Council Minutes

Monday 4 December 2017


MINUTES
of the ORDINARY MEETING of the STONNINGTON CITY COUNCIL
held in the COUNCIL CHAMBER, MALVERN TOWN HALL
(CORNER GLENFERRIE ROAD & HIGH STREET, MALVERN)
on
4 December 2017

A.Reading of the Reconciliation Statement and Prayer

B.Apologies

C.Adoption and confirmation of minutes of previous meeting(s) in accordance with Section 63 of the Act and Clause 423 of General Local Law 2008 (No 1)

1.Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 20 November 2017...... 5

D.Disclosure by Councillors of any conflicts of interest in accordance with Section 79 of the Act[1]

E.Questions to Council from Members of the Public

F.Correspondence – (only if related to council business)

G.Questions to Council Officers from Councillors

H.Tabling of Petitions and Joint Letters

I.Notices of Motion

J.Reports of Special and Other Committees

1.Reports of Committees: IMAP...... 6

K.Reports by Delegates

L.General Business

1.Planning Application 0727/06 - 5- 637 - 641 Chapel Street, South Yarra Victoria 3141- to extend the area where alcohol can be served and consumed to include the footpath trading area. 6

2.Planning Application 0687/17- 162 & 164 Toorak Road, South Yarra VIC 3141- Three (3) storey commercial (office, retail and restaurant) development plus rooftop terrace, integrated public plaza and associated car parking dispensation. 7

3.Planning Application 0842/16- 9 Netherlee Street, Glen Iris VIC 3146- Construction of a second dwelling on a lot in a General Residential Zone 22

4.Planning Application 1003/16- 34 King Street, Prahran - use and development of the land as a food and drink premises (as of right use) and indoor recreation facility (dance and performance studio) in a Activity Centre Zone, Special Building Overlay with associated waiver of the loading and unloading requirement. 25

5.Planning Application 233/17 - 9 Gertrude Street, Windsor - Extension to a dwelling on a lot less than 500 square metres in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone and Special Building Overlay 29

6.Amendment C243 - Permanent Heritage Protection for Blairholme House, 1034-1040 Malvern Road, Armadale 31

7.Amendments C255 and C257 - Permanent Heritage Protection for 221 Burke Road, Glen Iris and 390 Glenferrie Road, Malvern - Adoption 31

8.Amendment C266 - Open Space Rezoning...... 32

9.Economic Development Strategy 2017-2021...... 32

10.Children, Youth and Family Strategy...... 32

M.Other General Business

N.Urgent Business

O.Confidential Business

Page 1

Council Minutes

Monday 4 December 2017

Present:cr steven stefanopoulos, mayor

:cr glen atwell

:cr marcia griffin

:crjohn chandler

:crsally davis

:crjudy hindle

:cr melina sehr

Council OfficersPresent

:warren roberts, ceo

:geoff cockram

:simon thomas

:cath harrod

:stuart draffin

:fabienne thewlis

:alexandra kastaniotis

Page 1

Council Minutes

Monday 4 December 2017

A.Reading Of The Reconciliation Statement And Prayer

Fabienne Thewlis, Manager Governance & Corporate Support, read the following reconciliation statement:

We acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional land of the Boonwurrung and Wurundjeri people and offer our respects to the elders past and present. We recognise and respect the cultural heritage of this land.

The meeting began with a prayer at 7.02pm.

The Mayor Cr Stefanopoulos introduced Councillors and the Chief Executive Officer Warren Roberts. Mr Roberts then introduced Council Officers.

B.Apologies

The Mayor Cr Stefanopoulos advised that leave has already been granted for Cr Klisaris.

