Council Minutes

Monday 20 February 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
20 February 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 13 February 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

K.Reports by Delegates

L.General Business

1.Planning Application 410/16 - 54 Wattletree Road, Armadale - Construction of a multi dwelling development in a Residential Growth Zone 6

2.Planning Application 564/12-1 - 60 Commercial Road, Prahran - S72 Amendment to approved plans and permit to include a restaurant and cafe liquor licence within the permit pre-amble and to modify operating hours. 10

3.Planning Application 747/16 - 14 Cheel Street, Armadale - Demolition of a building and the construction of a fence within a Heritage Overlay and Special Building Overlay 15

4.Planning Application 839/16 - 621 Malvern Road, Toorak – construction of a mixed use development including part use of the land as a shop and office in a Residential Growth Zone, alteration of access from a Road Zone, reduction in the car parking requirement and waiver of the loading/unloading requirements. 15

5.Amendment C207 – Removal of Two Restrictive Covenants at 909, 911 And 913 Dandenong Road, Malvern East 21

6.Amendments C256 & C257 - Heritage Protection for 390 Glenferrie Road, Malvern 21

7.VCAT Quarterly Report – final two quarters of 2016 – July 2016 to December 2016 22

8.Review of Councillor Civic Support and Expenses Policy...... 22

9.Returning Officer's Report to Council on the General Election 2016.23

10.Cabrini Foundation: Community Grant 2016-2017 ...... 23

11.Financial Report for the Period July 2016 to December 2016...... 23

M.Other General Business

N.Urgent Business

O.Confidential Business

Page 1

Council Minutes

Monday 20 February 2017

Present:cr jami klisaris, mayor

:cr glen atwell

:cr marcia griffin

:crjohn chandler

:crsally davis

:crjudy hindle

:cr matthew koce

:cr melina sehr

:cr steve stefanopoulos

Council OfficersPresent

:warren roberts, ceo

:geoff cockram

:simon thomas

:karen watson

:stuart draffin

:fabienne thewlis

:alexandra kastaniotis

:judy hogan

Page 1

Council Minutes

Monday 20 February 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 7.00pm...

B.Apologies

Procedural Motion:Moved Cr Melina SehrSeconded Cr Steve Stefanopoulos
That Cr Griffin be granted leave of absence for the Ordinary Council meeting of 6 march 2017.
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 - 13 February 2017
Motion: Moved Cr Steve Stefanopoulos Seconded Cr Glen Atwell
That the Council confirms the Minutes of the Council Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 6 February 2017, Minutes of the Confidential Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 6 February 2017 and Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 13 February 2017 as an accurate record of the proceedings. Subject to the following correction:
  • Council Minutes 6 February 2017 page 16 Cr Chandler tabled correspondence in respect to the old Scout Hall which is in Balmoral Street and needs to be removed as it is so dilapidated. Insert the following words Cr Chandler asked for a report to come back to Council on this matter.
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

The Mayor, Cr Klisaris, read the following statement:

During Council’s previous Ordinary Meeting sixteen (16) sets of questions to Council was received from members of the public.

  1. Four (4) questions from John and Leanne Arnott.

The questions are relating to:

  • The proposed development at Percy Treyvaud Park and associated areas, the criteria used to assess the proposed sites, the criteria needed to abandon the feasibility study, the possibility of Malvern Golf Club as a better option and access to Council’s policies/procedures/charter/processes.
  1. Four (4) questions from Naomi Vallins.

The questions are relating to:

  • The impact of developments with trees being cut down and removed; inadequate parking provision for multi-unit developments and the potential resultant impact on parking in side streets and traffic congestion; and lack of information in the Planning Register on certain references.
  1. Four (4) questions from Aimee Barwick

The questions are relating to:

  • Whether Council’s Older Persons Strategy (2008-2012) is still current; the importance of providing sporting facilities, such as the Chadstone Bowls Club, for ageing population; and whether the needs of young citizens are more important than those of older citizens.
  1. Four (4) questions from Rebekah Clark

The questions are relating to:

  • The meaning of “Feasibility” as it relates to an indoor stadium at Percy Treyvaud Park, the specific number of proposed courts; details about feasibility process; and future use of Malvern Valley Primary School netball courts.
  1. Five (5) questions from Andrew Jackman

The questions are relating to:

  • The process used to determine that the Malvern Valley Golf Course was an unsuitable location for the proposed indoor sports stadium; the future operation of the golf course; and request for information regarding compromises made by Council on selection criteria used to select a suitable site for proposed indoor sports stadium.
  1. Four (4) questions from Jacqui de Boer

