city of Kingston proudly acknowledges
the Bunurong People of the East Kulin Nation
as the traditional owners and custodians
of this land and we pay our respect to
their Elders past present and emerging
Council acknowledges the Bunurongs's
continuing relationship to the land and
waterways and respects that their
connection and spiritual identity is
maintained through ancient ceremonies
song lines dance and living culture
Council pays tribute to the invaluable
contributions of the Bunurong and other
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Elders who guide and continue to guide
the work that we do
um just a note on the recording of
Council meetings for the purpose of
transparency this public meeting is
being recorded and streamed live on the
internet the recording will be archived
and available on council's website
www.kingston.vic.gov.au however for the
purpose of public safety this public
meeting is also being recorded by CCTV
all care is taken to maintain your
privacy however as a visitor in the
public Gallery your presence may be
recorded I would like to thank all
members of the gallery and those viewing
this meeting online for your attendance
I would remind all attendees and that
any disruption interjection
participation in the debate is
prohibited and attendance at Council
meetings is an observatory capacity only
unless otherwise directed by the chair
please also note that the operating that
operating photographic audio video
recording equipment or any other
recording devices prohibited during the
meeting for access accessibility
purposes printed in electronic agendas
via iPads are available in the gallery
closed captioning is also available for
members of the public who are streaming
this meeting via our website
um
so item one are apologies now I
understand we have two apologies this
evening
from uh councilor Bearsley and also
councilor Cochrane
and I I also note that we have an
apology from the CEO
counselors can I have a motion to
receive apologies
um councilor Davies
and seconded councilor Davey Burns this
doesn't need any debate so all those in
favour
uh
that is carried thank you
confirmation of previous minutes
and I don't
believe that this will require any
debate also so
um can I have a
motion to move the minutes thank you
councilor Saab and seconded uh Council ?
thank you
so uh we'll put that item to the vote
all those in favour
that's carried thank you
foreshadow declarations by councilors of
officers and contractors of any
conflicts of interest I've not been
told of any so that doesn't require
anything just for noting
um
so item four which is the planning and
place reports so item 4.1 is town
planning applications July 2023
um
can I please have a mover thank you may
councilor Saab and seconded councilor Davies
uh did anyone wish to speak to this at
all
no
okay if not we'll put that on to the
vote also
all those in favour
that's carried thank you
and um
then we moved to item
4.2 which is
kp2022 forward slash 804 site to the
rear of 118 to 146 Palm Beach Drive
Patterson Patterson lakes and I
understand we have
an object objective speaking this
evening Mr Rick price
so if Rick's here thank you
um
so if you just push the middle button
then you can speak and you have four
minutes from the time that you commence
my problem is that too close
all right
perfect
um look thank you everyone
um four minutes is not a lot of time and
I don't want to get caught up in too
much unnecessary detail I can only
assume everybody understands what the
proposal and the planning permit is
requesting
um but from a uh from the people sitting
behind me and online I've been sort of
asked to speak for 16 residents that are
directly affected by this proposed bike
path that runs down behind our
properties
um I'm a 20-year plus Community member
10-year plus direct resident to the pro
to the area where it's proposing active
Community member around the Nippers
program at the surf life saving club and
I continue to patrol active Snap Send
solver and help coordinate and moderate
our local crime page so really really
involved in the community I'm a lover of
the seafood Wetlands I'm a lover of the
aspect that we have from where we live
and again I'm just talking on behalf of
my neighbors that are here um The
Proposal through the great initiative to
to work on improving the wetlands and
the infrastructure and Facilities within
came to the the note that they need to
close the loop around the wetlands the
seafood Wetlands has a loop and it's
been used for decades I use it myself
often as to a lot of my neighbors and it
continues to be used for this very day
the problem is that the the loop that
gets used has the Levy Bank on the
southern side on the Frankston Council
side is where people use it that we
understand that a feasibility study was
done and Melbourne water in control of
that Levy Bank they weren't to my
understanding willing to come to the
party of spending any money to repair or
remediate or make that a suitable place
for this path to exist and the cheapest
solution was proposed which is behind
our properties
it's definitely not the best solution
