Council Meeting Agenda 22 June 2015

Ordinary Council Meeting
To be held in the
Council Chamber
Whitehorse Civic Centre
379 Whitehorse Road Nunawading

on
Monday 22 June 2015

at 7.00 p.m.
Members: Cr Andrew Munroe (Mayor), Cr Bill Bennett,

Cr Raylene Carr, Cr Robert Chong AM,
Cr Andrew Davenport, Cr Philip Daw,
Cr Helen Harris OAM, Cr Sharon Ellis,
Cr Denise Massoud, Cr Ben Stennett
Mr Philip Warner
Acting Chief Executive Officer
Whitehorse City Council
Ordinary Council Meeting 22 June 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PRAYER 3
2 WELCOME AND APOLOGIES 3
3 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTS 3
4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS 3
5 RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS 3
6 NOTICES OF MOTION 4
6.1 Notice of Motion 88 – Cr Davenport 4
7 PETITIONS 5
7.1 Notice of Application for Planning Permit WH/2014/559 Whitehorse City Council –
99 Morack Road, Vermont South 5
7.2 Proposed Redevelopment of the Whitehorse Centre – Car Parking 5
8 URGENT BUSINESS 5
9 COUNCIL REPORTS 6
9.1 CITY DEVELOPMENT 6
STRATEGIC PLANNING 6
9.1.1 Significant Tree Study Stage Three (2014-15) 6
9.1.2 Consideration of the Panel Report for Amendment C158 - Implementation of the
Box Hill Central Activities Area Car Parking Strategy 2014 11
ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL 21
9.1.3 Box Hill Mall – Review of Vehicle Access 21
9.2 INFRASTRUCTURE 26
9.2.1 Tender Evaluation Report - Contract 14040 - Provision of Inspection and Repair
Services for Emergency / Exit Lighting and Means of Egress Inspections 26
9.2.2 Tender Evaluation Report – Contract 14046 Provision of Plumbing Maintenance
Services, Installation & Associated Services 29
9.3 HUMAN SERVICES 32
9.3.1 The Draft Proposed Strathdon House & Precinct Development 32
9.3.2 Cleaning of Aquatic Leisure Facilities Tender Evaluation Report 35
9.4 CORPORATE SERVICES 37
9.4.1 Review of Council’s Procurement Policy 37
9.4.2 2015/16 Annual Internal Audit Plan 39
9.4.3 Adoption of the 2015/16 Proposed Budget and Draft Strategic Resource Plan
2015-2019 40
9.4.4 Council Plan Annual Review 48
9.4.5 Contract Extension – Provision of Internal Audit Services 52
9.4.6 Tender Evaluation Report – Provision of Workers Compensation Services 54
9.4.7 Intention to Sell Land in accordance with Section 189 of the Local Government Act
1989 56
9.4.8 Naming of Laneway – Adjacent to 77-79 Doncaster East Road Mitcham 60
9.4.9 Delegated Decisions – April 2015 63
Page 1
10 REPORTS FROM DELEGATES, SPECIAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AND ASSEMBLY

OF COUNCILLORS RECORDS 79
10.1 REPORTS BY DELEGATES 79
10.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL MEETING OF 9 JUNE 2015 79
10.2.1 Draft Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement 79
10.2.2 Commonwealth Financial Assistance Grants 80
10.3 RECORD OF ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS 81
11 REPORTS ON CONFERENCES/SEMINARS ATTENDANCE 83
12 CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS 83
12.1 Parkland and Bicycle Advisory Committees – Selection of Members 83
13 CLOSE MEETING 83
Page 2
AGENDA
1 PRAYER
1a Prayer for Council
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.
1b Aboriginal Reconciliation Statement
“In the spirit of reconciliation we acknowledge the Wurundjeri as the traditional owners of the
land on which we are gathered.”
2 WELCOME AND APOLOGIES
3 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTS
4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting 18 May 2015 and Confidential Minutes
18 May 2015.
RECOMMENDATION
That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting of 18 May 2015 and
Confidential Minutes of the 18 May 2015 having been circulated now be
confirmed.
5 RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS
Page 3
6 NOTICES OF MOTION
6.1 Notice of Motion 88 – Cr Davenport
That Council:
1. Having:
a) Considered all written submissions;
b) Heard the presentations of submissions;
c) Received the report of the Special Committee of its
meeting held on 9 June 2015;
d) Considered officer comments to parts (a) and (b),
2. Amend the Proposed Budget 2015/16 and the revised

Council Plan 2015-2019 (including the draft Strategic
Resource Plan) as follows:
a) Removal of the 2% Whitehorse ReNEWal fund.
3. Resolve that the $200,000 allocated in the Proposed Budget

2015/16 for progression of the Whitehorse Centre
Redevelopment be quarantined in the Budget until further
Council direction following consideration of the finalised
Business Case due for completion in September 2015 and
4. All amounts allocated in Council's 4 Year draft Strategic

Resource Plan 2015-2019 for the Whitehorse Centre
Redevelopment also be subject to Council direction
following consideration of the finalised Business Case and
further considered in the Budget process for 2016/17.
5. Defer the Proposed Budget 2015/16 and revised Council

Plan 2015 -2019 and request Council officers to amend the
budget and associated documentation (as indicated) and
when complete that a Special Council Meeting be called to
consider the adoption of the Proposed Budget 2015/16
revised Council Plan 2015-2019 (as amended).
6. Advise the Minister for Local Government in advance, that

given the amendments required to the Proposed Budget
2015/16 and revised Council Plan 2015-2019 that Council
may not meet the 30 June 2015 adoption of the budget as
required by Section 130 (3) of the Local Government Act.
Page 4
7 PETITIONS
7.1 Notice of Application for Planning Permit WH/2014/559 Whitehorse
City Council – 99 Morack Road, Vermont South
At the Special Committee of Council meeting held 9 June 2015 a petition

was circulated to Councillors as part of the public submissions made by a
number of residents opposing a proposed development at 99 Morack
Road Vermont South. The petitioners strongly oppose the development of
the land at 99 Morack Road Vermont South for 18 dwellings and removal
of vegetation. The petition contains 93 signatories and is formally tabled
at tonight’s meeting for Council’s consideration.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council receive the petition and refer to General Manager City
Development for appropriate action and response.
7.2 Proposed Redevelopment of the Whitehorse Centre – Car Parking
At the Special Committee of Council meeting held 9 June 2015 a petition

was circulated to Councillors as part of the public submission made by a
resident in relation to the proposed redevelopment of the Whitehorse
Centre. The petition calls on Council to remove the considered car
parking for the green nature areas from the current Proposed Whitehorse
Centre Redevelopment plans and develop alternative plans for a new car
parking (sic) on existing parking areas, to return that then for consideration
by the community. The petition contains 106 signatories and is formally
tabled at tonight’s meeting for Council’s consideration.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council receive the petition and refer to General Manager

Human Services for appropriate action and response.
8 URGENT BUSINESS
Page 5
9 COUNCIL REPORTS
9.1 CITY DEVELOPMENT

Strategic Planning
9.1.1 Significant Tree Study Stage Three (2014-15)

FILE NUMBER: 15/76202
ATTACHMENT
SUMMARY
The Significant Tree Study Stage Three was undertaken in late 2014 and early 2015 by
Homewood Consulting. The consultants have finalised the report and provided it to Council
for review and finalisation. This report outlines the methodology and conclusions of the
study. This report also recommends that the identified significant trees be noted and that
Council seek authorisation to prepare and exhibit a planning scheme amendment to
introduce planning controls to protect the significant trees.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council:
A. Adopt the Significant Tree Study and its recommendations.
B. Seek authorisation to prepare and exhibit an amendment to the Whitehorse

Planning Scheme to introduce Vegetation Protection Overlay Schedule 5 to
the identified significant trees.
C. Notify all landowners and occupiers who had a tree inspected of the
outcome of the site inspection and study.
BACKGROUND
The City of Whitehorse recognises that significant trees are integral to the neighbourhood
character throughout the City and the desirability of Whitehorse as a place to live is in many
respects related to its leafy and natural landscape character.
Council also recognises that significant trees need to be identified and retained with
protection through the Whitehorse Planning Scheme to ensure that the leafy and natural
landscape character is maintained and enhanced.
As part of an ongoing program of protecting vegetation, Council commissioned Homewood

Consulting to undertake a third phase of the Significant Tree Study in late 2014. A total of 89
nominations for a tree, or groups of trees, were assessed across 75 properties within the
municipality.
The study report has been received and reviewed by Council officers and it makes the
following findings:
Page 6
9.1.1
(cont)
As a result of the inspections 38 trees were considered to meet one or more of the
significance criteria and have been recommended for inclusion into the Significant Tree
Register. 20 trees were not considered suitable for inclusion in the Register either because
they were not considered to meet any of the Significance Criteria or because they could not
be adequately protected from development due to current conditions, for example there is
an existing dwelling or other significant asset within 4m of the tree.
6 trees already included in the Register were reassessed and recommendations have been
made to update records where applicable. 15 of the properties attended did not have mature
trees on site, generally because the nominated tree/s had already been removed prior to the
site inspection.
The following recommendations were also made as a result of the site inspections:
1. 38 trees are added to the City of Whitehorse Significant Tree Register. Table 2-Table 4
in the Significant Tree Study Report provides a summary of the recommendations for
trees assessed, in relation to their suitability for inclusion on the Register.
2. Where possible, the Tree Protection Zone and Structural Root Zone information given
is referenced when there are proposed construction or excavation activities near
significant trees.
3. The need to protect significant trees for environmental, historical, aesthetic values and
to maintain the character of neighbourhoods is explained to the tree owners.
3.1 Council explores ways to assist private landowners in the maintenance and
management of significant trees such as an annual grant system. This would
reduce the maintenance burden on landowners and act as an incentive for
retaining or nominating significant trees.
4. Subject to funding being available, a spatial data set is created for the trees currently
on the City of Whitehorse Statements of Tree Significance which can be integrated with
the spatial data collected for trees assessed in this study.
5. Subject to funding being available, further assessment and public nomination continues
to ensure that all significant trees throughout the city are identified and assessed for
inclusion in the Significant Tree Register.
PROPOSAL
As a result of the site inspections and study it is proposed that 38 trees are added to the
City of Whitehorse Significant Tree Register and afforded protection through the Planning
Scheme. The tree citations prepared by Homewood Consulting will be used in the
Significant Tree Register. The citations contain information relating to the tree, including
height, width, maturity, health, ownership, significance criteria and any comments relating to
the significance of the property.
The protection of vegetation through the Whitehorse Planning Scheme requires the
preparation and exhibition of a Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO) to protect the trees.
Page 7
9.1.1
(cont)
The advantages of introducing a VPO include:

• They cover trees of individual, group and/or canopy significance;
• They provide substantial weight when submitted as evidence to VCAT hearings;
• The legislative penalties are much greater than under a local law;
• Current resourcing is based on this approach;
• The overlays/controls are on the Section 32 Vendor Statement for the land when a
property is being considered for purchase; and
• Community consultation is undertaken via the planning scheme amendment exhibition
process.
It is proposed to introduce VPO 5 to the Planning Scheme. This overlay carries on the tree
protection already afforded under the VPO’s for individual trees (VPO1 and VPO3) and is of
similar content and format to the existing VPO’s.
VPO1 is based on a tree study completed in 2002 and VPO3 is based on a tree study
completed in 2006. The proposed VPO refers to the tree study completed in 2015 and the
updated Neighbourhood Character Policy, prepared by Planisphere in 2014.
CONSULTATION
The assessment of the trees of possible significance was undertaken in late 2014 with
relevant owners and occupiers notified by letter prior to the site inspection by the consultant.
All land owners and occupiers whose property contains trees that were inspected will be
notified by written correspondence on the outcome of the site inspection, regardless if the
tree/s are recommended for inclusion on the Significant Tree Register.
If Council seeks the introduction of planning controls for the identified significant trees then
all affected land owners will be notified of the exhibition of a planning scheme amendment to
introduce a VPO. As per the statutory exhibition requirements, notice will also be placed in
the Whitehorse Leader for a minimum of one week and the Government Gazette.
The exhibition for the VPO will be for a period of one calendar month following which
Council will consider the comments and either make changes to the exhibited amendment
or refer the amendment and submissions to an independent planning panel.
If the amendment is referred to a planning panel, the panel will listen to all submissions
made about the amendment and make recommendations to Council about the amendment.
All submitters to the amendment will be advised of the outcome of the panel report and
Council’s decision about the amendment.
DISCUSSION
There is a considerable history of identifying and planning for the protection of significant
trees across the City. A number of studies/reviews have been carried out which provides
the basis for the current and proposed provisions in the Whitehorse Planning Scheme.
The first stage of the Significant Tree Study was undertaken in 2001 and 2002, with an
internal review undertaken in 2004. This review identified 451 properties where interim tree
protection provisions could be sought, with the balance of the statements of significance
from the original study and some additional vegetation identified during the review, referred
to Stage 2 of the Significant Tree Study.
Page 8
9.1.1
(cont)
Stage 2 reviewed some 1100 properties and 2000 trees and the report recommended that
controls be introduced for 1022 trees on 600 properties. The Stage 2 study involved a site-
by-site inspection by the consultants of all the properties identified, with landowners and
occupiers being advised of the intended visit prior to the inspection and given an opportunity
to arrange an appropriate time to meet the consultant.
Stage 3 reviewed 89 trees across 75 properties in the months of November and December
2014. The trees were assessed for significance under the following criteria:
• Historical significance
• Rare/localised distribution
• Horticultural/genetic value
• Curious growth form
• Outstanding size
• Outstanding example of species
• Particularly old
• Aesthetic value
• Aboriginal culture
• Unique location/context
• Unique environmental contribution
Trees had to meet one or more of the above criteria to be considered for inclusion in the
City of Whitehorse Significant Tree Register. However a number of trees met one or more of
the criteria, but did not warrant inclusion on the register due to ‘disqualifying’ factors, such
as having an existing dwelling located within 4 metres of the tree.
Of the trees assessed, the most common species represented is English Oak, followed by
Silver-leaved Stringybark. Almost half the trees assessed are exotic, approximately one-
third of the trees are native to Australia and one-quarter are indigenous, meaning they occur
naturally in the local area.
The introduction of planning controls will require owners to obtain planning permits to
remove or lop identified tree(s) unless the vegetation is assessed as imminently dangerous
or satisfies other exemptions in the provisions. Council has previously determined to waiver
application fees for applications in the VPO and will continue to do so.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The Significant Tree Study was funded in the 2014-2015 budget.
An amendment to the Planning Scheme to introduce planning controls will require Council to
pay costs associated with the preparation, approval and exhibition of the amendment,
including any notification, mail outs, Planning Panel hearing costs and fees for expert
witnesses. There is sufficient funding in relevant budgets to accommodate these costs.
CONCLUSION
Stage Three of the Significant Tree Study was undertaken in late 2014 and early 2015. The
report provided by Homewood Consulting contains a thorough explanation of the
methodology and significance criteria used for the site visits and to determine if a tree is
considered worthy of protection in the Scheme.
Page 9
9.1.1
(cont)
The study has identified 38 trees as being significant vegetation under the criteria of the
study. The study also makes further recommendations about protecting and maintaining
trees in Whitehorse and how to preserve the leafy neighbourhood character of the
municipality.
The trees that have been identified as significant vegetation now need to be protected under
the Planning Scheme. It is recommended that Council seek authorisation from the Minister
for Planning to prepare and exhibit a planning scheme amendment to introduce Vegetation
Protection Overlay Schedule 5 and include the trees in the Significant Tree Register.
Page 10
9.1.2 Consideration of the Panel Report for Amendment C158 -

Implementation of the Box Hill Central Activities Area Car
Parking Strategy 2014
FILE NUMBER: SF15/291
ATTACHMENTS
SUMMARY
This report discusses the exhibition and consideration of submissions to Amendment C158
and the recommendations of the independent Panel that has assessed the amendment. It is
recommended that Amendment C158 be adopted with changes.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council being the Planning Authority and having considered the Panel Report:
A. Adopt Amendment C158 with changes as follows (see Attachment 2b):

• Amend the residential visitor parking requirement contained within Table
1 of Schedule 1 to the Parking Overlay to:
o 0.2 Visitor spaces to each dwelling for the first five dwellings, plus, 0.1
spaces to each dwelling for any subsequent dwellings.
• Amend dot point 4 under the Decision Guidelines for permit applications
(Clause 4.0 of the Parking Overlay) to:
o For commercial and residential visitor uses, the availability of car
parking in the locality and its suitability to accommodate parking
generated by the development.
• Amend the date of the Box Hill Central Activities Area Car Parking
Strategy from 2013 to 2014.
B. Submit the adopted Amendment to the Minister for Planning for approval
under Section 31 of the Planning and Environment Act with the appropriate
fee.
C. Advise all submitters of all resolutions in relation to the Panel Report for the
Amendment.
Page 11
9.1.2
(cont)
MELWAYS REFERENCE 75A
Applicant: Whitehorse City Council

Zoning (proposed overlay area): C1Z, C2Z, GRZ1, GRZ5, PPRZ, PUZ2, PUZ3,
PUZ4, PUZ6, RGZ1, RGZ2 and RGZ3.
Overlay (proposed overlay area): HO14, HO77, HO90, HO91, HO92, HO93,
HO94, HO114, HO115, HO116, HO117,
HO142, HO157, HO224, HO225, SBO, VPO1
and VPO3.
Relevant Clauses Clause 21.08 Infrastructure
Clause 22.07 Box Hill Central Activities Area
Clause 45.09 Parking Overlay
Ward: Elgar
Box Hill Activity 16 submissions 

Centre boundary mapped of 24 North
received
Page 12
9.1.2
(cont)
BACKGROUND
Amendment C158 was exhibited between 2 October 2014 and 3 November 2014 following a
decision by Council on 23 June 2014 to prepare and exhibit an amendment to the
Whitehorse Planning Scheme to implement a car parking overlay for the Box Hill Activity
Centre. This decision was based on recommendations within the Box Hill Central Activities
Area Car Parking Strategy 2014.
The Box Hill Central Activities Area Car Parking Strategy 2014 (the Parking Strategy) gives
recommendations about the number of car parking spaces to be provided in new
developments. The car parking spaces required are calculated against floor area, per
dwelling or other measures as applicable.
This amendment seeks to include the rates given in the Parking Strategy in the Whitehorse
Planning Scheme. The amendment proposes to apply Schedule 1 to the Parking Overlay to
the Box Hill Activity Centre and make consequential changes to other parts of the
Whitehorse Planning Scheme to implement the parking rates and sustainable transport
directions from the Box Hill Central Activities Area Car Parking Strategy 2014.
Council considered the twenty four (24) submissions on the amendment at its meeting on 27
January 2015 and resolved to refer the amendment and all submissions to an independent
Panel.
PANEL REPORT
Submissions
At the close of the exhibition period twenty two (22) on time submissions had been lodged,
with a further two (2) late submissions also considered. Of those, eighteen (18) submissions
were opposed or objected to the amendment, four (4) were supportive, and two (2) were
unable to be specified.
The submissions raised the following issues:

