Council Meeting
held on
Monday 14 August 2023 at 7.00pm
at
Nunawading Civic Centre
Council Chamber
379-399 Whitehorse Road, Nunawading
Meeting opened at 7.00pm
Present: Cr Mark Lane Mayor
Cr Blair Barker
Cr Raylene Carr
Cr Andrew Davenport
Cr Tina Liu
Cr Denise Massoud
Cr Amanda McNeill
Cr Andrew Munroe
Cr Trudy Skilbeck
Cr Ben Stennett
Officers: Simon McMillan Chief Executive Officer
Stuart Cann Director Corporate Services
Jeff Green Director City Development
Siobhan Sullivan Executive Manager Transformation
Steven White Director Infrastructure
Vivien Ferlaino Manager Governance and Integrity
Mark Hofsteter Coordinator IT Service Operations
Emily Outlaw Acting Coordinator Governance
Recording of Meeting and Disclaimer
Please note every Council Meeting (other than items deemed confidential under section 3 (1) of the Local Government Act 2020) is being recorded and streamed live on Whitehorse City Council’s website in accordance with Council's Live Streaming and Recording of Meetings Policy. A copy of the policy can also be viewed on Council’s website.
The recording will be archived and made publicly available on Council's website within 48 hours after the meeting on www.whitehorse.vic.gov.au for a period of three years (or as otherwise agreed to by Council). Live streaming allows everyone to watch and listen to the meeting in real time, giving you greater access to Council debate and decision making and encouraging openness and transparency.
All care is taken to maintain your privacy; however, as a visitor in the public gallery, your presence may be recorded. By remaining in the public gallery, it is understood your consent is given if your image is inadvertently broadcast.
Opinions expressed or statements made by individual persons during a meeting are not the opinions or statements of Whitehorse City Council. Council therefore accepts no liability for any defamatory remarks that are made during a meeting. |
Council Meeting Minutes 14 August 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3 Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest
4 Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting
6.1 T Denning, Blackburn South
8.1 Performing Arts Centre/Scout Hall, 20 McCracken Avenue, Blackburn South
9.1 Notice of Motion - Cr Cutts - Illegal Tree Canopy Removal
10.2 2023 Community Satisfaction Survey
10.3 2024 Council Meeting Dates
10.4 Records of Informal Meetings of Councillors
11 Councillor Delegate and Conference / Seminar Reports
11.2 Reports on Conferences/Seminars Attendance
1 Welcome
We give thanks, O God, for the Men and Women of the past whose generous devotion to the common good has been the making of our City.
Grant that our own generation may build worthily on the foundations they have laid.
Direct our minds that all we plan and determine, is for the wellbeing of our City.
Amen.
Acknowledgement of Country
“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 Apologies
Nil
3 Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest
4 Confirmation of Minutes of Previous Meeting
Minutes of the Council Meeting 24 July 2023.
Moved by Cr McNeill, Seconded by Cr Carr That the minutes of the Council Meeting 24 July 2023 be confirmed. |
5 Urgent Business
Nil
6 Public Presentations
The Mayor invited in order the following submitters to speak regarding the petition at Item 8.1:
6.1 T Denning, Blackburn South
7 Public Question Time
Question 1 How many protected trees have been removed through Council authorised tree removal in the last financial year, in particular in Blackburn that is leading the tally for the most tree removals in Whitehorse?" Question 2 How many protected trees have been removed in all of Whitehorse through authorised tree removal on a suburb by suburb basis? Response Due to the complexity of this question, it was taken on notice. A response will be provided at a later date. |
Question 1 What is Council doing to increase the parking around Box Hill Central, with the reduced parking from SRLA and other construction but with both the Council car parks at Watt Street and Harrow Street empty? Response The Box Hill MAC is undergoing significant transformation with respect to development, transport and car parking. Several car parking options exist within Box Hill central to meet short and long term parking demand, including the Watts St and Harrow St car parks. A temporary car park is proposed this Financial Year, on the former Box Hill bowls site. |
Question 2 What is Council doing to increase parking around the Box Hill gardens, there is very limited parking around the gardens during the day yet the Watt Street Council car park, one street away is empty? Response There are no long term plans to create additional car parking spaces within Box Hill central and the gardens. While car parking is important to users, Whitehorse Council supports alternate transport options including walking, cycling and public transport use, to minimise traffic and car parking congestion. |
8 Petitions and Joint Letters
8.1 Performing Arts Centre/Scout Hall, 20 McCracken Avenue, Blackburn South
SUMMARY
1. A petition regarding activity at the Blackburn South Performing Arts Centre/Scout Hall located at 20 McCracken Avenue, Blackburn South, has been received and signed by 107 signatories in support.
2. The text of the petition is as follows:
We the undersigned, being residents and ratepayers of the City of Whitehorse, request the Council to
· Firstly, note:
- The property known as 20 McCracken Avenue, Blackburn South, for which, the Council sign in the street states "Scout Hall";
- The purpose / use of which property was understood to be a Scout Hall, indicated to have been constructed in the 1950's (and for which, there does not appear to have been a permit issued);
- The issue of a permit for a shed on the property, apparently being constructed in 1975;
- That in more recent times (the last 12 - 18 months) the property has transitioned to being a "Performing Arts Centre";
- The sign out the front of the building has recently been changed to read "Performing Arts Centre" and includes a picture of stage shows;
- That the activities being conducted from the referenced "performing arts centre" on the subject site, comprise a range of live musical events, and included a Gilbert and Sullivan Opera;
- That Gilbert and Sullivan Opera sublets the facility from the Scouts
- Importantly, the performing arts activities are being conducted from a very large marquee erected on the site, and which marquee almost abuts adjacent residential neighbours' back fences.
· Secondly note:
- The conduct of activities from the Marquee include live music, sometimes at "full blast" and operated at times (some examples as provided by adjacent residents), including - 6.30 - 8.30 p.m; 11.00 a.m. to 9.00 p.m; 6.00 p.m. until late; 6.30 p.m. until after 9.00 p.m; events finishing between 9.30 and 10.00 p.m; Gilbert and Sullivan Opera finishing at 10:45 p.m.
- A noise log maintained by local residents which included:
o "in the two weeks leading up to Easter long week-end, music playing for 10 out of 14 days, the average duration being 8 to 9 hours per session and including all the way through Saturday and Sunday'"
o "on one public holiday (Anzac Day) music commenced at 8.00 a.m. which was not appreciated by neighbours;
- The activities conducted on the site:
o being in excess of what would be expected as acceptable in both noise duration and volume having regard to it immediately abutting a residential area;
o resulting in bright lights shining into windows (including bedrooms) of abutting residents;
o resulting in both illegal parking in McCracken Avenue adjacent to the venue and extreme impact on parking in the adjacent residential streets surrounding the venue.
· Thirdly note:
- The conduct of the activities included:
o placement of the referenced, large marquee;
o the designation of the site as a "Performing Arts Centre";
o the conduct of the referenced musical activities;
each of which, do not appear to have been subject of obtaining any formal permits or approvals of Council.
· Fourthly, note:
- That the CEO of the Scouts Association has recently emailed the Council indicating "embarrassment at the current situation";
- That the Scouts Association voluntarily closed the Performing Arts Centre some weeks ago;
- That the above would appear to be unusual steps if those activities had been subject of previous formal permits/approvals
· Fifthly, raise the following matters:
1. That the Scouts Association is understood to be applying for "existing use" rights; and question if this is correct?
2. If this is correct, what structures/activities will such Planning Permit enable the Scouts Association to:
a. construct on the property? and
b. conduct on the property?
3. If the permit is to include the conduct of a "Performing Arts Centre", in what format will that take?
4. If the structures and activities to be enabled by a Planning Permit are to take the form of the current structure and activities as outlined in the sections noted as 'Firstly, Secondly, Thirdly and Fourthly'' above:
a. what consideration is to be given to the impact of any such approval/activity upon abutting residents to the site? and
b. what opportunity is to be provided for the impacted abutting residents to provide input to consideration of the planning application taking into account/consideration, the significant impact such use/activity will have on directly abutting residential properties?
Overall, it would appear that, having regard to:
a. the conduct of recent activities on the site, understood to be without any formal permit or approval; and
b. the extent of the very notable impact of such activities being conducted on the site, on immediately abutting residential properties;
the possible issue of any permit/approval, in the absence of the Council firstly, both:
a. understanding and appreciating the impact of such an "existing use" permit on the immediately abutting and nearby residential properties; and
b. importantly, providing such residents a formal opportunity to present their very specific concerns/issues to the Council, would be considered a totally inappropriate and inconsiderate community government action.
