agenda of council meeting - 16 october 2017 · web viewas such, there are several examples of high...

NOTICE PAPERMonday 16 October 2017 at 7pm

Council Chamber, Malvern Town Hall,(enter off Glenferrie Road, Malvern)

RECONCILIATION STATEMENT

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

PRAYER

Almighty God, we humbly beseech you, to grant your blessing on this Council, direct and prosper its deliberations to the advancement of your glory, and the true welfare of the people of the City of Stonnington. Amen.

NOTE

Council business is conducted in accordance with Part 4 Division 3 of the Meeting Procedure section of Council’s General Local Law 2008 (No 1). Some copies are available with the agenda or you can find a copy on Council’s website www.stonnington.vic.gov.au under local laws.

http://www.stonnington.vic.gov.au/

Council MeetingNotice Paper

Monday 16 October 2017Order of Business and Index

a) Reading of the Reconciliation Statement and Prayerb) Apologies c) Adoption and confirmation of minutes of previous meeting(s) in accordance with Section 63

of the Act and Clause 423 of General Local Law 2008 (No 1)1. MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 2 OCTOBER 2017....................................................

d) Disclosure by Councillors of any conflicts of interest in accordance with Section 79 of the Act1

e) Questions to Council from Members of the Public (Clause 424 of General Local Law 2008 (No 1)

f) Correspondence – (only if related to council business)g) Questions to Council Officers from Councillorsh) Tabling of Petitions and Joint Lettersi) Notices of Motion j) Reports of Special and Other Committees; - Assembly of Councillors k) Reports by Delegates l) General Business

1. PLANNING APPLICATION 1243/16 - 12 ABERDEEN ROAD, PRAHRAN - CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DWELLING ON A LOT AND A REDUCTION IN CAR PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN A GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE ........................................................................................................................

2. PLANNING APPLICATION 0593/17- 33-35 HUNTINGTOWER ROAD, ARMADALE - CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STOREY APARTMENT BUILDING COMPROMISING TEN DWELLINGS.............

3. PLANNING APPLICATION 1308/16 - 1034-1040 MALVERN ROAD & 16 MURRAY STREET, ARMADALE - PART DEMOLITION, USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND FOR A CHILDCARE CENTRE, PROVISION OF PART OF THE CAR PARKING REQUIREMENT ON ANOTHER SITE, AND VARIATION OF AN EASEMENT.

PLANNING APPLICATION 1309/16 - 1074-1076 MALVERN ROAD, ARMADALE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION, BUILDINGS AND WORKS, BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE ASSOCIATED WITH AN EXISTING EDUCATION CENTRE AND CHILD CARE CENTRE IN A HERITAGE OVERLAY, INCORPORATED PLAN OVERLAY AND GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE...............................................

4. PLANNING APPLICATION 234/17 - 254 WATTLETREE ROAD, MALVERN - CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR STOREY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONTAINING SIX DWELLINGS, REDUCTION IN CAR PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERATION TO A ROAD IN A ROAD ZONE, CATEGORY 1...................

5. STATEMENT OF COMMITMENT TO CHILD SAFETY ........................................................................6. STONNINGTON PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELLBEING PLAN 2017-2021.............................................7. ANNUAL REPORT 2016/17..........................................................................................................8. DARLING ROAD, MALVERN EAST - PROPOSAL TO INSTALL ILLUMINATED SCHOOL ZONE

SIGNAGE....................................................................................................................................

1 Note that s.79(1)(a) of the Act requires Councillors to disclose the nature of a conflict of interest immediately before the relevant consideration or discussion.

9. RECREATION PROJECTS WADSWORTH FIELD AND SIR ROBERT MENZIES RESERVE......................10. COUNCIL MEETING DATES 2018..............................................................................................

m) Other General Businessn) Urgent Businesso) Confidential Business

ADOPTION AND CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

16 OCTOBER 2017

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council confirms the Minutes of the Council Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 2 October 2017 as an accurate record of the proceedings.

Page 7

GENERAL BUSINESS16 OCTOBER 2017

l) General Business

1. PLANNING APPLICATION 1243/16 - 12 ABERDEEN ROAD, PRAHRAN - CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DWELLING ON A LOT AND A REDUCTION IN CAR PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN A GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE

Manager Statutory Planning: Alexandra Kastaniotis General Manager Planning & Amenity: Stuart Draffin

PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for the construction of two dwellings on a lot and a reduction in car parking requirements in a General Residential Zone at 12 Aberdeen Road, Prahran.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Nixon Tulloch Fortey Architecture Pty LtdWard: SouthZone: General Residential Zone – Schedule 10Overlay: NoneNeighbourhood Precinct: Inner UrbanDate lodged: 1 December 2016Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

39

Trigger for referral to Council:

More than 7 objections and Councillor call-up

Number of objections: 12Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on 30 August 2017Officer Recommendation: Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that originally formed part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Nixon Tulloch Fortey Architecture Pty Ltd and are known as File No. 1243/16, Drawing No.s: TP0-001 Rev C, TP0-002 Rev C, TP0-100 Rev C, TP0-200 Rev C, TP1-100 Rec C, TP1-101 Rev, TP1-102 Rev C, TP1-103 Rev C, TP2-100 Rev C & TP2-101 Rev C, TP3-100 Rev C and TP9-100 Rev B to TP9-109 Rev B and Council date stamped 24 May 2017, and Drawing No.s: TP10-100 Rev A and Council date stamped 11 December 2016. STORM Rating Report and BESS Report were prepared by the Applicant and submitted to Council 24 May 2017, as well as Landscape Plan prepared by John Patrick Landscape Architects Pty Ltd submitted to Council 24 May 2017 and Feature and Level Survey Plan prepared by Carson Simpson Pty Ltd and submitted to Council 12 July 2017.

Key features of the proposal are:

Page 9


Construction of two three storey dwellings each containing three bedrooms and one car parking space located to the rear (south) of the site and accessed via Kent Lane.

The maximum building height will be 9 metres from natural ground level. The ground floor setback from Aberdeen Road will range from 4.475 metres to 5.065

metres (east to west), and due to the cantilevered first floor terraces, the first floor setback is 3.475 metres to 4.055 metres (east to west) from Aberdeen Road.

The proposal features a light court along the eastern elevation for a length of 6 metres and setback from the eastern boundary a minimum of 1.39 metres and a light court along the western elevation for a length of 4.81 metres at ground floor and 7.615 metres at first floor, with a setback of 1.07 metres from the western boundary.

External materials include brick, metal cladding and render.

To respond to concerns raised by Council’s Planning Officers and within objections, the Applicant formally lodged Drawing No.s TP0-001 Rev D, TP0-100 Rev D to TP1-102 Rev D and TP2-100 Rev D to TP9-109 Rev D (Council date stamped 7 September 2017) and TP0-002 Rev D and TP1-103 Rev D (Council date stamped 8 September 2017) as revised application plans under Section 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The revised plans include the following main changes:

Increased setback of the ground floor from eastern boundary located adjacent to the light court located at No. 14 Aberdeen Road to 1.415 metres.