• Concern about the impact of reduced car parking provision rates on surrounding streets
and existing car parking and traffic issues.
• Criticism about the rationale for reducing car parking provision rates.
• The need for greater car parking provision in Box Hill.
• Comment on broader issues such as change in Box Hill and the Parking Strategy itself.
Panel Hearing
The Panel held a Directions Hearing on 2 March 2015 to consider preliminary and
procedural issues prior to the Panel Hearing. At the Directions Hearing, the Panel Chairman
advised that as Council was the only party which had requested to be heard by the Panel,
Council could instead prepare a written (rather than verbal) submission which addressed
key questions that the Panel had in relation to the amendment. This was prepared and
submitted to the Panel on 20 March 2015. Council officers received the Panel’s report on 21
April 2015 (Attachment 2a).
Page 13
9.1.2
(cont)
DISCUSSION OF PANEL REPORT
In summary, the Panel recommended that:
Whitehorse Planning Scheme Amendment C158 should be adopted as exhibited, subject to

amending the residential visitor parking rate in Table 1 of Schedule 1 to the Parking Overlay
as follows:
• 0.2 Visitor spaces to each dwelling for the first five dwellings, plus 0.1 spaces for
subsequent dwellings, up to an overall maximum of five spaces.
The Panel’s endorsement of the amendment, with one exception, is noted. However,
Council officers have reservations with the Panel’s sole recommendation. This will be
discussed in further detail in coming sections which outline the issues raised and the
Panel’s response to those issues by theme.
Planning context
The Panel concluded overall that the amendment is strategically well justified, subject to
some specific issues which it addresses individually.
The Panel accepted Council’s assessment that the amendment is supported by the relevant
sections of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework. It considered that the
amendment, particularly the proposal to reduce the car parking requirements, is well
supported by these sections of the planning scheme. The Panel also agreed with Council
that a Schedule to the Parking Overlay is the most appropriate mechanism to implement the
objectives of the amendment and that the amendment has been prepared in accordance
with the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and all relevant Ministerial Directions and
Planning Practice Notes.
The Panel supported the use of the Parking Strategy to support the amendment. It
considered that the Parking Strategy is well researched and has been the subject of
considerable community consultation.
Officer comments
The Panel’s endorsement of the approach and strategic justification provided by Council is
noted.
The proposed Parking Overlay Schedule 1
Many submitters opposed the reduction of car parking provision rates for new
developments. Some submitted that new residents will still have cars which will put pressure
on existing car parking spaces, while others raised concerns about the future availability of
shopper parking. Some submitters were sceptical about the ability of reduced car parking
supply to encourage people to use other forms of transport.
Council in its further submission to the Panel provided a detailed rationale for the proposed
car parking rates. The Panel in its discussion outlined its response to the proposed rates by
car parking type.
Page 14
9.1.2
(cont)
Office parking rate
The Panel outlined the origins of the current standard car parking requirement for office
uses (3.5 spaces per 100sqm). It stated that:
This was derived in the original parking studies by Wilbur Smith & Associates in the 1960’s
which informed the then emerging planning schemes. This rate was based on floor
allocations of 33m² and 31m² per employee for private and government offices respectively,
i.e. a car space for each employee and some allowance for visitors. Modern work practices
have changed with computers and open plan offices, and current office design is based on
approximately 15m² per employee. The ‘standard’ rate in Table 1 of Clause 52.06 of 3.5
spaces per 100m² therefore already allows for a proportion of office workers travelling by
other modes (page 14).
In light of this history, the Panel raised some issues with the rates proposed by Council. The
Panel considered that the rates proposed by Council have assumed that the Clause 52.06
rate of 3.5 spaces per 100sqm applies to 100 per cent of office staff being car drivers. With
Council reducing the rate to 2.0 spaces per 100sqm to reflect that around 60 per cent of
office staff will travel by modes other than cars, the Panel believes that in practice this may
actually represent car usage in the order of 30 per cent of staff. That said, the Panel also
recognised Council’s desire to reduce car reliance in Box Hill, with a 30 per cent driver
mode split potentially being achieved due to Box Hill’s excellent public transport access and
lack of long term parking options.
The Panel summarised its findings in relation to office parking as follows:

In any event, the parking rate is a minimum and if a developer wished to provide more than
2.0 spaces per 100m², this could occur. Accordingly, the Panel sees no operational or
commercial reasons why the rate of 2.0 spaces per 100m² for office should not be adopted
(page 14).
Residential parking rates
The Panel agreed with Council that there is an opportunity in Box Hill to lower residential
parking provision rates. The Panel stated that the proposed rates are “soundly based and
the Panel agrees with them” (page 14).
However, the Panel questioned the proposed residential visitor parking rate of 0.1 spaces
per dwelling. The Panel believes that there are many short-term parking opportunities for
visitors to Box Hill which residential visitors, who generally visit “out of hours”, could utilise.
Visitor parking in larger developments can often be less readily available or used for other
purposes such as storage or rubbish collection and the Panel therefore considers that
provision of more than five visitor spaces in larger developments is inefficient and
unnecessary. For both “smaller” and larger developments the Panel acknowledged that
there is a need for some visitor parking on-site for tradesmen or long-term visitors. The
Panel believes that developments of five or more dwellings should provide at least one
visitor space.
‘Other’ and motorcycle parking rates
The Panel agreed with the adoption of the Clause 52.06 Column B rates for the “other” uses
in the amendment. These rates are based on an area-wide parking provision and allow for
commonality of rates between various uses which facilitates changes of use without the
requirement for a parking assessment. The rates also rely on the subject uses having
substantial access to off-site parking; as is the case in the Box Hill Activity Centre.
Page 15
9.1.2
(cont)
The amendment introduces a formal requirement for motorcycle parking at a rate of one
space per 50 car parking spaces. The Panel was satisfied that the modest requirement level
would not be an impediment to future development and the provision would be beneficial.
Parking Overlay boundaries
The Panel requested the rationale for the boundaries of the proposed Parking Overlay.
Council advised that the Overlay boundaries align with the Box Hill Transit City Activity
Centre Structure Plan 2007 boundaries with the exception of land west of Elgar Road which
is predominantly publically owned.
The Panel accepted Council’s rationale and agreed that the land to the west of Elgar Road
should be excluded.
Panel conclusions
In relation to the above, the Panel concluded that:

• The rationale for the proposed reduced office, residential and ‘other’ car parking rates
is soundly based and the rates proposed should be supported subject to a change to
the residential visitor parking rate detailed herein.
• The proposed boundaries of the Parking Overlay are supported.
Panel recommendations
The Panel recommends that the residential visitor parking rate be modified to:
• 0.2 Visitor spaces to each dwelling for the first five dwellings, plus 0.1 spaces for
subsequent dwellings, up to an overall maximum of five spaces.
Officer comments
The Panel’s endorsement of the proposed schedule and car parking rates, with one
exception, is noted. However, Council officers have reservations with the Panel’s sole
recommendation and sought advice from GTA Consultants, the authors of the Parking
Strategy, on how to respond (see Attachment 2c).
The first part of the Panel’s recommendation is an amended visitor parking provision rate of
0.2 spaces per dwelling for the first five dwellings only. This is to ensure the provision of one
visitor parking space for developments with at least five but less than ten dwellings. GTA
Consultants consider this approach is a reasonable reflection of the existing provisions in
Clause 52.06 which requires visitor parking for developments of five or more dwellings, but
balances the lower generation of visitor parking that could be expected in Box Hill given the
projected parking requirements and quality access to alternative transport modes.
The second part of the Panel’s recommendation is a cap on visitor parking provision at five
spaces per development. In assessing the rationale for the Panel’s recommendation, GTA
Consultants note that the Panel has not provided any “real justification” to support that five
spaces is the correct cap, particularly where recent large developments have required
residential visitor parking provisions of over 30 spaces.
Page 16
9.1.2
(cont)
GTA Consultants also reiterate commentary in the Parking Strategy specifically addressing
the issue of visitor parking. They note that given the nature of surrounding land uses (which
don’t generate parking demand strictly within business hours) and the existing parking
demands, it may not be appropriate for residential visitor parking to be accommodated on-
street. On that basis, suitable visitor parking may not be available in all instances to cater for
visitor demands not provided on-site should a cap be introduced. It is considered that on-
site visitor parking waivers may be considered on a case-by-case basis, as specified in the
Parking Strategy, but that a cap should not be introduced as of right.
Based on this discussion, GTA Consultants recommend the following changes to the
Parking Overlay:
Amend the residential visitor parking requirement contained within the Table to Clause 3.0
[sic] of the Parking Overlay to:
• 0.2 Visitor spaces to each dwelling for the first five dwellings, plus,
• 0.1 spaces to each dwelling for any subsequent dwellings
Amend dot point 4 under the Decision guidelines for permit applications (Clause 4.0 of the
Parking Overlay) to:
• For commercial and residential visitor uses, the availability of car parking in the
locality and its suitability to accommodate parking generated by the development.
Council officers are in agreement with these changes.
Financial contributions
In the context of Council’s current strategic work relating to car parking, Council requested
the Panel’s advice on how to progress the implementation of a financial contributions
scheme for Box Hill. The Panel noted that the introduction of these funding arrangements is
a separate process unrelated to the Parking Overlay.
The Panel agreed that Council has further work to do in this space, and that a consolidated
plan targeted at addressing specific issues is an appropriate approach. This would assist
with setting priorities and establishing a base for a financial contributions scheme (which
could comprise one or a combination of a Development Contributions Plan (DCP), cash-in-
lieu or special rates schemes). The Panel provided examples of where an overall parking
master plan has been established, and how a Schedule to the Parking Overlay has been
used to direct the spending of funds collected from the cash-in-lieu scheme.
The Panel provided some commentary about whether a cash-in-lieu or Development

Contributions scheme would be more suitable for Box Hill. It noted that the choice of a DCP
or cash-in-lieu scheme would depend on what Council seeks to fund. A cash-in-lieu scheme
would only raise funds where parking requirements are not provided on-site, so Council
would need to consider whether it seeks to consolidate those spaces into a single facility, or
in the case of taking payment in lieu of short-term onsite parking, the money could be used
for a range of projects such as directional signage given the current high supply of such
parking in the centre. In practical terms, special rates schemes are applied to existing
commercial properties, whereas DCPs would only apply to new development (or in some
cases to a change in use).
Page 17
9.1.2
(cont)
In relation to Box Hill, the Panel believes:

…There may be value in keeping the car parking works separate as broader based DCPs
can be more difficult to implement and Council has already done a body of work on parking
in Box Hill through the Parking Strategy. The Panel believes that it would be a relatively
straight forward task to develop a parking master plan for Box Hill (based on the work of the
Parking Strategy), including a schedule of parking related projects to be funded or part
funded through a cash-in-lieu scheme (page 17).
In applying these findings, the Panel considered that the car parking master plan could be
incorporated into the Parking Overlay Schedule to introduce a cash-in-lieu option to provide
parking and/or related works instead of on-site parking for new developments. It also
considers that a DCP is likely to be easier to apply and less unpopular with existing property
owners.
Officer comments
The Panel’s advice on how to progress funding options is noted and appreciated. The
preparation of a parking master plan in Box Hill would require additional funding outside
Council’s budget, and would need to be considered under a future budget process.
Impact on the surrounding area
The Panel reviewed whether the potential impacts of the amendment would be
unmanageable for properties in the vicinity of the Activity Centre. This was in response to
submitter concerns about inappropriate car parking in residential areas, traffic issues
created by cars searching for car parking spaces, the impact of reduced car parking on
shoppers in Box Hill and the need for higher numbers of car parking spaces in new
developments.
Council acknowledged that the impact of overflow car parking on existing residential streets
is of concern. However, Council in its response argued that the new reduced rates would
not exacerbate existing problems. This was because new developments would not be
eligible for on-street car parking arrangements and therefore owners and/or occupiers would
need to make arrangements for any cars not accommodated on-site prior to occupancy.
Council also submitted data on the car parking capacity of on and off-street car parking
facilities in Box Hill which illustrates that there is sufficient parking in the Centre.
The Panel accepted that there are “real problems” with overflow car parking impacts on
residential streets, and that Council has addressed this through the Parking Strategy.
However, it noted that:
…There has been very limited progress on many of the short term measures targeted at
reducing impacts on residential streets. Items 2, 4, 9, 10 and 11 - 24 in the implementation
plan (See Appendix B) would directly assist addressing parking overflow impacts, including
the impact of hospital parking. The Panel notes that none of these items have yet been
commenced. Given the level of local resident concern about these issues, Council should
look at how it might be able to accelerate this implementation (page 20).
That said, the Panel accepts that these actions should address any negative impacts of
under supply of car parking in Box Hill. The Panel also acknowledged the implementation
actions in the Parking Strategy that will assist shoppers to find vacant spaces.
Page 18
9.1.2
(cont)
The Panel agreed with Council that the proposed reduced car parking rates are unlikely to
result in a worsening of parking over flow problems. In support of this, the Panel notes that
the commercial parking rates are typical of those used successfully elsewhere, and that
developers will “follow the market” in relation to parking provision for residential properties.
The Panel also reiterated that new buyers and renters will select properties and car parking
based on their own car parking needs, and that Council’s policy of not providing on-street
parking permits to new residents will reinforce this choice.
Panel conclusions
The Panel concluded that:
• There are existing issues with overflow car parking on residential streets that should be
addressed by Council.
• The Parking Strategy implementation plan appropriately addresses a range of car
parking issues in Box Hill, including: impacts on residential areas; provision of
adequate car parking for businesses; and ongoing monitoring of parking demand and
supply.
• The reduced car parking rates proposed in the Amendment, when combined with
appropriate on-street parking controls and adequate enforcement, will not result in a
worsening of parking overflow problems (page 21).
Officer comments
The Panel’s commentary regarding implementation of the Parking Strategy is noted.
Overall conclusions and recommendations
In addition to summarising its findings, the Panel in its conclusion questions why it is
referred to as the Box Hill Central Activities Area Car Parking Strategy 2013 when it seems
to be dated June 2014 and was adopted by Council in 2014. The Panel believes that the
reference should be changed to 2014.
Officer comments
The Panel’s observation is noted. The Parking Strategy was prepared in 2013 and adopted
by Council in June 2014 which has led to the discrepancy in the date. The reference will be
changed to the Box Hill Central Activities Area Car Parking Strategy 2014 from hereon in.
Council will be required to pay a fee of $734 to the Department of Environment, Land, Water
and Planning if it wishes to seek approval of the amendment. There is adequate funding in
the current budget for this purpose.
Introduction of the new control will streamline the assessment of planning permit
applications by formalising Council’s expectations for car parking within central Box Hill.
This gives Council a stronger negotiation point than at present, where each development
may argue its own case for reduced parking rates. By providing an evidence based and
strategic justification for its parking rates, Council will be able to provide more consistent
decision making with stronger justification.
Page 19
9.1.2
(cont)
CONCLUSION
Amendment C158 proposes to implement a car parking overlay for the Box Hill Activity
Centre, based on recommendations within the Box Hill Central Activities Area Car Parking
Strategy 2014.
An independent Panel has considered the amendment and associated submissions. The
Panel has recommended that the amendment be adopted with changes.
This Council report has assessed these recommendations and it is submitted that while
there is merit to the Panel’s recommendation regarding minimum residential visitor parking
provision for smaller developments, it would be inappropriate to include a cap on total
residential visitor parking provision without adequate justification. It is therefore
recommended that Amendment C158 be adopted with the following changes:
• Amend the residential visitor parking requirement contained within Table 1 of Schedule
1 to the Parking Overlay to:
o 0.2 Visitor spaces to each dwelling for the first five dwellings, plus, 0.1 spaces to
each dwelling for any subsequent dwellings.
• Amend dot point 4 under the Decision Guidelines for permit applications (Clause 4.0 of
the Parking Overlay) to:
o For commercial and residential visitor uses, the availability of car parking in the
locality and its suitability to accommodate parking generated by the development.
• Amend the date of the Box Hill Central Activities Area Car Parking Strategy from 2013
to 2014.
Page 20
Engineering & Environmental
9.1.3 Box Hill Mall – Review of Vehicle Access

FILE NUMBER: 15/74834
SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to provide the results of a recent review of vehicle access to
the Box Hill Mall and to recommend the installation of an additional retractable bollard at the
Station Street access point to the Box Hill Mall.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council:
1. Approves the installation of a retractable bollard at the Station Street access

point to the Box Hill Mall to physically restrict vehicles entering the Mall.
2. That Council write to all Mall owners and occupiers advising of the new
access arrangements and that approval for a vehicle to enter the Mall will
only be granted in limited circumstances where there is a critical need and
prior approval has been given.
3. Continue to exempt Police and emergency vehicles and Council

maintenance vehicles from needing approval to enter the Mall.
BACKGROUND
At its meeting on the 21 March 2005, Council revoked a previous declaration made on the 3
October 1983 and made a new declaration to make Market Street and Main Street, Box Hill
a Shopping Mall pursuant to the Local Government Act 1989. The declaration generally
banned parking and vehicle access and formalised the use of the Mall for pedestrian use.
Emergency vehicles, Council maintenance vehicles and vehicles permitted under special
circumstances were exempted from the vehicle prohibition.
In making the new Mall declaration in 2005, Council also adopted the installation of
permanent and retractable bollards at various entry points to the Mall. After considering
submissions at the time, Council did not proceed with a proposed retractable bollard at the
Station Street entrance to Main Street.
Not physically blocking vehicle access at the Station Street entrance and relying on “No
Entry” regulatory signs was considered appropriate at the time. Access was allowed to a
limited number of approved couriers and traders who demonstrated a critical need to enter
the mall to deliver and pick up certain goods and for emergency and Council maintenance
vehicles. The arrangement eliminated the need to administer a key system for access under
these circumstances. Formal prior approval was required for vehicles to enter the Mall
through a special permit issued by the Manager Engineering and Environmental Services or
the Manager Compliance.
The Box Hill Mall is an important and well used pedestrian environment and Council has
invested significant funds in upgrading the Mall in recent years.
A review of access to the Mall has recently been completed including the effectiveness of
not having a bollard at the Station Street entrance and currently relying on the ‘No Entry’
sign prohibitions as well as the extent of damage to the Mall as a result of vehicle entry.
Page 21
9.1.3
(cont)
DISCUSSION
The recent review of vehicle access to the Mall has highlighted difficulties in managing and
controlling access from the Station Street entrance with the existing “No Entry” signs and no
physical barrier. There have been numerous reported breaches of the requirement to obtain
prior approval for vehicle access in recent times with unauthorised vehicles entering the mall
daily to load and unload goods. This is resulting in serious safety issues and risks for
pedestrians.
In addition, there has been significant damage to Council assets in recent years including
paving, stone retaining walls, seating and landscaping as a result of unauthorised vehicles
entering the Mall and particularly heavy vehicles.
Unauthorised access also has the potential to adversely impact a number of authorised new
and emerging activities in the Mall including the Community Kiosk, the recent “Pop Up
Performers” and use of the laneways to promote activity in this space. Vehicles in close
proximity to these events could cause safety concerns.
Options for addressing the unsatisfactory unauthorised vehicle access to the Mall were
considered as part of this review, including placement of a retractable bollard at the Station
Street entrance and another option to establish a loading parking area in the eastern end of
Main Street east of Hodges Lane. This latter option has been discounted on the basis that
this area of the Mall needs to maintain the pedestrian Mall theme and incorporates the
entrance to the pedestrian underpass occupying over half the available width. It would not
be possible to provide safe and sufficient parking with adequate manoeuvring space for
delivery vehicles. Site lines would be reduced to Market Street from Station Street and
safety for pedestrians reduced.
As a result of the review, it is recommended that a retractable bollard be installed directly at