The questions are relating to:

  • The proposal of changing Chadstone Bowls Club into a Netball/Basketball Stadium.
  1. Four (4) questions from Bernadette Clegg

The questions are relating to:

  • The proposal of changing Chadstone Bowls Club into a Netball/Basketball Stadium.
  1. Two (2) questions from Vicki Christofilopoulos

The questions are relating to:

  • The Chadstone Bowls Club and the future feasibility study.
  1. Three (3) questions from Meredith Dimattina

The questions are relating to:

  • Chadstone Bowls Club and proposed Netball Stadium development
  1. Five (4) questions from Alan Jolly

The questions are relating to:

  • The proposal of changing Chadstone Bowls Club into a Netball/Basketball Stadium.
  1. Five (5) questions from Karen Jolly

The questions are relating to:

  • The proposal of changing Chadstone Bowls Club into a Netball/Basketball Stadium.
  1. One (1) question from Eva Rado

The questions are relating to:

  • Question regarding whether Council will move a motion to read out and record public questions.
  1. One (1) question from Carolyn King

The questions are relating to:

  • Question regarding whether Council will move a motion to read out and record public questions.
  1. Four (4) questions from Kay Thompson

The questions are relating to:

  • The proposal of changing Chadstone Bowls Club into a Netball/Basketball Stadium.
  1. Four (4) questions from Amanda Williams

The questions are relating to:

  • The proposal of changing Chadstone Bowls Club into a Netball/Basketball Stadium.
  1. Four (4) questions from Anthony Iezzi

The questions are relating to:

  • Priorities of the Recreation Strategy of Sustainable Sports ground use and equitable providing if a synthetic turf sports group is not installed at Gardiner Park

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 as below.

One – Questions and Responses to John Arnott

Question 1

Could you please provide me with the criteria that you judged the proposed sites on and explain how this site satisfied all of the criteria?

Response

In March 2015, Officers commissioned a Needs Assessment into the demand for additional multi-court indoor sports stadiums in Stonnington.

In conjunction with the needs analysis, a preliminary site assessment of all government owned land (local, state and Crown land) was undertaken to identify a site for a four-court stadium with basic support features, using the following assessment criteria:

•A building site measuring 5,000 square meters with additional space for car parking.

•Accessibility – on a main road and easily accessible by public transport

•Amenity – the amenity of the nearby residents or the environment would not be compromised

•Open space – the development would not result in the loss of open space

•Displacement – current sporting users would not be displaced

•Prahran Netball Association (PNA) catchment – within PNA catchment area

Officers identified 49 Council-owned sites as well as two other sites within the municipality that could meet some of the required criteria. No site was able to meet all of the criteria.

The results of the preliminary assessment of all sites was presented to Councillors on 31 August 2015. Councillors considered that no site was able to meet all the selection criteria and recommended that officers further explore opportunities on private land and encumbered open space. Consistent with the Strategies for Creating Open Space policy and desire to increase the amount of open space available to the community, Councillors agreed to rule out the use of open space and sportsgrounds from further consideration.

An investigation of all privately owned land and opportunities to use existing encumbered open space was subsequently undertaken and has resulted in the current project proposal and recommendation to complete a detailed feasibility on the nominated location.

Question 2

Could you please tell me the criteria that would need to be satisfied to abandon the feasibility study – surely it is in Council’s interest to provide this, as surely they want to know if there is overwhelming weight to not go ahead with the development and save on the $100,000 cost of the study. The reason I ask this is that I am confident there is overwhelming support to keep the bowls club in place from all sorts of groups.

Response

Council is committed to finding a suitable site for a four court stadium and has endorsed the site of the lawns bowls facility within Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park for further investigation through the feasibility study.

The findings of the feasibility study will be presented to Council as a proposal to determine whether the project proceeds past the initial concept stage, is amended or abandoned.

Question 3

Could you please tell me why Malvern Valley Golf club (vacant space and spaces adjacent that could be freed up) would not be a better option per reasons outlined below?

Response

Much of the golf course is on land subject to inundation from flooding from Gardiner’s Creek or Scotchman’s Creek.

Question 4

Could you please provide me with access to your processes and procedures/policies/charter, as the decision to make this the preferred site without any community consultation, behind closed doors, mystifies me. I put in a written complaint to the Ombudsman’s office, and they advised me that it was in my right to ask for access to these documents so that I can see Council has followed their policies and procedures. The ombudsman’s office told me that if you do not make them available, they can force you to make them available. They said that if it can be proved that the Council has operated outside its own rules, the Ombudsman’s office can then act.