We the undersigned petition the Council to provide the signatories hereto, a response to the several questions and an opportunity to present submissions to Council in respect of any planning application for the site 20 McCracken Avenue, Blackburn South.
Moved by Cr Skilbeck, Seconded by Cr Munroe That Council 1. Receives and notes the petition and; 2. Refers the petition to the Director City Development for consideration and response. |
9 Notices of Motion
9.1 Notice of Motion - Cr Cutts - Illegal Tree Canopy Removal
Moved by Cr Cutts, Seconded by Cr McNeill That Council seeks a report from officers providing an overview of enforcement action from 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2023 that Council has taken regarding illegal tree removal, including court action, fines, tree management plans and Section 173 Agreements. Where possible, the report is to include details of the offences, court decisions, and other sanctions. Where information is unable to be provided, the report is to provide reasons for this, for example privacy and confidentiality. |
Attendance
Cr Davenport left the Chamber at 7:35 pm
Cr Davenport returned to the Chamber at 7:36 pm
10.1 Amendment C220 (Residential Corridors Built Form Study) - Consideration of Amendment and Panel Report
City
Planning and Development
City Development
ATTACHMENT
SUMMARY
Amendment C220 to the Whitehorse Planning Scheme (planning scheme) seeks to implement the outcomes of the Whitehorse Residential Corridor Built Form Study (the Study) through the introduction of Schedule 11 to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO11).
The amendment has been exhibited in accordance with the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act) and Council considered the 16 submissions received at its meeting on 27 February 2023. The independent Planning Panel appointed to hear submissions and consider the amendment has provided its report in Attachment 1 for Council to now consider.
The Panel focussed on three main areas of concern:
· Whether the planning provisions should be discretionary or mandatory;
· Built form metrics and setbacks; and
· 100 Station Street Burwood.
Other areas of discussion in the Panel report related to:
· Strategic justification and basis for the amendment; and
· Amenity and health impacts
Overall, the Panel considers the amendment is strategically justified and should proceed subject to changes, primarily relating to the planning provisions in DDO11. Whilst some of the changes recommended by the Panel refine and give greater clarity to the proposed controls, others are not supported by officers as they fundamentally change the intent of the amendment.
The Panel’s recommended changes to Amendment C220 that are supported by officers include:
· Amending DDO11 to:
o Make minor edits to clarify what the DDO applies to in relation to buildings and works, and ensure consistency with the Ministerial Guidelines on Form and Content of Planning Schemes
o Remove buildings and works requirements relating to landscaping
o Remove application requirements relating to wind tunnel assessments
o Make side and rear setbacks discretionary
· Remove the Study as a background document in the DDO11 and at Clause 21.06 (Housing)
· Abandon the application of DDO11 to 100 Station Street, Burwood
The Panel’s recommended changes that aren’t supported by officers include amending:
· Clause 21.06 (beyond the change above to remove the background document)
· Clause 22.03 (Residential Development)
· DDO11 to:
o revise the design objectives
o include discretionary, rather than mandatory, height and front setback controls
Attachment 2 sets out the version of the planning provisions recommended by officers. In particular, the version recommended by officers includes a mandatory building height and front setback and discretionary side and rear setbacks.
It is recommended that Council adopt the amendment with the changes in Attachment 2 and submit it to the Minister for Planning for approval.
Moved by Cr Massoud, Seconded by Cr Munroe That Council: 1. Being the Planning Authority, and having considered the Panel Report at Attachment 1 for Amendment C220whse under Section 27 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987: a) Adopts Amendment C220whse to the Whitehorse Planning Scheme in accordance with Section 29(1) of the Act with changes at Attachment 2. b) Submits the adopted Amendment C220whse to the Whitehorse Planning Scheme to the Minister for Planning for approval under section 31 of the Act with the appropriate fee. 2. Authorises the Director City Development to undertake minor administrative changes to the amendment that do not change the intent of the amendment. 3. Advises all submitters to Amendment C220whse of all resolutions in relation to the Panel Report. |
A Division was called.
Division
For Cr Carr Cr Stennett Cr Massoud Cr Munro Cr Liu Cr McNeill Cr Cutts Cr Barker Cr Skilbeck Cr Lane |
Against Cr Davenport
|
· The Planning Panel considers the amendment is strategically justified and should be approved, subject to conditions.
· This report proposes that some of the Panel recommendations be adopted, including amending the DDO to make minor edits, removing 100 Station Street, Burwood from the amendment and removing the Study as a background document.
· This report notes that officers do not support some of the Panel recommendations, which requires clear planning justification that is discussed in this report.
· The amendment was exhibited with a mandatory building height and front setback, and discretionary side and rear setbacks. A key matter for consideration is the Panel recommendation to amend the DDO to make all the provisions discretionary.
Strategic Alignment
The proposed DDO11 supports Strategic Direction 2 within the Council Plan 2017-2021, which seeks to “maintain and enhance the built environment to ensure a liveable and sustainable city”.
In particular, the amendment supports Direction 2.1.1 “Development which respects our natural and built environments and neighbourhood character while achieving a balanced approach to growth in accordance with relevant legislation”.
The amendment seeks to achieve Council’s and the community’s aspirations for the Burwood Highway and Whitehorse Road corridors and interfacing residential areas. Through the proposed built form controls, the amendment seeks to ensure high quality development in the Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) that respects the character and amenity of adjacent low-rise residential development.
Policy
The amendment will respond to the local planning provisions within the planning scheme especially in Clauses 21.06 (Housing) and 22.03 (Residential Development) which identify areas for substantial change including housing growth along key transport corridors.
background
In October 2014 new residential zones came into effect through Amendment C160. Council adopted a 3 storey (11 metres) mandatory maximum building height for RGZ1 and a 4 storey (13.5 metres) mandatory maximum building height for RGZ2. The mandatory heights were removed by the Minister when approving Amendment C160. The current controls within the planning scheme do not reflect Council’s intentions.
Concerns were raised about the planning outcomes where the RGZ1 and RGZ2 interface with more traditional residential development in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ), and to a lesser extent the General Residential Zone (GRZ). Where a 3 or 4 storey outcome was intended by Council, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) was subsequently approving developments greater than these heights (up to 6 storeys).
In order to address these issues Council undertook the Whitehorse Residential Corridors Built Form Study, 2019. The Study informed built form guidelines for the key east-west road corridors of the municipality (Burwood Highway and Whitehorse Road).
The following table highlights the Amendment’s chronology:
Date |
Event |
January 2019 |
Council adopted the Study and resolved to seek authorisation from the Minister to undertake Amendment C220. |
October 2019 |
After extensive review, Council sought authorisation of Amendment C220 |
December 2019 |
DELWP requested further information on Amendment C220 |
January 2020 |
Meeting held between DELWP and Council officers to discuss Amendment C220 |
January 2020 |
Council officers responded to request for further information |
February 2021 |
Amendment C220 authorised by the then DELWP, subject to conditions: · The side and rear setbacks are discretionary, not mandatory · Reference to equitable development rights is removed from the design objectives · A design objective relating to lot consolidation is included · A permit exemption relating to small scale buildings and works is included |
October 2021 |
Council submitted a new Amendment C239 responding to some of the authorisation conditions, but not the conditions relating to: · Discretionary side and rear setbacks · Removal of the reference to equitable development rights |
December 2021 |
Amendment C239 is refused as DELWP believes: · There is inadequate strategic justification for mandatory side and rear setbacks · The mandatory controls will impact on development opportunities · The concept of equitable development rights is not recognised in the planning system |
February 2022 |
DELWP suggested Amendment C220 could be re-authorised subject to the original outstanding authorisation conditions being met. |
August 2022 |
Council resolved to seek re-authorisation from the Minister to prepare and exhibit Amendment C220 to the planning scheme |
September/October 2022 |
Amendment C220 was placed on public exhibition and 16 submissions were received |
February 2023 |
Council resolved to request the Minister appoint an independent Planning Panel to consider the amendment and to hear the submissions |
April 2023 |
Directions Hearing |
May 2023 |
Panel Hearing |
All submissions received during the exhibition period were referred to the Panel. The Panel heard from four submitters, including Council as the planning authority, local residents and the AVEO group which owns Fountain Court Retirement Village at 100 Station Street, Burwood.
The Panel Report (Attachment 1) was received by Council on 21 June 2023 and was released to the general public on 29 June 2023, in accordance with the Council policy of releasing Panel reports after 7 days of receipt. This was done by advising all submitters that the report had been received and was available for viewing in person or on Council’s website, and by providing a full copy of the report to those who presented at the hearing in person.
Discussion and Options
Overview of recommendations
As a result of considering the amendment, the Panel recommended (Panel Report, pp 8-9):
1. “Amend the Schedule 11 to the Design and Development Overlay in accordance with the Panel’s preferred version in Appendix D (of the Panel Report).