the Station Street entrance to physically restrict vehicles from entering the Mall rather than
only relying on the “No Entry” signs. It is proposed that repairs to the existing pavers will be
arranged after the Station Street entrance is blocked with a retractable bollard. Additional
repairs to other infrastructure such as retaining walls is currently being assessed and will be
carried out if required.
There are adequate loading zones in the vicinity of the Mall to cater for the delivery needs of
the area without delivery vehicles entering the Mall.
The installation of a retractable bollard at the Station Street and Main Street intersection will
require the introduction of a keyed system to access the mall. A key will only be available to
a very limited number of approved users who have demonstrated a critical need to enter the
mall and to emergency and Council maintenance vehicles. Formal prior approval would be
required for vehicles other than emergency or Council maintenance vehicles, to enter the
Mall and to obtain a key. Emergency and Council maintenance vehicles will also be
provided a key. The current arrangement of the Manager Engineering and Environmental
Services and the Manager Compliance having authority to give approval would continue.
Police and Authorised Council Officers will continue to regularly patrol the area and issue
infringement notices to any vehicles in the Mall without a valid permit.
A plan of the existing bollards and the proposed bollard at Station Street is included as
Appendix A.
A plan of the loading zones available in the vicinity of the Mall area is included as Appendix
B.
Page 22
9.1.3
(cont)
CONSULTATION
Council officers in collaboration with the Victoria Police wrote to all traders and businesses
with access to the Mall in October 2014 and again in March 2015 seeking their cooperation
that no vehicles associated with their business were permitted to legally enter the Box Hill
Mall, without Council consent. This included businesses with delivery or service vehicles
such as armoured cash transport.
Council officers visited all businesses in the Mall in April 2015 and provided another copy of
both letters from Council. This was an opportunity to further promote the issues surrounding
unauthorised Mall access and to discuss the installation of a retractable bollard to physically
prevent unauthorised access to the Mall. There were no concerns expressed regarding
possible future actions by Council to physically restrict vehicle access.
The review of access arrangements in the Box Hill Mall was carried out by staff from the
Engineering and Environmental Services Department, Compliance Department, CityWorks
and Economic and Strategic Planning.
The cost of the installation of a removable bollard at the Station Street and Main Street
intersection can be accommodated in the current operational budget.
Repairs are required to the existing pavers in the Box Hill Mall as a result of unauthorised
access to the Mall by vehicles. The current estimated cost for the repairs to the pavers is
$40,000 and this will be arranged after the retractable bollard is installed at the Station
Street entrance. Repairs required to other Mall infrastructure such as retaining walls is also
currently being considered and if required, will be completed once the new arrangements for
access are implemented.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed new arrangements in the Mall are in accordance with Council’s Community
Road Safety Strategy, Integrated Transport Strategy and Risk Management Policies.
Page 23
9.1.3
(cont)
Page 24
9.1.3
(cont)
Page 25
9.2 INFRASTRUCTURE
9.2.1 Tender Evaluation Report - Contract 14040 - Provision of
Inspection and Repair Services for Emergency / Exit Lighting
and Means of Egress Inspections
SUMMARY
To consider tenders received for the Provision of Inspection and Repair Services for
Emergency / Exit Lighting and Means of Egress Inspections throughout Council’s building
portfolio. The current contract expires on 30 June 2015. This contract is comprised of 2
parts:
• Part 1 - Inspection and Repair Services for Emergency / Exit Lighting
• Part 2 - Means of Egress Inspections
This is a Schedule of Rates for labour and materials based contract for a cyclic program of
Essential Safety Measures inspections at Council buildings. The rates will apply for a fixed
3 year term with a 1 X 2 year optional extension term subject to satisfactory performance.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council:
1. Accept the tender and sign the formal contract document for Contract 14040
for the Provision of Inspection and Repair Services for Emergency / Exit
Lighting and Means of Egress Inspections, on a schedule of rates basis, for
the initial contract term of three (3) years commencing on 1 July 2015 from:
• Part 1 - Adapt Essential Services Pty Ltd, (ABN 94 489 751 476), 2/28
Superior Drive Dandenong South 3175 for the estimated cost of $426,296,
including GST and from
• Part 2 - Fire Equipment Services, (ABN 28 598 558 561), Suite 2, 5 Lakeside
Drive, Burwood East 3151 for the estimated cost of $115,946, including
GST
2. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to award a 2 year extension of this

contract, subject to a review of each Contractor’s performance and
Council’s business needs, at the conclusion of the initial 3 year contract
term, in accordance with the contract provisions.
BACKGROUND
Council is required by building regulations under the Building Code of Australia to conduct
regular inspections on facilities fitted with Essential Safety Measures (ESM) e.g. illuminated
exit lighting, emergency lighting, paths of travel to exits, discharge from exits, smoke/fire
detection, fixed sprinkler systems, portable fire equipment, etc.) These inspections are to
ensure that all ESM’s are fully functional at all times for occupant safety.
Council has relied on external service providers to deliver the services under this contract
because of the specialised nature and competencies required to ensure compliance with
regulatory and Building Code requirements. The current contract expires on 30 June 2015.
Page 26
9.2.1
(cont)
The intent of the contract is to:
• Satisfy the obligations set out in the Building Code of Australia,

• Satisfy the requirements set out in the relevant Australian Standards,
• Provide building users with safe egress from facilities in the event of fire,
• Ensure paths of travel to exit the building are clear and unobstructed, and
• Ensure designated exits are compliant with requirements outlined in Building Code of
Australia.
The contract has been established in 2 parts. Part 1 of the contract is for inspection and
repair services for emergency and exit lighting systems at 117 Buildings on Council land.
Part 2 of the contract is for Means of Egress Inspections for 199 Buildings on Council Land.
Tenderers were able to tender for Part 1 only, Part 2 only or Parts 1 and 2.
DISCUSSION
Tenders were advertised in The Age newspaper on Saturday 21st February 2015 and
closed on 18 March 2015.
A pre-tender information session was held at Box Hill Town Hall on the 3rd March 2015 and
was attended by representatives from 10 companies.
A total of 10 tenders were submitted for this contract and all tenders were evaluated against
the following criteria:
Tender Offer (40%)

Qualifications and Experience (20%)
Workmanship Quality and compliance with industry codes and standards (15%)
Management and reporting / invoicing systems (15%)
Evidence of capacity to deliver services to nominated schedules (10%)
Occupational Health & Safety, Equal Employment Opportunity and Business Viability
credentials were assessed on a Pass/Fail basis.
The methodology used for the financial evaluation of the tenders was based on the number
of inspections required to comply with Council’s cyclic testing and inspections program, the
estimated amount of remedial works, the estimated number of reactive calls for faults, both
in and out of hours, and associated repair works generated from the cyclic testing program.
Scores for non-financial evaluation criteria were based on the quality and content of the
tender submissions, information obtained at interviews and referee checking where relevant.
Ten (10) tender submissions were received for Part 1 – Inspection and repair services for
emergency and exit lighting.
Adapt Essential Services Pty Ltd (Adapt) is the current provider of this service and has
successfully serviced all requirements under the contract for the 5 year term. The tender
from Adapt offers the best value outcome for Council for Part 1 of the contract.
Seven (7) submissions were received for Part 2 - Means of Egress Inspections. The current
contractor for this service did not lodge a tender submission. The tender from Fire
Equipment Services (FES) offers the best value outcome for Council for Part 2 of the
contract.
Page 27
9.2.1
(cont)
ADAPT and FES are both well experienced within the local government sector and
satisfactorily service the requirements of other Local Government organisations. Both
tenderers have a very good understanding of Essential Safety Measures inspection, testing,
repair and maintenance requirements and are equally well equipped to service this contract
in a timely and effective manner.
A detailed business viability assessment conducted on both Adapt and FES confirmed their
financial capacity to fulfil the contract requirements to Council for this contract.
CONSULTATION
Facilities Maintenance Officers have liaised extensively with staff currently responsible for
building operations and management to ensure that the scope of works under contract can
be delivered in the most efficient and least disruptive manner possible. Reference checks
with Manningham and Casey City Councils have confirmed that ADAPT and FES have
successfully delivered similar inspections and services programs.
Funding for this contract will be drawn from Capital Works - Facilities Maintenance annual
operational budgets. Estimated expenditures to be incurred under this contract are
consistent with the current costs for these services.
Budget Expenditure
Estimated Funding over three (3) years:

Part 1 - Inspection and Repair Services for
$387,542
Emergency / Exit Lighting (ex GST)
Part 2 - Means of Egress Inspections
$105,405
(ex GST)
Est. total funding $492,947

Year 1 (2015/16) $159,289
Year 2 (2016/17) $164,936
Year 3 (2017/18) $168,722
Est. total funding $492,947
Preferred Tenderer(s) estimated contract
cost (3 Years)
ADAPT $426,296
FES $115,946
Est. total expenditure (inc. GST) $542,242
GST $49,295
Est. net cost to Council $492,947
Page 28
9.2.2 Tender Evaluation Report – Contract 14046 Provision of

Plumbing Maintenance Services, Installation & Associated
Services
SUMMARY
This report considers tenders received for the continuing provision of Plumbing Maintenance
Services and includes Plumbing Installations & Associated Works. The current contract
th
expires on 30 June 2015. The contract is comprised of 2 Parts.
• Part 1 – Plumbing Maintenance and Installation Services
• Part 2 – Cleaning of Roof Drainage Systems
The report recommends the establishment of a preferred supplier panel and the acceptance
of tenders received from DBS Plumbing Services Pty Ltd and International Plumbing
Solutions Pty Ltd, trading as New Plumbing Solutions, for Part 1 of the contract and Alasdair
Collis, trading as Apex Vacuum Gutter Cleaning, for Part 2 of the contract. The contract will
be based on a schedule of rates for labour and materials for a fixed 3 year term
st
commencing on 1 July 2015 with a 1 x 2 year extension option, subject to satisfactory
performance.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council:
for the Provision of Plumbing Maintenance Services, Installation & Associated
Services, on a schedule of rates basis, for the initial term of three (3) years
st
commencing on 1 July 2015 from:
Part 1 - DBS Plumbing Services Pty Ltd, (ABN 96 095 440 056), of 4 / 11 Molan
Street, Ringwood VIC 3134, and International Plumbing Solutions Pty Ltd,
(ABN 401 386 606 16), trading as New Plumbing Solutions, at an estimated
total cost of $868,000.00 including GST;
Part 2 - Alasdair Collis, (ABN 46 700 642 795), of 21 Victoria Street, Diamond
Creek VIC 3089, trading as Apex Vacuum Gutter Cleaning, at an estimated
cost of $287,500.00 including GST.
2. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to award an extension of this contract,

subject to a review of the Contractors’ performance and Council’s business
needs, at the conclusion of the initial 3 year contract term.
BACKGROUND
Council has 300 buildings and structures with plumbing related assets as well as plumbing
infrastructure in community parks and open spaces that require planned and/or reactive
plumbing maintenance from time to time.
The intent of this contract is to provide Council with a preferred supplier panel comprised of
price competitive, competent contractors capable of providing Council with plumbing
maintenance, installations and associated services to all of its facilities and assets on a 24
hours per day, 7 days per week, 52 weeks a year basis.
The contract has been established in 2 parts. Part 1 provides for plumbing maintenance
and installations while Part 2 provides for roof drainage cleaning only. Tenderers were able
to tender for Part 1 only, Part 2 only or both Parts 1 and 2.
Page 29
9.2.2
(cont)
Day to day work requests for reactive plumbing maintenance will include, but not be limited
to, activities such as:
- Stormwater, sewerage and drainage systems;

- Water supply systems including domestic hot water units;
- Hot (auto boil) / cold filtered water units;
- Gas reticulation systems and associated equipment;
- Roof leaks and roof drainage maintenance;
- Sanitary blockages;
Programmed works will include, but not be limited to:
- Thermostatic Mixing Valve (TMV) servicing;

- Stormwater tanks and pump servicing;
- Works associated with major pipe work (e.g. re-lining), drainage and water supply
renewals, upgrades of roofing / storm water systems, hot water services upgrades and
plumbing related refurbishments;
- Roof drainage (gutter) cleaning (Part 2).
The existing contract expires on 30 June 2015. The proposed term of the contract is 3 years
st
and is planned to commence on 1 July 2015 with an option to extend the contract for a further
2 years at Council’s discretion.
DISCUSSION
th
Tenders were advertised in The Age newspaper on Saturday 11 April 2015 and closed on
th
Tuesday 5 May 2015. Eleven (11) companies submitted tenders for this contract.
The tenders were evaluated against the following criteria:
• The Tender Offer;

• Demonstrated industry experience (knowledge of all relevant Australian Standards,
Codes, Regulations and Legislative requirements) and skillsets to provide the services;
• Management and reporting / invoicing systems and
• Available Resources (evidence of capacity)
Occupational Health & Safety and Equal Employment Opportunity were assessed on a
Pass/Fail basis.
Tenderers were required to submit schedules of rates for labour and materials, for the
delivery of reactive and planned plumbing services. Separate rates were sought for each of
the 3 years of the initial term of the contract. A price adjustment mechanism was required to
be nominated for year 4 and 5 should Council exercise its option to extend the contact
beyond the initial 3 year term.
A comprehensive analysis of the tenders received for Part 1 and Part 2 of the contract has
been undertaken to determine the estimated cost to Council for the initial 3 year contract
term based on workload estimates for reactive and planned maintenance programs
multiplied by the rates for labour and materials submitted by each of the tenderers.
Following a preliminary assessment against the nominated evaluation criteria interviews

were conducted with the tenderers that had the highest preliminary evaluation scores on
th
Wednesday 20 May 2015.
Page 30
9.2.2
(cont)
Ten (10) tenders were received for Part 1 of the contract. The tenders submitted by DBS
Plumbing Services Pty Ltd (DBS) and International Plumbing Solutions Pty Ltd trading as
New Plumbing Solutions (IPS) were assessed to meet Council’s specification requirements
in a manner that represents the best overall value for money outcome for Part 1 of the
contract.
DBS is a current provider of plumbing maintenance services to Council and has successfully
serviced all of Council’s specification requirements under the contract for the 5 year term.
IPS has provided plumbing maintenance and allied services to other local government
authorities and has demonstrated the capacity to meet Council’s contract requirements in
terms of service quality, responsiveness and reliability.
Seven (7) tenders were received for Part 2 of the contract. The tender submitted by
Alasdair Collis, trading as Apex Vacuum Gutter Cleaning, (Apex) was assessed to meet
Council’s specification requirements in a manner that represents the best overall value for
money outcome for Part 2 of the contract. Apex is the current provider of roof and gutter
cleaning services to Council and has successfully serviced all of Council’s specification
requirements under the contract for the 5 year term.
All three recommended tenderers are well credentialed and equipped with regard to safe
methods of work and OH&S procedures.
CONSULTATION
External referee checks have independently confirmed the capability and capacity of DBS,
IPS and Apex to meet Council’s expectations for this contract. An independent business
viability assessment has confirmed that the recommended tenderers have the financial
resources to fulfil their individual obligations under this contract.
For the purposes of estimating the funding requirements for this contract the tenderers with
the highest total points score for Part 1 and Part 2 of the contract have been utilised in the
Table below. The estimated expenditure for the initial 3 year term of the contract is
consistent with current costs incurred by Council after allowing for CPI, all groups index
based price indexation.
Budget Ex GST Expenditure
Funds for this contract will be drawn from the following accounts
• Facilities Maintenance Operational Budgets
• Facilities Maintenance Capital Budgets
• Other Departmental Operational Budgets
• Other Departmental Capital budgets
Part 1 - Plumbing Maintenance and Installation Services $789,091
Part 2 – Cleaning of Roof Drainage Systems $260,909
Est total funding $1,050,000
Year 1 (2015/16) $344,091
Year 2 (2016/17) $349,818
Year 3 (2017/18) $356,091
Est total funding $1,050,000
Preferred tenderers’ estimated contract cost (Parts 1 & 2) $1,155,000
Less GST $105,000
Estimated net cost to Council $1,050,000
Page 31
9.3 HUMAN SERVICES
9.3.1 The Draft Proposed Strathdon House & Precinct Development

ATTACHMENT
SUMMARY
The DRAFT Strathdon House Feasibility & Business Case Report outlines the research,
consultation and findings for the proposed development of the Strathdon precinct. This
report recommends that the findings be released and Council considers the timing for
community consultation to assist in informing Council on the future development of the
Strathdon House precinct.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council:
1. Approves the release of the DRAFT Strathdon House Feasibility and
Business Case and commences public consultation in October 2015 for a
period of six weeks.
2. Incorporate the consultation findings into the final Strathdon House
Feasibility and Business Case for Council deliberation on the development
of the Strathdon precinct.
BACKGROUND
Strathdon House and orchard, comprising 2.5 hectares (449-465 Springvale Road, Forest
Hill) and its contents were purchased from Mary Matheson, long-time owner of the property,
by the City of Nunawading in 1988 as part of the Australian Bicentennial celebrations.
The property of Strathdon House is included in the Whitehorse City Council planning
scheme as a rare surviving example in the area of an orchard and house. The site includes
the house, outbuildings, orchard and a windmill.
The Strathdon site is located within the former Healesville Freeway. Whitehorse City
Council, as the owner of the Strathdon House, engaged Context Pty Ltd in November 2014
to prepare a Feasibility and Business Plan to identify the future use and development
options of the site.
DISCUSSION
The consultants reviewed previous documentation, conducted site analysis and consulted
with stakeholders and the community to determine the future possible use options for the
Strathdon precinct.
The four thematic themes identified included:
1. Orchard and Food – connected to conserving the significance of Strathdon as a rare

surviving orchard
2. Environmental Sustainability - enable Whitehorse’s significant sustainability initiatives
and education programs on site and encourage broader use as a sustainability hub
3. Arts and Culture – allow for the interpretation of the historical significance of the site
and a space for artists to display their work in a domestic space
4. Recreation – provision of multipurpose paths encouraging active recreation
(cycling/walking/jogging) and provision of barbeque and seating facilities for passive
recreation.
Page 32
9.3.1
(cont)
Within these themes the Orchard and Food theme and Environmental Sustainability theme
present as priority themes and work well in synergy. These two themes reflect the historic
heritage values of the site, best fit with community expectations, as well as providing a
vision that will capture broad community interest in food and environmental sustainability.
When combined, the two key themes can be summarised as Healthy Living and
Sustainability. The intention is that all four themes can co-exist and support each other
under the lead of Healthy Living and Sustainability.
The Business Case recommends a staged approach to the development based on

demand/support for service and available funds to support any development. This approach
is identified in three stages because:
• It allows for engaging with the community and also utilising the community as a
valuable resource;
• As the site becomes more known and valued demand will lead to further growth and
change in the provision of activities and services; and
• The initial investment is contained with further funding contingent on viable growth.
A project assessment would be completed during stage two of development to identify the
future developments needs and opportunities for the Strathdon precinct and its activities.
This would include a determination of demand for services including numbers of visitors,
numbers attending programs, numbers who miss out, change in hours of operation. It would
include periodic assessments of car parking and discussion with service providers such as
the pop up café operator and community users. It would include site usage surveys, user
satisfaction surveys, community and user group consultation.
CONSULTATION
A consultation plan was developed for this project. The plan acknowledged the previous
research undertaken and provided a recommended community engagement approach. The
consultation methods used for this project included:
• A series of stakeholder meetings with: Morack Ward Councillors, Strathdon family

descendants, Council Officers, Healesville Reserve community representatives and the
Victorian Heritage Fruit Society.
• An Information Day was held at Strathdon on Saturday 28 February 2015 from 11am to
1pm. Approximately 70 people attended the day to see inside parts of the house and
meet the consultants. Both the Whitehorse Leader and Council’s website advised of the
Information Day, as well as notifications sent to residents in a 300 metre radius of the
property and other key stakeholders.
• A survey was used to receive community feedback on this project. Fifty two survey
responses were completed by attendees both at the Information Day and online on
Council’s website.
The next stage of community consultation will produce a summary document to distil the key
information of the proposed Strathdon project for community consultation. The draft final
feasibility and business case report will also be available on Council’s website. The
consultation process would include advice in the local paper, notification to key
stakeholders, distributed summary document to key Council sites and information on the
Council website. Written submissions would be received and a report presented to Council
for consideration.
Page 33
9.3.1
(cont)
The estimated project capital expenditure is just over $1.46 million spread over the three
capital stages.The indicative capital cost breakdown is based upon demand for service
available budget allocation:
1. Stage 1 – Establishment - $198,000