Increased setback of the first and second floor from the eastern boundary located adjacent to the light court located at No. 14 Aberdeen Road to 1.39 metres.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the southern side of Aberdeen Road, approximately 46.5 metres from the intersection of Williams Road. The site has the following significant characteristics:

The subject site is irregular in shape with a lot frontage of approximately 9 metres to Aberdeen Road, a rear frontage of approximately 9.3 metres to Kent Lane, a depth of approximately 26 metres resulting in a site area of approximately 237 square metres.

The site is predominately flat and is currently occupied by a single storey dwelling which is constructed to each boundary. The existing dwelling on the site has a street setback of approximately 3.175 metres to 3.746 metres (east to west) to the principal façade, it is noted that there is a front verandah within this setback.

There is no significant vegetation on the site and there is an existing garage in the south east corner of the site which allows for one car space accessed via Kent Lane.

The subject site forms part of an established residential area that exhibits a mixture of dwelling types including semi-detached single and double storey dwellings and multi-unit residential buildings of three storeys. There are several examples of side-by-side unit development. Roof styles consist of a mixture of flat and pitched metal and tiled roofs.

The site is located within an area that has good access to services and facilities. The subject site is located adjacent to the Prahran East Village Activity Centre, and within close proximity of the Chapel Street Activity Centre. These are commercial centres with both local and regional roles accommodating larger scale retail uses, entertainment uses and goods and services to meet everyday and specialty needs.

The subject site is within close proximity to public transport with tram services operating along High Street approximately 40 metres to the south of the site and bus services operating along Williams Road, approximately 46.5 metres to the west of the site. The site is

Page 10


also located within approximately 1km of both Windsor Railway Station and Toorak Railway Station.

The site’s immediate abuttals are as follows:

To the west of the site is No. 8A Aberdeen Road which contains a double storey dwelling constructed along the common boundary with the subject site and features vehicle access via Kent Lane. The dwelling features a first floor light court associated with three first floor habitable room windows, setback 2.175 metres from the common boundary of the lot and constructed above an existing glazed roof at ground floor. The dwelling forms part of a pair with No. 8 Aberdeen Road, which was approved under Planning Permit No. 899/06;

To the east of the site is No. 14 Aberdeen Road which contains a double storey dwelling constructed along the common boundary with the subject site and features vehicle access via Kent Lane. The dwelling features a light court associated with three ground floor habitable windows and one first floor habitable room window, which is constructed 1.05 metres from the common boundary of the lot. The dwelling forms part of a pair with No. 14A Aberdeen Road, which was approved under Planning Permit No. 1098/99;

To the south is Kent Lane, which is a 4 metre wide laneway. Beyond Kent Lane is the Prahran East Village Activity Centre. More specifically, No. 437-439 High Street, which is occupied by three storey office building that features vehicle access from Kent Lane approved under Planning Permit No. 532/01;

To the north is Aberdeen Road. Beyond that is No. 11 Aberdeen Road, which is occupied by a two storey commercial building constructed along all boundaries of the lot.

Previous Planning Application(s)

A search of Council records indicates the following relevant planning applications:

Planning Permit No. 1144/07 for No. 12 Aberdeen Road Prahran issued on 31 March 2008 for alterations and additions to a dwelling on a lot less than 500 square metres in a Residential 1 Zone. The permit approved a first floor addition to the rear (south) of the dwelling with a maximum wall height of 7.72 metres constructed along the east and west boundaries. This permit was not acted upon and has lapsed.

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 04040 Folio 916 / Lot 1 on Title Plan 253412A and no covenants or easements affect the land.

Planning Controls

The following controls/permit triggers are considerations for this application:

ZoneGeneral Residential Zone - Clause 32.08Pursuant to Clause 32.08-6, a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot.

Clause 32.08-4 of the General Residential Zone requires a minimum garden area be provided for the construction or extension of a dwelling or residential building on a lot in accordance with the following table:

Lot Size Minimum percentage of a lot set aside as garden area

Page 11


400 -500 square metres 25%501-650 square metres 30%Above 650 square metres 35%

It is noted that the minimum garden area does not apply to this application given that the lot size is less than 400 square metres.

Clause 32.08-9 of the General Residential Zone states that a building must contain no more than 3 storeys at any point. It is noted that the proposal contains no more than 3 storeys and is therefore compliant with the maximum number of storeys under Clause 32.08-9.

Schedule 10 to the General Residential Zone requires that dwellings and residential buildings not exceed a height of 9 metres unless the slope of the natural ground level at any cross section wider than 8 metres of the site of the building is 2.5 degrees or more, in which case the height of the building must not exceed 10 metres. A lift overrun may exceed the abovementioned mandatory height requirements by no more than 1.2 metres. The proposal has a maximum height of 9 metres and therefore, complies with the maximum height limit.

Schedule 10 also includes modified ResCode standards as follows:

Standard RequirementSite Coverage

A3 and B8 Basements should not exceed 75% of the site area.

Landscaping B13 In addition to the requirements of B13, at least one canopy tree should be planted on the site.

Side and Rear Setbacks

A10 and B17 For a distance of at least 5 metres behind the front façade of the building fronting the street, setback new buildings (including basements) a minimum of 2 metres from at least one side boundary and at least 1 metre from the other side boundary up to 3.6 metres in height.Where no setback is specified, standard A10 or B17 applies.

Walls on Boundaries

A11 and B18 Walls should not be located on side boundaries for a distance of 5m behind the front facade of the building fronting the street.

Particular ProvisionsClause 52.06 – Car ParkingPursuant to Clause 52.06-2, the car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5 must be provided on the land prior to the commencement of a new use. A permit may be granted to reduce the number of car spaces required by the table included in Clause 52.06-5.

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5 a dwelling requires the following car parking rates:

1 parking space for each one or two bedroom dwelling. 2 parking spaces for each three or more bedroom dwelling. 1 parking space for visitors to every 5 dwellings for developments of 5 or more

dwellings.

The proposed development generates a statutory requirement to provide 4 car spaces for residents and zero car spaces for visitors. The proposal provides 2 car spaces for residents, with 1 car space to each dwelling located in the rear (south) of the site accessed via Kent Lane. Therefore, a permit is therefore required for the reduction of 2 car spaces.

Page 12


Clause 52.34 - Bicycle ParkingPursuant to Clause 52.34-1, a new use must not commence or the floor area of an existing use must not be increased until the required bicycle facilities and associated signage has been provided on the land.Pursuant to Clause 52.34-3:A dwelling requires the following rates: In developments of four or more storeys, 1 to each 5 dwellings for residents. In developments of four or more storeys, 1 to each 10 dwellings for visitors.

Given two dwellings are proposed with a maximum three storey height, there is no requirement for bicycle parking within the development.

Two or More Dwellings on a Lot and Residential Building - Clause 55An application for two or more dwellings on a lot must meet the objectives of Clause 55.

