Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting

DIRECTOR Corporate Services – Marianne Di Giallonardo

Reports of Assembly of Councillors	Item 2

Purpose

To present the ‘Public Record’ of those Assembly of Councillors briefings which are attended by all Councillors and generally held on Monday evenings at the City Offices Ringwood, usually two weeks prior to the formal Council Meeting, and to note the issues discussed.

Strategic / policy issues

The following directions contained in Maroondah 2040: Our Future Together and the Council Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4: 2016-2017) provide the strategic framework that underpins the purpose of this report.

Outcome Area: A well governed and empowered community

Our Vision: Maroondah is an effectively empowered community that is actively engaged in Council decision making through processes that ensure their voice is heard and considered. Council provides strong and responsive leadership, ensures transparent processes and works with the community to advocate and champion their needs

Key Directions 2014 – 2015:

8.1 Provide enhanced governance that is transparent, accessible, inclusive and accountable

Background

An Assembly of Councillors, as defined under the Local Government Act 1989 [s.3], is a planned or scheduled meeting, comprising at least five (5) Councillors and one (1) member of Council staff, that considers matters that are intended or likely to be:

· the subject of a decision of the Council; or

· subject to the exercise of a delegated function, duty or power of Council

Examples of an Assembly of Councillors may include:

· Councillor Briefings (which are attended by all Councillors and generally held on Monday evenings),

· On-site inspections,

· Consultative Meetings with residents, developers, consultants,

· Panel Hearings conducted under s223 of the Act,

· Meetings with local organisations, Government Departments, statutory authorities, and local politicians

Issue / discussion

As part of decision making processes at Maroondah, it is essential that Councillors are briefed on a range of issues which come before Council for consideration. As a means of providing this information, Assembly of Councillors briefings are conducted.

Assemblies are also attended by Council Officers, and sometimes other specific advisors, to provide Councillors with a detailed knowledge and understanding of issues under consideration to a level of detail that would inhibit timely decision-making, that would not be possible in an open Council meeting, where decision-making related debate is governed by strict meeting procedures.

The intent of this report is to present the ‘Public Record’ of those Assembly of Councillors briefings which are attended by all Councillors and generally held on Monday evenings, and to note the items discussed. This information is already available to the public upon request in accordance with the Local Government Act [s.80A].

This report and attachments formally table the information items previously covered by Councillors.

The ‘Public Record’ of the Assembly of Councillors briefings held on 21 November 2016, 23 November 2016, 28 November 2016, 30 November 2016 and 5 December 2016 are attached for information.

The items contained therein were noted.

Financial / economic issues

Not Applicable

Environmental / amenity issues

Not Applicable

Social / community issues

Not Applicable

Community consultation

Not Applicable

Conclusion

Assembly of Councillors briefings are important forums for advice and discussion, on what are often complex issues facing the municipality, in the lead up to formal decisions being made by Councillors at Council Meetings. At Assemblies, or outside them, Councillors also have the opportunity of requesting additional information to assist in the decision making process.

It is appropriate that the ‘Public Record’ of those Assembly of Councillors briefings which are attended by all Councillors and generally held on Monday evenings at the City Offices Ringwood, usually two weeks prior to the formal Council Meeting, be noted at a formal meeting of Council.

Attachments

1.⇩	2016 November 21 - Assembly of Councillors Public Record
2.⇩	2016 November 23 - Assembly of Councillors Public Record
3.⇩	2016 November 28 - Assembly of Councillors Public Record
4.⇩	2016 November 30 - Assembly of Councillors Public Record
5.⇩	2016 December 05 - Assembly of Councillors Public Record

CONFIDENTIALITY

Not Applicable

RECOMMENDATION

THAT COUNCIL RECEIVES AND NOTES THE PUBLIC RECORD OF THE ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS BRIEFINGS HELD ON 21 November 2016, 23 November 2016, 28 November 2016, 30 november 2016 and 5 december 2016

ATTACHMENT No: 3 - 2016 November 28 - Assembly of Councillors Public Record

Item 2

2014 Maroondah Logo RGB.jpg

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS – PUBLIC RECORD

	Assembly Details:

	Date: 28 November 2016	Time: 6:00pm	Location: Meeting Room 4, Braeside Avenue, Ringwood

	Attendees:

Councillors
Cr Tony Dib, JP		Cr Samantha Marks		Cr Kylie Spears
Cr Marijke Graham		Cr Michael Macdonald		Cr Rob Steane
Cr Nora Lamont		Cr Paul Macdonald		Cr Mike Symon

Council Officers:
Steve Kozlowski		Chief Executive Officer
Marianne Di Giallonardo		Director Corporate Services
Phil Turner		Director Planning & Community
Trevor Welsh		Director Operations, Infrastructure & Leisure
Andrew Taylor		Manager Engineering & Building Services Items 1 & 3
Adam Todorov		Manager Assets Item 2
Tim Cocks		Manager Leisure Item 4
Perambalam Senthooran (Sen)		Manager Operations Item 5
	Apologies:
	Councillors:	Nil
	Council Officers:	Nil

	Conflict of Interest Disclosure:
	Councillors:	Nil
	Council Officers:	Nil

Items Discussed:		## Confidential Items

1	Exeter Road Petition
2	Service Area Overview - Assets
3	Service Area Overview - Engineering & Building Service
4	Service Area Overview - Leisure
5	Service Area Overview - Operations

Record completed by:

Council Officer	Marianne Di Giallonardo
Title	Director Corporate Services

ATTACHMENT No: 5 - 2016 December 05 - Assembly of Councillors Public Record

Item 2

2014 Maroondah Logo RGB.jpg

ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS – PUBLIC RECORD

Assembly Details:

Date: Monday 5 December 2016	Time: 6.00pm	Location: Meeting Room 4, Braeside Avenue, Ringwood

Attendees:

Councillors
Cr Tony Dib, JP	Cr Michael Macdonald	Cr Kylie Spears
Cr Marijke Graham (left at 7:30pm)	Cr Paul Macdonald	Cr Rob Steane
Cr Nora Lamont		Cr Mike Symon

Council Officers:
Steve Kozlowski	Chief Executive Officer
Marianne Di Giallonardo	Director Corporate Services
Phil Turner	Director Planning & Community
Trevor Welsh	Director Operations, Infrastructure & Leisure
Sherryn Dunshea	Manager Communications & Marketing Items 2 & 3
Tony Rocca	Manager Finance & Governance Item 4
Dale Muir	Manager Revenue, Property & Customer Service Items 5, 6 & 7
Gradimir Konstantinovic	Manager Information Technology Item 8
Others:
External Consultants – Item 1	Peter Marshall, K2 Group Ryan O’Sullivan, Human Habitats Ray Bartlett, Raylink Consulting
Apologies:
Councillors:	Cr Samantha Marks
Council Officers:	Nil

Conflict of Interest Disclosure:
Councillors:	Nil
Council Officers:	Nil

Items Discussed: ## Confidential Items

1##	Croydon Grade Separation Presentation
2	Service Area Overview - Communications & Marketing
3	Community Facilities Dedication Nominations
4	Service Area Overview - Finance & Governance (Including LTFS)
5	Service Area Overview - Revenue, Property & Customer Service
6	Village School Sign & Seal
7##	Valuation Tender Evaluation
8	Service Area Overview - Information Technology
9	Community Assistance Fund
10	Items of a General Nature raised by Councillors

Record completed by:

Council Officer	Marianne Di Giallonardo
Title	Director Corporate Services

DIRECTOR Operations, Infrastructure & Leisure – Trevor Welsh

Community Facilities Dedication Nominations	Item 1

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to brief Council on the receipt of two nominations for the proposed dedication of East Ringwood Multipurpose Pavilion and the pavilion at AC Robertson Athletic Centre and the process for their consideration.

Strategic / policy issues

The Community Facilities Dedication Policy relates to the following directions contained in Maroondah 2040: Our Future Together.

Key Direction: An Active Community 1.2.1 Support and Empower local community groups, sporting clubs and special interest groups across Maroondah.

Key Direction: A Learning Community 2.17 Facilitate and encourage places, spaces and programming that provide for a third place of community connection beyond home and work

Background

From time to time Council receives requests from individuals and community groups to name public open space and other community facilities after an individual, a family or an organisation. Naming public open space or a community facility is a perpetual honour and Council must ensure that in each case the dedication is in all circumstances appropriate. In March 2016, Council endorsed a Community Facilities Dedication Policy to establish clear parameters for when a request for naming a community facility will be considered, set criteria for assessment of requests and a process for the submission, assessment, consultation, and approval of requests.

Issue / discussion

Nominations have been received for the proposed dedication of the East Ringwood Multipurpose Pavilion and the pavilion at the AC Robertson Athletic Centre. In accordance with the Community Facilities Dedication Policy an initial suitability assessment of the requests by a panel of Council staff has been undertaken. The panel has recommended that the proposals proceed to the community consultation phase of the policy process.

The nominations are as follows:

The Ringwood Athletic Centre Special Committee of Council have proposed that the new pavilion under construction at the AC Robertson Athletic Centre be named the Tony Lethbridge Pavilion in honour of Robert Anthony Lethbridge.

Robert Anthony Lethbridge was a founder of the Ringwood Athletics Club in 1963. It was his vision for a permanent home for athletics that led to the design and construction of the Athletics Facility at Proclamation Park in 1975.

SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY

· Medal of the Order of Australia – Services to Athletics 1988

· Australian Sports Medal 2000 – Nominated by Maroondah City Council

· Athletics Victoria Merit Award - 1994

· Warming Up for The Games Committee – Nominated by Maroondah City Council

· Member & Secretary of the AC Robertson Special Committee of Council 1975 - 2010

The East Ringwood Cricket Club & East Ringwood Football Club have proposed that the new pavilion under construction at East Ringwood Reserve be named the Coopersmith Pavilion in honour of Brian Coopersmith. Brian has lived in the City of Maroondah for the majority of his life. He is a Life Member of both the East Ringwood Football Club and the Eastern Football League and has been President of the Maroondah Sports Club since its inception in 1981. He has a long-standing commitment to community fundraising and personal philanthropy and has made a very significant donation to the funding of the multipurpose pavilion.

SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY

· Medal of the Order of Australia 2010

· Freeman of the City – Maroondah City Council 2016

Financial / economic issues

All costs associated with the consultation process will be the responsibility of Sport & Recreation. Installation of signage for the facility will be funded by Open Space.

Environmental / amenity issues

Not Applicable

Social / community issues

The Community Facilities Dedication Policy allows Council and the community to recognise extraordinary contributions to the Maroondah Community.

Community consultation

A letter of notification will be sent to the listed groups and individuals below, outlining the proposed name, rationale for dedication and process for objection. Recipients will be afforded a minimum 28 days to respond in writing to the Chief Executive Officer during the period 14 December 2016 to 20 January 2017.

The following groups and individuals will receive notification.

AC Robertson Pavilion

East Ringwood

Multipurpose Pavilion

Ringwood Athletics Club

Ringwood Professional Athletics Club

Ringwood Little Athletics Club

Next of Kin

Neighbouring Residents

Proclamation Park Walkers

East Ringwood Tennis Club

East Ringwood Junior Football Club

Chin Community Victoria

Next of Kin

Neighbouring Residents

Conclusion

Nominations have been received for the proposed dedication of the East Ringwood Multipurpose Pavilion in honour of Brian Coopersmith and pavilion at AC Robertson Athletics Centre in honour of Robert Anthony Lethbridge. In accordance with the Community Facilities Dedication Policy, the requests have undertaken an initial suitability assessment by a panel of Council staff and have been recommended to proceed to Council for approval to progress the dedication proposals to community consultation.

Attachments

1.⇩	Communty Facilities Dedication Policy 2016

CONFIDENTIALITY

Not Applicable

RECOMMENDATION

that council SUPPORTs the following two nominations to proceed to the consultation phase of the Community Facilities Dedication Process

1. The TONY LETHBRIDGE Pavilion

2. The COOPERSMITH Pavilion

DIRECTOR Operations, Infrastructure & Leisure – Trevor Welsh

Exeter Road, Croydon North - Speed Limit and Traffic Calming Measures Petition	Item 2

Purpose

To table a petition issued by The Hon David Hodgett MP, Member for Croydon, and signed by 21 residents requesting a review of the speed limit and the introduction of further traffic calming measures on Exeter Road in Croydon North.

Strategic / policy issues

The following directions contained in Maroondah 2040: Our Future Together and the Council Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4: 2016-2017) provide the strategic framework that underpins the purpose of this report.

Outcome Area: An accessible and connected community.

Our Vision: In the year 2040, Maroondah is an accessible community for all ages and abilities with walkable neighbourhoods, effective on and off-road transport networks and access to a range of sustainable transport options.

Key Directions 2013 – 2017:

Work in partnership to provide improved accessibility and safety for all transport users across all modes.

Background

On 5 September 2016 a vehicle left the Exeter Road carriageway to the east of Stringybark Rise and subsequently crashed into a property at 140 Exeter Road, Croydon North. Figure 1 below shows a photograph of the vehicle crash.

car

Figure 1: Exeter Road Vehicle Crash

Following the crash, Council received a petition on 13 October 2016 from the office of The Hon David Hodgett MP. The petition, with an enclosed letter signed by The Hon David Hodgett MP, contained 21 signatures from residents in Exeter Road, Stringybark Rise, and Humber Road.

The prayer of the petition is as follows:

“Residents in Croydon North draw to the attention of Maroondah Council and Councillors:

That the current speed limit of 50kmh combined with no present traffic calming measures along the stretch of Exeter Road between Neuparth Road and Nangathan Way Croydon North is insufficient. This is highlighted by the recent accident that saw an out of control driver plough into a residents’ home, causing extensive damage.

The petitioners therefore request that the Maroondah City Council and Councillors review the speed limit and/or look at introducing further traffic calming measures on Exeter Road to assist in preventing further accidents in the future.”

Issue / discussion

Exeter Road is located within a residential precinct in Croydon North bounded by Maroondah Highway to the south and east, Yarra Road to the west and Holloway Road to the north.

Exeter Road is classified as a Collector road in accordance with the Maroondah Council Road Management Plan and runs in an east-west direction between Maroondah Highway and Nangathan Way.

Exeter Road has a speed limit of 60km/h between Maroondah Highway and Lyons Road and a speed limit of 50km/h between Lyons Road and Nangathan Way.

The Maroondah Highway intersection with Exeter Road at the eastern end is controlled by traffic signals, whilst a roundabout controls the Nangathan Way intersection at the western end.

Exeter Road contains a high level of traffic calming measures which are located either at intersections or at midblock locations between intersections along Exeter Road and include raised pavements, pedestrian refuges, splitter islands and two-way slow points.

Figure 2 below shows an extract from Melways, providing details of Exeter Road’s location, traffic calming elements and connections to the wider road network.

Exeter Rd

Figure 2: Exeter Road and the wider road network

The section of Exeter Road between Nangathan Way and Neuparth Road has a significant bend and crest with a steep grade heading down to Stringybark Rise and incorporates traffic calming at the following locations:

· a splitter island through the crest immediately west of Neuparth Road, and

· a splitter island at Stringybark Rise.

The carriageway width of this section of Exeter Road is approximately 7.2 metres. Parking is prohibited over the crest of the hill between Neuparth Road and Stringybark Rise on both sides of the road, whilst parking is only permitted on the south side of Exeter Road between Stringybark Rise and Nangathan Way.

Figures 3 and 4 below show the bend and crest on the western end of Exeter Road.


Figure 3: Exeter Road looking west	Figure 4: Exeter Road looking east

As noted above, Exeter Road provides a direct connection to the arterial road network, Maroondah Highway, via a signalised intersection and connects to higher order local roads, being Lyons Road and Nangathan Way, and several lower order local roads.

Given the configuration of Exeter Road as discussed above, in accordance with Clause 56.06 of the Maroondah Planning Scheme, Exeter Road aligns with the road hierarchy criteria of a Connector Street – Level 2 and would therefore be expected to satisfactorily cater for in the order of 3,000 – 7,000 vehicles per day.

Council’s Engineers have previously been made aware by local residents of their concerns relating to vehicle speeds along this section of Exeter Road. As a result of the concerns raised by local residents, Council’s Engineers arranged for a traffic speed and volume count of Exeter Road immediately east of Stringybark Rise which revealed the following results:

· The average traffic volume along Exeter Road was approximately 4,567 vehicles per day;

· The average vehicle speed was 50.4 km/h; and

· The 85^th percentile speed¹ was 56.5 km/h.

It should be noted that westbound direction speeds and volumes slightly varied from the average result with the recorded speeds being slightly higher and the volume slightly lower. It is expected that the higher speeds are due to the downhill grade on the western approach and the lower volume was likely a result of local residents using the western end of Exeter Road to depart the area to avoid the traffic signals on Maroondah Highway, and using other roads in the road network to exit / enter the local area.

Given the above, the westbound speeds and volumes are as follows:

· The average westbound traffic volume was approximately 2,240 vehicles per day;

· The average vehicle speed was 51.3 km/h; and

· The 85^th percentile speed¹ was 57.7 km/h.

Given the speeds that were recorded, particularly the in westbound direction, Council’s Engineers developed a project scope to install additional traffic calming in Exeter Road. The project was subsequently included within in the Capital Works Local Area Traffic Management (LATM) Program.

As noted above, the topography of this section of Exeter Road results in the crest of the hill being located adjacent to Neuparth Road and the road travelling downhill to the Nangathan Way intersection. Whilst there is a downhill grade on this section of Exeter Road, it does flatten on the approach to the Stringybark Rise intersection and, as such, it has been determined that this is the most appropriate location for any new LATM treatment with consideration to traffic engineering principles and construction. The works proposed will involve the installation of traffic calming treatments in Exeter Road on the eastern and western approaches to Stringybark Rise and are expected to address the concerns with higher vehicle speeds along this section of Exeter Road.

In regard to the petition calling on a review of the speed limit, as noted above, this section of Exeter Road currently operates with a 50km/h speed limit. Speed signs are classed as a Major Traffic Control Item and are under the authority and control of VicRoads. As such any new signage or alterations to the existing speed limit would be subject to VicRoads approval.

In accordance with the VicRoads Speed Zone Guidelines, 50km/h is the lowest operating speed permitted on an urban road unless the road has one of the following factors:

· The road is part of a local urban area or a street where pedestrian / cyclist safety needs to be enhanced;

· There is a school access point on the road;

· There is a high risk remote school crossing on the road; and

· There is a high level of pedestrian activity on the road.

As none of the above operating conditions are present on this section of Exeter Road, VicRoads would not approve lowering the speed limit below the default urban limit of 50km/h.