2. Stage 2 – Initial Development - $600,000
3. Stage 3 – Growth Phase - $665,000
Like similar facilities the Strathdon development will not return a surplus to Council. The
subsidy amount Council would be required to fund Strathdon will vary dependent on the
relative scale of development of the precinct. An indicative income projection and an
expenditure budget identified that annually in each stage the recurrent subsidy would be:
1. Stage 1 – Establishment $ -49,758

2. Stage 2 – Initial Development $ -120,649
3. Stage 3 – Growth Phase $ -223,233
4. Stage 3 – Ongoing Operation $ -281,528
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
• Council Plan 2015-2019

• Sustainability Strategy 2008-2013.
• Energy Action Plan 2009-2014
• Water Action Plan 2008-2013
• Waste Management Plan 2011
• Peak Oil Action Plan 2011
• Climate Change Adaptation Plan 2011
• Urban Biodiversity Strategy for Council Managed Open Space, Streetscapes and
Community Facilities
• Recreation Strategy 2015-2024
• Open Space Strategy
• Play Space Strategy 2011
Page 34
9.3.2 Cleaning of Aquatic Leisure Facilities Tender Evaluation

Report
SUMMARY
To consider tenders received for the Cleaning of Aquatic Leisure Facilities and to
recommend the acceptance of the tender received from Aquatic Cleaning Solutions Pty Ltd,
for the amount of $187,440.00 per annum, including GST for Aqualink Nunawading and, for
the amount of $277,200.00 per annum, including GST for Aqualink Box Hill and to consider
the overall contract expenditure.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council:
1. Accept the tender for Aqualink Nunawading and sign the formal contract
document for Contract 14050 for the Cleaning of Aquatic Leisure Facilities
received from Aquatic Cleaning Solutions Pty Ltd (ABN 62 167 026 968), of 20
St. Andrews Drive, Heatherton, for the tendered amount of $187,440.00 per
annum including GST for a period of 3 years commencing on 1 August 2015.
2. Accept the tender for Aqualink Box Hill and sign the formal contract
document for Contract 14050 for the Cleaning of Aquatic Leisure Facilities
received from Aquatic Cleaning Solutions Pty Ltd (ABN 62 167 026 968), of 20
St. Andrews Drive, Heatherton, for the tendered amount of $277,200.00 per
annum including GST for a period of 3 years commencing on 1 August 2015.
3. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to award extensions of this contract for
both sites for a further 2 years (2 x 1 year options) , subject to a review of the
Contractor’s performance and Council’s business needs, at the conclusion of
the initial 3 year contract term.
BACKGROUND
Aqualink Nunawading and Aqualink Box Hill are high profile aquatic leisure centres
providing provides a range of aquatic and dry leisure facilities, activities and programs for
the Whitehorse community, and between them they attract over 1.6 million visitations per
annum.
Given the high patronage levels throughout the Aqualink Centres a thorough and extensive
cleaning service is required in order to maintain a standard of presentation that meets
customer expectations.
The cleaning service is currently being delivered at both Centres by Aquatic Cleaning
Solutions Pty Ltd on a month by month arrangement following the withdrawal of the previous
cleaning contractor in late 2014. In the case of Aqualink Box Hill there has been significant
growth in patronage since re-opening in December 2013, therefore the level of cleaning
required has increased substantially.
DISCUSSION
th
The Tender was advertised on Saturday 28 March in The Age newspaper and closed on
th
Friday 17 April 2015 at 3pm. Sixteen tenders were received for Aqualink Nunawading and
Seventeen tenders were received for Aqualink Box Hill.
Page 35
9.3.2
(cont)
The Tenders were evaluated against the following criteria:
• Financial Benefit
• Demonstrated previous experience in similar environment
• Demonstrated quality standards of cleaning
• Anticipated number of hours per day
• Quality Management systems including Key Performance Indicators monitoring
Tenderers were also evaluated on a PASS/FAIL basis for the adequacy of their OH&S and
Equal Opportunity policies as well as their business viability
Tenderers were given the option to tender for one of both sites. The tender submissions for
both sites were evaluated separately.
Five tenderers were shortlisted following an initial evaluation and these companies were
invited to present their submissions and to respond to questions from the evaluation panel.
Following this, two companies were further shortlisted and reference checks and site visits
conducted. NB: Reference checks were completed for the five short listed tenderers.
Aquatic Cleaning Solutions Pty Ltd is current providing the cleaning service at both Aqualink
Centres and have done so for the past 8 months. In that time they have developed a good
relationship with Council and demonstrated a high level of cleaning along with a proactive
approach which has led to a significant improvement in the Centre’s presentation, supported
by regular positive feedback from patrons.
Aquatic Cleaning Solutions Pty Ltd is a reputable company that specializes in daily cleaning
services to large aquatic complexes across Victoria including Watermarc in Greensborough.
The tender received from Aquatic Cleaning Solutions Pty Ltd is considered to be the most beneficial
to Council based on the evaluation criteria and provide the best value for money fort his Contract.
CONSULTATION
Consultation was undertaken with Centre staff involved in the supervision of the Contract.
Thorough reference checks of the shortlisted tenderers and site visits were undertaken.
The cleaning contract is for a 3 year period with 2 x 1 year options at Council’s discretion.
The tendered amount is subject to a CPI adjustment on each anniversary of the contract.
The cleaning of Aqualink Nunawading will cost $187,440.00 including GST per annum for a
period of 3 years. The estimated expenditure under this contract over the initial 3 year
contract term is approximately $562,320 including GST. This expenditure will increase to
approximately $937,200 including GST if the options to extend the contract are exercised.
The cleaning of Aqualink Box Hill will cost $277,200.00 including GST per annum for a
period of 3 years. The estimated expenditure under this contract over the initial 3 year
contract term is approximately $831,600 including GST. This expenditure will increase to
approximately $1,386,000 including GST if the options to extend the contract are exercised.
The 2015/16 recurrent budgets for both Aqualink Centres will cover the anticipated cleaning
contract expenditure.
Page 36
9.4 CORPORATE SERVICES
9.4.1 Review of Council’s Procurement Policy

FILE NUMBER: SF08/2
ATTACHMENT
SUMMARY
This report presents a reviewed Procurement Policy (June 2015) for consideration and
adoption by Council.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council adopts the Procurement Policy dated June 2015, as presented in
Attachment 4.
BACKGROUND
Section 186A of the Local Government Act 1989 requires Council to prepare, approve and
comply with a procurement policy that encompasses the principles, processes and
procedures that are applied to the purchase of goods, services and works.
The legislation requires the policy to be reviewed once in each financial year.
Council adopted the current Procurement Policy on 23 June 2014 A review of this policy
has been undertaken and a revised policy is attached (see Attachment 4).
DISCUSSION
It is recognised that effective procurement management is essential to ensure that Council

achieves compliance, transparency, open and fair competition, value for money and good
governance.
Council conducts its business in an increasing dynamic commercial environment where

there is greater than ever scrutiny of public administration, particularly of procurement
related decisions and processes.
To achieve a higher level of confidence in Council’s procurement practices, it was decided

that an independent consultant would be engaged to review the current Procurement Policy
and benchmark it against the procurement policies published by each of the 79 local
councils in Victoria. Public tenders were invited and Russell Kennedy Lawyers was selected
to undertake this work.
The main objectives of the review were to:
• Ensure that the Policy is clear and concise;

• Ensure that the Policy reflects best practice in local government procurement;
• Ensure compliance with all current Victorian and Commonwealth legislation and
policies; and
• Identify opportunities for improvement, particularly in the area of strategic procurement.
The review found that the current Procurement Policy provides a robust foundation for the
conduct of procurement activities by Council. Notwithstanding that sound foundation, a
number of additions and amendments have been made to the Policy to further strengthen
Council’s position and to ensure that Council’s procurement activities continue to meet best
practice in the Local Government industry.
Page 37
9.4.1
(cont)
CONSULTATION
The Policy has been revised in consultation with various Managers, Coordinators and
purchasing officers.
Upon adoption, the revised Policy will be posted on Council’s website and will be made
available to the public in hard copy format at the Whitehorse Civic Centre.
A key objective of the Policy is to deliver value for money for Council (and therefore
ratepayers) in the form of social, economic and environmental benefits.
The cost of the review, excluding Officer time, was approximately $8,000, including GST.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Procurement Policy dated June 2015 will replace the current Procurement Policy dated
June 2014 in Council’s Corporate Policy Manual.
Page 38
9.4.2 2015/16 Annual Internal Audit Plan

SUMMARY
Whitehorse’s 2015/16 internal audit plan has been developed by PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Whitehorse’s Audit Committee charter requires approval of the annual plan by Council.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council:
1. Note the Audit Advisory Committee’s endorsement of the 2015/16 annual

internal audit plan.
2. Approve the 2015/16 Annual Internal Audit Plan.
BACKGROUND
Whitehorse City Council’s internal audit plan is an independent, objective assurance
function designed to add value and improve Council operations. It helps Council accomplish
its objectives by bringing a systematic, disciplined approach to evaluate and improve
the effectiveness of risk management, control, and governance processes.
The internal audit plan provides Council with a means to improve effectiveness
and efficiency with a commitment to integrity and accountability through the provision of
independent advice.
Whitehorse City Council’s Audit Advisory Committee (AAC) Charter requires that an annual
internal audit plan be approved by Council each year. The role of the AAC is to review and
monitor the annual program including receiving of audit scopes and final reports. The Chair
of the AAC reports to Council on audit activities on a six monthly basis.
DISCUSSION
The Annual Internal Audit Plan was developed by PwC in consultation with the Chief
Executive Officer, General Managers, selected managers and the Audit Advisory
Committee.
The reviews proposed have been nominated with consideration of the following key
principles:
• To target areas of greatest importance or concern, and/or where the potential for
improvement, or risks of failure or loss are greatest.
• To provide a rolling program of internal audit activity that is aligned to Council’s risk
areas as noted in the risk register.
• To take into account the nature and timing of previous internal audit activity.
• To take into account other review activity such as VAGO’s financial and performance
audits, Local Government Victoria Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate reports,
and reports from Ombudsman Victoria relevant to Local Government.
• To ensure an appropriate balance between compliance and process / performance
improvement.
With these principles in mind the following areas of focus have been included in the annual
plan:
1. Records Management
2. Building Services
3. Community Grants Program
4. City Works Maintenance – Whitehorse Asset Management system
5. Financial Transactions Analysis
Page 39
9.4.3 Adoption of the 2015/16 Proposed Budget and Draft Strategic

Resource Plan 2015-2019
ATTACHMENTS
SUMMARY
This report recommends that Council adopt the Proposed Budget 2015/16 incorporating the
draft Strategic Resource Plan, as attached, in accordance with Sections 126, 127 and 130
of the Local Government Act 1989.
RECOMMENDATION
That:
1. Having:
a) Considered all written submissions;
b) Heard the presentations of submissions;
c) Received the report of the Special Committee (minutes Attachment 5a) of
its meeting held on 9 June 2015, and
d) Considered officer comments (as Attachment 5b),
Council now adopt the Proposed Budget 2015/16 inclusive of the draft
Strategic Resource Plan as contained in the annexed Budget document
(Attachment 5c) in accordance with Section 130 of the Local Government Act
1989.
2. Council thank persons making submissions in writing for their contribution

and advise them of the outcome of Council’s decision.
3. The $200,000 allocated in the Proposed Budget 2015/16 for progression of the
Whitehorse Centre Redevelopment be quarantined in the Budget until further
Council direction following consideration of the finalised Business Case due
for completion in September 2015.
4. All amounts allocated in Council’s 4 year draft Strategic Resource Plan for the
Whitehorse Centre Redevelopment also be subject to Council direction
following consideration of the finalised Business Case and further considered
in the Budget process for 2016/17.
5. Council authorise the Acting Chief Executive Officer to give public notice of
Council’s decision in accordance with Section 130(2) of the Local
Government Act 1989 and submit a copy of the budget to the Minister in
accordance with Section 130(4) of the Local Government Act 1989.
BACKGROUND
The Proposed Budget 2015/16 was presented to the Special Council meeting on 13 April
2015 and public notice advertised, in accordance with Section 129(1) and (3) of the Local
Government Act 1989, in The Age newspaper on Wednesday, 15 April 2015.
Page 40
9.4.3
(cont)
The Proposed Budget 2015/16 was available for public inspection for 28 days after
publication of the notice, in accordance with Regulation 9 of the Local Government
(Planning & Reporting) Regulations 2014.
Submissions regarding the Proposed Budget 2015/16 were required to be received by

5.00pm on Wednesday, 13 May 2015 for consideration by Council at its Special Committee
meeting, held on Tuesday 9 June 2015. The details of submissions received are contained
in attachment A of this report.
DISCUSSION
The Proposed Budget 2015/16 is in line with Council’s long-term financial plan, providing a
responsible solution to the current demands facing the organisation.
The Proposed Budget 2015/16 ensures that Council continues to provide essential services
and facilities to the community with a total of $108 million allocated to community services
ranging from family and youth services, home and community care, the maintenance of
community facilities, parks and gardens, playgrounds, infrastructure, waste and recycling
collection, and building and planning services. In addition, the Capital Works program is
focusing on major projects and continuing to maintain our existing assets to a high standard.
The key features of the Proposed Budget 2015/16 are:
A $173 million proposed budget delivering $108 million for community services
including:
• $14.88 million Home and Community Care

• $13.91 million Sustainability, Waste and Recycling
• $11.66 million Leisure Facilities
• $11.28 million Health and Family Services
• $ 9.89 million ParksWide (maintenance of sports fields, parks and gardens)
• $ 7.32 million City Works (depot operations, maintenance of footpaths, drains and
roads)
• $ 5.67 million Compliance (Community Laws, parking, school crossings, risk, insurance
and emergency management)
• $ 5.62 million Recycling and Waste Centre
• $ 5.41 million Planning and Building Services
• $ 5.28 million Arts and Cultural Services
• $ 4.81 million Libraries
• $ 3.93 million Capital Works Management and Facilities Maintenance
• $ 3.81 million Engineering
• $ 2.41 million Community Development
• $ 0.92 million Parks Planning and Recreation
• $ 0.82 million Business and Economic Development
Page 41
9.4.3
(cont)
A $37 million Capital Works Program comprising:
• $ 8.61 million for building and building improvements

• $ 6.88 million for strategic land acquisitions including the $5.40 million purchase
balance of the Nunawading Primary School site (10% deposit paid in 2014/15)
• $ 6.01 million for roads and bridges
• $ 5.04 million for plant and equipment
• $ 3.26 million for parks, open space and streetscapes
• $ 3.09 million for footpaths and cycleways
• $ 2.16 million for recreational, leisure and community facilities
• $ 1.87 million for drainage improvements and waste management
KEY PRESSURES AND CHALLENGES
When setting the Proposed Budget 2015/16, Council considered a number of key pressures
and challenges, both external and internal, including:
• Cost Shifting by other levels of government. Cost shifting occurs where local
government provides a service to the community on behalf of the state or federal
government. Over time, the funds received by Council do not increase in line with real
cost increases. Examples of services that are subject to cost shifting include school
crossing supervision, library services and Home and Community Care. In all these
services the level of funding received from the state government does not reflect the
real cost to Council of providing the service to the community. Changes in funding
targets for Home and Community Care services in 2015/16 are expected to continue
the cost burden on Council.
• The Victorian state government has announced that local government rates will be
capped from 2016/17. Depending on the level at which rates are capped Council may
need to undertake a review of services that are provided to the community with the aim
of reducing the level of rate payer subsidy for services undertaken by Local
Government on behalf of the State and Federal Government.
• Impact of market competition including the opening of new aquatic and gym facilities
within the region.
• A 3.0% increase in the state government landfill levy has been assumed in the
Proposed Budget 2015/16 as the levy cost for 2015/16 was not known at the time of
budget preparation. The landfill levy is charged by the state government to all Victorian
councils for every tonne of waste that goes to landfill, including kerbside waste
collections, hard waste, street cleaning, and all other waste collected. A 3.0% increase
would increase the state landfill levy to $60.25 per tonne and this would represent a
569.4% increase over the past seven years from the $9.00 levy charged in 2009/10.
• The federal government announced, as a cost saving measure in the 2013/14 Federal
Budget, that there would be a pause in the indexation on the national pool of financial
assistance grants for a three year period to 2016-17 which equates to forgone income
of $0.32 million over the period. As a result, Council has not budgeted for any increase
in funding from the Victoria Grants Commission for 2015/16.
• The fire services property levy will continue to be collected by Council on behalf of the
state government under the Fire Services Property Levy Act 2012. However while the
state will reimburse Council for some costs, the reimbursement will not cover the full
cost to Council of collecting this levy on the state’s behalf.
• Changing demographic as a result of an ageing and increasingly culturally diverse
population resulting in the need for Council to develop facilities which are accessible
and adaptable to inter-generational, diverse and multicultural community users.
Page 42
9.4.3
(cont)
• Community expectations for Council to be a leader in environmental sustainability by

planning for the effects of climate change, education and awareness of the benefits of
trees and natural bushland, and supporting the community in protecting and enhancing
our natural assets and open spaces.
CONSULTATION
The Proposed Budget 2015/16 has been carefully prepared following community
consultation throughout the year and is guided by priorities outlined in key strategic
documents including the revised Council Plan 2015-2019, Draft Strategic Resource Plan
and other major plans and strategies. Consultation is a major area of focus for the
Whitehorse City Council. Consultation on the Proposed Budget 2015/16 included:
• Annual Residents’ Survey including Budget specific questions mailed to 1,600
randomly selected residences in October 2014.
• Councillor Budget Committee chaired by the Mayor which included all Councillors and
met monthly from December.
• Review and consideration of early Budget submissions.
• Two community information sessions held in March 2015 to discuss the development of
Whitehorse’s Proposed Budget 2015/16.
• A number of other Council consultations held throughout the year impacting on the
development of the Proposed Budget 2015/16 including the Arts and Cultural Strategy
2014-2022 and the Recreation Strategy 2015-2024.
Council is required under Sections 126 and 127 of the Local Government Act 1989 to seek
written public comment on the Proposed Budget. Council is required to give public notice
that the Proposed Budget document will be made available for inspection for 28 days and
that Council will receive submissions made under Section 223 in respect of the Proposed
Budget. A person who has made a written submission may also request to be heard by a
Committee of Council appointed to consider and hear submissions.
Advertisements providing formal notice of the adoption of the Proposed Budget 2015/16 for
consultation were placed in The Age on Wednesday 15 April 2015 and the Whitehorse
Leader on Wednesday 22 April 2015.
Council heard submissions at a Special Committee meeting on Tuesday 9 June 2015 at