Relevant Planning Policies

Clause 15 Built Environment and HeritageClause 16 HousingClause 21.03 VisionClause 21.05 HousingClause 21.06Clause 22.05

Built Environment and HeritageEnvironmentally Sustainable Development

Clause 22.18 Stormwater Management Clause 22.23 Neighbourhood Character PolicyClause 32.08 General Residential ZoneClause 52.06 Car parkingClause 55 Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

Advertising

The application has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land and by placing 2 signs on the site. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

The site is located in South Ward and objections from twelve (12) different properties have been received on the following grounds:

Concerns about demolition of the original building; Neighbourhood character (third storey is inconsistent with streetscape) and

overdevelopment of subject site; Inappropriate building height; Front setback does not reflect the streetscape; Amenity impact (loss of daylight, overshadowing, overlooking); and Insufficient car parking spaces and increase in traffic.

A Consultative Meeting was held on 30 August 2017. The meeting was attended by Councillors Hindle and Stefanopoulos, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. Following the Consultative Meeting, revised plans were submitted on 7 September 2017. They show a reduction to built form adjacent the existing light court located at adjoining dwelling to the east of the site. Specifically, the plans show the following changes:

Page 13


Increased setback of ground floor from eastern boundary as located adjacent the light court located at No. 14 Aberdeen Road to 1.415 metres.

Increased setback of first and second floor from eastern boundary as located adjacent the light court located at No. 14 Aberdeen Road to 1.39 metres.

The plans were not re-advertised given the amendments involve a reduction to the scale of the development and there will be no increase in material detriment beyond the plans that were originally advertised.

Referrals

Parks

Council’s Parks Department has confirmed that there is no significant vegetation on the site and have reviewed the plans, including Landscape Plan prepared by John Patrick Landscape Architects, submitted to Council on 24 May 2017 and provided comment that the Landscape Plan is suitable for approval.

Infrastructure

Council’s Infrastructure Unit reviewed the plans submitted to Council on 24 May 2017 and Feature and Level Survey Plan prepared by Carson Simpson Pty Ltd submitted to Council 12 July 2017 and provided the following comments:

The proposed floor level is marginally below the top of Kent Lane at the south-east corner of the site. Any overland flow along Kent Lane will be directed into the backyard/car spaces associated with the dwellings and during any rainfall event of any significance, that overland flow is likely to flow into the dwellings. The levels and cross fall of the lane are such that overland flow will be directed towards the property which is likely to exacerbate the problem. The level of the floors should be at least 200mm above the level of the top of kerb meaning that the floor levels will need to be raised by that amount. Further, levels should be shown on the plans including existing levels at the rear on the lane and finished levels for the rear yards.

There is also a grated side-entry pit in the lane which is critical for the drainage and it is not apparent how this can be modified to accommodate the two vehicular crossings without further compromising and reducing the effectiveness of the pit. The fact that there is a pit there is likely to create turbulence with the overland flow along the lane which will further exacerbate the potential for flooding of the development. An application for the crossings should be formally made to Infrastructure to ascertain if the crossings will be approved and if so, what conditions will be applicable. Any required works to the pit is likely to be significant and costly.

Condition: A report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared in accordance with that report prior to a building permit being issued. All drainage must be by means of a gravity based system with the exception of any basement ramp and agricultural drains which may be pumped.

Planner note: A condition can be placed on any permit issued requiring the levels to be shown on plans and that the floor level be raised by 200mm with no increase in overall building height. A further condition can be placed on any permit issued requiring that any relocation of service pits required to be relocated to facilitate the development must be done so at the cost of the applicant and subject to the relevant authority’s consent.

Page 14


It is noted that the site is not located in a Special Building Overlay and as such no planning permit is required. However the Applicant has confirmed that in response to referral comments from Council’s Infrastructure Department, the Applicant has proposed to “flip” the layout of the rear (south) yards of both dwellings so that the car parking spaces will be located along the east and west boundaries of the site and the bins and water tanks will be located along the boundary separating the proposed dwellings. This is proposed to ensure that vehicle entry and exit from the site will not occur above the existing pit. The Applicant has agreed in writing that this can be achieved and addressed via conditions, as such a condition will be placed on any permit issued requiring plans to show this.

KEY ISSUES

State and Local Planning Policy Framework

A number of provisions from the State Planning Policy Framework that are relevant to the policy setting for assessment of this application. These include commentary about Structure Planning (Clause 11.02-3), Metropolitan Melbourne (Clause 11.04), Urban Design (Clause 15.01), Housing (Clause 16) and Transport (Clause 18). At the State Policy level these policy objectives provide a State policy impetus for the residential intensification of sites that are well served by physical and social infrastructure. Specific State policy support for appropriate residential intensification is highlighted in Clause 16 (Housing). This includes strategies to increase the supply of housing in existing urban areas by facilitating increased housing yield in appropriate locations, including under-utilised urban land (Clause 16.01-1) and to increase the proportion of housing in Metropolitan Melbourne to be developed within the established urban areas particularly at Activity Centres, employment corridors and at other strategic sites, including land close to public transport (Clause 16.01-2).

The State Policy objectives in regard to transport also provide a particular emphasis on encouraging higher land use densities and mixed use developments near railway stations, major bus terminals, transport interchanges, tramways and principal bus routes (18.01-2), which promotes the use of sustainable personal transport (Clause 18.02-1). When considered against this policy direction there is State policy support for the proposed redevelopment and residential intensification of an existing site within inner Melbourne and which would increase housing yield.

The Stonnington Strategic Framework Plan identifies locations where specific outcomes are encouraged. In regard to residential intensification, the framework at Clause 21.05-2 acknowledges the need for increased densities across the municipality and directs specific types of development to specific areas. The subject site is located within an ‘incremental change area’ where the policy states that ‘multi-unit development (2-3 storeys)’ should be directed to lots capable of accommodating increased density. In this context, it is considered that there is local policy support for the construction of a multi-dwelling development in this location.

Proposed Scale and Neighbourhood Character

The surrounding residential area comprises a mixture of development types. This includes single and double storey semi-detached dwellings and there are examples of three storey multi-unit developments with no recessions at first or second floor. The area typically features small allotments and side-by-side unit development of various architectural styles. Given the mixed character and range of housing types of the area, as well as the size of the site, it is considered that the subject site is capable of some level of increased density. The proposed development is also in accordance with Standard B2 and B3 of Clause 55 in that it supports a range of housing types in an area where development can take advantage of public transport and other services.

Page 15


The Neighbourhood Character Policy included at Clause 22.23 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme also sets out the character and design guidelines for development in different character precincts. The Neighbourhood Character Local Planning Policy includes the preferred character statements, design objectives and design responses to be taken from the precinct profiles. The subject site is located within the Inner Urban Precinct. The statement of preferred neighbourhood character reads:

‘The Inner Urban (IU) character precinct is defined by buildings of innovative and high quality architectural styles that sit comfortably within compact streetscapes of Victorian, Edwardian and Interwar dwellings. Consistent front setbacks reinforce the building edge along the streets, and building heights and forms complement, rather than dominate, the rhythm of development. Well-designed gardens for small spaces contribute to the softening of the streetscape. Low or permeable front fences provide views of building facades and front gardens. Where present, car parking structures are located at the rear of buildings with access from rear lanes to provide continuous, uninterrupted footpaths for pedestrian friendly streets. Areas within a Residential Growth or Mixed Use Zone or within a substantial change area will accommodate more development within a more compact setting but with space for vegetation and high quality, responsive design.’