for the community
the southern Levy Bank is in is an
obvious need of of Maintenance it's it's
ratted pothole I've got photography
evidence but I'm not sure if I can show
that here anyway but it's in it's in a
really bad way and I've been reporting
it for quite a while on Snap sense of
watching people have accidents it's as I
said you'd ride a bike along there with
your kids and it needs it needs some
some work done to it
and I think that the choice of coming to
the northern side and using some of the
existing path and then creating a new
path behind our properties is it's a
part of the problem the consultation
wasn't run very well at all Frankston
Council and 12 that we weren't really
involved there was no local knowledge
request you know we we understand that
that area we use often
um I'm starting to panic I'm running out
of time now
um we won't properly
um involved in the planning process
ultimately it came down to there's two
options we put a path along the back of
our Properties or we extend the path at
the front of the properties
um to create this loop on the other side
of the um of the waterways uh 100 of the
people directly infected uh all of us
are 100 are against and oppose it a
survey was done where 80 percent of
respondents chose option A which was on
the rear of our properties as opposed to
option b and I believe that only 12
percent of those people were from the
Kingston Community and and obviously
none of them directly affected by this
proposal so people aren't really
considering the big picture the problems
that they're going to be created over
and above the loss of amenity for us who
have chosen to buy and live there
Safety and Security concerns as well
um
there's going to be increased traffic
conjunction congestion because now we've
got a new opportunity for people with a
bridge near the pumping station to pick
up school kids and drop off and the like
which is going to create more issues for
pedestrian and vehicular conflict noise
pollution strain on infrastructure
potential decrease in property values
replicating and already dangerous
dangerous congestion around the Trade
Winds Court area where people try and
pull in and drop off their kids it
creates easier access to the rear of our
properties and an easy Escape route
route in and out of the remote Wetlands
at night with that new New Path creates
more access for monkey bikes and things
which is already an ongoing problem
because we're going to be removing
gateways to create this New Path so it's
going to increase that process
we really feel that um we've got a
Visionary
um solution to this where instead of
putting another small bridge near an
existing already tiny bridge at the high
school to create this sort of this Loop
the obvious thing to us is that somebody
stands up and and forces the issue for
the southern Levy Bank to be remediated
and create the loop that it already is
and then maybe we consider connecting
the Seaford Patterson lakes and current
communities in that area by by thinking
about a bigger bridge and maybe some
Pathways from the Trade Winds Court so
that people can do a a nice little Loop
in that Reserve area to drop their kids
off and safely drive out again as
opposed to all the three point turns and
things that happen
Emma road is the same issue on the other
side where people have to drop off and
create that problem and then you've got
this meter wide little bridge where
where everybody has to pass pass each
other when you've got a pram or a dog so
um oh no it's a it's a different topic
but yeah but we think more information
or more thought has to go into a better
solution for the community as opposed to
this short-sighted
um solution okay our part of the back of
our properties
um thanks Mr Price and uh yeah we gave
you a little bit of extra time just so
you could uh you need to have a clock
see
our time's up oh sorry okay thank you
thank you very much thank you
um I note that we also have another
speaker joining us online
um Sarah Chute director of deca
is that Sarah in the waiting room
okay
hello Sarah can you um hear us yes I can
hear you okay great
um so it's uh
it's counselor Chris Hill here
um uh can you please turn your camera on
um when you're speaking Yeah I always
just oh there we go I've just there we
go I was on there we go there we are
perfect all right um no thanks for
joining us this evening now you've got
four minutes which commences from when
you when you start speaking and uh we'll
let you know um when your time's up but
there will be a note on the screen also
so
um time starts when when you come in
speaking thank you
great thank you for the opportunity to
provide information on behalf of the
Seaford Wetlands Rejuvenation project
Steering group The Steering group
comprises representatives of Frankston
and Kingston City councils bannerong
land Council Aboriginal Corporation
Melbourne Water Deca and the state
member for Karim Sonja Kilkenny the
Steering group is responsible for
delivering decision making and
delivering the 5 million election
commitment to improve the amenity and
usability of seafood Wetlands including