With respect to the recent crash that occurred on Monday 5 September 2016, discussions with the Maroondah Highway Patrol unit of Victoria Police indicates that the driver of the vehicle was involved in another crash on Exeter Road just before this incident occurred and as such there may be a link between these two crashes. The nature of the crash and road topography suggests that driver behaviour was a factor. On this basis, it is considered that driver behaviour was the contributing cause of the crash and that the road geometry or operating conditions did not contribute to the crash.

Financial / economic issues

The construction of an LATM treatment on this section of Exeter Road has been programmed with funding from the Capital Works LATM program budget. The LATM program has an ongoing budget allocation of $200,000, which is sufficient for the construction of these works.

Environmental / amenity issues

In accordance with the guidelines of Clause 56.06 of the Maroondah Planning Scheme, roads within the municipality are designed to requirements based on their level within the road hierarchy.

Collector roads are designed and expected to cater for higher traffic volumes rather than local access roads. Environmental and amenity issues are consistent with the above hierarchical requirements.

Social / community issues

The road hierarchy determines the level of service provided for all road users within the municipality. The road hierarchy is important from a social perspective and is based on several factors including:

· Linkages provided with other roads in the road network.

· Linkages with commercial and residential areas within the municipality.

· Current and future traffic volumes for roads.

· Level of transport of goods and services.

The need for roads to interconnect with other roads in the network is vital to allow for the movement of people and goods throughout the municipality and the state. Collector roads provide an important connection for these movements within the municipality.

Community consultation

Local residents in the vicinity of the proposed LATM works will be updated on the progress of the project.

Conclusion

It is considered that the crash that occurred on Exeter Road on 5 September 2016 was a result of driver behaviour and the road condition or geometry did not contribute to the crash.

It is recommended that Council notes the petition containing 21 signatures, and notes that additional traffic calming will be constructed in the vicinity of the crash site as part of the Capital Works LATM program budget, and Exeter Road does not meet the warrants set by VicRoads for a reduced speed limit.

Attachments

Not Applicable

CONFIDENTIALITY

Not Applicable

RECOMMENDATION

That council

1. notes the petition containing 21 signatures

2. considers the officers report and notes the findings of the investigation into the prayer of the petition that ADDITIONAL traffic calming will be considered in the LATM program and that Exeter Road does not meet the warrants for a reduced speed limit

3. Advises the hon David Hodgett MP accordingly

DIRECTOR Planning & Community – Phil Turner

Planning Scheme Amendment C97 - Heathmont Activity Centre Structure Plan	Item 1

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to consider submissions received following exhibition of Planning Scheme Amendment C97 Heathmont Activity Centre Structure Plan and to resolve to request the Minister for Planning to appoint an independent panel to consider submissions.

Strategic / policy issues

The following directions contained in Maroondah 2040: Our Future Together and the Council Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4: 2016-2017) provide the strategic framework that underpins the purpose of this report.

Outcome Area: An attractive, thriving and well built community.

Our Vision: In 2040, Maroondah will be an attractive community with high quality urban form and infrastructure that meets the needs and aspirations of all ages and abilities. A diverse range of housing options are available and thriving activity centres provide a broad range of facilities and services that meet community needs. The character of local neighbourhoods continues to be maintained while also accommodating population growth.

Key Directions 2013 – 2017:

6.1 Encourage high quality urban design that provides for a healthy, attractive and desirable built form.

6.3 Work in partnership to deliver distinctive and high quality architecture through the use of urban design guidelines and principles.

6.7 Plan and facilitate the development of a community where everyone can live, work and play locally.

Background

Council previously developed the Heathmont Activity Centre Structure Plan in consultation with a range of stakeholders. At its meeting on 26 August 2013 Council resolved to:

· Note submissions received following the exhibition of the draft Heathmont Activity Centre Structure Plan;

· Adopt the draft Heathmont Activity Centre Structure Plan subject to the changes proposed regarding design criteria for 4 storey developments;

· Seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit an amendment to the Maroondah Planning Scheme that implements and includes the Heathmont Activity Centre Structure Plan as a reference document.

Planning Scheme Amendment C97 addresses the above Council resolutions as well as the implementation measures contained within the Structure Plan by implementing it into the Maroondah Planning Scheme.

Purpose of the Planning Scheme Amendment

The purpose of the Amendment is to implement the Heathmont Activity Centre Structure Plan. The Structure Plan provides the strategic justification for the Amendment to the Maroondah Planning Scheme. It is not the purpose of the Amendment to revisit or substantially alter the Structure Plan, which was adopted by Council in 2013 following extensive community and stakeholder engagement.

Planning Scheme Amendment C97 proposes the following changes to the Maroondah Planning Scheme:

· To amend the Municipal Strategic Statement and the Local Planning Policy Framework to incorporate the aims of the Structure Plan.

· To insert two new schedules to the General Residential Zone (GRZ2 & GRZ3).

· To insert a new schedule to the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 8 and to delete existing Design and Development Overlay Schedule 2.

· To replace Significant Landscape Overlay Schedule 3 with Schedule 4.

· To insert a Development Plan Overlay at the ‘Uambi’ property at 22 Allens Road.

· To include the Heathmont Activity Centre Structure Plan as a Reference Document in the Maroondah Planning Scheme.

The proposed changes to the MSS and new clauses to the Maroondah Planning Scheme were prepared by Council following extensive discussion with the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP).

Explanatory Report Figure

Figure 1: Area to which Amendment C97 applies

Planning Scheme Amendment C97 applies to all land within the Heathmont Activity Centre Structure Plan study boundary. The study area boundary is generally defined as 400 metres walking distance from the Heathmont Railway Station, with areas subject to land constraints such as extensive vegetation, restrictive covenants and topography excluded. In general, the boundary follows road reserves where possible.

Exhibition of Amendment C97

The Amendment was initially placed on public exhibition from 26 May 2016 to 1 July 2016 and was subsequently extended by a week, due to a minor mapping error. Exhibition of the Amendment involved posting written notification to all owners and occupiers within the Structure Plan Amendment area. A total of 676 letters were mailed on 25 May 2016 in respect of the Amendment. Notices were placed in the Maroondah Leader on 24 May 2016 and in the Government Gazette on 26 May 2016.

The Amendment also featured on Council’s website and hard copies of the Amendment documents, including the Structure Plan, were placed on exhibition at Council’s service centres at Braeside Avenue, Realm and the Croydon offices and library.

Issue / discussion

Consideration of submissions

During the exhibition of Amendment C97, and the subsequent weeks, a total of 22 submissions were received. Of the submissions received:

· 2 submissions did not expressly support the Amendment, but did not request any changes;

· 10 submissions requested changes to the Amendment;

· 10 submissions objected to the Amendment.

For ease of consideration, the issues raised in submissions have been discussed below as follows:

· Built form and height

· Traffic and Transport

· Car parking

· Documentation of heritage

· Specific requests for changes affecting particular sites

A detailed summary of submissions received can be found in Attachment No 1.

Built form and height

Issues raised

Eight submitters raised concerns about the densities and maximum building heights proposed under the zoning schedules. One submission suggested a height limit of 2 storeys throughout residential zoned areas, while another opposed two storey development in their area, submitting that the existing single storey typologies should be maintained.

Another submitter stated that a two storey height limit across residential areas is reasonable and that three storey development should only be considered at a point in the future when 2 storey had become the norm. The submission raised concerns about the aesthetic created by three storey buildings adjacent to single storey dwellings as well as a range of amenity issues that this might create. Specific areas referenced by submitters included Royal Avenue, Viviani Crescent, Campbell Street and Lisgoold Street.

Another submitter raised specific concerns about amenity issues that could be created in relation to Sharps Court. Sharps Court is located along the boundary of the Residential Growth Precinct and the Neighbourhood Consolidation Precinct. The submitter is concerned that 1) overlooking and 2) overshadowing will occur on the eastern side of Sharps Court, if buildings in the commercial spine are redeveloped to 4 storeys and buildings on the western side of Sharps Court are redeveloped to 3 storeys, as permitted under the proposed zoning and DDO.

Response

While the concerns of the submitters in relation to height and density are acknowledged, the changes proposed through Amendment C97 are considered relatively modest, especially given Heathmont’s status as a Neighbourhood Activity Centre served by a railway station.

The Amendment should be considered in terms of the changes that are being made to the current planning controls, as well as in the context of the difference between what currently exists on the ground and what would be achievable under the amendment. In many cases, 2-3 storey development would currently be achievable, assuming the performance based standards of Rescode can be met. There is no current mandatory maximum height limit in Heathmont. The Rescode standards that protect residential amenity will continue to apply, so overshadowing and overlooking will continue to be considered through Council’s development control process.

Traffic and Transport

Issues raised

Three submitters raised the issue of the current speed limit on the Canterbury Road and its use as a freight route by a significant number of heavy vehicles. This was a central issue for a number of submitters, who reported safety concerns for pedestrians as well as amenity issues. Submitters supported a reduction in the speed limit to 40km/hr.

The submission from VicRoads seeks updated wording in the Structure Plan in relation to the bicycle network. The submission requests that Action 4 on the implementation table in the Structure Plan be amended to use the term ‘bicycle facilities’ rather than ‘bicycle lanes’. The request is made on the basis that that the term ‘bicycle lanes’ raises the expectation in the community that this is the safest and best facility for cyclists, whereas in fact an alternative may be preferable.

In relation to the railway station, one submitter voiced support of the demolition and redevelopment of a new station that would better serve the needs of the community.

Response

The Heathmont Structure Plan seeks to expand sustainable transport options in the form of cycling and pedestrian connections to provide improved access to the railway station and commercial strip. This involves interactions and potential conflicts between traffic, cyclists and pedestrians, as well as the potential for bicycle lanes.