The design objectives for this area are:

To encourage the retention of intact, older dwellings that contribute to the character of the area

To ensure new buildings and extensions do not dominate the streetscape. To encourage a high quality of building detailing that references, without mimicking, the

details of buildings in the area. To maintain and reinforce the alignment of buildings along the street. To maintain and strengthen the garden settings of buildings and the tree canopy of the

neighbourhood. To prevent the loss of front garden space and the dominance of car parking structures. To ensure fences complement the predominant style of front boundary treatment in the

street and retain views to dwellings and gardens.

Having regard to the policies, provisions and decision guidelines of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, particularly the Neighbourhood Character Policy at Clause 22.23, and the context of the subject site and its surrounds, it is considered that proposal respects and is compatible with the existing and preferred neighbourhood character for the following reasons:

The application seeks to demolish the existing building which is not prohibited under the planning controls. Given the lack of heritage controls and the overarching theme of the Planning Scheme to promote urban consolidation, demolition of the existing building can be justified.

The proposal has an overall building height of 9 metres. However given the recessed second storey and cantilevered first floor balcony, the proposal will have a maximum height of 6.265 metres for the first 10.566 metres of the site setback from Aberdeen Road. Therefore the proposal will present to the Aberdeen Road streetscape as a two storey building with recessed second storey minimising the impact to the street and maintaining the two storey residential streetscape scale. The three storey built form is massed towards the rear adjacent the Prahran East Village Activity Centre. It is noted that No. 8A Aberdeen Road has a maximum building height of 6.55 metres constructed along the common boundary with the site and No. 14 Aberdeen Road has a maximum building height of 6.4 metres constructed along the common boundary with the site. Accordingly, the top storey will not be a visually dominant element and provides an appropriate transition from the lower

Page 16


neighbouring built forms. This will help to reduce the bulk of the building, provide articulation and ensure the presentation to the street is not overly dominant.

Policy at Clause 22.23 calls for new buildings to respond to the streetscape character in an innovative and contemporary manner. The proposals contemporary design is considered an appropriate response to development within the surrounding area, with both adjoining lots featuring contemporary double storey design with flat roof form. Further, the development at No. 8 and 8A Aberdeen Road features a cantilevered first floor. The use of grey brick, dark metal cladding and light render is reflective of the materiality on the adjoining lots and development within the surrounding area. As such the proposal will be consistent with the existing character of the streetscape.

It is noted that car parking is proposed within the rear (south) of the site accessed via Kent Lane, which is a consistent feature of lots located on the southern side of Aberdeen Road. The car parking spaces will not be visible from the Aberdeen Road streetscape and therefore the scale and car parking location of the proposal will reflect, and not dominate, the streetscape character.

The proposed level of landscaping is also considered appropriate to maintain and strengthen the garden settings of buildings and landscaping of the neighbourhood, which is also identified within Clause 21.06-2 (Landscape Character) which seeks to ‘repair and reinforce the high quality landscape character of the City’ and the design guidelines of Inner Urban Precinct. It is considered that the Landscape Plan prepared by John Patrick Landscape Architects that shows landscaped areas within the front, rear and side setbacks, and includes four canopy trees, is an appropriate response to landscaping character within the surrounding area. This has been confirmed by Council’s Parks Department.

The proposed front fence is also consistent with front fences in the surrounding area, despite being contrary to the preferred character within Clause 22.23. Given the small lot sizes and orientation of dwellings located on the southern side of Aberdeen Road, dwellings predominately feature their primary secluded open space to the north of lots to utilise sunlight to these spaces. As such, there are several examples of high solid front fences to protect privacy to these spaces, including both No. 8A Aberdeen Road and No. 14 Aberdeen Road, which feature front fences with height ranging from 1.9 metres to in excess of 2.1 metres. Therefore the proposed brick front fence with visually permeable pedestrian gates and height from 1.97 metres to 2.1 metres is considered to be consistent with front fences in the surrounding area.

Overall, it is considered that the design response, in terms of its presentation to key interfaces and incorporation of features of the surrounding area, and built form, will site comfortably within the preferred character and existing features of the surrounding area. Further, the proposal is considered to be a suitable response to the emerging streetscape character, as assessed against Clause 16.01 and Clause 21.06. For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal is considered an appropriate response to the Neighbourhood Character Policy at Clause 22.23 and Standard B1 (Neighbourhood Character), B2 (Residential Policy), B31 (Design Detail) and B32 (Front Fences). Built Form

Street Setback

The proposal features a ground floor setback from Aberdeen Road ranging from 4.475 metres to 5.065 metres (east to west), and due to the cantilevered first floor terraces, a first floor setback of 3.475 metres to 4.055 metres (east to west) from Aberdeen Road, with an average street setback of 3.765 metres. No. 14 Aberdeen Road features a street setback of

Page 17


4.26 metres (as adjacent the subject site) and No. 8A Aberdeen Road features a street setback of 3.56 metres (as adjacent the subject site). Therefore a setback of 3.91 metres from Aberdeen Road is required under Standard B6.

The proposed street setback responds to the street alignment and allows for a transition between the varied setbacks on both adjoining lots. Therefore the street setback is considered to comply with the objective at Clause 55.03-1 (Street Setback).

Building Height

The proposed maximum overall building height is 9 metres. This complies with the requirements of Schedule 10 to the General Residential Zone which allows for a maximum height of 9 metres above natural ground level on sites without the requisite slope in ground level. Further, the proposal has three storeys, which complies with the maximum three storey requirements pursuant to Clause 32.08-9. The height is similar to the height of many other buildings in the area, including the three storey unit-developments at No. 32 Aberdeen Road and No. 36 Aberdeen Road. In its immediate setting the proposal’s three storey form is considered appropriate and will ensure a complementary step-up relationship in terms of building height and views from the street.

Landscaping

As discussed above, it is considered that the proposal respects the landscape character of the surrounding neighbourhood. The Landscape Plan prepared by John Patrick Landscape Architects shows planting throughout the site. This landscape response is considered acceptable in this instance given the lot size of the site and the limited space this leaves for tree planting within side setbacks. The proposed landscaping will result in increased landscaping and plant sizes compared with the existing landscaping on the site which currently features landscaping in the front setback and smaller shrub planting along the side and rear setbacks.

The proposal appropriately responds to the modified Standard B8 within Schedule 10 to the General Residential Zone, which requires at least one canopy tree to be planted on the site. The Landscape Plan features four canopy trees within the front and rear setbacks of the site, with a proposed Biloxi Crepe Myrtle within the north east corner of the site that has a height of 7 metres and a canopy spread of 5 metres at maturity.

It is noted that the plans were amended on 7 September 2017 which increased the setback from the eastern boundary as opposite the light court at No. 14 Aberdeen Road. This will allow additional landscaping to assist in softening the building as viewed from No. 14 Aberdeen Road. The amended plans show indicative planting in this location and a condition of any permit issued will require an amended landscape plan to reflect the increased setback.