landscaping and environmental works and
upgrades to paths and Facilities Seafood
Wetlands is actually owned by Melbourne
water and Frankston city council the
shared use path the shared use path is
one of seven projects being delivered
and a key feature of that path is the
ability to provide a loop around the
wetlands I won't speak to items in the
planning offices report these are well
addressed my information will focus on
why the location of the shared use path
on the Northern Levy Bank of Canada
Creek was chosen by the Steering group
in February 2021 the ghd engineering
consultancy were commissioned to do in
engineering and feasibility assessments
of potential new links in the active
transport Network around Seaford
Wetlands this included additional
assessments of the shared use path to
examine locations on the Southern and
the northern Levee Banks of Canada Creek
the studies concluded that the southern
Levy Bank was the least preferred option
as it would require a substantial
construction to widen the current Levy
to be fit for purpose as a shared use
path there were safety concerns
potential impacts to flooding regimes
and major legislative implications and
requirements in particular to protect
biodiversity a particular issue is the
impact the works would have on the
Seaford Wetlands which is an
internationally significant Wetland
under the ramsar convention which is
about protecting habitat for bird life
including rare and endangered migratory
Birds
Additionally the wetlands contain
numerous matters of National
Environmental significance listed under
Federal legislation so those
circumstances result in really high very
high construction costs through the
amount and complexity of the work
required a long time frame to deliver
the path and of greatest note the high
potential to not actually receive any of
the federal approvals to do the work due
to the impact on biodiversity values
the assessment for the northern Levy
Bank found that the works would have
minimal impact on existing environmental
conditions there was adequate clearance
to the creek with little or no fencing
required and it was unlikely to impact
flooding in the broader flood plain it
avoids flooding hazards and it had very
limited flora and fauna values
so in terms of the northern side of
Canada Creek and the decision to locate
the path behind residences on Palm Beach
Drive rather than in front of them this
decision was based on community feedback
Kingston council did staff did speak to
Residents directly affected by the
proposal to go behind residences in
March 2021 of the 15 residences
consulted 11 responses were received in
which 10 were opposed to the proposal so
that's consistent with the objections
received for the planning permit however
in February and March 2022 Frankston
city council held Community consultation
on the two potential shared use path
options on the Northern side of Canada
Creek that broader consultation found
that 81 of community responders
preferred the path going behind
residences on Palm Beach Drive based on
that broader consultation the Steering
group endorsed this option in July 2022
thank you for the opportunity for me to
provide this information on behalf of
the Seaford Wetlands project Steering
group
thank you very much Sarah
um you you can continue watching the
meeting online but if you can please
turn off your camera I certainly will
great thank you thanks very much
all right um councilors do I have a
motion cancel the sub
thank you I'd just like to move the
officer recommendation as it appears on
the screen
thank you
um do I have a seconder
uh councilors takeoffs
um councilor Saab do you wish to speak
I'll speak very briefly
uh thank you
Mr chair uh
I recognize the comments of the the
objectives and the rigorous consultation
and the explanation by Sarah of the
process that we've undertaken to date
and the process that Frankston city
council have undertaken to date
um
I guess I'm supportive of the officer
recommendation for a few particular
reasons one is that it is through public
open space land that is open to the
community and the public
um
I recognize that this is a thoroughfare
that is needed in the space we recognize
that that is needed whether or not that
is in this location or another location
is what was up for debate
um our consultation dictates from our
community that this isn't really
the process that they want to follow but
it is a that this is the outcome that
they want this area but I believe that
this is the best possible outcome given
the consultation for the broader area
for what we're hoping to achieve the
shared user path is necessary for the
space we recognize that
I'm giving those a few objections as
opposed to the broader space I'm very
supportive of the officer recommendation
okay thank you mayor sub councilors take
us do you wish Reserve does any other
counselor wish to speak
uh Council David Burns thank you may I
please just ask a question to the
relevant officer and
yes
um I think
right okay
um yeah just depending on the question
just a couple of quick questions the