The Structure Plan includes an objective (Implementation Table, Item 2) to initiate talks with VicRoads about the possibility of introducing variable speed limit options for the Canterbury Road, including reducing the limit to 40km/hr during peak shopping times. Submitter support for a reduction in the speed limit is therefore a matter for the implementation of the Structure Plan, rather than a cause to update the Amendment documentation.

The points raised by VicRoads are noted and will feed into any future discussions. However, the implementation measures in the Structure Plan are intended to provide a basis to commence discussions and investigations and are not designed to pre-empt a detailed investigation. Other measures may ultimately be recommended following a feasibility analysis. It is therefore not proposed to update the Structure Plan, which was adopted by Council in 2013.

The redevelopment of the railway station is an objective of the Structure Plan. However, it should be noted that this will largely involve an advocacy role for Council as the station is owned by VicTrack.

Car parking

Issues raised

A number of the submissions received related primarily to issues associated with car parking. A petition was also received from the traders along the Canterbury Road Strip.

Petition – parking

A petition was submitted to Council on behalf of the traders along the Canterbury Road commercial strip. A total of 68 people signed the petition including a majority of the traders. The petition opposes the Structure Plan on the basis that the objective of creating civic areas and a community focal point, as identified in Figure 11 of the Structure Plan (shown as ‘urban plazas’), would reduce car parking availability along the commercial strip. At the same time, any intensification of commercial uses along the retail strip will create a greater requirement for parking. The petition also submits that the plan does not require new development to provide sufficient additional parking.

Individual submissions – parking

A number of the individual submissions received related largely to car parking. Submitters expressed particular concern about the proliferation of on-street parking around the train station. The submissions state that the park and ride area at the train station fills up early in the morning and commuters then park cars along Heathmont Road, Campbell Street, Stoda Street and the adjoining streets. This has given rise to both inconvenience and safety concerns.

A number of the submitters were further concerned about the impact that any increase in residential development is likely to have on the availability of parking. While there was some concern about parking in the commercial strip in the individual submissions, concerns primarily focused on parking along residential streets near the train station.

Response

The plaza spaces identified in the Structure Plan are appropriate in the ongoing evolution of the centre and identify key locations. Their exact configuration would need to be determined at a detailed design stage at which point any impact on car parking could be assessed and mitigated if required.

While the concerns of the traders in the relation to car parking in the commercial strip are noted, it should also be recognised that the ‘urban plazas’ shown in the Structure Plan do not form a part of the Design and Development Overlay (DDO) Schedule 8. While the urban plazas are shown in the Structure Plan, these are proposals, rather than firm development projects and have not undergone a detailed feasibility analysis and do not have specific funding allocated. Any proposal to develop the urban plazas as shown would involve detailed planning and consultation, should Council wish to pursue these options.

Any increase in density would need to be assessed in relation to car parking provided. While

the location within an activity centre anchored by a railway station would generally reduce need for car parking, it would be anticipated that parking would be integrated into the design of any new building. There is no proposal through the Structure Plan to reduce existing requirements.

It is also noted that the Structure Plan (page 24) states as follows in relation to car parking:

Retain existing on-street car parking within the Canterbury Road commercial strip. However, in the longer term critically review the need to provide any additional car spaces within the centre, including investigating options to establish a stand-alone multi-deck car park on the edge of the commercial strip.

The Structure Plan also states (page 23) that it is an objective:

To ensure the Heathmont NAC maintains an adequate supply of appropriately located, designed and managed on and off-street multipurpose car parking.

As demonstrated above, one of the overarching objectives of the Structure Plan is to ensure that an adequate supply of car parking is maintained in the Heathmont Neighbourhood Activity Centre (NAC). The proposals in the Structure Plan should be considered in that context.

Response – Individual submissions

Individual submissions primarily raised concerns relating to increases in traffic volume and on-street parking. The level of on-street car parking resulting from overflow from the train station car park was a key concern. While the submitters concerns are acknowledged, the issue of commuter generated, all day on-street car parking around the train station in places such as Campbell Street and Heathmont Road is largely a parking management issue rather than an issue that can be addressed through the Amendment.

As such, Council’s Engineering Services Department are investigating options in regard to parking in and around the centre.

In terms of traffic generation from new development, any residential development activity will generate additional traffic in the surrounding area, regardless of the location. However, an increase in residential densities within activity centres is designed to facilitate a wider range of options for transport, other than the use of the private car. One of the fundamental premises of the Structure Plan is that people living within the study area will be able to walk or cycle to the train station. It is therefore considered that an increase in residential densities at this location will result in a smaller impact on the overall road network, as more people will be able to walk or cycle to their destination.

Documentation of heritage

Issues raised

The Heathmont History Group suggested that a requirement be put in place that a photographic record must be made of buildings prior to demolition, or that history group is notified before a demolition takes place so that they can take pictures. A photographic record of the area could thereby be built up for future generations.

Response

While this is an idea worthy of consideration, it is outside the scope of the Amendment and should be considered in formulating Council’s strategic approach to heritage preservation and protection.

Specific requests for changes affecting particular sites

Issues raised

The submission summaries in the attachments to this report provide a detailed overview of the matters raised in each individual submission. A number of those submitters made specific requests for the boundaries of the zoning precincts and proposed zoning to be amended. These are outlined briefly below:

202-210 Canterbury Road

The submitter is seeking the rezoning of 202-210 Canterbury Road to the Commercial 1 Zone, given the prominent location of the site along Canterbury Road and existing commercial uses.

Response - 202-210 Canterbury Road

The proposal would represent a significant departure from the strategy set out in the Structure Plan, on which Amendment C97 is based. It is therefore considered to be outside of the scope of the current amendment and could instead be the subject of a subsequent proponent led planning scheme amendment process. It is however considered that commercial zoning at this location would be inappropriate as it would add an additional commercial axis and dilute the commercial area. However, alternatives to townhouses could be explored through a separate process.

196 Canterbury Road

The proprietor at 196 Canterbury Road (Barclays) objects to the suggestion in the Structure Plan for a café/ restaurant at the railway station.

Response - 196 Canterbury Road

A café or restaurant could be provided at the station based on current planning controls. Future uses at the station would be determined by Public Transport Victoria as part of any future redevelopment of any station facilities. There is no indication that this is likely to occur any time in the near future and no changes are proposed.

VicTrack submission

Seeks removal of the proposed Design and Development Overlay DDO8 from VicTrack land. Also requests the removal of reference to the ‘open space interface’ to the north of 127b & 127C Canterbury Road.

Response - VicTrack submission

While there may be a need to alter the DDO to include exemptions that avoid overly onerous controls for standard works on the rail line and train station, there is no rationale for its complete deletion. Given the unknown development potential of VicTrack land it is considered prudent to retain the DDO controls on that land. The ‘open space interface’ designation is appropriate to retain. Built form is not envisaged in this location and new built form should respond to this.

1&3 Dickasons Road

The landowners have requested that GRZ2 be applied to 1&3 Dickasons Road, instead of GRZ3 as currently proposed.

Response - 1&3 Dickasons Road

Given the location, context and use of these properties, it is appropriate to consider the GRZ2 rather than the GRZ3. This issue will be examined further through the panel process.

3 Edith Street

The landowner at 3 Edith Street has requested that the property is zoned GRZ2 rather than GRZ3 as proposed.

Response - 3 Edith Street

There is a notable difference between the ‘backstreets’ and the Heathmont Road fronting the railway in terms of the streetscape character which has underpinned the identification of these areas. The Amendment facilitates a stepping down of development from the Heathmont Road (GRZ2), through Edith Street (GRZ3) and on towards the properties on Balfour Avenue, which are in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (western side). As such, the proposed controls are considered appropriate and it is recommended that they should remain as they are.

Salisbury Court/ Uambi site

The landowner requests that pedestrian access across the submitters property from the Uambi site to Salisbury Court is removed.

Response - Salisbury Court/ Uambi site

It is considered appropriate to undertake a minor update to the Structure Plan to clarify that the location shown for the pedestrian link is indicative and does not necessarily need to traverse the submitters property.

4 Banksia Court

The landowner has requested that 4 Banksia Court is included in the amendment (rezoned from NRZ2 to GRZ3).

Response - 4 Banksia Court

While there is merit in the inclusion of the submitters property in the GRZ3 area based on local conditions and the existing pattern of development, the current amendment is based on the Structure Plan, which does not include the subject site. Any change to the proposed planning controls would therefore need to be pursued by way of a separate amendment.

Overall Recommendations

In response to the submissions received, it is suggested that the following changes are recommended to the Panel hearing:

Structure of Zoning & Design and Development Overlay Controls

A number of submitters have raised concerns about the controls set out under the zoning schedules, particularly in relation to height. Other submitters have found the manner in which the zoning schedules relate to the Design and Development Overlay confusing. While the zoning schedules set out maximum heights, as well as other measures such as reduced setbacks, the proposed Design and Development Overlay (DDO8) applies strict design criteria that must be met in order to qualify. However, it is clear from the submissions that residents have focused on the proposed zoning schedules rather than the DDO. A reading of the zoning schedules alone could lead the reader to understand that the controls in the zoning schedule are achievable in all circumstances, which is not the case. It is therefore proposed to remove the controls from the proposed zones and instead rely solely on the Design and Development Overlay (DDO). This will not result in a change to the outcome achievable on a given site, but rather is intended to make the proposed controls easier to understand. This approach would be submitted to the Panel for its consideration.