8.00pm in the Civic Centre, Nunawading. Closing date for written submissions was
Wednesday 13 May 2015 at 5.00 pm.
Copies of the Proposed Budget 2015/16 document were made available throughout the
consultation period at the Council’s Service Centres (Nunawading, Forest Hill and Box Hill),
at the four library branches and on Council’s website.
Page 43
9.4.3
(cont)
Public submissions
Council received 62 formal submissions/comments on the Proposed Budget 2015/16 and 8

late submissions, and there were 10 people that requested to speak in support of their
submission at the Special Committee meeting.
Submissions were received from the following:
Name Issue(s) Raised

1 Mr J. White Differential Rates for retirement villages
Manager, Cameron Close
Residents Association
2 Mr B. Hewett Dog registration costs
3 Mr G. White Tree protection
President, West of Elgar
Residents' Association
4 Mr M. Hassett (#1) Tree protection
5 Mrs H. Oldfield Tree protection and the tree education program
6 Ms G. Chambers Picnic tables and chairs at Blackburn Lake Sanctuary
Ladies' Probus Club of should be replaced or repaired
Nunawading Inc.
7 Mr K. Weeks Elgar Park lake, rate increase and the Whitehorse
Centre redevelopment
8 Mr C. Heysen Requests Council support for improved training facilities
Box Hill United Pythagoras at Sparks Reserve
Soccer Club
9 Ms A. Mason Supports Nunawading Community Hub redevelopment
President, U3A Nunawading
10 Mr L. Glen Supports Council's objection and response to proposed
rate capping
11 Ms J. Laws Importance of bicycle infrastructure
12 Mr P. Carter Bicycle path infrastructure and Whitehorse Centre
redevelopment
13 Mr G. Stone Bicycle path infrastructure and Whitehorse Centre
redevelopment
14 Mr C. Trueman Bicycle infrastructure, Whitehorse Centre redevelopment
and environmental sustainability
15 Mr D. Berry, Tree protection, tree education program, public open
Blackburn and District Tree space, bicycle path infrastructure and the Whitehorse
Preservation Society Inc. Centre redevelopment
16 Mr M. Hassett (#2) Rate increase, reNEWal fund/major projects, bicycle
strategy/infrastructure and other capital expenditure
17 Mr W. Orange Capital Works Program, bicycle path infrastructure, Box
Hill Gardens and the Whitehorse Centre redevelopment
18 Ms R. Spillane Possum nights, Council spending, funding of special
interest groups, Whitehorse calendar, rate increase
19 Mr G. Harkin Rate increase/capping, Council services/spending,
Matsudo sister-city relationship costs
20 Mr M. Friendship Rate increase/capping, reNEWal major projects, high
density development
21 Mr S. Ziemer Efficiency/cost savings, rate increase, reNEWal major
projects, Council services/spending, events
22 Mr B. Hickey Rate increase, high density developments, Council
services/spending
Page 44

23 Mr and Mrs Ward Rate increase, Whitehorse Centre redevelopment,
Sportlink sign, capital works projects and the Traffic Art
initiative
24 Mr and Mrs G. O'Callaghan Rate increase/capping, bin costs, efficiency/cost
reductions, accountability and the Whitehorse Centre
redevelopment
25 Ms G. Tan Rate increase, reNEWal projects
26 Mr R. Spencer Rate increase/capping
27 Mr Couzens and Ms Filmer Rate increase, Whitehorse Centre redevelopment,
Aqualink subsidisation, capital works projects,
Bennettswood Reserve Pavilion redevelopment
28 Mr B. Pell Rate increase, reNEWal major projects, use of Council
reserves, fireworks, bicycle path infrastructure
29 Mr J. Abiad Rate increase, Whitehorse Centre redevelopment,
sustainability rebates, bin costs, capital works projects
30 Ms P. Taranto Rate increase/capping, Councillor pay, high density
housing
31 Miss P. Tan Rate increase, Whitehorse Centre redevelopment,
high density development, Council vehicles, employee
costs, capital works projects
32 Mrs K. Cummings Rate increase, reNEWal major projects, budget
consultation, cost shifting, LTFP rate increase, Council
services/spending, Whitehorse News/Calendar, capital
works projects
33 Ms M. MacLean Residential parking permits, rate increase/capping,
Whitehorse Centre redevelopment, capital works
34 Mr R. Farthing Rate increase, high density development, reNEWal
major projects
35 Mr D. Phizacklea Rate increase/capping, reNEWal major projects, Council
services/spending, cost shifting, salaries, community
grants, road infrastructure works
36 Mr L. Taylor Rate increase, reNEWal major projects, senior officer
remuneration, footpath and street maintenance, Council
trees
37 Mr A. De Havilland Rate increase, reNEWal fund
38 Ms. D. Langham Rate increase, high density development,
fireworks/festivals, differential rate for retirement villages
39 Mr D. Knowles Rate increase, reNEWal major projects, recreation
space, support of sporting clubs, tree protection, capital
works projects, Traffic Art initiative, employee costs
40 Mr R. Lloyd Rate increase/capping, reNEWal major projects, use of
borrowings, surpluses
41 Mr B. Ruck Rate increase, Whitehorse Centre redevelopment
42 Mr and Mrs Forbes Council spending, Whitehorse Centre redevelopment,
rate capping, accountability, cost shifting
43 Ms M. Mayberry Rate increase, reNEWal major projects, Aqualink leisure
centres
44 Mr R. Wheeler Rate increase, Whitehorse redevelopment
45 Mr R. Brooks Rate increase/capping, Council spending
46 Whitehorse Ratepayers and Rate increase, Whitehorse Centre redevelopment,
Residents Association Inc. carbon tax rebate, budget document presentation,
budget process/consultation, asset management, leisure
facilities, Council services/spending, Community Laws,
continuous improvement/ efficiency, playground
upgrades
Page 45

47 Name withheld Rate increase, reNEWal fund, LTFP rate increase,
bicycle path infrastructure, efficiency, infrastructure
renewal spending
48 Mr and Mrs Fischer Rate increase, reNEWal fund, Council spending,
executive salaries, civic centre improvements
49 Mr and Mrs Thurbon Rate increase, reNEWal major projects, high density
development
50 Mr L. Walker Rate increase, reNEWal major projects, Traffic Art
initiative, Council services/spending
51 Mr R. Friday Bicycle path infrastructure and facilities for cyclists
52 Mr P. Harkness Bicycle path infrastructure
53 Mr and Mrs Tyson Rate increase, reNEWal major projects, supplementary
rates
54 Mr C. Carter Resident dissatisfaction, rate increase/capping,
Whitehorse Centre redevelopment,
55 Ms T. Matthews Rate increase, Whitehorse Centre redevelopment,
efficiency, Matsudo costs, salaries, Council spending,
tree protection, high density development
56 Ms S. Smith Rate increase/capping, reNEWal major projects, use of
borrowings, Family Day Care, Council services, green
waste collection, budget consultation
57 Ms S. Ryan Rate increase, reNEWal major projects, communication
of budget
58 Mr and Mrs Easton Rate increase, reNEWal major projects, Council
services/spending, efficiency/cost savings, Blackburn
Lake Sanctuary works
59 Mr I. Craig Rate increase/capping, Whitehorse Centre
redevelopment, Council spending
60 Mr and Mrs Ayling Rate increase, Whitehorse Centre redevelopment
61 Mr D. Winkler Rate increase, Whitehorse Centre redevelopment,
Council spending
62 Ms S. Partridge ReNEWal major projects
Submission received after the closing date

63 Mr A. Sayle Whitehorse Centre redevelopment, loss of green
spaces, car parking
64 Mr J. Kozlowski Rate increase, reNEWal major projects, Aqualink and
Box Hill central footpath redevelopments
65 Mr P. Olney Supports WRARA submission, rate increase,
Whitehorse Centre redevelopment
66 Mr C. Lloyd Whitehorse Centre redevelopment, Nunawading Primary
School site, lack of sporting facilities
67 Ms A. Swann Winfield Rd and Tie St Bike Paths to Koonung Creek
Trail Construction
68 Mr G. Stone (#2) Winfield Rd and Tie St Bike Paths to Koonung Creek
Trail Construction
69 Mr and Mrs Sturdy Winfield Rd and Tie St Bike Paths to Koonung Creek
Trail Construction
70 Mr and Mrs Seymour Rate increase, Whitehorse Centre redevelopment
Page 46
9.4.3
(cont)
The full text of the submissions are attached.
The following people spoke in support of their submissions:

Name
1 Mr John White, Manager,
Cameron Close Residents’ Association
2 Mr David Berry,
Blackburn and District Tree Preservation Society Inc.
3 Mr Colin Carter, Secretary,
Whitehorse Ratepayers and Residents Association Inc.
4 Mr Kenneth Weeks
5 Mr Chris Trueman
6 Mr Michael Hassett
7 Mr Roy Farthing
8 Mr Roy Lloyd
9 Mr Roger Wheeler
10 Mr Colin Carter
Changes to the Proposed Budget 2015/16
Subsequent to adopting the Proposed Budget 2015/16 on 13 April 2015, Council has made
number of decisions that have an impact on the Budget for next year. The Proposed Budget
2015/16 has been changed to reflect the following decisions:
• Operational changes to the Home and Community Care Food Services program, which
has resulted in a reduction in employee costs and an increase in contracts and
services, with no change to the level of income expected.
• The risk management program has moved from the Compliance department into the
Occupational Health and Safety team to enable improved risk register management,
and to leverage the skills and experience of both teams.
• A further one year extension of the Tree Education and Awareness Program following
on from positive outcomes and community feedback.
• Acquisition of the Nunawading Primary School site for $6.00 million.
Page 47
9.4.4 Council Plan Annual Review

ATTACHMENT
SUMMARY
Council is required under the Local Government Act to review its Council Plan each year to
determine whether the Plan requires any adjustment. This report recommends that the
strategic objectives contained within the Council Plan continue to be relevant and reflective
of the broad direction of Council activity, however, a number of changes have been made to
the Strategic Indicators to ensure they remain relevant measures of performance,
particularly with the introduction of the Local Government Performance Reporting
Framework. In addition, the Strategic Resource Plan has been updated to identify
resources required over the next four years.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council:
1. Notes the review of the current 2014-2018 Council Plan
2. Adopt, in principle, the 2015-2019 Strategic Resource Plan subject to final

approval of the 2015/16 Annual budget.
3. Adopt the revised Council Plan 2015-2019 for the purposes of Section 125 and
126 of the Local Government Act 1989, as its key document that sets out the
strategic objectives that Council aspires to achieve for the Whitehorse
community over the next four years
4. Acknowledge that the Strategic Resources Plan contained in the Council Plan
2015-2019 does not commit Council’s resources until the consideration of the
Annual Budget each year
5. Authorise the General Manager Corporate Services to submit a copy of the

Council Plan to the Minister in accordance with section 125 (5) of the Local
Government Act 1989.
BACKGROUND
At least once in each financial year, Council must consider whether the current Council Plan
requires any significant adjustment in respect of the remaining period of the Council Plan. If
Council wishes to make any significant adjustment it considers necessary to the Council
Plan the adjustment is subject to a public consultation process as outlined under section
223 of the Local Government Act 1989 (a process similar to that used with the annual
budget).
Council was required, under section 125 of the Local Government Act 1989, to prepare and
forward to the Minister a four-year Council Plan, by 30 June. Following an extensive
development and consultation process the Council Plan was adopted in June 2013.
The adopted Plan includes the strategic objectives of Council, strategies to achieve these
objectives over the next four years (2013-2017), strategic indicators and a Strategic
Resource Plan that identifies the resources required to achieve these objectives.
Page 48
9.4.4
(cont)
The Plan was developed simultaneously with the Council Vision 2013-2023 which
represents the outcomes of a broad range of consultation and engagement processes that
have been undertaken, and reinforces Council’s commitment to working in partnership to
achieve the aspirations and priorities that have been identified by Councillors, community
and staff.
The Council Plan 2013-2017 links to the Council Vision 2013-2023 through five strategic
directions.
The strategic directions are broad statements about what is needed to achieve the Vision
and aspirations of Council and the community over the next ten years.
DISCUSSION
In March 2015, Council considered adjustments to the current Council Plan, resolving there
would be no significant changes made to the Strategic Objectives and Strategies as they
remain relevant and reflective of the broad direction of the Council Plan.
A review of the Strategic Indicators was then completed by officers to ensure they provide
the most accurate indication of performance. Recommendations from this review have
incorporated into the revised Council Plan 2015-2019.
The Council Plan also incorporates a draft Strategic Resource Plan (SRP) that identifies the
resources required over the next four years to support the implementation of the strategic
objectives. The SRP has three components – a financial allocation plan based on Council’s
Long-Term Financial Plan; an asset management strategy based on Council’s 4-year
Capital Works Program and a Human Resource Strategy.
The SRP must be updated on an annual basis. Council is required to adopt the revised SRP
no later than 30 June each financial year. The updated SRP is incorporated in the
formulation of the Proposed Budget 2015/16. The budget is to be considered at the Ordinary
meeting of council scheduled on Monday 22 June 2015.
The Council Plan for 2015-2019 has four key result areas and sixteen strategies to be
implemented over the four years. These are:
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES, STRATEGIES AND STRATEGIC INDICATORS FOR 2015-

2019
Council’s Strategic Objectives over the next four financial years 2015-2019 are;
1. Appropriate multi-purpose programs, services, facilities and initiatives that promote and
deliver wellbeing and inclusive connected communities;
2. Maintain, develop and enhance our built environment;
3. Increase in the amount of quality open space and improvement in the sustainability of
our natural environment;
4. Strong leadership and governance in partnership with the community and supported
through regional collaboration and cooperation; and
5. A dynamic local economic environment that is regionally connected.
Page 49
9.4.4
(cont)
Council is required, under the Local Government Act 1989 to identify strategic indicators
that will assist Council to monitor the achievement of its strategic objectives. These
indicators are global indicators that reflect the broad progress and are not necessarily
measures of specific Council actions. The Strategic Indicators for 2015-2019 can be found
Attachment 6.
Strategic Resource Plan
The SRP includes several changes in format and content as required by the recently
introduced Local Government Amendment (Performance and Reporting) Act 2013 and
amended Local Government (Planning and Reporting) Regulations 2014 which came into
effect on 18 April 2014. The Act and Regulations were amended to formalise the Local
Government Performance Reporting Framework and various changes to financial
statements.
CONSULTATION
The ongoing development of integrated planning processes is a priority for Whitehorse City
Council. In the development of this Plan, Council combined the consultation and
engagement process of Council’s 4 year Council Plan, 10 year Vision and the Community
Health and Wellbeing Plan. The integrated process was broadened to include a range of
opportunities for residents, community groups and business to provide input into the
strategic direction of Whitehorse.
The objectives and strategies and indicators were tested in a review that considered a wide
and varied list of external influences, current issues in our community, feedback from
various consultation processes, including Council staff, and the commitment to deliver on
our and the communities aspirations.
Council is required under Sections 126 and 127 of the Local Government Act 1989 to seek
written public comment on a revised Council Plan. Council is required to give public notice
that the revised Council Plan will be made available for inspection for 28 days and that
Council will receive submissions made under Section 223 in respect of the revised Council
Plan. A person who has made a written submission may also request to be heard by a
Committee of Council appointed to consider and hear submissions.
Advertisements providing formal notice of the adoption of the revised Council Plan 2015-19
for consultation were placed in The Age on Wednesday 15 April 2015 and the Whitehorse
Leader on Wednesday 22 April 2015.
Copies of the revised Council Plan 2015-19 document were made available throughout the
consultation period at the Council’s Service Centres (Nunawading, Forest Hill and Box Hill),
at the four library branches and on Council’s website.
Public submissions
Council did not receive any formal submissions/comments on the revised Council Plan
2015-19.
Page 50
9.4.4
(cont)
The revised Council Plan 2015-2019 identifies broad strategies that will guide Council’s
actions over the next four years and in so doing, inform the development of the next four
Council budgets. The draft Strategic Resource Plan, included in the Council Plan, is a rolling
four year plan that outlines the financial and non financial resources that Council requires to
achieve the strategic objectives described in the Council Plan. It aims to ensure that Council
remains financially sustainable over the next four years and for the longer term.
In preparing the draft Strategic Resource Plan, Council has also been mindful of the need to
comply with the following principles of sound financial management as contained in the Act:
• Prudently manage financial risks relating to debt, assets and liabilities

• Provide reasonable stability in the level of rate burden
• Consider the financial effects of Council decisions on future generations
• Provide full, accurate and timely disclosure of financial information.
Page 51
9.4.5 Contract Extension – Provision of Internal Audit Services
SUMMARY
To consider an extension of Contract 11046 for the provision of internal audit services
currently held by PricewaterhouseCoopers for a period of 1 year commencing on 1 July
2015 on a lump sum basis.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council:
A. Extend Contract 11046 for the internal audit services with