2. Remove the Schedule to Clause 72.08 (Background documents).
3. Amend Clause 21.06 (Housing) as follows:
a. Overview
Delete the following paragraph:
The Whitehorse Residential Corridors Built Form Study, 2019 identifies built form controls to manage the sensitive interface between development in substantial change areas along major road corridors, and development in adjoining and adjacent low-rise residential areas.
Insert the following paragraph:
Increased housing densities and a diversity of housing is promoted within the substantial change areas along major road corridors depicted on the Housing Framework Plan. Schedule 11 to the Design and Development Overlay guides the built form change necessary to achieve this outcome and to provide a sensitive interface to low rise residential areas outside the corridor.
b. Objective
Delete the following paragraph:
Provide an acceptable built form interface with adjoining and adjacent development in other change areas.
Insert the following paragraph:
Support mid-rise buildings that accommodate higher density residential development in the substantial change areas along major road corridors depicted on the Housing Framework Plan that provide an acceptable built form interface with low rise residential areas outside the corridor.
4. Amend Clause 22.03 (Residential development) as follows:
Delete the following paragraphs:
Built form controls have been identified to guide development outcomes along key road corridors in the municipality where Substantial Change Areas interface with low-rise residential development.
The controls focus primarily on the major east-west tram and road corridors, where there is an interface between the Residential Growth Zone and General Residential Zone or Neighbourhood Residential Zone to the rear or side. Specifically, Burwood Highway, generally between Elgar Road, Burwood and Hanover Road, Vermont South and Whitehorse Road in Mont Albert, Laburnum and Nunawading.
The controls relate to building setbacks, architecture and height, building separation, overshadowing, landscaping and pedestrian and vehicle access. In this area the built form of new development should not visually dominate and should transition to the low-rise scale of adjoining development. New development should respect the character and amenity of the surrounding area.
Insert the following paragraph:
Mid-rise buildings that accommodate higher density residential development are promoted in the substantial change areas along major road corridors depicted on the Housing Framework Plan at Clause 21.06. Development of these areas should accommodate an increased intensity of developed that is designed to achieve a human scale that does not dominate street frontages and is massed to provide an acceptable interface to the traditional residential areas outside the corridor.
5. Abandon the application of Schedule 11 to the Design and Development Overlay to 100 Station Street, Burwood”.
Structure of the Panel’s report
The Panel has presented its findings under the following headings, each of which will be discussed in turn:
1. Strategic context and justification
2. Built form and setbacks
3. Amenity and health
4. 100 Station Street, Burwood and properties to the east
5. Other issues
6. Proposed planning provisions
1. Strategic context and justification
The Panel outlined the relevant planning policy framework, controls, Ministerial Directions and Practice Notes in the planning scheme. The Panel concluded that the amendment is strategically justified.
Officer comments
Council officers note and welcome the Panel’s conclusion that the amendment is strategically justified.
Officer conclusion
No change to the amendment is required.
2. Built form and setbacks
a) Discretionary or mandatory controls
The exhibited version of the DDO included mandatory building height and front setback provisions. After exhibition and consideration of submissions, Council prepared a revised DDO11that also included mandatory side and rear setbacks, which was submitted for the Panel’s consideration.
The Panel reviewed whether the built form controls should be discretionary or mandatory. The Panel referenced Planning Practice Note 59 (The Role of mandatory provisions in planning schemes), which states “mandatory provisions will only be considered in circumstances where it can be clearly demonstrated provisions are insufficient to achieve desired outcomes” (PPN59, p2).
Council submitted evidence at the hearing that the amendment satisfied the practice note and argued that mandatory controls would provide certainty to the community and applicants about acceptable built form along the corridors.
AVEO[1] submitted it opposed mandatory provisions, and every requirement in the DDO should be discretionary. AVEO argued that the mandatory controls do not adequately consider the transition between the corridor and any interfaces that are not residential.
Some submitters supported mandatory provisions, and were concerned that discretionary requirements meant applicants would build to the full extent of a site and there would be issues of overlooking and loss of privacy.
Officer comments
The State Government authorised the amendment with the proposed mandatory building height and front setbacks, and the amendment was exhibited as such. The mandatory building height and front setbacks are consistent with the Study which provides the strategic justification for the amendment. The modelling undertaken as part of the Study showed that the development potential of the corridors is not compromised by a mandatory building height and front setback.
In addition, officers consider that the amendment meets the thresholds in PPN59 for mandatory provisions. As stated at the hearing, officers are also concerned that a discretionary building height will be viewed by applicants as a starting point.
The Panel recommendation to make all of the provisions within the DDO discretionary is disappointing as this doesn’t reflect the intent of the Study or one of the key drivers of the amendment which is to give greater certainty to landowners and the community about the expected built form. Arguably, a greater number of objecting submissions may have been received if the amendment had been exhibited with building height (in particular) and front setbacks as discretionary controls.
However, officers acknowledge the provisions in Clause 58 (Apartment Developments) which require development to have sufficient space for landscaping and as such, the side and rear setback requirements could remain discretionary, as exhibited. Retaining the exhibited design objectives in the DDO relating to the provision of medium and large trees will also support the desired outcome for prominent landscaping within the setbacks.
Officer conclusion
Officers support discretionary side and rear setbacks.
Officers do not support discretionary front setbacks or building height; these should remain mandatory, as exhibited.
b) Building height
The Panel reviewed whether the 6 storey mandatory maximum building height was suitable. Council submitted the proposed mandatory maximum building height of 6 storeys was appropriate and consistent with the Study, however AVEO submitted that it supports a discretionary building height of 19 metres. AVEO’s expert evidence also suggested removing the provision relating to rooftop services, such as plant rooms, lift overruns and air-conditioning.
Other submitters stated a preference for various heights from 3 to 6 storeys, support for mandatory heights and concerns with overshadowing.
The Panel concluded the 6 storey building height is appropriate, however on the basis that the height is discretionary. The Panel does not recommend removing the requirement relating to rooftop services.
Officer comments
As above, officers are concerned that a discretionary building height will be viewed by applicants as a starting point. As stated at the Panel hearing, officers believe that the proposed mandatory maximum building height is well justified. The Study modelled the proposed provisions and found that they do not restrict development potential.
Furthermore, a mandatory maximum building height will provide certainty to landowners and the community about the expectations for amenity and built form along the corridors. It is reiterated that the ability to develop to 6 storeys will be principally on consolidated and larger lots.
Concurrent Amendment C230 proposes to, amongst other things, rezone the former ARRB site at 490-500 Burwood Highway, Vermont and apply a site specific DDO. A Panel was convened in February 2023 to hear submissions received to the amendment. As per the Council report considered on 10 July 2023, the “Panel [for Amendment C230] supported future buildings ranging between three and six storeys in the locations proposed on the DDO6 Concept Plan (Concept Plan)” (10 July 2023 Council report, p 9).
The Amendment C230 Panel also “supported the mix of mandatory and discretionary heights as exhibited”. Of particular relevance, the Panel for Amendment C230 supported a 6 storey mandatory maximum building height in the north-west corner of the site, which directly abuts the eastern end of the residential corridor which is the subject of this report. The mandatory maximum building height in Amendment C230 was guided by the maximum building height of 6 storeys as proposed by Amendment C220.
Officers have reviewed the building height exclusion relating to rooftop services. The definition of ‘building height’ in the planning scheme already allows for services, which do not form part of the roof, to exceed the maximum building. A review of relevant VCAT cases determined that rooftop service do not form part of the ‘building height’ calculation.
Whilst it may be argued that an elaborate lift structure is part of the roofed element of the building, this could be determined on a case-by-case basis, and as such officers believe that exclusion should be removed from the amendment and the building height definition is relied upon. Furthermore, this approach is consistent with that taken by Amendment C230.
Officer conclusion
Officers do not support a discretionary building height; this should remain mandatory, as exhibited.
Officers do not support retaining the exclusions from building height (e.g.: rooftop services) and propose that this be deleted from the amendment.
c) Setbacks
The Panel analysed whether the setbacks are appropriate and whether the rear setback should be stepped.
AVEO objected to the mandatory nature of the setbacks and submitted the setbacks will constrain development and therefore should be removed. Instead they recommend provisions based on the context of the interface, for example (Panel Report, pp 31 & 32):
· “Any part of a building above 3 storeys in height should be setback a minimum of 4.5m from a boundary to land (other than a road) in the Residential Growth Zone
· The setback of a building to the boundary identified as a Sensitive Interface must meet the requirements of Clauses 55.04-1, 55.04-2 & 55.04-3 along that boundary and should be sufficient to accommodate canopy planting”.