first one was in relation to the point
made about the southern Levy Bank being
a location that this would be
appropriate and I know that our speaker
is just spoken to some of the costs and
the impact of the wetlands but I'm
particularly Keen to hear from our
offices about that position
Mr Carnival
through you Mr Mayor
um sorry Deputy man
in terms of the consideration of the the
application the planning department only
considers that which is before it so
in terms of considering the location
it's literally just an assessment
against the northern path being located
on that side of the bank
okay thank you and Council Dave Burns
have another question my other question
was just in relation to the safety
concerns raised and just as someone who
regularly Cycles along the Long Beach
Trail which does back onto a number of
properties from mortalic down to
aspendal and edithvale I was just Keen
for further advice if that's permissible
and is in this context
uh thank you Mr Goodman three Mr Deputy
Mayor um the officer report provides
some useful photographs counselor
David Burns of
um the potential existing use by the
community of that path and in fact the
path having had a look at near maps how
photography seems fairly regularly used
based on the nature of the erosion of
the area
um generally our experience has been
where for example the level crossing
removal project have built shared user
paths in a more structured way there are
a lot safer than for users who might
have limited Mobility or have access
issues compared to what seems to have
become of quite informal path being
maintained in the in the way it is one
Nuance in this area too is that a number
of the Residential Properties have quite
effective passive surveillance over
where the path proposed would actually
be due to the nature of the manner in
which their fences are presented as not
being solid
um so although that clearly does derive
some concern for the objectives around
um who might be able to send to their
properties it does also create another
dimension in terms of providing extra
perceptions of being observed when
you're walking through that area thank
you
thank you Mr Goodman
councilor Davey Burns did you have any
thank you
um councilor Howe
thank you and I'd like to foreshadow an
alternative motion to the officer
recommendation that is currently
displayed and obviously this is quite
bewildering that we're even in this
situation where Kingston Council was
advertising a alignment that it did not
support it clearly did not support this
and it happened when the council through
its chief executive in mayor wrote to
the Minister Louis d'ambrosio and the
minister and also member for Karim Sunny
Kilkenny opposing the alignment over the
creek embankment with a preference for
Palm Beach dry where there's an existing
path and certainly access very clear
access
so you can get around the loop of the
correct that's not an issue whatsoever
and some of the issues that were raised
by Kingston Council in its position
which has changed tonight which is
disappointing we're privacy we're
amenity and if you go to Clause 1402 it
picks up on these issues and I don't see
that that they have been met I believe
that there's a clear amenity in privacy
breach and I see this is ramming it
through tonight an outcome that aligns
with the state government's intentions
and as to what Franks and councils come
up with in their bogus consultation of
Frankston and rate players mostly it's
completely and totally irrelevant it's
got nothing to do with Kingston Kingston
right players come first in Kingston
and that is the end of the story bottom
line we've got very clear feedback from
our community tonight and we need to
represent their concerns as to the
southern
embankment which has come up tonight and
oh you know there might be some costs
involved in there
guess what
that's what happens when you build an
infrastructure project there is cost
involved and there's costs involved
there because as you heard from Rick
Pryor so local resident who's proud to
represent his community is that area has
deteriorated
now there are concrete Parts running
right through the secret Wetlands to say
that there's
um you know an issue with ramsar uh
I think I'm a bit lost there you've got
paths running through the wetlands
putting one alongside the creek on the
other side if you were to take that
direction does not does not have any
more or any less impact on the wetlands
and the current parts that are there
obviously clearly
and so when the council went and wrote
to our state counterpart and said that
they very strongly objected to on
falling grounds of privacy and amenity
and that goes on
and uh we had the mayor get involved
there and the chief executive they have
to be coming back with the town planning
department
from Kingston different part of Kingston
said oh we support this well the only
outcome this Council should be
supporting is the alignment that they
said they supported the beginning which
was on Palm Beach Drive it was never on
their Creek embankment and that is the
outcome it we should be sticking to
tonight this motion on the screen should