PricewaterhouseCoopers (ABN 52 780 433 757), of Level 19, Darling Park,
Tower 2, 201 Sussex Street, Sydney 2000 for a period of 1 year, commencing
on 1 July 2015 at a lump sum cost of $134.742 including GST
B. Consider an extension for a further year at the completion of the 12 month

period subject to satisfactory performance.
BACKGROUND
As a part of the Council Plan for 2014-2018, Council has committed itself to providing
responsible leadership and governance by conducting its affairs openly and with integrity,
reflecting the highest level of good management and governance.
Internal auditing provides a mechanism for Council to enhance the transparency of its
decision-making, strengthen its internal controls and continue to develop a culture of control
and risk awareness.
Council’s internal audit strategy is driven by Council’s Audit Advisory Committee. The chair
of the Audit Advisory Committee was nominated as a panel member to select a suitable
tenderer for the development and implementation of its strategy. The selected consultant
will provide services under the guidance of the Audit Advisory Committee for a period of 3
years, until 30 June 2015 with an option to extend for a further 2 years.
DISCUSSION
On 29 May 2012, Council awarded Contract 11046 for the provision of internal audit
services to PricewaterhouseCoopers following a public tender process. The original 3 year
term of the Contract will expire on 30 June 2015. The Contract allows for a 2 year extension
at Council’s discretion.
CONSULTATION
The audit committee members where consulted with regards to the extension of this
Contract. Members were provided with a survey allowing them to evaluate PwC’s
performance in relation to:
• Communication
• Understanding of Council business
• Quality of reports
• Audit outcomes (Recommendations), and
• Overall Performance
Page 52
9.4.5
(cont)
The feedback received ranged from very good to excellent of PwC’s performance across
each of the categories. The overall performance has been rated as of PwC is regarded as
high with some opportunities for improvement to be discussed in the first year of the
contract extension.
At its May 2015 meeting the Audit Advisory Committee members met in private to consider
whether they would recommend to Council any exercise of the option clause. It was all
agreed PWC had a lot of intellectual knowledge about Council and that they had performed
quite well. The Members recommended to Council that they exercise their option, subject to
agreed financial terms, for a period of 1 year with consideration for another year at the
completion of the 12 month period, subject to satisfactory performance.
The contract for the provision of internal audit services will be extended for the agreed lump
sum of $134.742 including GST per annum for a period of 1 year. The lump sum is subject
to a CPI adjustment on each anniversary of the contract.
The expenditure under this contract in the current and previous financial years was
$292,259, including GST. It is anticipated that the expenditure over the next year will be of a
similar magnitude.
The costs incurred under this contract will be charged to the Finance Department recurrent
budget.
Page 53
9.4.6 Tender Evaluation Report – Provision of Workers

Compensation Services
SUMMARY
To consider tenders received for the provision of WorkCover Services and to recommend
the acceptance of the tender received from CGU Workers Compensation (VIC) Limited,
trading as CGU Workers Compensation, on a Schedule of Rates basis for a period of 4
years commencing 1 July 2015.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council:
for the Provision of Works Compensation Services received from CGU
Workers Compensation (VIC) Limited (ABN 41 005 297 781), of 8/181 Williams
Street Melbourne, trading as CGU Workers Compensation, on a Schedule of
Rates basis for a period of 4 years commencing on 1 July 2015.
2. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to award an extension of up to 3 years

for this contract, subject to a review of the Contractor’s performance and
Council’s business needs, at the conclusion of the initial 4 year contract term.
BACKGROUND
Any employer engaging workers or contractors deemed to be workers and paying more than
$7500 a year in rateable remuneration is required by law to take out a WorkSafe Injury
Insurance policy with a licensed insurance agent. The policy provides coverage for injuries
or illnesses sustained during or arising out of the course of one’s employment. (Coverage
under this legislation has also been recently extended to include Councillors.)
The term of the contract is 4 years commencing on 1 July 2015, with an option to extend the
contract for up to 3 years at Council’s discretion.
DISCUSSION
th
Tenders were advertised in The Age newspaper on Saturday 18 April 2015 and were
closed on 8 May 2015. Five tenders were received.
The tenders were evaluated against the following criteria:
a) Proven experience in the field of WorkCover Claims Management;

b) Capacity to provide exceptional WorkCover Claims Management services;
c) Streamlined methodology for WorkCover Claims Management; and
d) Best offer for Risk Management Funding.
The above evaluation criteria were listed in order of priority. Tenderers were asked to
ensure they clearly address the evaluation criteria.
Page 54
9.4.6
(cont)
CGU Workers Compensation (VIC) Limited (CGU) is currently providing services to 28 other
local councils which represents 55% of the premium and claims pool for local councils. CGU
is well resourced at all levels and has a thorough working knowledge of legislation and
associated legal requirements. Key case managers responsible for Council’s most complex
claims are experienced in management of local government claims and have had extensive
experience in the WorkCover industry (holding a licence to be a Worksafe Agent for over 30
years). CGU is capable of providing comprehensive and flexible reporting measures as well
as offering OH&S support, training and rehabilitation strategies.
The tender received from CGU is considered to be the most beneficial to Council for this
Contract.
Premium charges are set under the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act
2014 and cannot be determined in advance. The charges are structured around multiple
factors which include the following:
• Remuneration (wages, salaries, superannuation and certain benefits);

• Workplace Industry Classification (based on predominant activity carried out at each
workplace);
• Claims experience (claims cost and statistical case estimates); and
• Capping (protection from dramatic fluctuations in premium rates).
Premium charges for the last financial year ending 30 June 2015 and the projected
Premium for the 2015/2016 financial year are as follows:
2014/2015 $966,787.11 (excluding GST)

2015/2016 $900,067.14 (excluding GST) (mid March estimate)
CGU has offered risk management funding calculated at 1.0% of the total premium which
can be utilised for OH&S support, training and the development of rehabilitation strategies.
An allowance is made in the current budget for anticipated annual WorkCover Premium
charges which will be re-charged to relevant departmental budgets.
Page 55
9.4.7 Intention to Sell Land in accordance with Section 189 of the

Local Government Act 1989
SUMMARY
This report advises Council that the property known as 3 Poplar Street Box Hill has been
identified as surplus to Council requirements and seeks permission to commence the
statutory process in accordance with Sections 189 and 223 of the Local Government Act
1989.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council:
1. Note that the property known as 3 Poplar Street Box Hill has been identified
as surplus to Council’s requirements.
2. In accordance with Section 189 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989,
that Council gives notice of its intention to sell 3 Poplar Street Box Hill by
public tender.
3. Pursuant to section 223 (1) of the Local Government Act 1989, to consider
and if required hear any submissions received in regard to the proposal to
sell the land.
4. Authorise the Manager Property and Rates to give public notice, in

accordance with Section 189 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989, of
Council’s intention to sell 3 Poplar Street Box Hill and pursuant to Section
223 (3) of the Act, to carry out the administrative procedures to enable the
Committee appointed to carry out its function under Section 223 of the Act.
5. Authorise the Manager Property and Rates to serve on the Box Hill RSL Sub-
Branch Inc a Notice to Quit for the property known as 3 Poplar Street Box
Hill.
BACKGROUND
The former City of Box Hill purchased the property known as 3 Poplar Street Box Hill (the
subject property) in 1972 for $2,300 and the subject property has been an unimproved site
since purchase.
The 1972 purchase of the subject property by Council was not funded by a Special Rate
Scheme and Council is not bound by any trustee obligations.
Currently, the subject property is being used as an unsealed “at-grade” car park.
Site Features:
The subject property is known as Lot 2 on Plan of Subdivision 71055 with its title description
being Volume 8621 Folio 346.
2
The land area is approximately 594m .
Page 56
9.4.7
(cont)
Lease:
In March 1986, Council granted a lease to Box Hill Bowling Club Inc (BHBC) with a term of
five (5) years for the bowling club site known as 835 Whitehorse Road Box Hill and that
lease included the subject property. Refer Location Plan below.
In December 1990, Council consented to BHBC holding over the lease on the
understanding that either party would be required to provide the other with 12 months
written notice to vacate.
On 2 July 2012, BHBC was amalgamated with another incorporated association, that
association being Box Hill RSL Sub-Branch Inc (Box Hill RSL), and according to Council’s
lawyers the following applies:
“The amalgamation of the two associations resulted in the formation of the occupant entity
and all of BHBC’s property vested in the occupant entity pursuant to Section 31(5) of the
Associations Incorporations Act 1981, which provides that in the event of an amalgamation
‘the property (which includes interests in land) of each incorporated association
vests in the incorporated association formed by the amalgamation…without the
necessity for any conveyance, transfer or assignment’.”
The new single entity continues to be in occupation of both sites on this basis.
Location Plan:
Page 57
9.4.7
(cont)
Zoning:
The subject property is zoned “Residential Growth Zone-Schedule 3” (RGZ3) in accordance

with the Whitehorse Planning Scheme.
Additionally, the subject property is located within “Activity Precinct D” and “Built-Form
Precinct F” of the “Box Hill Transit City Activity Centre-Structure Plan” dated June 2007.
The existing zoning of RGZ3 is considered to be the appropriate zoning and it is also
considered to be the zoning that will enable the highest possible sale price to Council.
Consequently, the subject property does not require rezoning in accordance with the
Planning and Environment Act 1987.
Strategic Review:
In 2013 Council’s Property & Rates Department undertook a strategic review of all Council
owned properties and the subject property was identified as being an underperforming
property that was potentially surplus to Council’s requirements.
The findings of this strategic review were presented to Council at the Strategic Planning
Session in November 2013 where further consideration was supported.
DISCUSSION
Given the subject property’s small land area and irregular frontage it does not lend itself to
redevelopment by Council for a Council service and for this reason the can be considered
surplus to Council’s requirements.
Once the subject property has been deemed surplus by Council and prior to Council
disposing of the subject property; Council must in accordance with Section 189 (2) (a) of the
Local Government Act 1989, give public notice of its intention to sell the subject property.
Pursuant to section 223 (1) of the Local Government Act 1989, Council is then required to
consider and (if required) hear any submissions received in regard to the proposal to sell the
subject property.
Additionally, as mentioned above the BHBC’s interest in the subject property transferred to
the Box Hill RSL, this means that Council must serve a Notice to Quit on the Box Hill RSL;
and that Notice to Quit must give the Box Hill RSL the required twelve (12) months to vacate
and return the subject property to Council.
Key processes that are proposed, if agreed to by Council, are as follows:

1. Serve a Notice to Quit on the Box Hill RSL
2. Public notice displayed in The Age
3. Public Notice displayed on Council’s Web-site
4. Special Committee to consider and hear any submission/s
5. Second report to Council for consideration and resolution
The public notice referred to above must also advise the community of Council’s preferred
sale method.
The recommended sale method for the subject property is by public tender, for a price not
less than an amount established by an independent valuation. The independent valuation
will be obtained by Council’s Property & Rates Department.
Page 58
9.4.7
(cont)
Since March 2015 Council has received unsolicited non-binding offers from parties
interested in purchasing the subject property from Council.
However, Council is not in a position to consider these offers until it has completed the
statutory processes contained within Section 189 of the Local Government Act 1989 (the
S189 process).
Failure to genuinely and correctly complete the S189 process by Council has the potential to
void any future contract of sale for subject property and additionally expose Council to a
negligence claim.
To ensure that Council correctly completes the S189 process it is recommended that
Council follow the State Government’s “Local Government Best Practice Guideline for the
Sale, Exchange and Transfer of Land (June 2009)” (the Guidelines).
The Guidelines contain six “General Principles” and “General Principle #2” recommends that
where Council is proposing to sell a significant land asset, then the sale of that land should
be conducted through a public process; with the public process being either a public auction
or a public tender process or an expression of interest process.
Given that Council has already received unsolicited non-bidding offers Council sought
advice from its lawyers. After reviewing these offers Council’s lawyers have recommended
that Council’s preferred sale method be a public tender process.
CONSULTATION:
If Council resolve to proceed with its intention to sell 3 Poplar Street Box Hill Council will
consult with the community via the S189 process, with the following key processes and
dates:
1. Saturday 27 June 2015: Public notice displayed in The Age

2. Monday 29 June 2015: Public Notice displayed on Council Web-site
3. Monday 27 July 2015: Submissions close
4. Monday 10 August 2015: Special Committee to hear any submission/s
5. Monday 17 August 2015: Report to Council for consideration and resolution
The Box Hill RSL was advised by email in May 2014, that 3 Poplar Street would not be
included in any future lease between Council and the Box Hill RSL for 835 Whitehorse
Road, Box Hill. However, the proposed Notice to Quit will be the formal notification to the
Box Hill RSL.
External:
• Maddocks Lawyers
To fully comply with the statutory obligation contained within the Local Government Act
1989 Council incur approximately $15,000 + GST in costs. These costs being; advertising
costs, legal costs and valuation costs.
Page 59
9.4.8 Naming of Laneway – Adjacent to 77-79 Doncaster East Road

Mitcham
FILE NUMBER: WH/2013/857
SUMMARY
Council received a request to name a currently unnamed laneway abutting 77-79 Doncaster
East Road, Mitcham to the south. Permit approval was provided for the construction of six
double storey dwellings on 22 August 2014. Subsequent to the approval, an application for
a six lot subdivision has been lodged for the site. The subdivision application provides for
vehicular access to dwelling 1 via an existing crossover on Doncaster East Road, and
access to dwellings 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 via the currently unnamed laneway abutting the site to
the south. The unnamed laneway will need to be named so that appropriate street
addressing can occur for dwellings 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 which are serviced via the laneway.
Council at its meeting 20 April 2015 resolved to assign the naming proposal Yarrbat Beek
Lane to the unnamed laneway and to undertake a community consultation process on the
naming proposal.
RECOMMENDATION
That:
1. Council endorse its decision of 20 April 2015 to name the unnamed laneway
abutting 77-79 Doncaster East Road Mitcham to the south, Yarrbat Beek Lane.
2. The Registrar of Geographic Names be advised of Council’s Resolution.
3. Adjoining property owners be advised accordingly once advice has been

received from the Office of the Registrar of Geographic Names and the
laneway name has been formally gazetted.
4. Appropriate street signage be erected once advice has been received from
the Office of the Registrar of Geographic Names that the laneway name has
been formally gazetted.
BACKGROUND and CONSULTATION
Following approval of a permit (WH/2013/857) for the construction of six double storey
dwellings, an application for a six lot subdivision has been lodged for 77-79 Doncaster East
Road, Mitcham. The subdivision application provides for vehicular access to dwellings 2, 3,
4, 5 and 6 via the currently unnamed laneway abutting 77-79 Doncaster East Road Mitcham
to the south. The laneway is required to be named so that appropriate street addressing
can occur for dwellings 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting 20 April 2015, resolved to assign the naming
proposal Yarrbat Beek Lane to the unnamed laneway abutting 77-79 Doncaster East Road
Mitcham to the south. Yarrbat Beek is an indigenous word of the Woiwurrung language
which translates in English as 'High Ground'. Yarrbat Beek is considered appropriate as the
laneway is in close proximity to the Mountview Church the highest point in Mitcham.
Page 60
9.4.8
(cont)
Formal Consultation Process
As required by the Guidelines, prior to seeking final approval of the naming proposal Yarrbat
Beek Lane from the Office of the Registrar of Geographic Names, Council was required to
undertake community consultation.
• Council staff wrote to owners of properties abutting the laneway; to the property owner
and developer of the site at 77-79 Doncaster East Road Mitcham, inviting comments on
the naming proposal;
• an advertisement was placed in the Whitehorse Leader on 27 April 2015 and on
Council’s website, inviting comments from members of the community on the naming
proposal;
• The consultation period closed at 5pm on Wednesday 27 May 2015, at the close of the
consultation period no submissions had been received.
DISCUSSION
Schedule 10 (5) of the Local Government Act 1989 provides that Council may approve,
assign or change the name of a road and in exercising that power must act in accordance
with the Guidelines in force for the time being under the Geographic Place Names Act 1998
and must advise the Registrar under that Act of the action taken.
The Guidelines provide that Council, in naming a road consider, amongst other things, the
following:
− Consideration to the use of Indigenous names;

− A name should have some sense of connection to the areas in which they are applied;
− Names should be easy to pronounce, spell and write; and
− Duplication of names is not allowed within the municipality or within a five kilometer
radius. (Duplicates are considered to be two, or more, names which are identical or
have similar spelling or pronunciation. This is determined by searching VICNAMES on
the Department of Planning, Transport and Local Infrastructure website)
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
In June 2011 Council adopted the Whitehorse Reconciliation Action Plan 2011-2015. One
of the action items of the Whitehorse Reconciliation Action Plan 2011-2015 is:
Council respects and acknowledges the relationship that Aboriginal people have with their
traditional land. We will work with local Aboriginal people and groups to raise awareness of
the local Aboriginal history and cultural traditions of local Aboriginal people:
• By naming of parks/reserves/streets/significant landmarks in traditional language.
Approximate cost for Council of $150 for installation of street signage.
Page 61
9.4.8
(cont)
Page 62
9.4.9 Delegated Decisions – April 2015

FILE NUMBER: SF 13/1527#02
The following activity was undertaken by officers under delegated authority during April
2015.
RECOMMENDATION
That the report of decisions made by officers under Instruments of Delegation for the
month of April 2015 be noted.
DELEGATION FUNCTION Number for April Number for April

2014 2015
Planning and Environment Act - Delegated 96 139

1987 decisions
- Strategic Planning 1 Nil

Decisions
Telecommunications Act 1997 Nil Nil
Subdivision Act 1988 19 24
Gaming Control Act 1991 Nil Nil
Building Act 1993 Dispensations & 39 55

applications to Building
Control Commission
Liquor Control Reform Act 1998 Objections and Nil 1

prosecutions
Food Act 1984 - Food Act orders 8 5
- Improvement / 0 Nil
Public Health & Wellbeing Act
prohibition notices
2008
Local Government Act 1989 Temporary road 9 10

closures
Other delegations CEO signed contracts

between $150,000 - 2 Nil
$500,000
Property Sales and 4 9
leases
Documents to which 1 Nil
Council seal affixed
Vendor Payments 1,169 1317
Parking Amendments 16 6
Parking Infringements 195 352
written off (not able to
be collected)
*The number is very high due to exempting matters sitting at Infringements Court in order to maintain system
Details of each delegation are outlined on the following pages.
Page 63
DELEGATED DECISIONS MADE ON PLANNING APPLICATIONS APRIL 2015

All decisions are the subject of conditions which may in some circumstances alter the use of development
approved, or specific grounds of refusal is an application is not supported.
Appl. Dec. Date Decision Street Ward Proposed Use or Application