Other submitters recommended that the rear setback be stepped, as per the requirements of NRZ3 and Clause 54 and Clause 55. (Clause 54 relates to particular provisions for one dwelling on a lot, and Clause 55 relates to particular provisions for two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings).
AVEO submitted to the Panel that the DDO should be amended to include definitions relating to front, rear and side setbacks, clearly listed building exemptions and maps describing ‘street interface’ and ‘sensitive interface’.
During the hearing AVEO raised that “the setback provisions are proposed to apply to buildings and works” and this “essentially encompasses to all buildings or parts of buildings unless exempt under clause 62.02”. AVEO queried “as to how access is to be provided to buildings as well as fences and other structures” such as basement car park access (Panel Report, p32).
Council proposed changes during the hearing to clarify requirements, including removing the reference to “works” from the building setback requirements, and providing additional guidance relating to setback requirements with reference to Clause 62.02 (Buildings and Works) exemptions.
Council also suggested the following changes to Tables 1 and 2:
Table 1 (Mandatory)
Measure |
||
Front setback |
Minimum 5 metres with an additional minimum 3 metres to levels above 4 storeys |
|
Table 2 (Discretionary)
Measure |
|||
Side setback |
Minimum of 4.5 metres with an additional minimum 4.5 metres to levels above 4 storeys |
|
|
Rear setback |
Minimum of 9 metres to adjoining land in the General Residential Zone, Neighbourhood Residential Zone or the Public Park and Recreation Zone. |
|
|
The Panel accepts the rear setback as a discretionary requirement, and considered this to be consistent with the Study’s vision for substantial landscaping. The Panel concludes a stepped rear setback may reduce amenity impacts with abutting properties and as a discretionary control the Panel is satisfied that a suitable setback will be determined in the context of the site and its surrounds at the planning permit application stage, together with consideration of other provisions.
The DDO parent clause allows a schedule to specify ‘building setbacks’ not ‘buildings and works setbacks’. The Panel therefore agrees with Council’s proposed changes and recommends removing the reference to ‘works’.
The Panel agrees with AVEO that the ‘front setback’ is better defined as ‘street interface setback’ as this removes confusion associated with corner lots and determination of boundaries. It considered that this is also consistent with other provisions in the planning scheme which refer to street setback requirements.
The Panel accepts a modified version of Council’s DDO defining side and rear setbacks and the Panel adopts Council’s suggestion that the rear setback apply to an interface with adjoining land in the GRZ and NRZ. However the Panel does not support including a reference to land in the Public Park and Recreation Zone. The Panel also recommends the side setback apply to an interface with adjoining land in the GRZ, NRZ and RGZ.
Officer comments
Officers believe that the suggested use of the term “street interface setback” rather than “front setback” is potentially confusing and unnecessary.
The DDO has been drafted with regard to existing definitions in the planning scheme and Clauses 54 and 55 had included the same references to front, side and rear setbacks, which have been undefined for many years. The term ‘setback’ is already defined in Clause 73.01 of the planning scheme. It is recommended that these terms continue to be used, instead of introducing new terms that are not commonly used or tested at VCAT.
Officers note the Panel’s recommendation about removing reference to works and adopting Council’s suggested changes about interfaces with land in adjoining zones. However, Officers believe that the interface with a public park is important, to protect the amenity of the park and limit the extent of overshadowing.
Officer conclusion
Officers support discretionary side and rear setbacks, but do not support discretionary front setbacks; the latter should remain mandatory, as exhibited.
Officers do not support the use of the term “street interface setback”.
Officers do not support the Panel recommendation to remove reference to an interface with the Public Park and Recreation Zone.
3. Amenity and health
Several submitters raised issues relating to overshadowing, loss of access to daylight, overlooking of existing development and landscaping.
The Panel agreed with submitters that there are likely to be impacts on access to sunlight and daylight by future development, however it believes that these issues can be managed through existing planning provisions and the proposed DDO. In particular Clause 55 and Clause 58 require an assessment of overlooking, overshadowing and landscaping of development. This includes objectives, standards and decision guidelines relating to north facing windows and overshadowing of private open space.
One submitter queried why the spring equinox was used to measure solar access, and not the winter solstice. The Panel accepted Council’s expert evidence that it is appropriate to use the equinox as recommended in the Study.
The Panel recommends an additional decision guideline to consider the amenity impacts of development if it is greater than a preferred maximum height. The Panel also recommends refining other decision guidelines and removing those that already exist in the planning scheme, such as those relating to landscaping and assessment of access to sunlight and daylight.
Several submitters raised concerns about loss of privacy or views. The Panel concluded that overlooking and loss of privacy and views are adequately addressed by the amendment and Clause 55 and Clause 58 include provisions that require assessment of overlooking.
AVEO submitted that the requirement and decision guidelines relating to landscaping should be removed from the DDO, as there are existing provisions at Clause 58. Other submitters raised issues about loss of open space, setbacks for planting and greening for shade and wellbeing. The Panel agreed that the landscaping requirements in the proposed DDO are not required as there are existing provisions in Clause 55 and Clause 58, and that the discretionary setbacks recommended by the Panel will allow for landscaping.
Some submitters raised concerns that the amendment will impact the mental health of surrounding residents. The Panel acknowledged the submitters concerns about access to sunlight affecting mental health, however the Panel is satisfied that the amendment, along with existing provisions in the Planning Scheme, adequately addresses impacts of development on health and safety.
Officer comments
The Panel comments accepting Council’s evidence is noted, including that matters such as assessment of overlooking and landscaping are adequately covered in Clauses 55 and 58. As such the decision guidelines are able to be refined to remove duplication with existing clauses. However, given the DDO is proposed to include mandatory controls, there is no need for an additional decision guideline relating to a preferred maximum building height.
The Panel’s commentary about landscaping and greening is noted. Correspondence to DTP during the authorisation process noted that Council officers accepted that the landscaping provisions may need to be removed from the proposed DDO if the State provisions relating to landscaping in Clause 58 are amended.
Given the importance of large trees in providing amenity along the road corridor, in supporting the tree canopy character of the adjoining neighbourhoods, plus their role in softening the more intense built forms, it is proposed to retain the design objective in the DDO that seeks “to maintain the visual prominence of landscaping and ensure space for medium and large trees on site, particularly within the front and rear setbacks” (proposed DDO11, Attachment 2). It is also proposed to retain the decision guideline that considers “whether the development allows for deep soil planting and landscaping within the front, side and rear setbacks” (proposed DDO11, Attachment 2).
Officer conclusion
As officers do not support changing the building height from mandatory to discretionary, the Panel’s recommendation about refining the decision guidelines relating to a preferred maximum building height are not supported.
Officers support the Panel’s recommendation to remove the landscaping requirements.
4. 100 Station Street, Burwood and properties to the east
(AVEO expert witness report, p6)
AVEO submitted to the Panel that the proposed DDO11 planning provisions should be changed or removed from its site at 100 Station Street, Burwood. The proposed DDO11 applies to the portion of the AVEO site along Burwood Highway that is within the RGZ (refer to the above map). AVEO stated that the amendment was not an appropriate response to the site and that the land provided a significant opportunity for increased density.
Whilst the purpose of the amendment was to address the interface between land in the RGZ and more traditional development in the GRZ and NRZ, AVEO argued that the site was not traditional development and it was distinguished from other parts of the corridor. AVEO also argued that the properties to the east along Yarra Bing Crescent should be removed from the amendment.
The Panel agreed with AVEO that the proposed planning provisions are not suitable for 100 Station Street, Burwood and the amendment may restrict appropriate development. The Panel believes that the site is well located and does not have sensitive interfaces, particularly to the south and west which is in the Commercial 1 Zone. The Panel does not believe a mandatory building height is appropriate for this site.
The Panel is satisfied that the application of discretionary controls will address the concerns about the broader residential corridor raised by AVEO in its submission to the Panel. The Panel does not recommend removing the properties along Yarra Bing Crescent from the amendment and ultimately recommended that the DDO11 should not apply to 100 Burwood Highway, Burwood.
Officer comments
Officers do not typically support site specific exclusions, however acknowledge that the site does have development potential and is strategically located. The proposed DDO11 would present unintended challenges for the site, given its size and configuration, including two street frontages. The site is also adjacent to a Commercial 1 zoned site, which does not represent a sensitive interface.
Officer conclusion
Officers support the Panel recommendation to abandon the application of the DDO to 100 Station Street, Burwood.
5. Other issues
a) Traffic and car parking
Several submitters raised concerns about traffic and car parking issues. The Panel accepted evidence that traffic and car parking had not specifically been considered as these would be assessed against existing provisions in the planning scheme and were not part of the DDO11.
Officer comments
Council officers note the comments of the Panel.