Procedural Motion:Moved Cr Glen AtwellSeconded Cr Marcia Griffin
That the apology received from Cr Koce be accepted and he be granted leave of absence for this meeting.
Carried
Procedural Motion:Moved Cr Melina SehrSeconded Cr John Chandler
That the apology received from Cr Sehr for the Council meeting to be held on 18 December 2017 be accepted and she be granted leave of absence for that meeting.
Carried

C.Adoption And Confirmation Of Minutes Of Previous Meeting(S) In Accordance With Section 63 Of The Act And Clause 423 Of General Local Law 2008 (No 1)

1. / Council Meeting - 20 November 2017
Motion:Moved Cr Sally DavisSeconded Cr Glen Atwell
That the Council confirms the Minutes of the Council Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 20 November 2017 and Minutes of the Confidential Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 20 November 2017 as an accurate record of the proceedings subject to the following minor correction:
Page 23
“6.Scout Hall Balmoral Street near at Gateway to the Prahran Market
Cr Chandler asked what is happening with the Scout Hall in Balmoral Street near at the ..”
Carried

D.Disclosure by Councillors of any conflicts of interest in accordance with Section 79 of the Act

Nil

E.Questions to Council from Members of the Public

During Council’s previous Ordinary Meeting two (2) sets of questions to Council were received from members of the public. All questions were relating to the proposed Stonnington Indoor Stadium, the Chadstone Bowling Club, the East Malvern RSL and Percy Treyvaud Reserve.

At the time, I used my discretion available to me under Council’s General Local Law not to answer the questions at the meeting. As required under the Local Law, written answers were subsequently provided to the submitters. A copy of the responses is now tabled for inclusion in the minutes.

Questions and responses for B Clegg

Question 1

The November 21 confidential meeting and the December 5 Open Council meeting resolution was that Council would undertake a detailed Feasibility Study into the proposed development of an indoor stadium at Percy Treyvaud Park.

There was no mention in the report that went to Council at that time of developing a “Master Plan for Percy Treyvaud Park” - when was it decided that this would be part of the feasibility study?

Response

On 21 November 2016 Council resolved to complete a feasibility study into the proposed development of an indoor stadium at Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park with a minimum of 4 courts, and to include as part of the feasibility study, opportunities to accommodate the Chadstone Bowls Club and/or its members at alternate locations. The Feasibility Study concluded that a proposal that can accommodate a new indoor sports stadium, bowls facility and other potentially displaced uses within Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park has the greatest potential to effectively mitigate the impacts of the proposed stadium. On 30 October 2017 Council noted the contents of the feasibility study and in considering the next steps in the project, resolved to develop a master plan for the park as the most appropriate way to realise the outcome that the feasibility study concluded as being the most suitable.

Question 2

Were Councillors made aware of this prior to being given the report?

Response

Councillors received a copy of the Feasibility Study on 17 October 2017, were briefed by the various consultants that contributed to it on 23 October 2017 and considered the report regarding the feasibility study and the next steps in the Stonnington Indoor Sports Stadium project at the Council Meeting on 30 October 2017.

Question 3

Did Council consult with the summer and winter season users of the sportsgrounds including Chadstone Lacrosse Club regarding their relocation to a new multipurpose sport and recreation facility?

Response

Council’s decision to undertake a master plan for Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park to realise a proposal that can accommodate a new indoor sports stadium, bowls facility and other potentially displaced uses within the park has been discussed with representatives of the Chadstone Lacrosse Club and East Malvern Tooronga Cricket Club.

Question 4

At the August 31 2015 Council meeting Councillors agreed to rule out the use of open space and sportsgrounds from further consideration re the use of the land for an indoor stadium. Will Council give an undertaking that under no circumstances will any public open space be used in anyway to accommodate any sporting or recreation use emulating from the “location of a new multipurpose sport and recreation facility” at Percy Treyvaud Park.

Response

The space required to accommodate the needs of the existing users alongside the introduction of four indoor courts, and the configuration of those facilities will be determined through the master plan process. The options presented to Council as part of the feasibility study did not encroach upon the sportsgrounds.

Questions and responses for D Wallish

Question 1

On 14 December 2016 I asked the following question:

"Why has Council endorsed the entire Percy Treyvaud Park as the preferred site of the proposed indoor sports stadium”?The response, "The site that will be subject to the feasibility study is the land currently occupied by the Chadstone Bowls Club within Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park.”Why does the October 30th report therefore “confirm Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park as the location of a new multipurpose sport and recreation facility’?