Response

It was appropriate for Councillors to consider the nomination of Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park as the site for further investigation as an item of confidential business on 21 November 2016 consistent with Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989, before communicating the decision to the current occupants of the site and making this decision public on 5 December 2016.

At this stage the only decision Council has made is to complete a feasibility study into the proposed development of an indoor stadium at Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park.

The findings of the feasibility study will be presented to Council as a proposal to determine whether the project proceeds past the initial concept stage, is amended or abandoned.

The decision that will be made by Council will take into account many considerations from all areas within the community following a process of community consultation consistent with Council’s Engagement Policy 2015-2018.

A copy of Council’s Engagement Policy can be found at

Two – Questions and Responses to Naomi Vallins

Question 1

Why are so many trees, frequently on the perimeters of blocks cut down and removed, when we know of their importance not only to beautify our surroundings but their function in keeping the environment cool? I note especially the destruction of a tree on the front perimeter, ie on the street side of 5 Kardella Street; it looked like it had been a mature Liquid Amber.

Response

The Stonnington Planning Scheme has been recently updated to strengthen the requirement to incorporate adequate landscaping for new developments. In some instances, tree removal is required for varying reasons, however for new developments especially in residential zones, replacement landscaping, including the provision of deep soil canopy vegetation is required to be incorporated.

With specific regard to the Liquid Amber at 5 Kardella Street, this tree did not meet the size specifications to be classified as a significant tree under Council’s Local Laws, which means it was allowed to be removed without any need for written permission from Council.

Question 2a

Why is the provision for parking in so-called multi-unit developments so inadequate? I heard from a local resident that parking provisions for the development on the east side of Burke Road at its intersection with Brunel Streetallowed for only one parking spot per dwelling.

Response

The Stonnington Planning Scheme specifies a statutory car parking requirement for multi dwelling developments. The rate is located at Clause 52.06 of the Scheme, which is attached for your reference. The Clause specifies a preference of one car parking space to be provided for each one or two bedroom dwelling, and two car parking spaces to be provided for each three bedroom (or more) dwellings.

Council has no record of any proposed development on either of the sites that are located on the corner of the Burke Road / Brunel Street intersection, however there have been recent planning approvals issued for the properties to the south of this intersection, at 82, 84, and 86 Burke Road respectively. The statutory rate has been met in relation to all of these approved developments.

Question 2b

There is now to be the construction of a multi-unit development on 207 - 213 Waverley Road, a very busy road. Given that side streets adjacent to Waverley Road have restricted parking conditions, what provision is made for parking in this development that will not induce traffic congestions and snarl-ups that may even stretch back to Dandenong Road?

Response

The development you are referring to was approved under Planning Permit No. 801/15 for the construction of a mixed use development. Basement car parking is provided for this development with access to the basement provided via Emo Road. Importantly the vehicle entry point inside the property boundary has enough space to accommodate two vehicles side by side, meaning a car that is entering the basement is able to wait within the property boundary (and not on Emo Road) for an exiting car, in the situation where two vehicles need to use the ramp at the same time. It is not considered that this development will result in unreasonable traffic congestion on Emo Road.

Question 3

Having perused the planning register, which although it is easy to search, is insufficiently informative and could be improved. For example, I could not find any references to the meaning of "Condition 1- Plans etc."

Response

This feedback regarding the planning register has been noted and forwarded to the Planning Support team for review.

Three – Questions and Responses to Aimee Barwick

Question 1

Council has been previously asked about its Older Persons strategy (2008-2012) and responded that it is no longer current. Could you please refer me to the current Older Persons strategy?

Response

Whilst the Older Person’s Strategy was written for the period from 2008 to 2012 it remains a relevant document to guide Council’s work with older people.

Question 2

The City of Stonnington has an ageing population – higher than the state average – so why are Council Officers recommending demolishing Chadstone Bowls Club, one of the few sports our ageing population participates in?

Response

At this stage the only decision Council has made is to complete a feasibility study into the proposed development of an indoor stadium at Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park and to include future provision of active recreation programs and services for older adults as part of that study.

Question 3

Does Council think it is fair and reasonable to accommodate the demands of Prahran Netball Club by forcing Chadstone Bowls Club to cease to exist?

Response

Prahran Netball Association conducts competitions for clubs and teams from across the municipality.

At this stage the only decision that has been made is to conduct a study into the feasibility of the proposed development of an indoor stadium at Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park.

Question 4

Does Council consider the needs of young citizens to be more important than the needs of older citizens?

Response

The decision that will be made by Council will take into account many considerations from all areas within the community, including the members of Chadstone Bowls Club.