Officer conclusion
No change to the amendment is required.
b) Flooding
Several submitters queried whether drainage infrastructure and potential flooding had been adequately considered by the amendment. The Panel accepted evidence drainage infrastructure and flooding would be considered through existing provisions in the planning scheme and were not part of the DDO11.
Officer comments
Council officers note the comments of the Panel.
Officer conclusion
No change to the amendment is required.
6. Proposed planning provisions
a) DDO11
The Panel reviewed the design objectives to determine whether they are clear. At the hearing AVEO submitted that the design objectives should be amended as they do not reflect the Study. AVEO provided the following alternative wording (Panel Report, p49):
“To promote mid-rise development in the residential growth corridors to accommodate housing at increased densities and a diversity of housing type.
To ensure the height and built form of new
buildings provides a suitable transition from
the residential growth corridors and adjoining commercial areas to neighbouring
lower scale residential areas in the General Residential Zone and the
Neighbourhood Residential Zone. do not
visually dominate the street or compromise the character and amenity of
adjacent low-rise residential areas.
To ensure development achieves
contributes to a high quality public
realm and public open space in relation to human
scale and micro-climate conditions by providing a comfortable,
pedestrian-friendly urban environment.
To ensure that the height of new
buildings provides an acceptable built form interface with adjoining
development in other zones.
To ensure the height and built form of
new buildings do not visually dominate the street or compromise the character
and amenity of adjacent low-rise residential areas.
To maintain the visual prominence of
landscaping and ensure space for medium and large trees on site, particularly
within the front and rear setbacks.
To encourage lot consolidation in order
to achieve the maximum building heights and to provide for sufficient building
setbacks to deliver high levels of internal amenity.”
The Panel agreed that the design objectives should be reworded to clearly articulate the level of change along the corridors. The Panel recommended focusing on the anticipated built form outcomes along the corridors, rather than the public realm, managing interfaces and space for landscaping.
The Panel queried whether the decision guidelines should be refined to remove duplication with other planning provisions. AVEO submitted the decision guidelines should be reworded and suggested the following changes (Panel Report, p50):
“The following decision guidelines apply to an application for a permit under Clause 43.02, in addition to those specified in Clause 43.02 and elsewhere in the scheme, which must be considered, as appropriate, by the responsible authority:
· Whether the development provides an appropriate
transition from the residential growth corridor
and any adjoining commercial area to lower scale residential areas in the
General Residential Zone and the Neighbourhood Residential Zone an adjoining residential zone or public open
space.
· Whether the development maintains achieves a
mid-rise scale to accommodate housing at
increased densities and a diversity of housing type that enhances
the sense of openness, maintains access to expansive sky views along the
corridor and allows maximum solar access to low-rise
residential development in the adjoining and adjacent areas.
· Whether the development provides for adequate sun
penetration at street level and mitigates wind down-draughts through upper
level setbacks.
· Whether the development achieves an acceptable
built form interface with the public realm, so as not to dominate the streetscape or appear as a continuous
wall at street level or nearby vantage points if adjoining and/or nearby sites
are developed in a similar manner.
· Whether the development allows for deep soil planting and
landscaping within the front, side and rear setbacks.
· Whether the development achieves high architectural
quality.
· Whether the development provides adequate sunlight,
daylight and privacy, and outlook from habitable rooms, for both existing and
proposed developments.
· Whether any additional overshadowing of adjacent public open space will:
- Reduce the extent to which sunlight will be available between 12 pm and 2 pm on 22 September, including the cumulative impacts if adjacent land is developed in accordance with the planning scheme.
- Have an adverse impact on the landscaping, including plants, trees and lawn or turf surfaces in the public open space.
- Compromise the existing and future use, quality and amenity of the public open space”.
In response, Council presented the following changes to the decision guidelines (Panel Report, p51):
· “Whether the development maintains a
mid-rise scale that enhances the sense of openness, maintains access to
expansive sky views along the corridor and allows
maximum solar access to low-rise residential development in the adjoining and
adjacent areas.
· Whether the development provides
adequate sunlight, daylight and privacy, and outlook from habitable rooms, for
both existing and proposed developments”.
The Panel accepted Council’s changes to the decision guidelines, but also agreed with AVEO that the decision guidelines can be redrafted. The Panel concluded that the decision guidelines should be refined to directly connect with the proposed provisions, as well as removing provisions that are elsewhere in the planning scheme.
The Panel reviewed other drafting issues raised by AVEO, including whether the wording in the DDO clearly articulates that a permit is not required for development up to 3 storeys. Council submitted the following suggested changes to the Panel:
Buildings and works
Permit requirement
A permit is not required to construct a building or construct or carry out works for a development up to and including 3 storeys under this Schedule.
A permit is required to construct a front fence.
The following buildings and works requirements apply to an application to construct a building or construct or carry out works:
The Panel accepted the changes suggested by Council, as they are consistent with the Ministerial Guidelines on Form and Content of Planning Schemes.
The Panel also recommends the front fence requirement be reworded to align with its recommendation regarding setbacks, to state (Panel Report, p52):
A permit is required to construct a front fence with a
street interface.
AVEO suggested additional changes to the DDO11, including:
· under ‘Subdivision’ to state:
A permit is not required to subdivide land.
· to remove the wind provisions under ‘Application requirements’ [in the proposed DDO11] as there are existing provisions in the Planning Scheme.
The Panel recommends a modified version of the wording provided by AVEO.
Officer comments
The Panel has overwhelmingly favoured the evidence of AVEO and relied heavily on their suggested wording, despite the changes not reflecting the drivers and intent of the Study. The Study discussed the provision of a quality public realm and pedestrian friendly streetscape, along with providing ample space for landscaping and managing interfaces. Whilst change is expected along the corridors (and is already expressed in Cl 21.06 Housing, where the corridors fall within ‘substantial change’ areas), it needs to be respectful of the adjoining traditional residential development, as well as ensure sufficient consideration is given to the pedestrian experience along the corridors.
As above, the suggested use of the term “street interface” rather than “front fence” is potentially confusing and unnecessary.
Officers acknowledge that the suggested changes to 2.0 Buildings and Works, as well as the subdivision requirements clearly articulate when a permit is required.
The Panel’s commentary about removing the wind provisions under the application requirements is noted. Correspondence to DTP during the authorisation process noted that Council officers accepted that these provisions may need to be removed from the proposed DDO if the State provisions are amended. Clause 58.04-4 (Wind impacts) requires the responsible authority [Council] to consider “whether it has been demonstrated by a suitably qualified specialist that the development will not generate unacceptable wind impacts within the site or on surrounding land.”
Clause 58 of planning scheme requires consideration of overlooking and overshadowing, as well requirements for solar access. Clause 58 also requires consideration of appropriate landscaping however as officers are supportive of discretionary side and rear setbacks, it is important that the relevant decision guidelines are retained to provide adequate guidance.
Officer conclusion
Officers support the suggested edits to 2.0 Buildings and Works, as well as the suggested changes to the subdivision requirements.
Officers support minor edits to the decision guidelines to remove those that exist elsewhere in the planning scheme. Officers support removing the decision guideline relating to architectural quality, as this could be considered a subjective guideline.
Officers do not support amending the wording to include “street interface” but support removing the wind provisions and including wording to specify that a permit is not required to subdivide land.
b) Corridors Study
The Panel reviewed whether the Study should be included as a background document in the planning scheme. AVEO argued that the Study should not be included as a background document as it includes mandatory requirements, some of which were not part of the exhibited controls.
The Panel agrees that the Study should not be included as a background document as there are inconsistencies between the Study and the amendment. Furthermore the Panel notes that Section 6.8.2 of the Practitioners Guide to Victorian Planning Schemes states “do not make a document a background document if the substantive elements of the document have been included in the scheme and require no further explanation”.
Officer comments
Council officers note the comments of the Panel. Whilst the Study does provide context and justification for the amendment, officers acknowledge the advice of the Practitioners Guide, and agree that the main components of the Study are included in the amendment. Officers also acknowledge the comments about inconsistencies between the Study and the amendment, and that this may create confusion.
Officer conclusion
Officers support the recommendation to remove reference to the Study from Clause 21.06 (Housing), and remove the Schedule to Clause 72.08 (Background Documents).
c) Clause 21.06 and 22.03
AVEO submitted that Clause 21.06 and Clause 22.03 should be amended because they place too much emphasis on managing interfaces, instead of emphasising the opportunities along the corridors. AVEO proposed the following changes to Clause 21.06 (Panel Report, p54):
“Overview
The Whitehorse Residential Corridors
Built Form Study, 2019 identifies built form controls to manage the sensitive
interface between development in substantial change areas along major road
corridors, and development in adjoining and adjacent lowrise residential areas.