No. Address Development Type
74 20-04-15 Delegate 15 Warnes Springfield Construction of Permit
Approval - Rd, Mitcham three double- Amendment
S72 storey dwellings
Amendment
130 29-04-15 Delegate 21 Middlefield Central Construction of Permit
Approval - Drv, one double Amendment
S72 Blackburn storey dwelling to
Amendment North the rear of the
existing dwelling
207 24-04-15 Delegate 17 Victoria Elgar Amendment to Permit
Approval - Cres, Mont WH/2013/207 to Amendment
S72 Albert amend
Amendment conditions 4 and
5 and internal
and external
alterations
221 30-04-15 Delegate 7 Gillard St, Riversdale Amendment to Permit
Approval - Burwood WH/2014/221 Amendment
S72 (Construction of
Amendment two double
storey dwellings)
to alter first floor
setbacks
246 22-04-15 Delegate 63 Tyne St, Elgar Construction of Permit
Approval - Box Hill North three (3) double Amendment
S72 storey dwellings
Amendment
354 24-04-15 Delegate 58 Eley Rd, Riversdale Construction of a Permit
Approval - Burwood new double Amendment
S72 storey dwelling to
Amendment the rear of the
existing dwelling
459 22-04-15 Delegate 1 Hopetoun Elgar Use and Permit
Approval - Pde, Box Hill development of Amendment
S72 the land for a
Amendment community and
cultural centre
incorporating a
childcare centre,
education centre,
place of
assembly (day
centre for the
elderly and
senior citizens
club)
Page 64
Appl. No. Dec. Date Decision Street Ward Proposed Use or Application
Address Development Type
605 24-04-15 Delegate 24 Churchill Elgar Amendment to Permit
Approval - St, Mont alter preamble and Amendment
S72 Albert plans - Alterations
Amendment and additions to
the exisiting
dwelling,
demolition of out
buildings and
construction of a
vehicle crossover
and carport
625 22-04-15 Delegate 19 Hotham Elgar Minor alterations Permit
Approval - St, Mont to Dwelling 1 Amendment
S72 Albert
Amendment
718 29-04-15 Delegate 1219-1221 Riversdale Twenty-one Lot Permit
Approval - Riversdale subdivision of a Amendment
S72 Rd, Box Hill building
Amendment South
833 24-04-15 Delegate 104-168 Morack Amendment to Permit
Approval - Hawthorn Planning Permit Amendment
S72 Rd, Forest WH/2014/833
Amendment Hill (issued for
Subdivision of land
into 13 lots and
creation and
alteration of
access to a road in
a Road Zone,
Category 1) for
alteration to
building envelope
Approval - Burwood Planning Permit Amendment
S72 Hwy, WH/13297 (issued
Amendment Vermont for use and
South development of a
Retirement
Village) to include
an additional
louvred verandah
to the rear of Unit
101
37 30-04-15 Delegate 347 Springfield Construction of Multiple
NOD Issued Springfield one (1) double Dwellings
Rd, storey dwelling at
Nunawading the rear of the
existing double
storey dwelling
153 09-04-15 Delegate NOD 6 Eley Rd, Riversdale Construction of three Multiple
Issued Burwood (3) double storey Dwellings
dwellings
198 14-04-15 Delegate NOD 3 Cunningham Elgar Construction of three Multiple
Issued St, Box Hill double storey Dwellings
dwellings
Page 65
279 30-04-15 Delegate NOD 17 East India Springfield Construction of two Multiple
Issued Ave, double storey Dwellings
Nunawading dwellings
285 08-04-15 Delegate NOD 103-107 Central Development and use Child Care
Issued Koonung Rd, of land as a child care Centre
Blackburn centre
North
368 12-04-15 Delegate NOD 67 Strabane Elgar Construction of two Multiple
Issued Ave, Mont attached three storey Dwellings
AlbertNorth (including basement)
dwellings
374 30-04-15 Delegate NOD 582 Elgar Rd, Elgar Construction of six Multiple
Issued Box Hill North double storey Dwellings
dwellings and
alteration of access to
a road in a Road
Zone (Category 1)
389 30-04-15 Delegate NOD 101 Koonung Central Construction of two Multiple
Issued Rd, Blackburn double storey Dwellings
North dwellings
545 24-04-15 Delegate NOD 28 Marshall Elgar Construction of one Multiple
Issued Rd, Box Hill double storey Dwellings
North dwelling to the rear of
an existing single
storey dwelling
549 28-04-15 Delegate NOD 33 Boisdale St, Riversdale Construction of one Multiple
Issued Surrey Hills (1) double storey Dwellings
dwelling at the rear of
an existing single
storey dwelling
572 30-04-15 Delegate NOD 36 Cadorna St, Riversdale Construction of three Multiple
Issued Box Hill South double storey Dwellings
dwellings
617 29-04-15 Delegate NOD 18 Killara St, Elgar Construction of a Multiple
dwelling to the rear of
an existing dwelling
656 16-04-15 Delegate NOD 32 Glendale St, Riversdale Construction of two Multiple
Issued Surrey Hills (2) double storey Dwellings
dwellings and
subdivide the land
into two (2) lots
662 30-04-15 Delegate NOD 17 Barry Rd, Morack Construction of three Multiple
Issued Burwood East (3) double storey Dwellings
dwellings
706 24-04-15 Delegate NOD 84 Shannon St, Elgar Construction of two Multiple
dwellings
724 27-04-15 Delegate NOD 28 Cypress Riversdale Construction of a new Multiple
Issued Ave, Burwood three storey dwelling Dwellings
(including basement
garage) to the rear of
the existing dwelling
facing Malvina Street
Page 66
999 10-04-15 Delegate NOD 38 Efron St, Springfield Construction of four Multiple
Issued Nunawading double storey Dwellings
dwellings
1000 24-04-15 Delegate NOD 31 Livingstone Morack Construction of seven Multiple
Issued Rd, Vermont dwellings Dwellings
South
1074 30-04-15 Delegate NOD 1 Graham Elgar Double storey Residential
Issued Place Box Hill building to be used as (Other)
VCE Learning Centre,
College Maintenance
facility and car park at
1 Graham Place, Box
Hill
1206 30-04-15 Delegate NOD 30 Wolseley Central Buildings and works Special
Issued Cres, (carport in frontage Landscape
Blackburn and outbuilding, deck, Area
spa, pergola in to the
rear)
1231 30-04-15 Delegate NOD 7 Orchard Grv, Central Construction of two Multiple
Issued Blackburn (2) dwellings on a lot Dwellings
South
1236 30-04-15 Delegate NOD 8 Haros Ave, Springfield Development of the Multiple
Issued Nunawading land for two dwellings Dwellings
comprising the
construction of a
double storey
the existing single
storey dwelling
1272 30-04-15 Delegate NOD 5 Morrie Cres, Central Construction of two Multiple
Issued Blackburn (2) double storey Dwellings
North dwellings
4 22-04-15 Delegate 193-197 Riversdale Reduction in car Business
Permit Issued Middleborough parking for a Medical
Rd, Box Hill Centre (Massage
South Clinic)
6 21-04-15 Delegate 6 Market St, Elgar Display of two (2) Advertising
Permit Issued Box Hill internally illuminated Sign
signs and two (2)
business identification
signs
12 07-04-15 Delegate 14 Kneale Drv, Elgar 2 Lot Subdivision Subdivision
Permit Issued Box Hill North
57 02-04-15 Delegate 761-771 Elgar 81 lot subdivision Subdivision
Permit Issued Station St, Box
Hill North
64 30-04-15 Delegate 51 Gissing St, Central Buildings and works Special
Permit Issued Blackburn (construct a double Landscape
South storey dwelling) Area
69 02-04-15 Delegate 467 Mitcham Springfield 6 lot subdivision Subdivision
Permit Issued Rd, Mitcham
73 12-04-15 Delegate 836-850 Elgar Display of real estate Advertising
Permit Issued Whitehorse Rd, advertising signs on Sign
Box Hill construction hoarding
Page 67
91 13-04-15 Delegate 46 Luckie St, Springfield 5 Lot subdivision and Subdivision
Permit Issued Nunawading removal of
easements
104 14-04-15 Delegate 30 Morack Rd, Morack Lopping of one (1) Vegetation
Permit Issued Vermont tree within a Protection
Vegetation Protection Overlay
Overlay
107 14-04-15 Delegate 10-12 Shady Springfield 4 lot subdivision Subdivision
Permit Issued Grv,
Nunawading
117 14-04-15 Delegate 44 Victoria St, Elgar 3 lot subdivision Subdivision
Permit Issued Box Hill
125 24-04-15 Delegate 2 Monomeeth Springfield Use of building for Industrial
Permit Issued Drv, Mitcham indoor recreation
facility (dance studio)
and display of
business identification
signage
126 09-04-15 Delegate 36 Roslyn St, Riversdale Construction of two Multiple
Permit Issued Burwood double storey Dwellings
dwellings
133 30-04-15 Delegate 10 Laurel Grv, Central Buildings and works Special
Permit Issued NorthBlackburn to construct a Landscape
swimming pool and Area
removal of vegetation
135 24-04-15 Delegate 2 Gerald St, Springfield Removal of three Special
Permit Issued Blackburn trees Landscape
Area
139 01-04-15 Delegate 14 Beaver St, Riversdale 3 lot subdivision Subdivision
Permit Issued Box Hill South
152 07-04-15 Delegate 127 Dorking Elgar Subdivision of three Subdivision
Permit Issued Rd, Box Hill lots
North
153 22-04-15 Delegate 84 Thames St, Elgar Eight lot subdivision Subdivision
156 01-04-15 Delegate 175 Highbury Riversdale Two lot subdivision Subdivision
Permit Issued Rd, Burwood
162 14-04-15 Delegate 45 Junction Central Partial removal of Subdivision
Permit Issued Rd, Blackburn easement
North
163 01-04-15 Delegate 11 Russell St, Springfield Two lot subdivision Subdivision
Permit Issued Nunawading
166 15-04-15 Delegate 12 Simpson St, Springfield Three lot subdivision Subdivision
Permit Issued Mitcham
169 14-04-15 Delegate 2 Elland Ave, Elgar Display of temporary Advertising
Permit Issued Box Hill real estate signage Sign
171 14-04-15 Delegate 146 Thames Elgar 8 lots subdivision Subdivision
Permit Issued St, Box Hill
North
172 14-04-15 Delegate 20 Sweetland Elgar 3 lot subdivision Subdivision
Permit Issued Rd, Box Hill
195 23-04-15 Delegate 20-24 Masons Central Removal of two (2) Special
Permit Issued Rd, Blackburn trees Landscape
Area
Page 68
204 22-04-15 Delegate 564 Elgar Rd, Elgar 6 lot subdivision Subdivision
205 08-04-15 Delegate 2 Norman St, Springfield Lopping of one VicSmart -
Permit Issued Mitcham protected tree General
Application
206 21-04-15 Delegate 5 Cumming St, Riversdale 3 lot subdivision Subdivision
Permit Issued Burwood
207 08-04-15 Delegate 1 Verona St, Morack Tree Removal VicSmart -
Permit Issued Vermont South General
Application
208 15-04-15 Delegate 16 Fulton Cres, Riversdale 3 lot subdivision Subdivision
209 13-04-15 Delegate 37 Canterbury Central 2 lot subdivision Subdivision
Permit Issued Rd, Blackburn
211 13-04-15 Delegate 403 Highbury Riversdale 2 lot subdivision Subdivision
Permit Issued Rd, Burwood
225 22-04-15 Delegate 61 Somers St, Riversdale 2 lot subdivision Subdivision
226 15-04-15 Delegate 9 Harrow St, Riversdale 2 lot subdivision Subdivision
Permit Issued Blackburn
South
227 23-04-15 Delegate 20 Cumming Riversdale 3 lots subdivision Subdivision
Permit Issued St, Burwood
230 30-04-15 Delegate 3/392 Burwood Riversdale Construction of a Single
Permit Issued Hwy, Burwood carport on a lot less Dwelling <
than 300sqm 300m2
232 15-04-15 Delegate 5 Swinborne Riversdale Two Lot Subdivision Subdivision
South
233 23-04-15 Delegate 35 Grange Rd, Riversdale Three Lot Subdivision Subdivision
South
240 21-04-15 Delegate 2 Anthony Elgar Construction of 4 Multiple
Permit Issued Cres, Box Hill dwellings comprising Dwellings
North two new double
storey dwelling to the
rear of two existings
dwellings
241 24-04-15 Delegate 382-384 Morack Buildings and works Residential
Permit Issued Springvale Rd, for the installation of a (Other)
Forest Hill verandah
245 15-04-15 Delegate 17 Devon Drv, Central 2 lot subdivision Subdivision
North
246 30-04-15 Delegate 31-35 Harrow Elgar 71 lot subdivision Subdivision
249 20-04-15 Delegate 6 Downing St, Central Residential VicSmart -
Permit Issued Blackburn extension/renovation General
in an SBO Application
252 23-04-15 Delegate 18 Heatherdale Springfield 5 lots subdivision Subdivision
Permit Issued Rd, Mitcham
253 23-04-15 Delegate 8 Everglade Morack 2 lot subdivision Subdivision
Permit Issued Ave, Forest Hill
Page 69
256 20-04-15 Delegate 1 Lightfoot St, Elgar Construction of gates VicSmart -
Permit Issued Mont Albert at frontage of a General
dwelling in a Heritage Application
Overlay
257 23-04-15 Delegate 1/61 Orchard Elgar Two lot subdivision Subdivision
Permit Issued Cres, Mont
AlbertNorth
265 22-04-15 Delegate 42 Haig St, Riversdale Two lot subdivision Subdivision
Permit Issued Box Hill South
266 29-04-15 Delegate 470 Springfield Change of use to an Education
Permit Issued Whitehorse Rd, education centre,
Mitcham buildings and works
for a canopy and
reduction in standard
car parking
requirement
268 22-04-15 Delegate 644 Springfield Erection and display Advertising
Permit Issued Whitehorse Rd, of business Sign
Mitcham identification signage
274 27-04-15 Delegate 5/96 Central Building and works Business
Permit Issued Canterbury Rd, for the construction of
Blackburn an exhaust flue
South
275 23-04-15 Delegate 18 Halley St, Central Building and works Special
Permit Issued Blackburn associated with an Landscape
extension to the Area
existing dwelling
281 23-04-15 Delegate 5 Tourello St, Springfield Removal of one tree VicSmart -
Permit Issued Mitcham General
Application
283 09-04-15 Delegate 48 Begonia St, Riversdale Construction of two Multiple
Permit Issued Box Hill South double storey Dwellings
dwellings
293 29-04-15 Delegate 112-114 Central To replace the VicSmart -
Permit Issued Blackburn Rd, damaged/broken front General
Blackburn fence Application
295 30-04-15 Delegate 1178 Riversdale Two lot Subdivision Subdivision
Permit Issued Riversdale Rd,
Box Hill South
297 30-04-15 Delegate 16 Downing St, Central 2 lot subdivision Subdivision
383 30-04-15 Delegate 6 Austin St, Springfield Construction of two Multiple
Permit Issued Mitcham double storey Dwellings
dwellings
391 28-04-15 Delegate 423 Station St, Elgar Use and development Residential
Permit Issued Box Hill of the land for a (Other)
medical centre and
associated rear
carpark
Page 70
493 14-04-15 Delegate 148 Thames Elgar Amendment to Permit
Permit Issued St, Box Hill Planning Permit Amendment
North WH/2010/493 (issued
for: construction of a
four storey building
comprising 17
dwellings) to alter the
internal layout and
external presentation,
including some
reductions in
boundary setbacks
524 20-04-15 Delegate 900 Canterbury Riversdale Development of a Business
Permit Issued Rd, Box Hill four (4) storey
South building comprising
one (1) shop and ten
(10) dwellings with a
reduction to the
standard car parking
requirements
526 02-04-15 Delegate 14 Killara St, Elgar Construction of two Multiple
Permit Issued Box Hill North double storey Dwellings
dwellings
528 30-04-15 Delegate 38 Killara St, Elgar The development of Multiple
Permit Issued Box Hill North the land for two Dwellings
dwellings comprising
one double storey
the existing single
storey dwelling
561 30-04-15 Delegate 142 Station St, Riversdale Construction two (2) Multiple
Permit Issued Burwood double storey Dwellings
dwellings and
creation of access to
a road in a Road
Zone, Category 1
564 07-04-15 Delegate 14 Boyle St, Springfield Construction of one Multiple
Permit Issued Forest Hill (1) double storey Dwellings
the existing dwelling
584 02-04-15 Delegate 129 Terrara Morack The construction of Multiple
Permit Issued Rd, Vermont one (1) double storey Dwellings
South dwelling to the rear of
the existing dwelling.
585 27-04-15 Delegate 13 Travers Morack Construction three Multiple
Permit Issued Cres, Burwood double storey Dwellings
East dwellings
652 24-04-15 Delegate 50 Cumming Riversdale Construction of three Multiple
Permit Issued St, Burwood double storey Dwellings
dwellings
788 30-04-15 Delegate 85 Thames St, Elgar Construction of a Multiple
Permit Issued Box Hill three storey building Dwellings
comprising eight
dwellings and
reduction of car
parking requirement
Page 71
804 29-04-15 Delegate 14A Churchill Elgar Buildings and works Business
Permit Issued St, Mont Albert to construct a double
storey Caretaker's
House to the rear of
the existing Shop
812 21-04-15 Delegate 332-334 Mont Elgar Construction of two Multiple
Permit Issued Albert Rd, double storey Dwellings
Mont Albert dwellings
838 09-04-15 Delegate 17 Parer St, Riversdale Construction of two Multiple
Permit Issued Burwood (2) double storey Dwellings
dwellings
972 30-04-15 Delegate 8 Wridgway Riversdale Construction of three Multiple
Permit Issued Ave, Burwood double storey Dwellings
dwellings
995 30-04-15 Delegate 71 Thames St, Elgar Construction of eight Multiple
Permit Issued Box Hill triple storey dwellings Dwellings
and reduction in car
parking
1082 30-04-15 Delegate 133 Riversdale Construction of Multiple
Permit Middleborou two (2) double Dwellings
Issued gh Rd, Box storey dwellings
Hill South and creation of
access to a Road
Zone Category 1
1094 20-04-15 Delegate 3 Gee Crt, Springfield Removal of Subdivision
Permit Nunawading carriageway
Issued easement and
partial removal of
drainage
easement
1144 21-04-15 Delegate 19 Kenmare Elgar To construct, use Residential
Permit St, Mont and illuminate a (Other)
Issued AlbertNorth private tennis court
1163 21-04-15 Delegate 369 Morack Construction of Multiple
Permit Springvale two (2) double Dwellings
Issued Rd, Forest storey dwellings
Hill and alteration of
access to a Road
Zone, Category 1
1175 17-04-15 Delegate 326 Springfield Development of Multiple
Permit Springfield two dwellings Dwellings
Issued Rd, (double storey
Nunawading dwelling to the rear
of existing
dwelling)
Permit Canterbury two (2) double Dwellings
Issued Rd, storey dwellings
Vermont
1228 21-04-15 Delegate 7 Springfield Buildings and Special
Permit Ravenswoo works to construct Landscape
Issued d Crt, an extension to an Area
Nunawading existing dwelling
Page 72
1229 09-04-15 Delegate 15 Haddon Springfield Buildings and Special
Permit Crt, works (first floor Landscape
Issued Mitcham addition) & works Area
within 4 metres of
significant trees
1230 24-04-15 Delegate 27 Riversdale Subdivision of land Subdivision
Permit Livingstone in two (2) lots.
Issued Close
Burwood
1270 30-04-15 Delegate 189 Central Construction of Multiple
Permit Springfield two double storey Dwellings
Issued Rd, semi-detached
Blackburn dwellings
North
514 22-04-15 Delegate 11 Kneale Elgar Construction of Multiple
Refusal - Drv, Box Hill one double storey Dwellings
S72 North dwelling to the rear
Amendment of the existing
dwelling
Refusal Terrara Rd, Planning Permit Amendment
Issued Vermont WH/2010/18
South (issued for
construction of
nine (9) dwellings
and removal of
native vegetation)
to add one double
storey dwelling
38 24-04-15 Delegate 2 Walsham Central Three lot Special
Refusal Rd, subdivision and Landscape
Issued Blackburn tree removal Area
84 10-04-15 Delegate 7 Hunter Morack Subdivision of land Subdivision
Refusal Valley Rd, into four (4) lots
Issued Vermont
South
112 24-04-15 Delegate 8 Haros Springfield Construction of Multiple
Refusal Ave, two double storey Dwellings
Issued Nunawading dwellings and
alterations and
additions to the
existing single
storey dwelling.
531 17-04-15 Delegate 34 Carver Riversdale Construction of Multiple
Refusal St, Burwood two double storey Dwellings
Issued East dwellings
555 24-04-15 Delegate 27 Newbigin Riversdale Construction of Multiple
Refusal St, Burwood two triple storey Dwellings
Issued dwellings to the
rear of the existing
dwelling
638 22-04-15 Delegate 5 James Springfield Construction of Multiple
Refusal Ave, three double Dwellings
Issued Mitcham storey dwellings
Page 73
Refusal Springvale three double Dwellings
Issued Rd, storey dwellings
Nunawading
881 28-04-15 Delegate 60 Main St, Central Buildings and Multiple
Refusal Blackburn works for Dwellings
Issued construction of
three double
storey dwellings &
removal of
vegetation
1016 30-04-15 Delegate 18 Riversdale Construction of Multiple
Refusal Cumming two double storey Dwellings
Issued St, Burwood dwellings
1193 30-04-15 Delegate 22 Gerald Springfield Buildings and Special
Refusal St, works for the Landscape
Issued Blackburn construction of one Area
(1) dwelling and
removal of trees
1237 09-04-15 Delegate 721 Elgar Change of use to a Residential
Refusal Canterbury Veterinary Centre, (Other)
Issued Rd, Surrey building and
Hills works, tree
removal and
display of business
identification
signage
247 16-04-15 No Permit 57/300 Riversdale Construction of a Residential
Required Elgar Rd, verandah (Other)
Box Hill
South
144 09-04-15 Permit 6 Langtree Central Amendment to Permit
Corrected Crt, Planning Permit Amendment
Blackburn WH/2013/144
(issued for
buildings and
works for the
construction of two
(2) double storey
dwellings) for
external alterations
to Dwelling 2 and
increase in fencing
heights
Page 74
895 02-04-15 Permit 1 Elland Elgar Amendment to Permit
Corrected Ave, Box Planning Permit Amendment
Hill WH/2011/895
(issued for:
development of a
nine storey
apartment building
including ground
floor retail
(community
market,
convenience shop,
food and drink
premises or plant
nursery) and a mix
of serviced
apartments and
dwellings, waiver
in loading and
unloading and car
parking
requirements) to
alter the basement
layout and building
form.
124 29-04-15 Withdrawn 16 Dunlavin Springfield Construction of Multiple
Rd, two (2) double Dwellings
Nunawading storey dwellings
222 08-04-15 Withdrawn 28 Acacia Elgar Renovation & Neighbourh
St, Box Hill addition to ood
dwelling Character
Overlay
236 09-04-15 Withdrawn 49 Morack Extension to the VicSmart -
Woodleigh existing dwelling General
Cres, within a Special Application
Vermont Building Overlay in
South a NRZ 7
Page 75
BUILDING DISPENSATIONS/APPLICATIONS APRIL 2015
Address Date Ward Result

