee is a legislated committee (as per the Act)

§ The CEO Employment Matters Committee (EMAC) is supported by a Council adopted Policy as required by the Act.

· For External Organisations, Council is a member or participant in a range of external organisations at a local, regional or sector level. Councillors are appointed to represent Council as delegates to those organisations. In some cases, an alternate is also appointed who can attend if the primary Councillor is not available.

· Internal Whitehorse Committees and networks have a terms of reference that outlines the purpose and how the meetings are governed. They are advisory in nature and provide recommendations to Council.

· The Community Grants Committee is currently under review in line with the recent Victorian Auditor General (VAGO) report on ‘Fraud Control Over Local Government Grants’ and will be reported to Council in December.

· Since the 2021 appointments the following changes are required:

§ The LG Waste Management Forum no longer exists as of 1 July 2022. The Metropolitan Waste and Resource Recovery Group has been abolished and staff and activities have transferred to newly-formed Recycling Victoria (part of DELWP) under the Circular Economy (Waste Reduction and Recycling) Act 2022.

§ Name change for the CEO Employment Matters Committee, formerly known as ‘Review of the Chief Executive Officer’s development’.

Discussion and Options

Council to consider and resolve appointments to the groups as detailed below:

No.	Committee	Councillor Delegate 2022/2023
EXTERNAL COMMITTEES
1.	Municipal Association of Victoria (One Councillor and One substitute Councillor)	Cr Munroe Substitute: Mayor Cr Lane
2.	Whitehorse Business Group (Two Councillors)	Cr Munroe Cr Massoud
3.	Whitehorse Manningham Regional Library Corp. (Two Councillors, new two year term commencing 2022)	Cr Davenport Cr Skilbeck
4.	Victorian Local Governance Association (One Councillor and One substitute Councillor)	Cr Massoud Substitute: Mayor Cr Lane
5.	Eastern Affordable Housing Alliance (One Councillor, new two year term commencing 2022)	Cr Massoud
6.	Eastern Alliance for Greenhouse Action (EAGA) Executive Committee (One Councillor)	Cr Barker
7.	Eastern Region Group (Mayor, Deputy Mayor and CEO)	Mayor Cr Lane Deputy Mayor: Cr Cutts
TRANSPORT GROUP OF COMMITTEES
8.	Eastern Transport Coalition (One Councillor)	Cr Liu
9.	Metropolitan Transport Forum (One Councillor)	Cr McNeill Substitute: Cr Munroe
	INTERNAL COMMITTEES
10.	CEO Employment Matters Committee (All Councillors)	All Councillors
11.	Audit and Risk Committee (Two Councillors)	Cr Skilbeck Cr Barker
12.	Heritage Steering Committee (Two Councillors)	Cr Stennett Cr McNeill
13.	Visual Arts Advisory Committee (Up to Two Councillors as Co-Chairs)	Cr Carr Cr Stennett
14.	Whitehorse Disability Advisory Committee (WDAC) (Two Councillors, One as Chair)	Cr Massoud Cr McNeill
15.	Whitehorse Reconciliation Advisory Committee (One Councillor as Chair)	Cr Massoud
16.	Domestic Animal Management Plan Advisory Committee (Two Councillors)	Cr Barker Substitute: Cr Massoud
17.	Major Projects Councillor Reference Group (All Councillors)	All Councillors
18.	Whitehorse Sports and Recreation Network (Two Councillors)	Cr Stennett Cr Cutts
19.	Environment and Sustainability Reference Group (Two Councillors, One as Chair)	Cr Cutts Cr Massoud
20.	Tree Assistance Fund Decision Panel (Two Councillors)	Cr Stennett Cr McNeill
21.	Community Grants Program (The Mayor and five Councillors)	Cr Lane, Mayor Cr Carr Cr Cutts Cr Davenport Cr Munroe Cr Stennett
22.	Local Government Working Group on Gambling (Two Councillors)	Cr Massoud Cr Barker

No.

Committee

Councillor Delegate 2022/2023

EXTERNAL COMMITTEES

Municipal Association of Victoria

(One Councillor and One substitute Councillor)

Cr Munroe

Substitute: Mayor Cr Lane

Whitehorse Business Group

(Two Councillors)

Cr Munroe

Cr Massoud

Whitehorse Manningham Regional Library Corp.

(Two Councillors, new two year term commencing 2022)

Cr Davenport

Cr Skilbeck

Victorian Local Governance Association

(One Councillor and One substitute Councillor)

Cr Massoud

Substitute: Mayor Cr Lane

Eastern Affordable Housing Alliance

(One Councillor, new two year term commencing 2022)

Cr Massoud

Eastern Alliance for Greenhouse Action (EAGA) Executive Committee

(One Councillor)

Cr Barker

Eastern Region Group

(Mayor, Deputy Mayor and CEO)

Mayor Cr Lane

Deputy Mayor: Cr Cutts

TRANSPORT GROUP OF COMMITTEES

Eastern Transport Coalition

(One Councillor)

Cr Liu

Metropolitan Transport Forum

(One Councillor)

Cr McNeill

Substitute: Cr Munroe

INTERNAL COMMITTEES

10.

CEO Employment Matters Committee

(All Councillors)

All Councillors

11.

Audit and Risk Committee

(Two Councillors)

Cr Skilbeck

Cr Barker

12.