Increased housing densities and a diversity of housing is promoted within the substantial change areas along major road corridors depicted on the Housing Framework Plan. Schedule 11 to the Design & Development Overlay guides the built form change necessary to achieve this outcome and to provide a sensitive interface to low rise residential areas outside the corridor.
Objective
Provide an acceptable built form
interface with adjoining and adjacent development in other change areas
Support mid-rise buildings that accommodate higher density residential development in the substantial change areas along major road corridors depicted on the Housing Framework Plan that provide an acceptable built form interface with low rise residential areas outside the corridor.”
AVEO proposed the following changes to Clause 22.03 (Panel Report, p54):
“Built form controls have been
identified to guide development outcomes along key road corridors in the
municipality where Substantial Change Areas interface with low-rise residential
development.
The controls focus primarily on the
major east-west tram and road corridors, where there is an interface between
the Residential Growth Zone and General Residential Zone or Neighbourhood
Residential Zone to the rear or side. Specifically, Burwood Highway, generally
between Elgar Road, Burwood and Hanover Road, Vermont South and Whitehorse Road
in Mont Albert, Laburnum and Nunawading.
The controls relate to building
setbacks, architecture and height, building separation, overshadowing,
landscaping and pedestrian and vehicle access. In this area the built form of
new development should not visually dominate and should transition to the
low-rise scale of adjoining development. New development should respect the
character and amenity of the surrounding area.
Mid-rise buildings that accommodate higher density residential development are promoted in the substantial change areas along major road corridors depicted on the Housing Framework Plan at Clause 21.06. Development of these areas should accommodate an increased intensity of developed that is designed to achieve a human scale that does not dominate street frontages and is massed to provide an acceptable interface to the traditional residential areas outside the corridor.”
The Panel concluded that they prefer the wording suggested by AVEO, as they consider it “more refined and it provides an appropriate focus on the purpose of the corridors to accommodate higher density residential development juxtaposed with objectives relating to character, built form and managing sensitive residential interfaces” (Panel Report, p55).
The Panel also stated that Clause 22.03 “contains unnecessary content and context” and the wording proposed by AVEO “provides clear nexus with the recommended provisions” (Panel Report, p55).
Officer comments
As above, the Panel overwhelmingly favoured the evidence of AVEO and relied heavily on their suggested wording, which is disappointing.
Whilst some of the edits have merit, many of the recommendations do not reflect the intent of the Study, which was to manage the interface between land in the RGZ along the corridors and less intense development, while guiding the form of the increased intensity of development intended along the RGZ corridors.
Furthermore, there is a sequencing issue with the Planning Policy Framework (PPF) translation process which is currently underway for Whitehorse, where Clause 21.06 and Clause 22.03 will be substantially changed regardless of this amendment.
Officer conclusion
Officers recommend reviewing Clause 21.06 and Clause 22.03 in their translated form once the PPF translation is finalised to determine if any edits are necessary. In the meantime, it is recommended to proceed with the exhibited versions of Clause 21.06 and Clause 22.03.
Post exhibition changes
The Panel recommended changes to the drafting of the DDO, as well as minor changes to Clause 21.06 and Clause 22.03. The Panel included a tracked change version of the control at Appendix D of its report (Page 71 of Panel Report at Attachment 1). Attachment 2 includes the officer recommended version for adoption with tracked changes.
Options
Council must now decide whether to abandon or adopt the amendment.
Option 1:
Council may resolve to adopt the amendment as exhibited (with no changes). However officers believe that there are changes arising from the panel process that are valid and Option 1 is therefore not recommended.
Option 2:
Council could resolve to adopt the amendment with all of the changes recommended by the Panel. While many of the changes put forward by the Panel are supported by officers, some changes are not supported.
Changing the amendment in accordance with all of the Panel recommendations may result in provisions that are unclear at the permit application stage and therefore Option 2 is not recommended.
Option 3:
Council could resolve to adopt the amendment with the changes discussed in this report, which includes a combination of Panel recommendations plus additional changes by officers.
Option 3 is preferred. This option requires Council to provide clear planning justifications as to why any of the changes recommended by the Panel are not supported.
Option 4:
Council may resolve to abandon the amendment, which would mean there are no built form guidelines for development along the road corridors that interface with land in the NRZ and GRZ. Furthermore, the Panel acknowledges that overall the amendment is strategically justified and therefore Option 4 is not recommended.
Given the clear recommendation of the Panel that Council should adopt the amendment, with changes, it is proposed that Council proceed with the amendment as per Option 3. Option 3 is recommended with some changes recommended by the Panel along with changes recommended by officers.
If adopted the amendment must be submitted to the Minister for Planning for approval. It is possible that the Minister for Planning (or a delegate) will refuse the amendment or approve it with changes outside those supported in Option 3. However, officers believe that Option 3 is well justified and balances the panel recommendations with the intent of the amendment and the strategic work that underpins the proposed planning controls.
SUPPORTING REPORT DETAILS
Legislative and Risk Implications
Under Ministerial Direction No. 15, a planning authority is required to make a decision to abandon or adopt an amendment within 40 business days of the date it receives the Panel’s report. As the report was received on 21 June 2023, Council must make a decision prior to 16 August 2023.
Furthermore, if Council decides to adopt the amendment (or part of it) with or without changes, under section 31 of the Act, Council must submit the adopted amendment to the Minister for Planning with the prescribed information within 10 business days of that decision.
Equity, Inclusion, and Human Rights Considerations
It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights issues.
Community Engagement
Amendment C220 was placed on public exhibition for a period of four weeks from 29 September to 31 October 2022.
A report to Council on 27 February 2023 provided an overview of the matters raised by the submitters and referred all the submissions and the amendment to the Panel for consideration.
All submitters have been kept informed about the progress of the amendment and were given an opportunity to present at the Panel hearing. It is recommended that Council advise all submitters of its decision on the amendment.
Furthermore, during the development of the Study the community was widely consulted at different stages.
Financial and Resource Implications
The Study was included as a new budget initiative in the 2017/2018 budget. The total allocated project budget was $80,000, excluding GST.
Costs associated with the Panel Hearing include Council’s legal representation and expert witness. These costs are covered in Council’s operational budget. The table below shows the entire amendment expenditure. The planning panel costs were less than originally anticipated, due to the composition and length of the Panel hearing (1 panel member and a 2 day hearing).
Table 1 - Amendment expenditure
Item |
Expenditure (excl. GST) |
Exhibition costs |
|
· Direct notification |
$6912 |
· Publicity material and social media |
$2200 |
· Notice on the Government Gazette and The Age |
$3048 |
Submission Response |
|
· Preparation of technical response to submission |
$16,520 |
Statutory fees |
|
· Approval of the amendment by the Minister |
$516.70 |
Planning Panel cost |
|
· Charges from Planning Panels Victoria (including panel member fees, travel, accommodation and project support) |
$12,727.26 |
Planning Panel other costs |
|
Legal representation |
$16,847.87 |
Expert witness |
$13,160 |
TOTAL |
$71,931.83 |
Innovation and Continuous Improvement
The implementation of the proposed DDO11 will provide opportunities for innovative designs in new developments that contribute to required housing diversity, while also addressing community concerns about the built form along the growth corridors.
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
Amendment C220 seeks to implement the outcomes of the Study through the proposed DDO11. The amendment is intended to provide the necessary statutory effect to the built form guidelines in the Study.
The Panel report received for Amendment C220 supports the introduction of DDO11, subject to changes. Having reviewed the Panel report, officers recommend that the amendment be adopted with the changes discussed in this report.
Attachment
1 Attachment 1 -
Amendment C220 Panel Report
2 Attachment 2 -
Amendment C220 planning provisions for adoption
10.2 2023 Community Satisfaction Survey
Community Engagement and Development
Community Services
ATTACHMENT
SUMMARY
Council has received the results of the 2023 Community Satisfaction Survey and a summary analysis of the results has been undertaken (Attachment 1).
The 2023 Community Satisfaction Survey (CSS) was conducted by JWS Research for Local Government Victoria (LGV). Council participates in the LGV survey to provide an insight into community perceptions of Council’s performance and to comply with the requirements of the Local Government Performance Reporting Framework.
The CSS breaks down results into demographic groups by age, gender and postcode. Council selected the following three areas to be analysed based on Census groupings:
· Nunawading East - Mitcham 3132; Nunawading/Forest Hill 3131; Vermont/Vermont South 3133
· Nunawading West - Blackburn/Blackburn North/Blackburn South 3130; Burwood East 3151; and
· Box Hill - Mont Albert/Box Hill North/3129; Box Hill/Box Hill South 3128; Burwood 3125; Mont Albert/ Surrey Hills 3127.