Amenity Impacts


Standard B17 (Side and Rear Setbacks) sets out numeric requirements for side and rear setbacks. The proposal is largely constructed along the side boundaries (refer to assessment of Standard B18 below). The proposal is generally setback from the east and west boundaries as adjacent the existing light courts at No. 14 Aberdeen Road and No. 8A Aberdeen Road. The proposal also features a racked roof opposite the existing light courts, resulting in a greater roof setback from adjoining lots. The table below illustrates how the proposal performs against these requirements:

Page 18


West

Location Wall Height Setback Required

Setback Proposed

Shortfall? Complies?

Ground, First and Second Floor (to parapet)

7.7 metres 2.79 metres 1.03 metres 1.76 metres x

Roof 9 metres 4.09 metres 2.5 metres 1.59 metres x

East


Setback Proposed


Ground Floor 2.7 metres 1 metre 1.415 metres N/A

First and Second Floor (to parapet)

7.7 metres 2.79 metres 1.39 metres 1.4 metres x

Roof 9 metres 4.09 metres 2.5 metres 1.59 metres x

South


Setback Proposed(west – east)


Ground Floor 2.7 metres 1 metre Approx. 5 - 5.7 metres

N/A

First Floor 6.2 metres 1.78 metres 3.385 – 4.005 metres

N/A

Second Floor 9 metres 4.09 metres 4.62 – 5.24 metres

N/A

Given the limited lot sizes, boundary-to-boundary construction and narrow spacing between properties in this neighbourhood, the areas of non-compliance are considered to be acceptable from a character perspective. For the reasons that will be discussed in the assessment of Standard B19 (Daylight to Existing Windows) below, the non-compliance will not impact on daylight access to the habitable room windows on adjoining lots.

In addition, the bulk impact associated with the non-compliances are not considered to be excessive given the location of the non-compliances are not adjacent any private open space and the adjoining lot’s habitable room windows have existing outlooks to boundary fences with heights ranging from 2.2 metres to 3.5 metres. As a result, the proposal meets the objective of Clause 55.04-1.

Walls on Boundaries

Schedule 10 to the General Residential Zone includes a modified Standard B18 which requires that:

Page 19


Walls should not be located on side boundaries for a distance of 5 metres behind the front façade of the building fronting the street.

The proposal shows the construction of boundary walls located at the front of the building within the front 5 metres behind the façade. Accordingly, the proposal does not strictly comply with Standard B18. However, the modified requirement relates to a neighbourhood character response and given the existing dwelling on the site and both adjoining lots feature walls constructed on the boundary within 5 metres behind the front facade, including double storey walls, the proposal is considered to be acceptable from a character perspective.

Further Standard B18 details that a new wall constructed on or within 200mm of a side or rear boundary or a carport constructed on or within 1 metre of a side or rear boundary should not abut the boundary for a length of more than 10 metres plus 25 per cent of the remaining length of the boundary of an adjoining lot, or the length of the existing or simultaneously constructed walls, whichever is the greater. The height of the wall should not exceed an average of 3.2 metres with no part higher than 3.6 metres unless abutting a higher existing or simultaneously constructed wall.

The proposal entails the construction of wall on the eastern boundary for a length of 12.65 metres, with heights varying from 4.745 metres (associated with cantilevered first floor balcony), 6.265 metres (associated with first floor ‘Bed02’) and 9 metres (associated second floor ‘Master Bed’). The eastern boundary of the site has a length of 26.13 metres and the majority of the proposed boundary wall align with the existing double storey boundary wall at No. 14 Aberdeen Road, which according to Planning Permit No.1089/99 has a length of 11.3 metres and height of 6.4 metres.

While a small section (1.235 metres) of proposed wall on the eastern boundary does not align with the existing wall on boundary, this section is located to the south of the site where the vehicle accommodation for No. 14 Aberdeen Road is located. Further, it is noted that the section of the proposed eastern elevation which will have a wall height of 9 metres completely aligns with the existing double storey boundary wall associated with No. 14 Aberdeen Road. As such, it is not considered that the amenity of the adjacent site would be adversely affected.

The proposal entails the construction of wall on the western boundary for a length of 11.035 metres, with heights varying from 4.74 metres (associated with cantilevered first floor balcony), 6.235 metres (associated with first floor ‘Bed02’) and 8.93 metres (associated second floor ‘Master Bed’). The western boundary of the site has a length of 26.09 metres and the majority of the proposed boundary wall aligns with the existing single and double storey boundary wall at No. 8A Aberdeen Road, which according to Planning Permit No.899/06 has a length of 12.84 metres at ground floor with a wall height of 3.25 metres and 11.63 metres at first floor with a wall height of 6.55 metres.

While a small section (approximately 0.5 metres) of proposed wall on the western boundary does not align with the existing wall on boundary, this section is located to the south of the site where the vehicle accommodation for No. 8A Aberdeen Road is located. Further, it is noted that the section of the proposed western elevation which will have a wall height of 9 metres completely aligns with the existing double storey boundary wall associated with No. 8A Aberdeen Road. As such, it is not considered that the amenity of the adjacent site would be adversely affected.

Overall, it is considered that the extent of walls on boundaries proposed within the development are respectful of neighbourhood character and would not adversely impact upon amenity.

Page 20


While not acted upon, it is noted that Planning Permit No. 1144/07 for No. 12 Aberdeen Road Prahran approved a first floor addition to the rear (south) of the dwelling with a maximum wall height of 7.72 metres constructed along the east and west boundaries.

Daylight to Existing Windows

The proposal is located opposite habitable room windows to the east and west. Standard B19 details that walls opposite habitable room windows with a height more than 3 metres, should be setback from the existing windows 50 per cent of the new wall height. It is noted that where the existing windows is above ground floor level, the wall height is measured from the floor level of the room containing the window.

To the west, the proposal is located adjacent to three first floor habitable room windows which are setback 2.175 metres from the common boundary of the lot. The proposal includes the construction of 4.58 metre high wall (as taken from the finished floor level of the first floor of No. 8A Aberdeen Road) opposite these windows with a setback of 1.03 metres from the boundary (3.205 metres from the existing habitable room windows). Therefore the proposal complies with the Standard on the west elevation.

To the east, the proposal is located adjacent to three ground floor habitable windows and one first floor habitable room window with an existing setback of 1.05 metres from the boundary. The proposal entails the construction of 7.7 metre wall opposite these windows with a setback of 1.39 metres from the common boundary (2.44 metres from the existing habitable room windows). While the proposal does not comply with the numerical Standard, it is considered appropriate as the existing habitable windows to the east will have a light court that has an area exceeding 3 square metres with more than 1 metre clear to the sky. Further floor plans from Planning Permit No. 1098/99 for adjoining lot to the east, No. 14 Aberdeen Road show that the ground floor as opposite the proposal features an open plan kitchen dining room that has several other light sources including skylights and south facing windows that run the length of southern elevation of the lot. As a result, it is considered that the proposal will not unreasonably restrict daylight access to the existing neighbouring habitable room windows.

Overshadowing

The relevant assessment mechanism for overshadowing of neighbouring areas of private open space is the overshadowing open space objective, including Standard B21. This standard states the following:

Where sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is reduced, at least 75 per cent, or 40 square metres with minimum dimension of 3 metres, whichever is the lesser area, of the secluded private open space should receive a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm on 22 September.