be voted down and we definitely need to
be going with the alternative motion I
would like to move thank you
thank you councilor Howe and I note your
foreshadowed motion if this motion is
lost
um councilors takeoffs thank you
um councilors
tonight we're in a planning committee
meeting
which means
we are considering things through the
guise of the planning and environment
Act
everything that councilor Howe said
is effectively what council would
normally consider under the under the
Local Government Act
that's a different hat that's a
different place that's a different role
we're not performing those duties
tonight we're not performing that role
tonight
and we need to be really careful
for the time that we have left
dispensing the duties as the responsible
Authority Under the environment under
the planning and environment act that we
do not confuse those two roles
I don't disagree with the points that
were made by councilor Howe council did
make advocacy on those issues we did try
to inform the government and we did try
to change the government's alignment
but when an application
is received by our planning department
it needs to be assessed and it also
needs to be assessed against the
planning provisions
and what our planning department has
said under section 12 of the report is
that the proposal is considered to be is
to is considered to substantially comply
with the relevant planning policy and
therefore should be supported
it has been determined The Proposal is
the proposed use is considered
appropriate for the site as evidenced by
the strong local and state policy
support in the provision of pedestrian
and cycling links along the Waterway and
public open space areas The Proposal
will not have a detrimental impact on
surrounding properties particularly the
land
as the land is already used informally
for Public Access
The Proposal will provide a benefit to
the broader Community improving
pedestrian and cycling connections and
enhancing access to the natural
environment
The Proposal satisfies the requirements
of the Kingston planning scheme
including the public users own and when
we make decisions on these issues our
decisions need to be confined to the
planning assessment against those
requirements
if this issue isn't resolved tonight it
will be resolved in another forum
you all know that
let us not kid ourselves what the
outcome will be
if we
um
we know what will happen here
Council has been presented with an
application the application has been
assessed as appropriate and we have
very I don't think we have any grounds
on which to reject it thank you
thank you councilor stacos uh does any
other counselor wish to speak to the
item
no
um did you wish to close
in which case
I'll call the vote all those in favour
all those against
all those abstaining
I'll note that as carried thank you in
our Court Division I actually can't see
anyone tonight on the screen as well
thank you yep so
um we'll call a division in which case
all those in favour will stand thank you
um May asab councilor Davies councilor
Council Davey Burns and councilor stacos
and myself
and all those against if you can just
raise your hand um councilor Howe
for the games
thank you
so
I sorry I declare the division carried
thank you
um
thank you we therefore move on to the
next item which is uh item 4.3 KP
2022
60a 70s
oh sorry
4.3 which is
kp202268 71 Catherine Avenue Chelsea I
understand we've got a speaker for the
objectors uh Russell King
uh yeah so um if you just push the
center button
it'll it's uh it'll have a little green
symbol there
um and then you have four minutes to
speak thank you Mr King and uh your time
will commence from when you start
speaking
thank you very much for the time to be
able to speak to you uh I'm calling in
not in the fact that I'm objecting to
the men's shed
I'm objecting to certain things that
have taken place
I don't know whether you've got the
counselors have got copies of the
correspondence which I had with uh
Joe Mellows and I must apologize for my
misspelling of my response there in in
that regard
uh with regards to the mean shed I've
had several matters which I would want
to discuss with the city
the extension of opening hours which are
far too excessive
and would interfere with the privacy and
invasion of privacy of the area
um
I have here
a resolution of which I think was passed
by Council which extended the hours
um where are we
can't find it now uh
yes and these hours originally were to
be Monday to Friday if my memory serves
me correctly and now it's Monday to
Friday
nine till five and four some in some
instances the facilities open to private
conferences and things at in the
evenings and also on Saturday
from nine o'clock to 1 pm now I don't
know whether you were there last
Saturday there was a football Final on
right opposite right opposite and there
would have been three to four thousand
people there and the cars there were in
enormous quantities and it wasn't a
Chelsea Football Club
uh final it was a local District final
so that that in itself is something
which uh needs to be considered the