Response

The Report to Council on 5 December 2016 stated that the next stage in the Stonnington Indoor Stadium project would be to undertake a Feasibility Study on the proposal to construct a new indoor stadium on the site currently occupied by the Chadstone Bowls Club. A key element of the feasibility study was to include a report on the options for the future of the Chadstone Bowls Club and its members. The Feasibility Study was considered by Council on 30 October 2017 and concluded that a proposal that can accommodate a new indoor sports stadium, bowls facility and other potentially displaced uses within Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park has the greatest potential to effectively mitigate the impacts of the proposed stadium. The Feasibility Study contained two concepts that illustrate how a new indoor sports stadium, a lawn bowls facility and facilities for the other sporting users could be configured. These options will be explored through the development of a master plan for the park.

Question 2

Why have Council Officers gone outside the resolution of the December 14 meeting and decided that Percy Treyvaud Park would be the location of a new multipurpose sport and recreation facility to host “four indoor courts, chadstone bowls club, chadstone tennis club, chadstone recreation and civic club, summer and winter season users of the sportsgrounds”?

Response

On 21 November 2016 Council resolved to complete a feasibility study into the proposed development of an indoor stadium at Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park with a minimum of 4 courts, and to include as part of the feasibility study, opportunities to accommodate the Chadstone Bowls Club and/or its members at alternate locations. The Feasibility Study concluded that a proposal that can accommodate a new indoor sports stadium, bowls facility and other potentially displaced uses within Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park has the greatest potential to effectively mitigate the impacts of the proposed stadium. On 30 October 2017 Council noted the contents of the feasibility study and in considering the next steps in the project, resolved to develop a master plan for the park as the most appropriate way to realise the outcome that the feasibility study concluded as being the most suitable.

Question 3

Council considers it underwent "extensive community consultation” but not once was the community consulted, nor was any mention made about a “new multipurpose sport and recreation facility at Percy Treyvaud Park" or Councils intention to “develop a Project Management Plan to initiate a Master Plan for Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park” - why wasn’t this made known to residents and park users at the time of consultation?

Response

Council’s commitment to developing a master plan for the Park to demonstrate how a new multipurpose sport and recreation facility would be configured was a result of the findings of the Feasibility Study. The commitment to presenting a Project Management Plan to Council before commencing the master planning process is to illustrate how the various stakeholder groups, including residents living nearby the park, will be involved in that process.

Question 4

Council documents quite clearly state that the scope of the feasibility study was to “recommend to Council to either implement, amend, postpone, stage or abandon the proposal” of a “new indoor stadium” on the current site of the Chadstone Bowls Club - there is no mention of enlarging the proposal to incorporate all other users of Percy Treyvaud Park or for the park to be subject to a masterplan- why have Council Officers ignored Councils resolution?

Response

On 21 November 2016 Council resolved to complete a feasibility study into the proposed development of an indoor stadium at Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park with a minimum of 4 courts, and to include as part of the feasibility study, opportunities to accommodate the Chadstone Bowls Club and/or its members at alternate locations. The Feasibility Study concluded that a proposal that can accommodate a new indoor sports stadium, bowls facility and other potentially displaced uses within Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park has the greatest potential to effectively mitigate the impacts of the proposed stadium. Council has resolved to develop a master plan for the park as the most appropriate way to progress this amended proposal.

Question 5

Isn’t it true that Council will be unable to accommodate a new multipurpose sport and recreation facility to host:

  • Four indoor Sports Courts
  • Chadstone Bowls Club
  • Chadstone Tennis Club
  • Chadstone Recreation and Civic Club and
  • Summer and winter season users of the sportsgrounds including Chadstone Lacrosse Club

without encroaching onto public open space or the existing sportsground?