If existing sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is less than the requirements of this standard, the amount of sunlight should not be further reduced.

The objective of Clause 55.04-5 is to ‘ensure buildings do not significantly overshadow existing secluded private open space.’

As noted above, the primary secluded private open space of both adjoining dwellings is located to the north of the relative lots and the rear (south) spaces are set aside for vehicle accommodation, according to the relevant planning permits for each lot. As such the proposal

Page 21


will not result in any additional overshadow to the primary secluded private open spaces of each adjoining lot given the orientation of the subject site and adjoining lots.

While it is noted that there is a small increase in overshadowing to the rear (south) of adjoining lot to west, No. 8A Aberdeen Road, the increase in shadow is located to the south east corner of the lot and is only a minor increase in shadow from the existing buildings and boundary fence. Given the area is not the primary secluded private open space of the lot and the area affected is along the outer perimeter of the lot, the proposal will not unreasonable impact the useability of this space. Therefore the proposal complies with the Objective.

Overlooking

The key assessment tool to determine unreasonable overlooking is the Overlooking Objective, including Standard B22. The standard provides a 9m 45 degree angle arc that determines unreasonable overlooking, and windows or balconies that are located in such a position must be screened to a height of 1.7m above finished floor level accordingly.

It is noted that this standard does not apply to a new habitable room window, balcony, terrace, deck or patio which faces a property boundary where there is a visual barrier at least 1.8 metres high and the floor level of the habitable room, balcony, terrace, deck or patio is less than 0.8 metres above ground level at the boundary.

None of the ground level windows or areas of private open space are located in a position that will generate overlooking concerns given the existing boundary fences with a minimum height of 2.2 metres along the east and west boundaries which will act as a visual barrier.

No habitable room windows are proposed along the east or west elevations of the site. The proposed first and second floor habitable room windows and terraces on the north and south elevations of both proposed dwellings will not result in any unreasonable overlooking into habitable room windows or private open space within 9 metres of the proposed window as all first and second floor habitable room windows and terraces on these elevations are proposed to be screened to 1.7 metres from finished floor level with vertical metal screening with maximum 25% transparency. While screens to 1.7 metres from finished floor level would comply with the Standard, no detailing on how the vertical screens would operate and prevent unreasonable overlooking into the secluded private open spaces of adjoining lots. As such a condition should be placed on any permit issued requiring details of proposed screens or alternative to comply with Clause 55.04-6 (Overlooking).

While the plans appear to show a boundary fence between the two proposed dwellings, a condition should be placed on any permit issued that details of any proposed boundary fences between the dwellings be shown on plans in accordance with Clause 55.04-7 (Internal Views).

Internal Amenity

Accessibility, Dwelling Entry and Safety

No notable impediments into the dwellings from the street or the car parking area are evident and the site is considered appropriately accessible pursuant to Clause 55.05-1. Separate entries are proposed for each dwelling accessed from Aberdeen Road via individual pedestrian gates and walkways. The pedestrian entry is clearly identifiable from the street and each dwelling is provided with their own individual entry. The individual entries will provide a sense of personal address consistent with Standard B26 (Dwelling Entry). The

Page 22


entrances are not obscured by dense vegetation and have a level of transparency it is considered Standard B12 (Safety) has also been achieved.

Daylight to New Windows

The proposed dwellings feature all attributes for comfortable living, including provision of windows to all habitable rooms.

Private Open Space

Standard B28 (Private Open Space) requires that the private open space of a dwelling should consist of an area of 40 square metres, with one part of the private open space to consist of secluded private open space at the side or rear of the dwelling or residential building with a minimum area of 25 square metres, a minimum dimension of 3 metres and convenient access from a living room.

The secluded private open space of both dwellings will be located to the north of the site, each secluded private open space will have an area of approximately 20 square metres and will be accessed by the living rooms of both dwellings. While the proposed are does not meet the minimum dimension requirement under the Standard, the proposed areas are considered as an appropriate response to Clause 55.05-4 given the limited lot size of the site, the northern location of the secluded private open space and the ease of accessibility from the living room at ground floor. Secluded private open spaces located within the northern setback is a consistent feature along the south side of Aberdeen Road, with both the development at No. 14 and 14A Aberdeen Road and No. 8 and 8A Aberdeen Road featuring secluded private open space to the north of the relevant lots. Further it is noted that the proposal entails north facing first floor terraces associated with Bed02 of each dwelling with an area of 6.8 square metres each.

Storage

External storage associated with the proposed dwellings as required pursuant to Clause 55.05-6 has not detailed on the plans. Therefore a condition will be placed on any permit issued requiring external storage areas associated with both dwellings to be detailed on the plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Site Services

The proposal provides for adequate space for services to be installed and maintained efficiently. Mailboxes for both dwellings have not been shown on plans and as such a condition will be placed on any permit issued requiring the location be shown. Bin storage areas are shown to be located within the rear (south) car parking area of each dwelling, which will allow for sufficient space and convenient access by residents. Therefore the proposal complies with the Standard.

Car Parking and Traffic

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5, two car spaces are required to be provided to each three or more bedroom dwelling. Given that a total of 2 car parking spaces are proposed (1 car parking space per dwelling), a reduction of 2 car parking spaces is required.

A ‘centre based’ approach should be applied while determining if the reduction of car parking should be granted. The ‘centre based’ approach is discussed in Practice Note 22: Using the Car Parking Provisions (April 2013). This practice note details that when considering providing fewer than required car parking spaces, consideration is given to the practicality of

Page 23


providing car parking on the site, especially for lots of less than 300 square metres. Given the site has a lot size of less than 300 square metres, the proposed car parking location is consistent with car parking locations of lots on the southern side of Aberdeen Road and the proposed car parking on site will not reduce any on-street car parking spaces, the reduction of 2 car parking spaces is considered appropriate.

Further given the sites location adjacent the Prahran East Village Activity Centre, consideration must also be given to the potential adverse economic impact a car-parking waiver may have on an activity centre, and the future growth and development of an activity centre, car parking should be considered on a centre wide basis rather than site by site. Furthermore, it is identified that ‘where a change of use or a relatively small extension is consistent with the strategic plan for the centre and car parking cannot easily be provided, it will often be more sensible to reduce the car parking requirement rather than prevent the use or development’.

The site is located adjacent to a highly accessible activity centre with a range of alternative transport options available. This includes Tram and Bus Routes which run along High Street and Williams Road and the site is located in close proximity to Toorak and Windsor Railway Station. It is considered that the proposal will not contribute to loss of local amenity and will not adversely affect traffic flow or road safety. It is also noted that both state and local policy seeks to ensure that uses incorporate and encourage sustainable transport options, including walking, cycling and public transport. Discussed below within the Sustainable Design Assessment, bicycle parking spaces are proposed for each dwelling under the BESS Report submitted to Council 24 May 2017.

Sustainable Design Assessment

Pursuant to Clause 22.05 Environmentally Sustainable Development, the proposed development is required to submit a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA). The Applicant has provided a Sustainable Design Assessment & Water Sensitive Urban Design Response prepared by the Applicant (Council date stamped 24 May 2017), which includes a BESS assessment addressing each of Council’s 10 Key sustainable Building Categories and a BESS score of 59%, where 50%+ is considered best practice.