Core Performance
Core performance ratings for Whitehorse City Council all declined compared to 2022, with the exception of waste management, which remained steady. This is consistent with the State-wide and Metropolitan trend, which saw significant declines in all of the core measures.
Whitehorse’s overall performance rating declined marginally by one point from 2022 (67 down to 66), and although it has seen Council reach its lowest overall performance rating in eight years, it is still statistically significantly higher than the Metropolitan grouping (62) and State-wide average (56).
Box Hill residents rated Council’s overall performance higher (68) than Nunawading East (65) and Nunawading West (64) and residents aged 50-64 rated our overall performance lowest compared to other age groups.
The highest-rated core performance measure and a top performing area for Whitehorse is waste management (index score 74). This is significantly higher than the State-wide and Metropolitan group averages (68 and 66 respectively).
The lowest rated core performance measure is ‘overall council direction’ (index score 48 - Council’s lowest result to date) which is one of two core measures where Whitehorse rated lower than the Metropolitan group average (49), along with customer service with a score of 69 (compared to the Metropolitan average of 71). Council’s overall direction is however rated in line with the Metropolitan and State wide group averages.
Contact and customer service
About three in five households (59 per cent) have had recent contact with Council, which is higher than 2022 (by four per cent), similar to levels experienced at the start of the pandemic. Council’s customer service index of 69 represents a significant seven point decline on the 2022 result, and is the lowest customer service result in a decade. Customer service perceptions declined across all demographic and geographic cohorts over the last 12 months, significantly so among Box Hill and Nunawading East residents, men, and those aged 18 to 34 years. Customer service ratings among each have reached or returned to a record low.
Despite the decline, Council’s customer service is still rated in line with the State wide and Metropolitan group averages (index scores of 67 and 71 respectively) and 9 per cent of respondents rated customer service as the best thing about Council.
Communication
The preferred way for Council to inform residents about news, information and upcoming events was identified as Newsletters sent via email (39 per cent) or mail (30 per cent). Text messages increased in popularity to reach the third most preferred form of communication, and although significantly lower than mail or email, saw an increase of four percentage points up to 10 per cent. Social media was identified as fourth preferred method at 9 per cent.
Service Areas
The top three performing service areas for Whitehorse are art centres and libraries (75), waste management (74) and recreational facilities (73). The responses to the verbatim question (‘what is the one best thing about Whitehorse City Council?’) support these findings.
The main areas for improvement are planning and building permits (rated service area (index score of 51, down three points on 2022), community decisions (down a significant five points), and consultation and engagement, where the importance of these areas exceed performance by more than 15 points. Both planning and building permits, and community decisions were rated lowest by those aged 18-34 years, while consultation and engagement was rated lowest by those aged 50-64 years. Whitehorse still performed significantly higher than the State-wide average in all three of these areas.
Moved by Cr Barker, Seconded by Cr Liu That Council notes the results of the 2023 Community Satisfaction Survey. |
Key Matters
· Council’s overall performance index score experienced a (not significant) one point decline in 2023. Ratings held steady across most individual service areas in the last year, but significantly declined in customer service, community decisions, family support services and sealed local roads. Promisingly, ratings of community and cultural activities significantly improved.
· Community decisions, and consultation and engagement, have the strongest influence on overall perceptions of Council and are among Council’s lowest rated service areas, making them a priority for improvement.
Strategic Alignment
The Community Satisfaction Survey serves as an indicator to measure progress toward achieving the objectives identified under the following Strategic Directions in the Council Plan 2021-2025:
Council Plan Objective |
Council Plan Indicator |
1. An innovative Council that is well led and governed |
‘Council decisions made in the interest of the community’ service’ equal to or above metro average. ‘Customer service’ equal to or above metro average. |
4. A built environment that encourages movement with high quality public places |
‘Sealed roads’ in comparison to metro average (LGPRF). ‘Planning and building permits’ in comparison to metro average. ‘Appearance of public areas’ in comparison to metro average. |
5. Sustainable climate and environmental care |
‘Environmental Sustainability’ in comparison to metro average. ‘Waste management services’ equal to or above metro average. |
6. An empowered collaborative community |
‘Community engagement’ in comparison to metro average (LGPRF). ‘Informing the community’ in comparison to metro average. |
7. A safe and healthy community |
‘Family support services’ equal to or above metro average. |
background
The Community Satisfaction Survey asks the opinions of local people about the place they live, work and play and provides insight into the community’s views on councils’ overall performance, value for money in services and infrastructure, community consultation and engagement, decisions made in the interest of the community, customer service, local infrastructure, facilities, services and overall council direction.
When coupled with previous data, the survey provides a reliable historical source of the community’s views for the last ten years. Each year the CSS data is used to develop a State wide report which contains all of the aggregated results, analysis and data.
Discussion and Options
While ratings of community and cultural activities significantly improved, there were significant declines in customer service, community decisions, family support services and sealed local roads. Informing the community and sealed road maintenance were also listed as one of the top ten areas for improvement based on verbatim responses (9 per cent and 6 per cent respectively). Conversely, 9 per cent of respondents identified customer service as the best thing about Whitehorse City Council.
Community decisions and consultation and engagement, have the strongest influence on overall perceptions of Council and are among Council’s lowest rated service areas, making them a priority for improvement. Planning and building permits is Council’s lowest rated area with a more moderate influence on perceptions, therefore it is important to direct attention to this area as well. The appearance of public areas, waste management and recreational facilities also impact perceptions and Council currently performs well in these and should maintain these efforts.
Further effort is required to improve perceptions among 50 to 64 year olds, who remain more critical of Council in most service areas. Council must also ensure perceptions among 18 to 34 year olds do not decline further in the next 12 months, given their perceptions have already declined significantly in many areas. Rate of contact with Council is higher than ever among this age group, so there may be an opportunity to improve perceptions by delivering a positive customer service experience and actively listening to and addressing their concerns and viewpoints.
SUPPORTING REPORT DETAILS
Legislative and Risk Implications
Council’s participation in the Community Satisfaction Survey is necessary to comply with the requirements of the Local Government Performance Reporting Framework, which was introduced to improve the transparency and availability of performance information about councils.
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
The Community Satisfaction Survey was undertaken again this year by JWS Research on behalf of Local Government Victoria and was administered between 27 January and 19 March. It was conducted by Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) as a representative random probability survey of residents aged 18+ years in Whitehorse City Council.
66 councils participated in the survey and Whitehorse is one of 16 councils in the Metropolitan grouping.
A total of 500 residents completed the survey, with up to 60 per cent of mobile numbers included this year, consistent with previous years. Gender and age distribution were reasonably distributed, with weighting undertaken to ensure this outcome. Approximately 30 per cent of respondents were born overseas and 25 per cent of respondents spoke a language other than English at home.
Financial and Resource Implications
There are no direct financial implications associated with this report and the cost of administering the Community Satisfaction Survey in 2023 was $26,341 (excluding GST).
Innovation and Continuous Improvement
Whitehorse City Council has opted to move to quarterly interviewing for the next iteration of the Community Satisfaction Survey to allow for any seasonality that may influence results. Interviewing commenced in June 2023 and will continue with an even number of interviews each quarter thereafter. Reporting will be in line with the annual survey with a single report provided in May/June 2024.
Collaboration
Survey findings will be presented to managers at a Senior Leadership Meeting where further consideration will be given to how this data can be used in future business planning undertaken by service areas particularly where there are areas for improvement.
Conflict of Interest
Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter.
Conclusion
Council continues to rate significantly higher than the State wide result in most service areas evaluated, and significantly higher than both the State wide and Metropolitan group averages on the appearance of public areas, waste management, the condition of sealed local roads and, importantly, overall performance. There are no service areas where Council’s performance is rated significantly lower than either group average.
Attachment
1 Community
Satisfaction Survey 2023 Results Analysis Summary Report
10.3 2024 Council Meeting Dates
SUMMARY
In accordance with the Local Government Act 2020 and Council’s Governance Rules, Council is required to fix the date, time and place of Council Meetings and provide notice of the schedule of Ordinary or Unscheduled Meetings.
To assist with forward planning, Council Meeting dates are determined in the previous year. The dates and venues of Council Meetings are published in Council publications and on Council’s website. Council may by resolution amend these dates if required.
Council Meetings for 2023 were scheduled for the second and fourth Mondays of the month except when these dates coincided with a public holiday. In these instances the meeting was skipped and only one Council Meeting held during that month. Only one meeting per month was scheduled during January and December 2023 due to these months falling within the traditional holiday period.