Renaming of ‘Growth’ Precincts

The Structure Plan was prepared in 2012, before the new residential zones were brought into effect in Maroondah in 2014. The use of the term ‘growth precinct’ may therefore cause confusion, as people associate the term with the ‘Residential Growth Zone’ which allows for higher density development. It is recommended that the names of the ‘growth precincts’ are changed to avoid confusion.

Submitter Register

A number of additional minor changes are proposed in response to submissions. Please see the attached detailed submitter register for details.

Financial / economic issues

The costs associated with the preparation and implementation of the Amendment will be met through the existing Council budget.

Environmental / amenity issues

Environmental and amenity issues were carefully considered during the preparation of the structure plan, upon which the current planning scheme amendments are based. The Significant Landscape Overlay will continue to apply in all residential areas.

Social / community issues

The Structure Plan provides a detailed profile of the community that lives, works and utilises the Heathmont activity centre. A range of issues were identified that impact on the liveability and functioning of the centre, which the Structure Plan seeks to address through ongoing implementation. These cover subjects including social connectedness, access and movement, the local economy and future aspirations for built form and the natural environment.

Community consultation

The Amendment was exhibited in accordance with Section 19 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The Amendment was placed on public exhibition from 26 May 2016 to 1 July 2016 and subsequently extended until 8 July due to a minor mapping error that was identified shortly after the Amendment commenced exhibition. A total of 22 submissions were received including 1 petition.

The preparation of the Structure Plan itself benefited from extensive community consultation canvassing ideas across a broad range of subject matter and ideas. Council was guided by Community Reference and Steering Groups throughout the preparation of the Structure Plan.

Conclusion

Council previously prepared and adopted a Structure Plan for the Heathmont Activity Centre. Planning Scheme Amendments C97 has been prepared in response to a specific implementation measure in the adopted Structure Plan to implement the land use planning recommendations of the Structure Plan into the Maroondah Planning Scheme.

Public exhibition of the Amendment ran from 26 May 2016 to 1 July 2016 and was subsequently extended until 8 July. Since exhibition commenced, a total of 22 written submissions have been received, including a number of late submissions. The submissions covered a broad range of issues, from residential density and maximum buildings heights, to requested amendments to the proposed zoning of specific sites.

As some of the issues raised in the submissions received cannot be addressed, it is considered appropriate to request the Minister for Planning to appoint an independent panel.

Attachments

1.⇩	Detailed summary of submissions for Council Report Amendment C97

CONFIDENTIALITY

Not Applicable

RECOMMENDATION

That council

1. requests the minister for planning to appoint an independent panel to consider submissions received

2. informs submitters that an independent panel is to be appointed

3. NOTE OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS in the attached submitter register and RELATING TO tHE Structure of Zoning & Design and Development Overlay Controls AND the Renaming of ‘Growth’ Precincts

DIRECTOR Planning & Community – Phil Turner

Planning Scheme Amendment C96 - Ringwood East Activity Centre Structure Plan	Item 2

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to consider submissions received following exhibition of Planning Scheme Amendment C96 Ringwood East Activity Centre Structure Plan and to resolve to request the Minister for Planning to appoint an independent panel to consider submissions.

Strategic / policy issues

The following directions contained in Maroondah 2040: Our Future Together and the Council Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4: 2016-2017) provide the strategic framework that underpins the purpose of this report.

Outcome Area: An attractive, thriving and well built community.

Key Directions 2013 – 2017:

6.1 Encourage high quality urban design that provides for a healthy, attractive and desirable built form.

6.3 Work in partnership to deliver distinctive and high quality architecture through the use of urban design guidelines and principles.

6.7 Plan and facilitate the development of a community where everyone can live, work and play locally.

Background

Council previously developed the Ringwood East Activity Structure Plan in consultation with a range of stakeholders. At its meeting on 26 August 2013 Council resolved to:

· Note submissions received following the exhibition of the draft Ringwood East Activity Centre Structure Plan.

· Adopt the draft Ringwood East Activity Centre Structure Plan as exhibited.

· Seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare and exhibit an amendment to the Maroondah Planning Scheme that implements and includes the Ringwood East Activity Centre Structure Plan as a reference document.

Planning Scheme Amendment C96 addresses Council’s resolutions as well as the implementation measures contained within the Structure Plan by implementing it into the Maroondah Planning Scheme.

Purpose of the Planning Scheme Amendment

The purpose of the Amendment is to implement the Ringwood East Activity Centre Structure Plan. The Structure Plan provides the strategic justification for the Amendment to the Maroondah Planning Scheme. It is not the purpose of the Amendment to revisit or substantially alter the Structure Plan, which was adopted by Council in 2013 following extensive community and stakeholder engagement.

Planning Scheme Amendment C96 proposes the following changes to the Maroondah Planning Scheme:

· To amend the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and the Local Planning Policy Framework to incorporate the aims of the Structure Plan.

· To insert two new schedules to the General Residential Zone (GRZ2 & GRZ3).

· To insert a new schedule to the Design and Development Overlay (DDO6).

· To include the Ringwood East Activity Centre Structure Plan as a Reference Document in the Maroondah Planning Scheme.

The Amendment area corresponds to the Ringwood East Activity Centre Structure Plan boundary, which is defined by Mt Dandenong Road and Eastfield Road to the north, Federal Road and Illoura Avenue to the west and Knaith Road and Tween Street to the south. The eastern boundary is defined by Short Street and the rear boundaries on the east side of Victoria Street.

Explanatory report figure

Figure 1: Area to which Amendment C96 applies

Exhibition of Amendment C96

Planning Scheme Amendment C96 was placed on public exhibition from 26 May 2016 to 1 July, 2016. Exhibition of the Amendment involved written notification to all owners and occupiers within the Amendment area. A total of 1,095 letters were mailed on 25 May 2016 in respect of Amendment C96. Notices were placed in the Maroondah Leader on 24 May 2016 and in the Government Gazette on 26 May 2016.

Issue / discussion

Consideration of submissions

During the exhibition of Amendment C96, and the subsequent weeks a total of 19 submissions were received. Of the submissions received:

· 3 submissions supported the Amendment as exhibited;

· 3 submissions did not expressly support the Amendment, but did not request any changes;

· 7 submissions requested changes to the Amendment;

· 6 submissions objected to the Amendment.

The issues raised in submissions can be summarised as follows:

· Built form and height

· Transport and parking

· Environment and sustainability

· Specific requests for changes to particular sites

A detailed summary of all submissions received and a written response can be found in Attachment No 1.

Built form and height

Issues raised

Seven submitters raised concerns about the proposed three storey maximum height limit in some residential areas. Another submitter was concerned in particular about the possibility of 2-3 storey development around the Knaith Road reserve and felt that this would negatively impact the amenity of the reserve.

Three submitters raised the issue of height and density in the Lois Street – Victoria Street area, questioning the inclusion of the area in the ‘Residential Growth Precinct’ and Residential Growth: Strategic Precinct. One submitter was particularly concerned that the growth precinct not extend so far down Victoria Street.

The 1-2 storey height limits to the south of the study area were generally well supported by residents. Submitters in this area generally accepted the prospect of increased development just to the south of the commercial area, but did not wish to see it encroach any further into the protection precinct.

The mandatory nature of the height controls was opposed by a submitter who asserted that taller buildings should be considered on their merits and that proposals that exceed the proposed heights should be tested through the development application process. The submitter questioned whether there was a basis in the Structure Plan for applying mandatory height controls.

A submission was received on behalf of EACH, who operate a range of community services from their site on Patterson Street/ Freeman Street. Their concern was that the maximum height limit specified in the amendment would not facilitate the proposed expansion of services, as a portion of the EACH site is within residential zoning.

Response

The proposed three storey height limit in a number of precincts is designed to facilitate a modest increase in housing densities in the area. Apart from the commercial spine and the sites designated as key infill development sites, apartment forms aren’t supported by the Structure Plan or the Amendment. The form of development supported by Amendment C96 in locations where three storeys is supported, is limited to townhouses and duplexes.

A three storey townhouse can typically have a smaller footprint than a two storey version, which allows for more space for landscaping and the planting of canopy trees. The three storey allowance also allows for the construction of duplex development, whereby a walk up unit can be provided on the ground floor with a two storey dwelling above. This allows for the construction of ground floor dwellings that can suit an ageing population by providing walk-up units within proximity to the range of services available in the activity centre.

While Rescode currently provides standards for heights within residential zones, the standards are not mandatory controls and can be exceeded if the associated objective is met. The Amendment proposes zoning schedules that include mandatory height limits which dwellings are not permitted to exceed in the residential areas. Mandatory maximum height controls are considered appropriate to provide certainty to the community into the future.

The proposed Design and Development Overlay provides guidance on the form that townhouse developments should take, requiring setbacks to create recessive, less visually intrusive elements. The Amendment also provides guidance on visual appearance in terms of materials to minimise visual impact.

In response to the EACH submission, it is recommended that the Amendment documents are updated to clarify that mandatory height controls should not apply to non-residential development, such as community facilities which are located within residential zones.

Some submitter concerns were raised in relation to the application of the Residential Growth Precinct and the corresponding GRZ2 zoning, specifically between Lois Street and Victoria Street. Accordingly a reduction in maximum heights is considered appropriate given the existing scale and nature of development on Victoria Street (ie from 3 storey to 2 storey).

Transport and Parking

Issues raised

Several submitters were concerned about the impact that an increase in residential densities may have on the availability of parking. While there was some concern about parking in the commercial strip, it primarily focused on parking along residential streets both north and south of the railway line. One submitter questioned whether the residential growth precinct located behind the commercial strip was too extensive. Others were concerned about overflow parking from new dwellings if sufficient parking was not accommodated onsite.