The policy at Clause 22.18 details the requirement for any new buildings or extensions to existing buildings which are 50 square metres in floor area or greater to submit to Council a water sensitive urban design response which details the stormwater treatment measures. Therefore, Clause 22.18 is applicable.

The Applicant submitted a STORM Report detailing a rating of 170% with two 1,500 litre rain water tanks. Plan TP1-100 (Rev D) shows two 1,500 litre rain water tanks located within the rear (south) setback of both dwellings. While a STORM Report detailing a rating 170% would satisfy the requirement of Clause 22.18, plans submitted do not show connectivity to rainwater tanks or roof catchment area. A condition will be placed on the permit issued requiring revised plans be submitted to show the dimensioned location of roof catchment areas and connectivity to measures of reuse.

Human Rights Consideration

This application has been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (including the Stonnington Planning Scheme), reviewed by the State Government and which complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

CONCLUSION

Page 24


Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons:

The proposal represents a design which responds to the policy direction for the area; The proposed height is appropriate in an area where policy encourages medium

density development; Appropriate setbacks are provided for spacing and landscaping of the development; The proposal provides sufficient parking on-site.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PA - 1243-16 - 12 Aberdeen Road Prahran - Attachment 1 of 1 Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 1243/16 for the land located at 12 Aberdeen Road, Prahran be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for construction of two dwellings on a lot and a reduction in car parking requirements in a General Residential Zone subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development, 1 electronic copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans amended 7 September 2017 but modified to show:

a) Revised layout of rear (south) yards of both dwellings to show vehicle access to and from Kent Lane occurring along the east and west boundaries of the site.

b) Existing and Proposed Floor Levels to be shown on plans, including existing levels at the rear (south) of the site on the lane and finished floor levels of rear (south) garage.

c) Finished Floor Level at Ground Floor of both dwellings raised by 200mm with no increase in the overall building height.

d) Location of Mailboxes of both dwellings shown on plans.

e) Location of external storage cages that have a minimum area of 6 cubic metres as to comply with Clause 55.05-6 shown on plans.

f) Details of the first and second floor vertical metal screens associated with habitable room windows and terraces to comply with Standard B22 of Clause 55.05-6.

g) Height, material and transparency of boundary fences between the two dwellings as to comply with Clause 55.04-7 shown on plans.

h) Any changes as required by the Landscape Plan in accordance with Condition 3.

i) Any changes required by Condition 5, including location of any proposed

Page 25


measures included in the Sustainable Design Assessment.

j) Any changes required by Condition 7, including dimensioned location of any proposed rainwater tanks with annotations demonstrating the proposed areas for rain water collection, connectivity between features and the proposed means of reuse.

All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason (unless the Stonnington Planning Scheme specifies that a permit is not required) without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Concurrent with endorsement of plans, a landscape plan to be prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and 1 electronic copy of the plan must be provided. The landscape plan must be generally in accordance with the Landscape Plan dated 24 May 2017 prepared by John Patrick Landscape Architects Pty Ltd but modified to show:

a) The layout of the development as per amended plan Council date stamped 8 September 2017.

b) Any plan changes as required under Condition 1.

4. Before the occupation of the development, the landscaping works as shown on the endorsed plans must be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Landscaping must then be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, including that any dead, diseased or damaged plants are to be replaced.

5. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans pursuant to Condition 1 a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon approval the SDA will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development must incorporate the sustainable design initiatives outlined in the SDA to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The SDA must be generally in accordance with the SDA dated 24 May 2017 but modified to show the plan changes required under Condition 1 and to reflect the amended plans Council date stamped 8 September 2017.

6. All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Sustainability Design Assessment to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No

Page 26


alterations to the Sustainable Management Plan may occur without written consent of the Responsible Authority.

7. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, the applicant must provide a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response (WSUDR) addressing the Application Requirements of the Water Sensitive Urban Design Policy to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All proposed treatments included within the WSUDR must also be indicated on the plans. The WSUDR must be generally in accordance with the WSUDR dated 24 May 2017 but modified to show the plan changes required under Condition 1 and to reflect the amended plans Council date stamped 8 September 2017.

8. The project must incorporate the Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives detailed in the endorsed site plan and/or stormwater management report.

9. Any poles, service pits or other structures/features on the footpath required to be relocated to facilitate the development must be done so at the cost of the applicant and subject to the relevant authority’s consent.

10. The level of the footpaths and/or laneways must not be lowered or altered in any way to facilitate access to the site.

11. The collection of wastes and recyclables from the premises (other than normal Stonnington City Council collection) must be in accordance with Council's General Local Laws.

12. Prior to the occupation of the building, fixed privacy screens (not adhesive film) designed to limit overlooking as required by Standard B22 of Clause 55.04-6 in accordance with the endorsed plans must be installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority thereafter for the life of the building.

13. Prior to the occupation of the building/ commencement of use, the walls on the boundary of the adjoining properties must be cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

14. A report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared in accordance with that report prior to a building permit being issued. All drainage must be by means of a gravity based system with the exception of any basement ramp and agricultural drains which may be pumped.

15. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

Page 27


a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.

b) The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a request may be submitted to the Responsible Authority within the prescribed timeframes for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

NOTES:

i. This permit does not constitute any authority to carry out any building works or occupy the building or part of the building unless all relevant building permits are obtained.

ii. At the permit issue date, Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 stated that the Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing within the following timeframes:

i. Before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has not yet started; and

ii. Within 12 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully started before the permit expires.

Page 28


2. PLANNING APPLICATION 0593/17- 33-35 HUNTINGTOWER ROAD, ARMADALE - CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STOREY APARTMENT BUILDING COMPROMISING TEN DWELLINGS


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for a multi-dwelling development and reduction of the visitor parking requirement at 33-35 Huntingtower Road, Armadale.

Executive Summary

Applicant: O'Neill ConsultingWard: SouthZone: General Residential Zone, Schedule 10Overlay: NoneNeighbourhood Precinct: Garden Suburban 3Date lodged: 26 June 2017Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

96 days


The application has attracted objections from more than seven different properties.

Number of objections: TenConsultative Meeting: Yes– held on 5 September 2017Officer Recommendation: Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Jolson Architecture and Interiors and are known as Project No. 17001, Drawing No.s: TP04 to TP13 (inclusive), revision TP1, dated 23/06/17 and Council date stamped 26/06/2017.


A two storey apartment building comprising five dwellings at ground floor (4 x three-bed and 1 x two-bed) and five dwellings at first floor (2 x three-bed and 3 x two-bed).

23 car spaces in a basement car park (22 residential spaces and one visitor space). Each dwelling has a minimum of two car spaces (with apartments 6 and 9 having three spaces each).

Maximum proposed building height of 8.9 metres.