Heritage Steering Committee

(Two Councillors)

Cr Stennett

Cr McNeill

13.

Visual Arts Advisory Committee

(Up to Two Councillors as Co-Chairs)

Cr Carr

Cr Stennett

14.

Whitehorse Disability Advisory Committee (WDAC)

(Two Councillors, One as Chair)

Cr Massoud

Cr McNeill

15.

Whitehorse Reconciliation Advisory Committee

(One Councillor as Chair)

Cr Massoud

16.

Domestic Animal Management Plan Advisory Committee

(Two Councillors)

Cr Barker

Substitute: Cr Massoud

17.

Major Projects Councillor Reference Group

(All Councillors)

All Councillors

18.

Whitehorse Sports and Recreation Network

(Two Councillors)

Cr Stennett

Cr Cutts

19.

Environment and Sustainability Reference Group

(Two Councillors, One as Chair)

Cr Cutts

Cr Massoud

20.

Tree Assistance Fund Decision Panel

(Two Councillors)

Cr Stennett

Cr McNeill

21.

Community Grants Program

(The Mayor and five Councillors)

Cr Lane, Mayor

Cr Carr

Cr Cutts

Cr Davenport

Cr Munroe

Cr Stennett

22.

Local Government Working Group on Gambling

(Two Councillors)

Cr Massoud

Cr Barker

SUPPORTING REPORT DETAILS

Legislative and Risk Implications

The Local Government (Governance and Integrity) Regulations 2020 (regulation 7(1) (a) and (b)) provide for the following exemptions to the conflict of interest provisions (as per s 129(g) of the Act) in relation to committees:

· The nomination or appointment by the Council of a Councillor to a position for which the Councillor will not be remunerated.

· The nomination or appointment by the Council of a Councillor to a position in the Municipality.

There are no legal or risk implications arising from the recommendation contained in this report.

Equity, Inclusion, and Human Rights Considerations – required

It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues.

Financial and Resource Implications

There are no financial or resource implications arising from the recommendation contained in this report.

Innovation and Continuous Improvement

There are no Innovation and Continuous Improvement matters arising from the recommendation contained in this report.

Collaboration

No collaboration was required for this report.

Conflict of Interest

The Local Government Act 2020 requires members of Council staff, and persons engaged under contract to provide advice to Council, to disclose any direct or indirect interest in a matter to which the advice relates.

Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter.

Conclusion

Each year Councillors are appointed to a range of internal and external committees for the upcoming year.

A full review of all Committees will occur in early 2023 to review structure and alignment to the Council Plan.

Appointments are required for the committees outlined in this report.

Attachment

1 Whitehorse Committees for Councillor Representatives

Council	Max. # of permits	Permit Fees
Council	Max. # of permits	1^st Permit	2^nd Permit	3^rd Permit
Whitehorse	3	$14	$62	$118
Glen Eira	3	Free	$100	$150
Port Phillip	3	Resident $87	Foreshore $64	Visitor $122
Merri-bek	2	$45	$127.30
Maroondah	3	$48	$84	$130

Survey Options	Responses	Additional information/Themes
Honour Jack’s historical permits indefinitely	52.8%
Apply an expiry date to Jack’s permits and then transition his permits to the new parking permit scheme	21.3%
Move Jack immediately onto the new parking scheme with the associated annual fees	7.6%
Other 221 responses	18.3%	Issue one or two free permits
Other 221 responses	18.3%	Free permits for everyone
		Individual/specific issues e.g. Overdevelopment of Whitehorse, Charge tenants not ratepayers, Misuse of permits.

Councillor Informal Briefing – 14 November 2022 6.30-6.50pm
Matter/s Discussed:	Councillors Present	Officers Present
· Council Agenda Items · Public Questions	Cr Lane (Mayor & Chair) Cr Cutts (Deputy Mayor) Cr Liu Cr McNeill Cr Skilbeck Cr Munroe Cr Barker Cr Massoud Cr Stennett Cr Carr Cr Davenport	S McMillan J Green L Letic S White C Altan V Ferlaino K Woods S Lozsan
Disclosures of Conflicts of Interest	None Disclosed
Councillor /Officer attendance following disclosure	None Disclosed

Councillor Briefing – 21 November 2022 6.30-pm
Matter/s Discussed: ·	Councillors Present	Officers Present
· Customer Service Centres · Council Plan Review and Budget · Draft Council Agenda 28 November 2022 · Whitehorse Health and Wellbeing Plan 2021-2025 – Annual Action Plan (2022-2023) · Draft Affordable Housing Policy · Councillor Appointments to Organisations and Community Bodies · Review of Ten Year Capital Works Plan	Cr Lane (Mayor & Chair) Cr Cutts (Deputy Mayor) Cr McNeill Cr Skilbeck Cr Munroe Cr Barker Cr Massoud Cr Stennett Cr Carr Cr Davenport	S McMillan J Green L Letic S Cann S White S Sullivan C Altan V Ferlaino K Woods C Clarke Z Quinn D Seddon R Hood Z Quinn (Virtual) K Marriott (Virtual) S Morison (Virtual) J Hansen (Virtual)
Disclosures of Conflict of Interest	Councillor Davenport declared a General Conflict of Interest on the discussion of the Draft Council Agenda for item 11.7 Residential Parking Permit Review, this did not relate to the contents of the report.
Councillor /Officer attendance following disclosure	None Disclosed