One submitter wrote to oppose the proposed vehicular link shown across the Australian Defence Force (ADF) site, connecting Nicholson Street to the Dublin Road. While there is currently no indication that the site will be redeveloped, the submitter was concerned about increases in traffic volumes on Nicholson Street if the connection was ever constructed.

Response

The Maroondah Planning Scheme sets out the requirements for parking in new development. Parking standards are set out under Clause 52.06 of the Particular Provisions and require new development to provide parking for each dwelling, with the number of parking spaces related to the size of the dwelling. Any variation from the standards would require approval through the development application process.

Issues associated with on street parking would need to be addressed through parking restrictions and permitting and are beyond the remit of the Amendment. A number of residential streets throughout the study area already have parking restrictions. It is noted that pedestrian improvements are proposed.

Council’s Engineering Services Department are investigating options in regard to parking in and around the Centre.

Concerning traffic generation from new development, any residential development activity will generate additional traffic in the surrounding area, regardless of the location. However, an increase in residential densities within activity centres is designed to facilitate a wider range of options for transport, other than the use of the private car. One of the fundamental premises of the Structure Plan is that people living within the study area will be able to walk or cycle to the train station. It is therefore considered that an increase in residential densities at this location will result in a smaller impact on the overall road network, as more people will be able to walk or cycle to their destination.

In terms of the proposed Dublin Road to Nicholson Street connection across the ADF site, Council is not aware of any plans by the ADF to vacate the site, so the issue is not likely to eventuate for some time. Any future development of the ADF site will need to be assessed on the basis of the full proposal when it was prepared. As part of such a proposal, a vehicular connection would provide a clear delineation of spaces. Given the surrounding road network it is considered unlikely to result in significant through traffic to the west and could be designed to avoid impacts. As a principle for the development of this site this connection should remain.

Environment and Sustainability

Issues raised

A submission was received from Transition Towns Maroondah (TTM) that focused largely on environmental and sustainability matters. The submission covers a range of environmental issues, from seeking additional references to climate change in the Structure Plan to the dangers posed by extremes of weather, such as bushfires and floods, to issues such as food security. The submission voices support for a number of areas of the Amendment, while seeking changes in others.

Response

Many of the comments raised by TTM relate to the text of the Structure Plan itself, which was adopted by Council in 2013 following a robust community engagement process. It is not proposed to update the Structure Plan through the amendment process. The TTM submission has therefore been considered primarily in the context of the proposed amendment documentation.

In terms of the points raised concerning climate change, the Structure Plan forms part of a wider strategy, echoed in the recently adopted Maroondah Housing Strategy, to direct a greater proportion of Maroondah’s development into Activity Centres. The Structure Plans relates to an approximately 400 metre area around the train stations, or what is considered walking distance. Directing a greater proportion of Maroondah’s development into areas where people can walk or cycle to public transport facilities as well as shops, cafes, and other amenities, reduces reliance on the use of private cars and leads to a reduction in carbon emissions. While people are likely to continue to own private vehicles, any reduction in their day to day usage, whether as a result of driving shorter distances or of walking or cycling instead, reduces carbon emissions.

A more detailed response to the TTM submission is contained in Attachment No 1.

Specific requests for changes to Particular Sites

Issues raised

The submission summaries in the attachments to this report provide a detailed overview of the matters raised in each individual submission. A number of those submitters made specific requests for changes to the Amendment. These are outlined briefly below:

8-12 Lois Street, Ringwood East

The submitter requests the inclusion of 8-12 Lois Street in the Residential Growth Precinct and GRZ2 instead of the Residential Protection Precinct and GRZ3.

Response - 8-12 Lois Street, Ringwood East

While the proposal which would involve the integrated redevelopment of a group of four lots may have merit, the change requested represents a significant departure from the approach set out in the Structure Plan, on which the Amendment C96 is based. It is therefore considered to be outside of the scope of the Amendment and could instead be the subject of a subsequent proponent led planning scheme amendment process. This would involve notification of neighbours in the area.

VicTrack land

The submission received from VicTrack related to the railway station and associated land affected by the proposed Design and Development Overlay (DDO). No changes to the zoning of VicTrack land are proposed. VicTrack have requested that the proposed DDO is not applied to their land. The submission is detailed in Appendix A.

Response - VicTrack land

While there may be a need to alter the DDO to include exemptions that avoid overly onerous controls for standard works on the rail line and train station, there is little rationale for its complete deletion. Built form controls are still relevant to the land as new built form is contemplated in the south western carpark in the Structure Plan.

Overall Recommendations

In response to the submissions received, it is suggested that the following changes are recommended to the Panel hearing:

Structure of Zoning & Design and Development Overlay Controls

A number of submitters have raised concerns about the controls set out under the zoning schedules, particularly in relation to height. Other submitters have found the manner in which the zoning schedules relate to the Design and Development Overlay confusing. While the zoning schedules set out maximum heights, as well as other measures such as reduced setbacks, the proposed Design and Development Overlay (DDO6) applies strict design criteria that must be met in order to qualify. However, it is clear from the submissions that residents have focused on the proposed zoning schedules rather than the DDO. A reading of the zoning schedules alone could lead the reader to understand that the controls in the zoning schedule are achievable in all circumstances, which is not the case. It is therefore proposed to remove the controls from the proposed zones and instead rely solely on the Design and Development Overlay (DDO). This will not result in a change to the outcome achievable on a given site, but rather is intended to make the proposed controls easier to understand. This approach would be submitted to the Panel for its consideration.

Proposed heights on Victoria Street

Given the submissions received from residents and the concerns expressed about heights in the Lois Street – Victoria Street area, it is considered appropriate to make a recommendation to the Panel that a maximum height limit of two storeys apply along Victoria Street, rather than a maximum of three storeys as proposed. This change is considered appropriate given the existing nature and scale of development on that street. The change would require an update to the proposed zoning schedule and Design and Development Overlay (DDO6).

Renaming of ‘Growth’ Precincts

Submitter Register

A number of additional minor changes are proposed in response to submissions. Please see the attached detailed submitter register for details.

Financial / economic issues

The costs associated with the preparation and implementation of the Amendment will be met through the existing Council budget.

Environmental / amenity issues

Environmental and amenity issues were carefully considered during the preparation of the Structure Plan, upon which the current planning scheme amendments are based. The Significant Landscape Overlay will continue to apply in all residential areas.

Social / community issues

The Structure Plan provides a detailed profile of the community that lives, works and utilises the Ringwood East Activity Centre. A range of issues were identified that impact on the liveability and functioning of the centre, which the Structure Plan seeks to address through ongoing implementation. These cover subjects including social connectedness, access and movement, the local economy and future aspirations for built form and the natural environment.

Community consultation

The Amendment was exhibited in accordance with Section 19 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. It was placed on public exhibition from 26 May 2016 to 1 July 2016. A total of 19 submissions were received. The preparation of the Structure Plan itself benefited from extensive community consultation canvassing ideas across a broad range of subject matter and ideas.

Conclusion

Council previously prepared and adopted a Structure Plan for the Ringwood East Activity Centre. Planning Scheme Amendments C96 has been prepared in response to a specific implementation measure in the adopted Structure Plan to implement the recommendations of the Structure Plan into the Maroondah Planning Scheme.

Public exhibition of Amendment C96 ran from 26 May 2016 to 1 July 2016. Since exhibition commenced, a total of 19 written submissions have been received. The submissions covered a broad range of issues, from residential density and maximum buildings heights, to requested amendments to the proposed zoning of specific sites, to environmental, sustainability and heritage issues.

As some of the issues raised in the submissions received cannot be addressed, it is considered appropriate to request the Minister for Planning to appoint an independent panel.

Attachments

1.⇩	Detailed summary of submissions for Council Report Amendment C96

CONFIDENTIALITY

Not Applicable

RECOMMENDATION

That council

1. requests the minister for planning to appoint an independent panel to consider submissions received

2. Informs submitters that an independent panel is to be appointed

3. NOTE OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS in the attached submitter register and RELATING TO tHE Structure of Zoning & Design and Development Overlay Controls, Proposed heights on Victoria Street AND Renaming of ‘Growth’ Precincts

DIRECTOR Planning & Community – Phil Turner

Know Your Council Website - 2015/16 Local Government Performance Reporting Framework (LGPRF) Results	Item 3

Purpose

To advise that 2015/16 results from the Local Government Performance Reporting Framework have been released to the public via the ‘Know Your Council’ website. This website compares Maroondah City Council results to the average results from other local government areas.

Strategic / policy issues

The following directions contained in Maroondah 2040: Our Future Together and the Council Plan 2013-2017 (Year 4: 2016-2017) provide the strategic framework that underpins the purpose of this report.

Outcome Area: A well governed and empowered community

Our Vision: In 2040, Maroondah will be an empowered community that is actively engaged in Council decision making through processes that consider the needs and aspirations of all ages and population groups. Council will provide strong and responsive leadership, ensuring transparency, while working with the community to advocate for and ‘champion’ local needs.

Key Directions 2013 – 2017:

8.1 Provide enhanced governance that is transparent, accessible, inclusive, and accountable

8.2 Ensure responsible and sustainable management of Maroondah’s resources, assets, infrastructure, and natural environment

Priority Action 2015-2016:

Not Applicable

Background

The Victorian Government established the Local Government Performance Reporting Framework (LGPRF) in 2014 to enable consistent measurement and reporting of performance across a range of common areas of service delivery. The Framework includes performance data on ten of the services provided by Council to the local community. The Framework also includes information on Council’s financial performance and their sustainable capacity.