It is proposed that the 2024 Council Meeting schedule follow the same pattern as the 2023 schedule, with the following exceptions:
- No meetings to be held in January
- Two meetings to be held in April
- No meetings to be held in October due to the Local Council Election Caretaker Period
The months of March and June, which are impacted by public holidays, will have only one meeting. While Monday 1 April is also a public holiday, it is possible to hold two meetings during April due to there being five Mondays in that month.
The proposed dates allow for 16 Ordinary Council Meetings in 2024 and one Council Meeting for the inauguration of Council and election of Mayor and Deputy Mayor following the Local Council Election.
The purpose of this report is to consider and approve the schedule of proposed Council Meeting dates for 2024.
Moved by Cr McNeill, Seconded by Cr Cutts That Council: 1. Approves the Council Meetings for 2024 to be held in the Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Whitehorse City Council, 379 Whitehorse Road Nunawading; and 2. Adopts the following meeting dates for the 2024 calendar year for Ordinary Meetings for Whitehorse City Council, commencing at 7.00pm on the dates listed below:
|
KEY MATTERS
A total of 16 Ordinary Meetings and one Council Meeting (for the inauguration of Council and election of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor) have been scheduled for 2024.
The proposed Council Meeting dates have been scheduled taking into consideration the Victorian Public Holidays for 2024 and the anticipated dates for the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) National General Assembly, which Whitehorse Councillors may attend.
The next local Council elections will be held in October 2024.
In the lead up to an election, Councils enter a stage known as the ‘election period’ which is 32 days before election day. During the election period and as outlined in Council’s Election Period Policy, Council is prohibited from making particular decisions. These measures aim to ensure that Council decisions do not undermine the integrity of the election process and protect the authority of the incoming Council. No Council Meetings have been scheduled during October due to the election period.
Council Meetings are scheduled on the second and fourth Monday of each month. The exceptions to this cycle and reasons for these are outlined below:
Month |
Day/Date |
Notes |
January |
No meetings due to traditional holiday period |
|
February |
Monday 12 Monday 26 |
|
March |
Monday 25 |
No
meeting on Labour Day public holiday |
April |
Monday 15 Monday 29 |
Council Meetings moved to weeks 3 and 5 of the month due to 1 April (Easter Monday) public holiday clash with Councillor Briefing |
May |
Monday 13 Monday 27 |
|
June |
Monday 24 |
No
meeting on King’s Birthday public holiday |
July |
Monday 8 Monday 22 |
|
August |
Monday 12 Monday 26 |
|
September |
Monday 9 Monday 23 |
|
October |
No meetings due to Local Council Election Caretaker Period |
|
November |
Monday 11* Monday 25 |
*Statutory Meeting for swearing in of new Council and to elect Mayor and Deputy Mayor |
December |
Monday 9 |
One meeting due to traditional holiday period |
Strategic Alignment
Council Plan
The following strategy relates to the scheduling of the Council Meeting dates:
8.3.4: Ensure Council Meetings and reports are informed, accessible and transparent to the community. This is achieved by:
· Publishing of agenda and minutes on Council’s website within the set timeframe.
· Increasing public participation via public presentations and public question time at meetings.
· Reviewing the current governance framework for strategic initiatives in line with the overarching governance principles to improve the Councillor briefing and report writing process.
· Customer satisfaction for Council decisions above previous year.
· 5% or less of Council decisions made at meetings closed to the public
Policy
Council’s Governance Rules state that Council must from time to time fix the date, time and place of all Council Meetings.
Council’s Election Period Policy prohibit particular decisions during a Council election period and define inappropriate decisions.
background
To assist with forward planning Council Meeting dates are determined in the previous year. The date, time and venue of Council Meetings are published in Council publications and on the Council’s website.
Council may by resolution amend the date, time and place of a Council Meeting.
The Mayor or at least 3 Councillors may by a written notice call a Council Meeting subject to compliance with the Governance Rules.
Council Meeting dates for 2023 were scheduled for the second and fourth Monday of each month, with meetings skipped when falling on a public holiday.
SUPPORTING REPORT DETAILS
Legislative and Risk Implications
Pursuant to s60 of the Local Government Act 2020, Council is required to adopt and apply Governance Rules which describe the way it will conduct Council Meetings and make decisions.
The Governance Rules outline the requirements to set Ordinary and Unscheduled Meetings, the procedures for Council Meetings and set the rules of behaviour for those participating and present at the meeting. They also outline the process for the appointment of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor.
Equity, Inclusion, and Human Rights Considerations
The subject matter of this report has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 and the Gender Equality Act 2020.
It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any human rights or gender equality issues.
Community Engagement
No community engagement was required for this report.
Financial and Resource Implications
Council Meetings are funded within the annual operational budget. There are no financial or resource implications arising from the recommendations contained in this report.
Innovation and Continuous Improvement
Community participation in the Council Meeting process is encouraged via the opportunity to submit public questions and presentations at Council Meetings.
Collaboration
Collaboration with the Finance and Corporate Performance department was undertaken to enable timelines and scheduling for the annual Budget to be incorporated into the proposed Council Meeting schedule for 2024.
Conflict of Interest
Council officers involved in the preparation of this report have no conflict of interest in this matter.
Conclusion
It is recommended that Council considers and adopts the proposed Council Meeting schedule for 2024.
10.4 Records of Informal Meetings of Councillors
Moved by Cr Munroe, Seconded by Cr Skilbeck That the records of Informal Meetings of Councillors be received and noted. |
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Pre-Council Meeting Briefing 24 July 2023 – 6.30pm – 6.45pm |
||
Matter/s Discussed: · Public Presentations · Public Questions · Petition · Council Agenda Items |
Councillors Present |
Officers Present |
Cr Lane (Mayor & Chair) |
S McMillan |
|
Cr Cutts (Deputy Mayor) |
S Cann |
|
Cr Barker |
J Green |
|
Cr Carr |
L Letic |
|
Cr Davenport |
S Sullivan |
|
Cr Liu |
S White |
|
Cr Massoud |
G Paterakis |
|
Cr McNeill |
V Ferlaino |
|
Cr Munroe |
K Woods |
|
Cr Skilbeck |
M Hofsteter |
|
Cr Stennett |
|
|
Others Present N/A |
||
Disclosures of Conflict of Interest Item 10.6 Crs Liu and Stennett |
||
Councillor /Officer attendance following disclosure N/A |
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
Councillor Briefing 7 August 2023 – 6.50pm-9.30pm |
||
Matter/s Discussed: · Operation Sandon · 2023 Community Satisfaction Survey · Major Project Councillor Reference Group (MPCRG) Quarterly Progress Update · Transformation Update · Tree Management Services Contract · Draft Council Meeting Agenda – 14 August 2023 |
Councillors Present |
Officers Present |
Cr Lane (Mayor & Chair) |
S McMillan |
|
Cr Cutts (Deputy Mayor) |
J Green |
|
Cr Barker |
S Sullivan |
|
Cr Carr |
S White |
|
Cr Davenport |
V Ferlaino |
|
Cr Liu |
G Paterakis |
|
Cr Massoud |
E Outlaw |
|
Cr McNeill |
K Marriott |
|
Cr Munroe |
R Hood |
|
S Price |
||
S Belmore |
||
Others Present: Nil |
||
Disclosures of Conflict of Interest: Nil |
||
Councillor /Officer attendance following disclosure: Nil |
11 Councillor Delegate and Conference / Seminar Reports
(NB: Reports only from Councillors appointed by Council as delegates to community organisations/committees/groups)
·
Cr Munroe
attended the Whitehorse Business Group meeting held on
8 August 2023.
· Cr Barker attended the Domestic Animal Management Plan Advisory Committee meeting held on 25 July 2023.
· Cr McNeil attended the following meetings:
- Metropolitan Transport Forum held on 2 August 2023
- Whitehorse Disability Advisory Committee held on 2 August 2023.
· Cr Massoud attended the following meetings:
- Whitehorse Disability Advisory Committee held on 2 August 2023.
- Whitehorse Business Group held on 8 August 2023
- Eastern Affordable Housing Association held on 10 August 2023.
· Cr Carr attended the Domestic Animal Management Plan Advisory Committee meeting held on 25 July 2023.
Moved by Cr Liu, Seconded by Cr McNeill
That the reports from delegates be received and noted. |
11.2 Reports on Conferences/Seminars Attendance
· Cr Liu attended the Municipal Association of Victoria Good Governance Seminar held on 3 August 2023
Moved by Cr Munroe, Seconded by Cr Stennett
That the record of reports on conferences/seminars attendance be received and noted. |
12 Confidential Reports
Nil
The Council Meeting was closed at 8.23pm.
These minutes are circulated subject to confirmation by Council at the next Council Meeting to be held on 28 August 2023.
[1] AVEO Group Limited owns 100 Station Street Burwood which is developed and occupied by Fountain Court Retirement Village.