11 Craig Street, BLACKBURN SOUTH 16-04-15 Central Amendment Approved R409
19 Linum Street, BLACKBURN 14-04-15 Central Amendment Approved R427
10 Grosvenor Street, BLACKBURN NORTH 14-04-15 Central Granted R414
11 Lilac Court, BLACKBURN NORTH 02-04-15 Central Granted R420
20 Mitchell Street, BLACKBURN NORTH 20-04-15 Central Granted R415
4 Highfield Avenue, BLACKBURN SOUTH 24-04-15 Central Granted R424
5 Bond Avenue, BLACKBURN SOUTH 09-04-15 Central Granted R409
8 John Street, BLACKBURN 30-04-15 Central Granted R415
27 Patricia Road, BLACKBURN 22-04-15 Central Refused R409
36 Donald Street, BLACKBURN SOUTH 17-04-15 Central Refused R409
49 Box Hill Crescent, MONT ALBERT NORTH 23-04-15 Elgar Amendment Approved R414
10 Tyrrell Street, MONT ALBERT NORTH 23-04-15 Elgar Granted R414
11 Hood Street, MONT ALBERT 08-04-15 Elgar Granted R427, R424, R425
205 Dorking Road, BOX HILL NORTH 24-04-15 Elgar Granted R414, R409
3 Corlett Street, MONT ALBERT NORTH 02-04-15 Elgar Granted R417
35 Morley Crescent, BOX HILL NORTH 28-04-15 Elgar Granted R414
710 Station Street, BOX HILL 28-04-15 Elgar Granted R604
8 Strabane Avenue, MONT ALBERT NORTH 08-04-15 Elgar Granted R414
9 Saxton Street, BOX HILL NORTH 02-04-15 Elgar Granted R424
11 Carson Avenue, MONT ALBERT 14-04-15 Elgar Refused R409
24 Victoria Crescent, MONT ALBERT 14-04-15 Elgar Refused R409
32 Clota Avenue, BOX HILL 22-04-15 Elgar Refused R424
49 Box Hill Crescent, MONT ALBERT NORTH 02-04-15 Elgar Refused R415
13 Tucker Road, VERMONT 22-04-15 Morack Granted R409
357 Springvale Road, FOREST HILL 02-04-15 Morack Granted R427, R424
59 Jolimont Road, FOREST HILL 20-04-15 Morack Granted R409
8 Mindah Court, VERMONT SOUTH 02-04-15 Morack Granted R414
9 Teal Court, FOREST HILL 22-04-15 Morack Granted R409
3 Ida Court, VERMONT 28-04-15 Morack Refused R409
4 Balmoral Court, BURWOOD EAST 14-04-15 Morack Refused R409
57 Mullens Road, VERMONT SOUTH 09-04-15 Morack Refused R424
29 Begonia Street, BOX HILL SOUTH 23-04-15 Riversdale Amendment Approved R409
1 Hastings Street, BURWOOD 30-04-15 Riversdale Granted R409
10 Christina Street, BURWOOD 24-04-15 Riversdale Granted R409
10 Lambourne Street, SURREY HILLS 15-04-15 Riversdale Granted R420
11 Emmy Court, BURWOOD 02-04-15 Riversdale Granted R414, R411
22 Pine Street, SURREY HILLS 02-04-15 Riversdale Grnated R409
5 Spence Street, BURWOOD 02-04-15 Riversdale Granted R415
6 Boronia Street, SURREY HILLS 02-04-15 Riversdale Granted R424
30 Begonia Street, BOX HILL SOUTH 16-04-15 Riversdale Refused R409
33 Wellman Street, BOX HILL SOUTH 02-04-15 Riversdale Refused R409
4 Bonview Crescent, BURWOOD EAST 14-04-15 Riversdale Refused R424
48 Hilltop Crescent, BURWOOD EAST 17-04-15 Riversdale Refused R409
12 O’Shannessy Street, Nunawading 20-04-15 Springfield Amendment Approved R409
10 Ferris Avenue, MITCHAM 22-04-15 Springfield Granted R409
12 Erskine Street, NUNAWADING 02-04-15 Springfield Granted R417
159-171 Rooks Road, VERMONT 02-04-15 Springfield Granted R431
28 Nielsen Avenue, NUNAWADING 02-04-15 Springfield Granted R409
51 Lasiandra Avenue, FOREST HILL 14-04-15 Springfield Granted R409
52 Creek Road, MITCHAM 15-04-15, Springfield Granted R409, R414
17-04-15
31 Culwell Avenue, MITCHAM 17-04-2015 Springfield Refused R409
DELEGATED DECISIONS MADE ON STRATEGIC PLANNING MATTERS – APRIL 2015

Under the Planning and Environment Act 1987
Nil
Page 76
REGISTER OF CONTRACTS SIGNED BY CEO DELEGATION APRIL 2015
Nil
REGISTER OF PROPERTY DOCUMENTS EXECUTED APRIL 2015
Property Address Document Type Document Detail
Leases
Slater Reserve Stadium - 11
Grosvenor Street Blackburn Tenant to deliver up possession of
North (Slater Reserve Notice to Quit the premises on or before 30
Stadium Association September 2015.
Incorporated)
Room 2, 5 Combarton
Residential Tenancy Agreement Landlord (expires 31/07/2015)
Street, Box Hill
Room 2A, 5 Combarton
Street, Box Hill
Room 1A, 5 Combarton
Street, Box Hill
Rateability Changes
(Section 154 of the Local
Government Act 1989)
Change of ownership of Berengarra

43 Harrison Street, BOX Hill
Non rateable status remains School from Catholic Church to non
North
profit Berengarra School Inc.
6 Ellingworth Parade, Box Charitable occupant has vacated
Property now rateable
Hill the premises.
953 Whitehorse Road, Box Charitable occupant has vacated
Property now rateable
Hill the premises.
20 Wridgway Avenue, Anglican Church owned property
Property now non-rateable
Burwood used as Ministers residence.
Public Notices
Public Notice under Section 60 of
1G Hamilton Place, Mont Public Notice erected on the the Transfer of Land Act 1960 to
Albert land become registered proprietor of
land by adverse possession.
REGISTER OF DOCUMENTS AFFIXED WITH THE COUNCIL SEAL – APRIL 2015
Nil
Page 77
PARKING RESTRICTIONS APPROVED BY DELEGATION APRIL 2015
Address: Middleborough Road, Box Hill South: From 2 spaces adjacent to the
shop frontages on the west side outside Rolfs Pies to 2 spaces adjacent to
the shop frontages on the west side outside Rolfs Pies
Previously: 1P, 8am-6pm Mon-Sat
Now: 1/4P, 8.30am-9pm Mon-Sat
Spaces: 2
Address: Chestnut Street, Surrey Hills: From Broughton Road to Park Road
Previously: Unrestricted
Now: 1P, 8:30am - 8pm, Monday to Friday, 8:30am-12:30pm Saturday
Spaces: 25
Address: Outlook Drive, Nunawading: From Dead end to Power pole @ 21 Outlook
Drive
Now: No Stopping
Spaces: 1
Address: Thames Street, Box Hill: From West side of driveway to 37 Thames Street
to West side of driveway to 37 Thames Street
Previously: 2-Hour, 7:30am-7:30pm, Mon-Fri Area
Now: Court Street
Spaces: 4
Address: Sydenham Lane, Surrey Hills:From north side west of Valonia Avenue to
north side west of Valonia Avenue
Now: No Stopping
Spaces: 1
Address: Tyrrell Avenue, Blackburn: From Williams Road to West side of Driveway
to 54B Williams Road
Now: No Stopping
Spaces: 3
Page 78
10 REPORTS FROM DELEGATES, SPECIAL COMMITTEE

RECOMMENDATIONS AND ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS
RECORDS
10.1 Reports by Delegates

(NB: Reports only from Councillors appointed by Council as delegates to
community organisations/committees/groups)
RECOMMENDATION
That the record of Reports by delegates be received and noted.
10.2 Recommendations from the Special Committee of Council

Meeting of 9 June 2015
10.2.1 Draft Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement
Moved by Cr Harris, Seconded by Cr Ellis
That Council resolve to:
1. Call on the Commonwealth Trade Minister to release the

draft Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement for public
consultation and parliamentary consideration prior to it
being agreed to by Cabinet.
2. Request that the Trade Minister ensure that the TPP
agreement does not contain Investor-State Dispute
Settlement (ISDS) clauses which could:
a) Enable a foreign investor to sue governments for
damages over policy, laws or regulations at the local
government level.
b) Restrict local government policies which encourage
local employment, support local economic and
industry development and encourage good
employment practices and initiatives.
c) Restrict local government policies which encourage
good environmental practices and initiatives.
d) Restrict local government supply and regulation of
services or require the commercialisation of services.
e) Prevent local government procurement policy from
giving preference to local suppliers.
3. Propose to Council's delegate to the ALGA conference
2015 to support motions that are tabled at that conference
that propose similar actions as outlined in points 1 and 2.
4. Send this resolution as a submission to the
Commonwealth Trade Minister.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
Page 79
10.2.2 Commonwealth Financial Assistance Grants
Moved by Cr Carr, Seconded by Cr Daw
That Council:
1. Write to the Federal Member for Deakin seeking his support to

advocate to the Federal Government to:
a. Cease forthwith the freeze on the indexation of

Commonwealth Financial Assistance Grants,
b. Restore the indexation of the grants (FAGs) to Local
Government to pre 2014 Federal Budget levels
2. Support the proposed Motions supporting the restoration of

indexation to the Financial Assistance Grants, listed for the
Annual Australian Local Government General Assembly to be
held from 14 to 17 June 2015
CARRIED
RECOMMENDATION
That the recommendations from the Special Committee of Council Meeting

of 9 June 2015 Items 10.2.1 to 10.2.2 (inclusive) be received and adopted.
Page 80
10.3 Record of Assembly of Councillors

Meeting Matter/s Councillors Officers Disclosures Councillor
Date Discussed Present Present of Conflict /Officer
of Interest attendance
following
disclosure
18-05-15 Councillor Cr Munroe N Duff Nil Nil
6.30pm – Informal Briefing (Chair) J Green
7.00pm Session Cr Bennett P Warner
Cr Carr P Smith
- Notice of Motion
Cr Chong AM T Wilkinson
86 – Cr
Cr Davenport S Freud
Davenport
Cr Daw J Russell
- Notice of Motion Cr Ellis A Ghastine
87 – Cr Cr Harris OAM
Davenport Cr Massoud
- Appointment of Cr Munroe
Acting Chair for Cr Stennett
Item 9.1.3 (Mayor
Conflict of
Interest)(Local
Law Clause 9.2)
- 9.1.1 42 Maple
Street, Blackburn
(Lot 69 LP 9679)
– Construction
three double
storey dwellings
- 9.3.4 Instrument
of Delegation
from Council to
Positions within
the Organisation
- Council Agenda
18 May 2015
28-05-15 City of Whitehorse Cr Munroe I Goodes Nil Nil

7.30pm – Bicycle Advisory (Chair) B Morrison
9.40pm Committee S Kinsey
(COWBAC) L McGuinness
Council L Roberts
Presentations M Wright
- Volunteer
Management and
Support
- Strategic
Transport
Planning Role
- Bicycle
Infrastructure
Projects
Page 81
Meeting Matter/s Councillors Officers Disclosures Councillor

Date Discussed Present Present of Conflict /Officer
of Interest attendance
following
disclosure
03-06-15 Whitehorse- Cr Ellis (Acting J Russell Nil Nil
5.00pm – Matsudo Sister Chairperson) H Anderson
7.00pm City Relationship Cr Chong AM R Orger
Friendship Group
01-06-15 Strategic Planning Cr Munroe N Duff Nil Nil

6.30pm – Session (Chair) J Green
9.15pm - Review of Cr Carr P Smith
Procurement Cr Chong AM T Wilkinson
Policy Cr Davenport D Logan
- Achievement of Cr Daw A De Fazio
tree education Cr Ellis M Giglio
- Financial report Cr Harris OAM M Wells
- Capital Works Cr Massoud P McAleer
- Matsudo Sister C Sherwin
City Friendship D Brabury
Group Activities D Commazetto
- Management of I Goodes
Unconstructed S Kinsey
roads J Russell
- Poplar Street H Anderson
Carpark, Box Hill T Peak
09-06-15 Councillor Cr Munroe N Duff Nil Nil

5.30pm – Briefing Session (Chair) J Green
11.30pm - Strathdon House Cr Carr P Smith
Project Cr Chong AM T Wilkinson
- Whitehorse Cr Davenport D Logan
Centre Cr Daw A De Fazio
Community Cr Ellis S Freud
Consultation Cr Harris OAM J Russell
Report Cr Massoud B Morrison
- Special S Price
Committee & P McAleer
Other Business W Gerhard
Motions A Skraba
- Council Agenda V Mogg
22 June 2015 I Goodes
M Giglio
N Sotko
J Blyth
T Peak
RECOMMENDATION
That the record of Assembly of Councillors be received and noted.
Page 82
11 REPORTS ON CONFERENCES/SEMINARS ATTENDANCE
RECOMMENDATION
That the record of reports on conferences/seminars attendance be

received and noted.
12 CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS
12.1 Parkland and Bicycle Advisory Committees – Selection of

Members
13 CLOSE MEETING
Page 83

Council Meeting Agenda 22 June 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Council Meeting Agenda 22 June 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Council Meeting Agenda 22 June 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ordinary Council Meeting

379 Whitehorse Road Nunawading

Monday 22 June 2015

Members: Cr Andrew Munroe (Mayor), Cr Bill Bennett,

10 REPORTS FROM DELEGATES, SPECIAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AND ASSEMBLY

1b Aboriginal Reconciliation Statement

2 WELCOME AND APOLOGIES

3 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

2. Amend the Proposed Budget 2015/16 and the revised

3. Resolve that the $200,000 allocated in the Proposed Budget

4. All amounts allocated in Council's 4 Year draft Strategic

5. Defer the Proposed Budget 2015/16 and revised Council

6. Advise the Minister for Local Government in advance, that

At the Special Committee of Council meeting held 9 June 2015 a petition

7.2 Proposed Redevelopment of the Whitehorse Centre – Car Parking

At the Special Committee of Council meeting held 9 June 2015 a petition

That Council receive the petition and refer to General Manager

9.1 CITY DEVELOPMENT

9.1.1 Significant Tree Study Stage Three (2014-15)

A. Adopt the Significant Tree Study and its recommendations.

B. Seek authorisation to prepare and exhibit an amendment to the Whitehorse

As part of an ongoing program of protecting vegetation, Council commissioned Homewood

The advantages of introducing a VPO include:

The Significant Tree Study was funded in the 2014-2015 budget.

9.1.2 Consideration of the Panel Report for Amendment C158 -

A. Adopt Amendment C158 with changes as follows (see Attachment 2b):

Applicant: Whitehorse City Council

Box Hill Activity 16 submissions 

The submissions raised the following issues:

DISCUSSION OF PANEL REPORT

In summary, the Panel recommended that:

Whitehorse Planning Scheme Amendment C158 should be adopted as exhibited, subject to

The proposed Parking Overlay Schedule 1

Office parking rate

The Panel summarised its findings in relation to office parking as follows:

Residential parking rates

‘Other’ and motorcycle parking rates

Parking Overlay boundaries

In relation to the above, the Panel concluded that:

Council officers are in agreement with these changes.

The Panel provided some commentary about whether a cash-in-lieu or Development

In relation to Box Hill, the Panel believes:

Impact on the surrounding area

The Panel concluded that:

The Panel’s commentary regarding implementation of the Parking Strategy is noted.

Overall conclusions and recommendations

Engineering & Environmental

9.1.3 Box Hill Mall – Review of Vehicle Access

1. Approves the installation of a retractable bollard at the Station Street access

3. Continue to exempt Police and emergency vehicles and Council

As a result of the review, it is recommended that a retractable bollard be installed directly at

2. Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to award a 2 year extension of this

The intent of the contract is to:

• Satisfy the obligations set out in the Building Code of Australia,

Tender Offer (40%)

Estimated Funding over three (3) years:

Est. total funding $492,947