The State Government has recently released sector-wide information from the Local Government Performance Reporting Framework for the 2015/16 financial year on the ‘Know Your Council’ website (https://www.knowyourcouncil.vic.gov.au). This website is designed to be an accessible, easy to understand online resource which helps the community understand how councils work, explore information about their municipality and compare a council’s performance to other councils.

Through this website, Maroondah City Council's performance on Local Government Performance Reporting Framework indicators for the 2015/16 financial year can be reviewed in comparison with average scores for 'similar councils' and the average for all Victorian councils. The site also enables Maroondah's results to be compared directly against results for other municipalities that are included within the same 'similar councils' group. For the purposes of this website, the 'similar councils' group for Maroondah includes all metropolitan councils except interface and growth area municipalities.

Issue / discussion

Maroondah City Council’s performance is measured against a wide range of different indicators, including those indicators within the Local Government Performance Reporting Framework. These results were published as part of the Maroondah City Council Annual Report 2015/16.

The 2015/16 Local Government Performance Reporting Framework results indicates that Maroondah City Council performs relatively well on most Local Government Performance Reporting Framework indicators in comparison to ‘similar councils’ and ‘all councils’.

Some highlights include:

· The cost of the library service per library visit at Maroondah libraries was $3.01, compared with $6.61 for similar councils.

· The average time taken to decide on planning applications, which was 29 days for Maroondah, compared to an average of 90.91 days for similar councils.

· Participation in key age and stage appointments for Maternal and Child Health services was at 90.62%, compared with 79.64% for similar councils.

· The time taken to commence delivery of home and community care services was 12.16 days, compared to an average of more than 21 days by similar councils.

· The proportion of waste diverted from landfill was also higher than the average for all councils.

In recognition of these excellent results, The Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Chief Executive Officer attended a Minister for Local Government function in late November with the Hon. Natalie Hutchins MP, Minister for Local Government, where Maroondah was one of just five Councils showcased for outstanding performance. Maroondah’s performance in relation to the cost of the library service was one of the indicators profiled at this function.

Details on the Local Government Performance Reporting Framework service performance results in 2015/16 can be found in the attached document which summarises Maroondah’s performance compared with the average for ‘similar councils’ and ‘all councils’.

Financial / economic issues

The 2015/16 Local Government Performance Reporting Framework comparative service performance results indicates that Maroondah performed very well compared with ‘similar councils’. For 15 of the 19 service cost indicators in 2015/16, Maroondah delivered the service at a lower cost than the average for ‘similar councils’.

Environmental / amenity issues

Not Applicable

Social / community issues

Not Applicable

Community consultation

The community have been advised of the Local Government Performance Reporting Framework results via the Maroondah City Council Annual Report 2015/16. A link to the ‘Know Your Council’ website is available on Council’s website.

Conclusion

Maroondah City Council results for the Local Government Performance Reporting Framework in 2015/16 were recently released by the Victorian Government on the ‘Know your Council’ website. Council’s comparative performance compared with average results for ‘similar councils’ and ‘all councils’ can be found on this website. Many excellent service performance results were achieved in 2015/16, with Council’s performance on one of these indicators recently profiled at a Minister for Local Government function for Mayors and Chief Executive Officers.

Attachments

1.⇩	Service Performance Comparative Results 2015/16 - Local Government Performance Reporting Framework

CONFIDENTIALITY

Not Applicable

RECOMMENDATION

That COUNCIL NOTE THE PUBLIC RELEASE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE REPORTING FRAMEWORK INDICATOR RESULTS FOR 2015/16 THROUGH THE KNOW YOUR COUNCIL WEBSITE

DIRECTOR Planning & Community – Phil Turner

Fenced Dog Parks for Maroondah	Item 4

Purpose

To update Council on the further public consultation and other works completed on the design of a fenced dog park at Eastfield Park, including a preferred location and to seek approval to progress to the stage of tendering for construction of the park.

Strategic / policy issues

The following directions contained in Maroondah 2040: Our Future Together and the Council Plan 2013-2017 (Year 3: 2015-2016) provide the strategic framework that underpins the purpose of this report.

Outcome Area: A safe, healthy, and active community

In 2040, Maroondah is a safe, healthy, and active community with local opportunities provided for people of all ages and abilities to have high levels of social, emotional, and physical wellbeing.

Our Vision: Maroondah will be a vibrant and diverse city with a healthy and active community, living in green and leafy neighbourhoods which are connected to thriving and accessible activity centres contributing to a prosperous economy within a safe, inclusive, and sustainable environment

Key Directions 2013 – 2017:

A HEALTHY COMMUNITY

1.17 Promote healthy eating and physical activity by supporting education initiatives and providing a diverse range of accessible open spaces, and recreation facilities and services

AN ACTIVE COMMUNITY

1.18 Enhance and maintain an integrated and connected network of passive and active open space to promote community health and wellbeing

1.19 Provide a range of integrated recreation and leisure facilities that meet the needs of all ages and abilities

1.21 Support and empower local community groups, sporting clubs and special interest groups across Maroondah

AN INCLUSIVE COMMUNITY

7.8 Support all ages and population groups to be valued, connected, supported, and empowered within their local community through the provision and coordination of accessible services, programming, and facilities

A DIVERSE COMMUNITY

7.11 Ensure the needs of community members from all ages, backgrounds and lifestyles are considered in planning for local services, programs, and infrastructure

Background

A report was presented to Council at its meeting of 7 September, 2015 outlining a proposal for one or two fenced dog parks within Maroondah.

The report proposed that Council consider the development of one or two sites in the near term to cater for the increasing community demand and to ensure ease of geographic access for as many users as possible. These sites would ideally be situated in the north and south of the municipality, and by providing more than one site, there is flexibility in Council’s ability to provide varying sizes and attributes of each park being developed, i.e. a larger regional park and a smaller and more basic local park.

The report considered several sites within Maroondah and recommended that two sites were preferred options. These sites were Eastfield Park for a larger regional facility and Quambee Reserve for a smaller more basic park. Further recommendations were to consult with the community regarding the suitability of the preferred parks and what attributes were wanted in a fenced dog park.

A further report was presented to Council on 27 June 2016 with the outcomes of the community consultation with the options and implications for progressing the construction of such facilities. Council authorised consultation with the community on the location and features of the facility within the park.

This report provides the relevant information on the specific location, features and costs along with timing to build the fenced dog park at Eastfield Park. Council Officers are continuing to review options for a smaller park at Quambee Reserve in North Ringwood.

Issue / discussion

Previous Consultation

Council undertook initial formal consultation in late 2015 through direct discussions at the Maroondah Festival Café Consult tent, via an on-line survey and by mail out to sporting clubs and other community groups who are key users of the Quambee Reserve and Eastfield Park.

The data was categorised into 3 themes:

· Dog park – Supported/Not supported

· Attributes – What attributes should be in a dog park

· Location – Quambee Reserve and or Eastfield Park

A total of 301 submissions were received following this consultation and have been grouped into the following three categories which are shown below.

Online survey = 92 Submissions

Café Consult = 184 Submissions

Written correspondence = 25 Submissions

The following is a breakdown of the submissions received as per the 3 themes shown above.

Dog Park supported/not supported – Supported 289 / Not supported 12

Attributes – The top five attributes that the community wanted in a dog park were;

· Water fountains

· Shaded areas

· Bins

· Seating

· Open Spaces

Location – Quambee Reserve and or Eastfield Park

27 submissions were received on Location from those parties Council wrote to directly.

· Quambee Reserve – 7 submissions received in favour,3 against.

· Eastfield Park – 14 submissions received in favour, 3 against

Current Situation and Consultation

The Design

Council has engaged a consultant to design a draft concept plan within Eastfield Park. The preferred location has been identified as fronting Eastfield Road on the south side of the park.

The first dog park in Maroondah is proposed to be a larger “regional” fenced dog park which can cater for a wider variety of users and provide a more interactive and diverse recreation opportunity for dogs and their owners. Plans for the proposal can be found at Attachment 1.

Current Consultation

Council undertook initial consultation in 2015 about the general desire to construct a fenced dog park within Maroondah and the types of attributes that the community would like within a fenced dog park.

The most recent community consultation took place between Monday 31 October until Sunday 13 November 2016 and it related solely to a facility at Eastfield Park. Council conducted this consultation by placing the draft concept plan on its website and asked the community to provide comment on the plan and location (Refer to Attachment 2 for the website consultation).

Council also communicated this information via its social forums on Facebook and through media outlets in the Maroondah Leader with a media release and on local radio (Refer Attachment 3 for media release).

Finally, Council also wrote to the surrounding residents of Eastfield Park asking for their feedback and included a copy of the concept plan. Council also met with several of the Eastfield Park users in face to face meetings and showed them the plans and discussed any of their concerns (Refer to Attachment 4 for letter to residents and users of Eastfield Park).

From this consultation the following information has been collated:

Written submissions received = 36

· Positive Support = 30

· Negative Support = 6

Addressing Concerns of the Community

The main issues raised in the submissions are outlined below:

Fenced Dog Park next to trotting track

Council Officers worked closely with both the harness and pony clubs throughout the design and siting phases for planning the fenced dog park. Significantly both user groups are supportive of the proposal.