parking facilities are non-existent the
lack of parking facilities also make the
extended hours
unwarranted and the construction of a
driveway
very close to the intersection itself is
not only presents a risk it's a danger
to the general public as well as other
motorists
the establishment of parking for three
cars and a loading Bay on the site
is all that is being provided
three cars and a loading Bay now we we
get that idea from I don't know but you
know on several occasions I've expressed
a willingness to meet with those
responsible
on the site
to discuss some of the ways in which it
can be improved and the hours reduced
down to a common sense thing the hours
have been changed several times let me
point out something very ironic though
before that even when the announcement
of the men's shed going there was to be
in according to the announcement the
sound would be sound Factor would not be
as dangerous as previously expected
because the house next door was solid
brick well whoever surveyed the area
must have had a seeing eye dog because
the house next door is weatherboard and
according to your surveyors it is solid
brick this is just a typical example and
the council has totally ignored ranking
a meeting with me on the site so as I
could point out some aspects which might
bring about an improvement in parking
now I see my times just about expired
but if you've got any questions I've got
plenty of pieces of paper here I've got
a file at home that thick but I could
show you but you know not being willing
to meet me on site not being willing to
discuss the matter and I mean discuss
the matter properly and civilly is a
greatest appointment and I must also
point out that my local counselor hasn't
made any statement in relation to the
men's shed to Residents in the area
thank you very much
thank you very much for your time Mr
King
as we don't have a speaker for the
applicant I'll ask our councilors if we
have a motion thank you I'll move the
officer recommendation
thank you councilor stacos can I have a
second uh
cancers take us do you wish to speak
um yes I just wanted to clarify
something just asking a question
um
just a question to the irrelevant
officer my understanding is that the
permit for this application just one
second sorry um Mr King do you mind just
um taking a seat whilst councilor stacos
is speaking thank you thank you my
understanding is that Council has
already granted
um a permit and that this permit is to
change the hours of operation is that is
that my is that correct so the the
actual layout of the car park and the
driveway that's already been approved by
the council
um
Mr Carnivale thank you
through you Mr deputy mayor
um so the the aspects of the amendment
um they include to add community space
to the use of the land so the permit um
that was already issued uh is for a
men's shed and this amendment um
includes to add a community space to the
use of the land what that would
essentially do is allow some additional
uses like book clubs movie viewing
nights art classes and the like the
amendment is also to increase the number
of patronage so the current permit
allows 23 people on site at any one time
the amendment if approved will allow 27.
um there is also therefore a further
parking reduction that's proposed as
part of this amendment
um the current reduction is one car
parking space with the additional
patronage it will increase it to a three
parking space reduction
um at the moment or as part of The
Proposal there are five spaces on site
and the requirement would be eight
there's also an amendment to the hours
of operation and that is from Monday to
Friday 9 to 1 30 to increase to nine to
five and on Saturday from 9 till 12 30
to increase from 9 to 1. sorry
um thank you for outlining all those
points but what I was asking was the
structure the car park and the driveway
are not changing as a result of
tonight's application is that correct
through you Mr Deputy Mayor that is
correct
um the building itself has already been
approved and that isn't changing
so
just to be clear and thank you for
confirming that Mr carnavale the
building has been approved it's an
existing building the modifications have
been approved the car park has been
approved the driveway has been approved
while we're coming back tonight to do is
to change some of the uses to allow
non-min's shared activities to occur on
the side so that Community groups can
also use it and they were outlined by Mr
carnavale and what we've also said is
that whilst we're allowing additional
patrons to be on site we are not going
to require additional car parking now I
do note the objector has discussed some
of the concerns he does have about the
football
situation or the sporting
situation at the oval down the road now
what I would say is is that the
situation that we have with the sporting
club down the road is that that sporting
club
we have done a lot of consultation with
the sporting club and their hours of
operation and the hours of operation of
the
um
men's shed are at different times and so
what we are
confident of is there isn't going to be
a major conflict of the number of cars