Response

The space required to accommodate the needs of the existing users alongside the introduction of four indoor courts, and the configuration of those facilities will be determined through the master plan process. The options presented to Council as part of the feasibility study did not encroach upon the sportsgrounds.

For tonight’s Ordinary Meeting of Council one (1) set of Questions to Council have been received for response. In accordance with clause 424 of Council’s General Local Law a summary of the question is as follows:

One (1) question from Ms Wallish

The question asked is one of the key elements of the feasibility study was ‘preparation of a detailed concept plan, construction cost plan and identification of any funding options’. Why was this key element omitted from the final feasibility report?

Council will answer the question, but I use my discretion under Clause 424 (3) (b) of the Local Law to not provide the response this evening but to provide a written response to the submitter within 14 working days and the response will be put into the minutes of the following meeting.

F.Correspondence – (only if related to council business)

Cr Davis tabled the following correspondence:

  • Two emails from nearby residents relating to the construction of the Gardiner Park pavilion seeking discussion on changes to the plans and raising other issues. Cr Davis advised she will follow this up under Questions of Officers.
  • Letter from a resident of Malvern East following up on the response from Council in respect to public open space at Percy Treyvaud reserve and the proposed stadium. Cr Davis advised she will follow this up under Questions of Officers.

Cr Chandler tabled the following correspondence:

  • Email from resident of Oban Street South Yarra updating their objections to planning application proposing changes to the Luxton Road café at 14 Luxton Road Hawksburn.
  • Email from the Executive Chairman of the Chapel Street Precinct Association Inc. seeking consideration by Council of a request for funding in 2018 towards their Winter Festival Provocare.
  • Letter from objector to planning application at 162-164 Toorak Road South Yarra formally withdrawing their objection to this application as they have formed the opinion that the grounds of their objections have now been addressed.

Cr Stefanopoulos tabled the following correspondence:

  • An email from residents of Cyril Street Windsor advising of their objection to the proposal for the demolition of a heritage stables building at 31-33 The Avenue in order to construct a multi-deck carpark and expressing concern at this proposed loss of heritage in this area without any consultation.

G.Questions to Council Officers from Councillors

1. / Public Open Space – Percy Treyvaud Reserve
Cr Davis followed up on the email tabled from a resident in Malvern East in response to a reply received to their previous question of 20 November 2017 asking for further clarification on the Public Open Space.
The CEO Warren Roberts advised that work on the Feasibility Study identified the ability to accommodate all on-site and on the on-site road however Council will be better position when the masterplan is undertaken to see how it will unfold.– he advised he will respond to formally in writing.
Cr Davis asked what road he was referring to and the CEO advised it is the internal road between Chadstone Road and Quentin Road that will close as it is built over.
2. / Gardiner Park Pavilion
Cr Davis followed up on the emails tabled from residents near Gardiner Park Reserve asking if a report could come to the next briefing on the pavilion that is currently being constructed.
The General Manager Assets and Services Simon Thomas took the matter on notice and advised that it would be a late report.
3. / Condition of Building in Chapel Street
Cr Hindle noted that an ornate building in Chapel Street has a fig tree growing out of the façade which will damage the building and asked if anything can be done.
The General Manager Planning and Amenity Stuart Draffin advised he knows the building and not just the tree but also the maintenance – there is little statutory power that Council has but will write to property owner to advise on the state of the building.

H.Tabling of Petitions and Joint Letters

Cr Davis tabled a petition with 25 signatures and supporting email and letter drawing Council’s attention, as residents of Wandeen Road Glen Iris and abutting roads to the “dangerous an illegal parking in:

a)all day parking along both sides of Wandeen Road causing obstruction to through traffic including emergency vehicles;

b)obstructing the view of drivers turning in or out of Wandeen Road creating danger to both pedestrians and vehicles;

c)parking across or dangerously close to residents’ driveways.”

The petitioners request an assessment by traffic engineers and consideration by Council as follows:

“a)to install suitable signage notifying parking time limits in Wandeen Road to discourage all day parking by non-residents;