Advice received from the design consultant for the park is that many dogs will not be distracted or interested in the presence of horses nearby, and so most dogs will simply utilise the sensory and play objects in the space along with socialising with other dogs and ignore horses in the distance. For those dogs prone to being distracted by a horse in the distance, the dogs line of sight towards the horse track is proposed to be screened. And as such the park has been designed to ensure visual barriers such as the existing and new planting along with the other structural features in the park will in the main block vision of the horses.

Finally, it should also be noted that dog owners utilising the fenced dog park will do so on several conditions of entry to the facility. Signage will indicate that regardless of the area being enclosed owners must accompany their dogs and remain in effective control to ensure the dogs socialise and behave in a manner that does not impact negatively on other animals or people.

Fence height of 1200mm is too small

Several concerns have been raised regarding the proposed 1.2 metre fence height, and the need to increase this fence height for safety and security of the space. Council Officers have discussed this issue with the design consultant for the park and several industry experts on dogs. Advice received has been that the park space would benefit from a higher fence on the rear fence of the dog park (parallel with the trotting track) to around 1.6 metres. This feedback also recognised that fencing was a final measure and that the visual screening coupled with the attractions for dogs inside the fenced dog park will be by far the most effective means of minimising the risk of dogs trying to jump over the fences.

The dog park is next to a children’s playground

The fenced dog park has been provided with two separate entrances and neither requires dogs and their owners to traverse through the children’s play area. There will of course be times that people pass by or are near the plays space with their dogs. It should however be noted that owners walking their dogs in and or near Eastfield Park or Eastfield Road must already have their dogs on a leash and under effective control. Signage has just been renewed throughout this area highlighting this dog on leash requirement. In addition to this general requirement Council also has an order in place right across the municipality specifying that dogs must always be on leash within 15 metres of “playgrounds or children’s play equipment”.

Funding and ongoing maintenance of the dog park

The fenced dog park has been designed to be low maintenance and durable. Along with the park design Council has developed a management plan that identifies a broad range of activities that will be required to ensure this space is well utilised, safe, and maintained to a good standard. This plan addresses matters such as education and enforcement activities, signage, patrols by Local Laws officers, signage, and ongoing maintenance by Operations staff. All aspects of the management plans can be absorbed within existing budgets.

Parking access

As the facility is proposed to be located adjoining the side road to Eastfield Road there are already substantial numbers of on street car parking spaces that are not used and will give excellent access to the facility. These spaces coupled with those in the park will be more than sufficient to cater for the likely demand. Council’s traffic engineers have also considered the safety and access implications of extra parking and traffic, including parking for disabled persons, and have advised that the proposed parking and traffic matters are well resolved.

Construction Details, Maintenance, and Management Plan

The costs associated to construct the fenced dog park are taken from the design of the concept plan. Councils Assets and Open Space teams have reviewed the estimated costs for construction of the facility and have advised the likely cost will be between $180,000 and $200,000 dollars. In addition to this estimate it is recognised that higher fencing at around 1.6 metres in height will add some additional expense that will mean some redesign to ensure the total cost does not exceed this amount. As a budget for this project has been set aside for expenditure of $200,000 in the 2016/17 financial year, the estimate for construction is within the project budget.

A Management Plan for the fenced dog park is being finalised with internal Council departments. This will ensure Council departments responsible for the ongoing management and success of the of the park will have clear roles and responsibilities.

Some of the protocols in the management plan to be considered but not limited to:

· Waste management practices

· What are the minimum age requirements set to enter the park with a dog

· Ratio of dogs per person

· Operating hours of park

· Restriction of use of park in bad weather

· Alcohol not to be taken into park

· Community education of the park

· Appropriate signage for users of the park

· Reporting of incidents to Council

· Noise issues

Construction Timing

Should Council resolve to proceed with the proposed plan, the estimated timeline for construction would begin in March 2017 and be completed in mid-2017.

Financial / economic issues

Covered within existing budgets.

Environmental / amenity issues

Not Applicable

Social / community issues

There are numerous benefits from the provision of fenced dog parks for both dogs and their owners and some of these include:

· Adding to the diversity of recreational opportunities for residents

· Provision of a safe social environment where a variety of people and their dogs can recreate together

· Providing opportunities for older people and people with restricted mobility/disabilities with an accessible and safe place to exercise their dog

· Encouraging people to become active and exercise their dogs

· Dogs and their owners can be separate from people who do not want to interact with dogs

· Provision of a focal point for community education and training around responsible pet ownership

· Separation and safe spaces for dogs that does not conflict with other park activities

· Allowing dogs access to parkland but protecting their sensitive environments such as bushland areas

Conclusion

Given the substantial community support for a fenced dog park and well resolved design of such a facility at Eastfield Park, it is recommended that Council approve the construction of a “regional” fenced dog park at the front of Eastfield Park, with costs associated to come from within existing operating department budgets.

Attachments

1.⇩	Maroondah Dog Park
2.⇩	Website
3.⇩	Media
4.⇩	Letter

CONFIDENTIALITY

Not Applicable

RECOMMENDATION

that council APPROVES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FENCED DOG PARK AT EASTFIELD PARK generally in accordance with the plans referred to in attachment 2 to this report

¹ The speed at which 85% of vehicles are travelling at or below

City Offices	Braeside Avenue, Ringwood, 3134
Postal	PO Box 156, Ringwood 3134 DX 38068, Ringwood
Telephone	1300 88 22 33
Facsimile Email Web Service Centres	Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS): 131 450 National Relay Service (NRS): 133 677 (03) 9298 4345 maroondah@maroondah.vic.gov.au www.maroondah.vic.gov.au Croydon: Civic Square Ringwood: Realm 179 Maroondah Highway Ringwood

Items Discussed:		## Confidential Items

1	Council Meeting Agenda
2	Planning Issues
3	Croydon Town Centre
4	Car Parking East Ringwood & Heathmont

Items Discussed:		## Confidential Items

1	Service Area Overview - Planning, Health & Local Laws
2	Fenced Dog Park
3	Service Area Overview - Human Resources
4	Service Area Overview - Integrated Planning
5	Implementing the Ringwood & Heathmont Structure Plans
6	Service Area Overview - Business & Development
7	Items of a General Nature Raised by Councillors

DIRECTOR Corporate Services – Marianne Di Giallonardo

Attendance Report	Item 1

Assembly Details:

Date: Monday 21 November 2016	Time: 6:00pm	Location: Meeting Room 4, Braeside Avenue, Ringwood

Attendees:

Councillors
Cr Tony Dib, JP	Cr Samantha Marks	Cr Kylie Spears
Cr Marijke Graham	Cr Michael Macdonald	Cr Rob Steane
Cr Nora Lamont	Cr Paul Macdonald	Cr Mike Symon

Council Officers:
Steve Kozlowski	Chief Executive Officer
Marianne Di Giallonardo	Director Corporate Services
Phil Turner	Director Planning & Community
Trevor Welsh	Director Operations, Infrastructure & Leisure
Andrew Fuaux	Manager Planning, Health & Local Laws Item 2
Chris Zidak	Manager Business & Development Item 3
Stephen Onans	Team Leader Governance
Apologies:
Councillors:	Nil
Council Officers:	Nil

Conflict of Interest Disclosure:
Councillors:	Cr Steane – Item 1, in regard to discussions on a proposed Late Item to be raised at the Council Meeting later in the evening concerning carparking at Eastfield Shopping Centre. Reason – Cr Steane’s company has been engaged to provide professional services to a business within the Shopping Centre.
Council Officers:	Nil

Assembly Details:

Date: 23 November 2016	Time: 6:12pm.	Location: Meeting Rooms 2 & 3 Braeside Avenue, Ringwood

Attendees:

Councillors
Cr Tony Dib, JP	Cr Paul Macdonald	Cr Kylie Spears
Cr Marijke Graham	Cr Rob Steane
Cr Nora Lamont	Cr Mike Symon

Council Officers:
Steve Kozlowski	Chief Executive Officer
Marianne Di Giallonardo	Director Corporate Services
Phil Turner	Director Planning & Community
Trevor Welsh	Director Operations, Infrastructure & Leisure
Others:
Allan Preiss & Andrew Alford – McArthur (on behalf of the Municipal Association of Victoria)
Apologies:
Councillors:	Crs. Samantha Marks and Michael MacDonald
Council Officers:	Nil

Conflict of Interest Disclosure:
Councillors:	Nil
Council Officers:	Nil

Council Officer	Marianne DiGiallonardo
Title	Director Corporate Services

Assembly Details:

Date: 30 November 2016	Time: 6:00pm.	Location: Meeting Room 4, Braeside Avenue, Ringwood

Attendees:

Councillors
Cr Tony Dib, JP	Cr Samantha Marks	Cr Kylie Spears
Cr Marijke Graham	Cr Michael Macdonald	Cr Mike Symon
Cr Nora Lamont	Cr Paul Macdonald

Council Officers:
Steve Kozlowski	Chief Executive Officer
Marianne Di Giallonardo	Director Corporate Services
Phil Turner	Director Planning & Community
Trevor Welsh	Director Operations, Infrastructure & Leisure
Andrew Fuaux	Manager Planning, Health & Local Laws Items 1 & 2
Dianne Vrahnas	Manager Human Resources Item 3 & 6
Grant Meyer	Manager Integrated Planning Items 4 & 5
Chris Zidak	Manager Business & Development
Apologies:
Councillors:	Cr Steane
Council Officers:	Nil

Conflict of Interest Disclosure:
Councillors:	Nil
Council Officers:	Nil

DIRECTOR Corporate Services – Marianne Di Giallonardo

The Maroondah Foundation - New Board Members	Item 3