that we're going to have in the street
with the patrons of the two different
uses that are very close to each other
the other thing that I'll say is this
particular building used to be a
kindergarten that kindergarten operated
there for quite some time and we did
have a lot of vehicle movements
associated with the pickup and drop-off
times with that kindergarten and that
kindergarten had less car parking
available than we will have with men's
shed so I do understand that you know
the objections made by this objector and
that you know Council I'm sure will be
happy to speak to him after tonight's
decision regardless of whether this
particular whether my motion gets up or
not but regardless of what happens
tonight
the men's sheds there and it will
continue to operate the question is
whether we want to allow the use for
additional groups to meet there and
whether we want to go to the hours of
operation that we always intended to go
to that's the other question we actually
made an error Council made an error with
the last uh permit that we approved and
we decided as a council to do the right
thing and re-advertise the new hours of
operation instead of just approving A
variation without advertising which we
could have done it would not have been
the ethical way to do it it would not
have been a good way to treat the
community but we put that sign up and we
informed the community that we were
extending the hours and we've done it
and we've received one objection and I
think we've received that objection
because of all the reasons outlined but
we haven't received more than one so so
I think we do need to do some more work
with with the neighbor who's come
tonight but I do think that the
application is worth supporting
um thank you councilors
thank you thank you councilor stacos um
do you wish to speak
I might just ask a few questions if I
can of the relevant officer I believe Mr
Carnival or Mr Goodman
um just wanted to clarify some of the
questions I think that came from the
objective was around this issues of of
parking and I've noticed as well in the
report that there is a question around
that the patronage would be about 27
people with eight car spaces allocated
to that just wanted to understand I
guess the cast parking requirements on
the site where it's being met and then I
guess the additional car parking
availability around the space firstly
thank you
yeah Mr carnavali yes through you Mr
Deputy Mayor um so the application
requires a car parking reduction so
there are eight spaces that are required
for 27 people on site and the proposal
has five car parking spaces uh four of
those spaces are along the western side
of the site and another car spaces on
the Eastern side of the site which
allows for trailer parking as well
um the application was referred to
council's traffic department who
reviewed the traffic generation that
would that this application would
accumulate and they've assessed that
with no objections raised saying that
the five spaces on site and the
surrounding streets can accommodate the
um the two car parking space waiver that
would be required as part of this
amendment the hours of operation were
also considered to be limited in terms
of the consideration of parking demands
thank you Mr carnavali
thank you Mr Carnivale I did have
another
question that you almost alluded to
completely but was just around the
change I guess of operating hours from
what was currently permitted to what is
being sought after in this application
and then an understanding I guess of uh
well actually I'll ask that question
first and then I'll ask my next question
thank you
yes through you Mr Deputy Mayor so the
current permit allows hours of operation
Monday to Friday 9 A.M to 1 30 p.m and
Saturday 9 A.M to 12 30 P.M
the amendment will allow 9 A.M to 5 P.M
Monday to Friday and 9 A.M to 1pm on
Saturday
mess up thank you just one last question
before I make a comment I just wanted to
understand I guess consistent with our
other men's shirt if able to answer
if we've got a general understanding of
what the operating uses are of some of
those men sheds that exist in the city
Mr Goodman
three Mr Deputy Mayor I wouldn't have a
comprehensive list but um there's
certainly been a lot of discussions
about trying to make sure that these
facilities are able to be used
effectively by as many members of the
community as possible
the Moira collection when this um
facility was being discussed the group
that largely run the facility were very
keen to involve younger people as well
in their Endeavors
um
I note tonight too that there are you
know a number of other activities that
potentially would be able to use this
facility just to expand on Mr
carnavale's previous answer the facility
also benefits from its proximity to a
council Reserve where there is also
significant car parking available not at
all times and we acknowledge Mr King's
challenge over the weekend with the
amount of football activity that was
clearly affecting the amount of traffic
in the area but there is
an overflow area almost immediately
adjacent to this facility thank you
thank you Mr Goodman
thank you for those answers uh listening
to the objectives comments I think what
I'm really picking up on is that there
might have been a process failure in
engaging with Mr King in a I guess a
really forthcoming way and I think
that's something as Council stacos had
mentioned is something that we should do
irrespective of where we land with this
particular application whether it's this
motion up now is approved online I
believe that we should be supporting
this motion
um I've had a lot of conversations with
a few other men's sheds throughout the
city and they talk about a lot of the
social aspect of the men's shed not
necessarily the genuine the general
operations of what they do and how
important it is to the Social and Health
and well-being of the people who
participate in men's shed and I
recognize that a lot of that stuff
happens actually outside of the hours of
when their normal men's shed operating
so I'm fully supportive of the need to
actually be able to support that growth
support the need that they are looking
forward to get younger people involved
as Mr Goodman had mentioned uh into the
men's shed but also just recognizing
that this application is specifically to
understand that we're trying to bring
everything in line to what the men's
sheds needs are
and that is so that they can continue to
run in a regular amount of time nine to
five Monday to Friday which is a very
reasonable set of hours for a community
center or space but also uh we're only
extending an additional I think it's 30
minutes or an hour I think an extension
on the Saturday so it's not like this is
a new introduction of a Saturday usage
um but just so that they continue to do
the work that they need to do so they
continue getting all of the social
benefits out of the spaces that they're
using it for and getting that aligned
with what the planning scheme and the
planning zones and I guess this planning
permit will do for those reasons as well
and considering this is an application
for us not for I guess the use but
rather just for what we can uh not for
sorry for the planning it's the plan
itself but for its use I'm very
supportive of the application tonight
thank you mess up
um do any other councilors wish to speak
councilor Davies
uh thank you Deputy Mayor I'm very
conscious that this is already an exist
existing use I am a big supporter of the
men's shed I think they provide uh
fantastic assistance to all ages
particularly in mental health and we
know that men have by far the highest
rate of suicide so I do think it is
important that we support the male
members of our community as much as
possible I'm conscious that the increase
on Saturday is 30 minutes and we are not
going outside standard business hours so
we would not be you know we're not
talking about late night activities
which would impinge when families are
home and having dinner and trying to
relax after work and I do know in terms
of parking given that there is a
football oval and parking there across
the road you don't normally see a
football game between nine and five on
Monday to Friday so I do think that
reducing the car parks by three I think
we can cater for those needs I am very
conscious of the concerns of the
objector and clearly you know there's an
issue that we could reflect on in terms
of communication and trying to ensure
that you know if a resident does raise
an issue we try to deal with their
matters in a timely manner we're not
always going to reach agreement but I do
think it's important that we listen to
concerns and we provide the information
as to why we might have an alternative
view so I do appreciate the objective
coming down tonight and giving us his
thoughts and I I do appreciate him
expressing all his concerns so thank you
thank you councilor Davies
um does any other counselor wish to
speak to this item
if not I'll put the item to the vote all
those in favour
um I know that is carried
and then we'll move on to the next item
on tonight's agenda which is Adam
number 4.4
kp2021-845-71 arga Street Cheltenham
um do I have promotion thank you mess up
and a seconder thank you councilor
Davies
mess up did you wish to speak to this
item
only very briefly just to say this is a
really straightforward application we
don't have an objective speaking on this
tonight I haven't received uh objections
I believe for this planning application
Ah that's right wasn't advertised thank
you sorry but it's a very
straightforward application it's an
existing
uh kindergarten space that we are
redeveloping
and this is just a formal process that
we need to follow given it is land on
countless Council land that we're
assuming to have to follow this process
and bring it to the chamber for a
resolution
that's it thank you thank you mayor sub
councilor Davies did you wish to speak
um thank you any other councilors wish
to speak to this item
uh if not mess up did you wish to close
no
um then I'll put the item to the vote so
all those in favour
I know that is carried
and um
no confidential items in which case I've
confirmed the meeting closed
at uh 7 54 pm
thank you everyone