Cream beige rendered finish to the external walls and a non-reflective metal deck roof

Site and Surrounds

Page 29


The site is located on the west side of Huntingtower Road approximately halfway between High Street and Malvern Road. The site has the following significant characteristics:

The site has an area of approximately 2001 square metres. The site is currently vacant. The site has two crossovers from Huntingtower Road. The site is within close proximity to the Lauriston Girls’ School campus (approximately

35 metres) The residential character of Huntingtower Road is made up of a mix of individual

dwellings on a lot and more intensive unit development in the vicinity of four to five dwellings per lot. There is no clear dominant architectural style, however there is a clear character of single and double storey dwellings being set within a garden setting.

The site has the following relevant interfaces:

North: 37-39 Huntingtower Road is located to the north of the site. The property is occupied by a detached two storey Edwardian brick dwelling with a pitched tile roof. The dwelling is situated in an established garden. A high brick front fence is located on the Huntingtower Road frontage.

North (to the rear): 2A Murray Street is located to the north of the rear of the subject site and to the rear (west) of 37-39 Huntingtower Road. The property is occupied by a detached two storey Edwardian brick dwelling with a pitched tile roof. A large canopy tree exists in the southwest corner of the lot.

West: 16 Horsburgh Grove is located to the west of the subject site. The property was occupied by a single storey Edwardian dwelling that has recently been demolished. The site is subject to Planning Application 1053/16 which is further detailed below.

South: Units 1 to 5/29 Huntingtower Road are located to the south of the subject site. The units all consist of attached single storey dwellings with low pitched roofs. Units 2 to 5 have areas of primary secluded private open space to their north, adjacent to the subject site. While Unit 1 has its primary open space to the front, behind a high front fence to Huntingtower Road. All five dwellings are constructed around individual internal courtyards.


A search of Council records indicates the following relevant planning applications:

Planning Application 1053/16 for the construction of two dwellings at 16 Horsburgh Grove to the rear (west) of the subject site is currently subject of a VCAT proceeding. After a process of negotiation, all parties have reached agreement and signed a Consent Order that allows a permit to be issued for the proposed development. In an email dated 26 September 2017, VCAT have advised that the hearing listed for 27 September 2017 has been vacated, the consent order request has been granted and that a final order will be issued in due course.

It is noted that there is no relevant planning permit history for the subject site.

It is noted that Council’s heritage officers investigated the federation dwelling that existed on site prior to its demolition. Although an example of the federation style, the building was not deemed to meet the threshold for significance to be included in a heritage overlay. When demolition of the dwelling commenced, Heritage Victoria received a request for an Interim

Page 30


Protection Order to be placed on the building. On 22 June 2017 Heritage Victoria advised that an Interim Protection Order was not warranted.

The Title

The site is described as Lot 1 on Title Plan 208803P, on Certificate of Title Volume 09023 Folio 705. No covenants or easements affect the land.

Planning Controls

The following permit triggers are considerations for this application:

ZoneClause 32.08 – General Residential Zone, Schedule 10.Pursuant to Clause 32.09-4 a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot. A development must meet the requirements of Clause 55.

Particular ProvisionsClause 52.06 – Car parkingPursuant to Clause 52.06-2, one car space is required for a one and two bedroom dwelling and two spaces are required for a three or more bedroom dwelling. One visitor space is required for every five dwellings.

The development provides 22 spaces for residences and one space for visitors. A dispensation is sought for one visitor space

Officer note: It is noted that the provision of residential parking spaces exceeds the requirements of the planning scheme (surplus of 5 spaces). However, although the provision of residential parking is exceeded, the application seeks permission to reduce the visitor car parking requirement by one space.


Clause 16.01 - Residential Development Clause 22.05 - Environmentally Sustainable Development Clause 22.18 - Stormwater Management Clause 22.23 - Neighbourhood Character Policy Clause 32.08 - General Residential Zone Clause 52.06 - Car Parking Clause 55 Two or more dwellings on a lot (ResCode) Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

Advertising

The application has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land and by placing a sign on the site. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

The site is located in South Ward and objections from ten different properties have been received. The objections can be summarised as follows:

The building is an overdevelopment of the site. The proposal is not in keeping with neighbourhood character. The setbacks from the building to side boundaries are not sufficient.

Page 31


The mass and continuous built form of the building will result in unacceptable visual bulk impacts to adjoining land.

The proposal will compound parking and traffic issues in the street. The proposal should comply with the car parking requirements of the Planning

Scheme. The site is not an appropriate location for the increase in population density associated

with the proposal. The proposal will result in unreasonable overlooking of adjoining land. The proposal will result in unreasonable overshadowing of adjoining land. The proposal does not incorporate sufficient landscaping opportunity. The development will result in unreasonable noise impacts on adjoining land.

A Consultative Meeting was held on 5 September 2017. The meeting was chaired by Councillor Hindle. Others in attendance included the applicant and their client, objectors, and the assessing officer from Council. At the meeting the applicant volunteered the following changes:

To provide an additional visitor car space on site so that the development achieves full compliance with the car parking rates of Clause 52.06 (car parking).

To increase the south boundary setbacks of the building to ensure the development achieves compliance with Standard B21 – Overshadowing, in relation to the secluded private open space areas to the north of Units 2 to 5/29 Huntingtower Road.

These volunteered changes will be required by way of permit conditions.

Referrals

The application was referred to the following internal departments:

Urban Design Infrastructure Local Laws (Crossover) Transport and Parking Landscape (Parks) Waste Management

A summary of the comments received from each of the above is listed below:

Urban Design:

The two storey building has a restrained form and design character that integrates well with the varied streetscape character of Huntingtower Road. The proposed landscape response is also acceptable. From an urban design perspective, there are no concerns with the proposal.

Infrastructure:

If a permit is to issue, it must be subject to the conditional requirement that the permit holder upgrade the outfall drain at the rear of the site through to the Council drain in Horsburgh Grove at their cost.

Page 32


Any permit must also include the standard conditions relating to drainage, stormwater retention and the reinstatement of redundant crossovers.

Local Laws (Crossover):

The application is proposing to use one of two existing crossovers to access the basement. The remaining existing crossover is proposed to be removed and reinstated to footpath, nature strip, kerb and channel. As the existing crossover is proposed to be maintained for access, no crossover permit is required from Local Laws.

Transport and Parking

The development has a total car parking requirement (residential and visitor) of 18 spaces. The proposal provides 23 spaces, which represents a surplus of 5 spaces.

Although there is a surplus, the proposal only includes one visitor space and is therefore proposing a reduction to the visitor parking requirement. Given the surplus of parking, it is recommend that a space be reallocated to visitor parking so that the proposal achieves compliance.

The Lauriston Girls School located on Huntingtower Road and associated traffic is noted. However, the traffic generation from the proposed dwellings is considered satisfactory as it is sufficiently small that it is unlikely to have a significant impact on the operation of the surrounding road network. Although it should be noted that the area is already subject to peak congestion.

The proposal is supported.

Landscape:

There are two London Plane street trees in front of the site. Any permit issued must include conditions to protect these trees. This should include the payment of a $29,936 bond to Council that is repayable to the permit holder once the development is finished and the trees have not been damaged.

A Tree Management Plan should also be required via permit condition to ensure the protection of mature vegetation bordering the site.

The landscape plan is supported.

Waste Management:

Under the ‘City of Stonnington Residential Waste Management Guidelines’ the proposal does not meet the threshold to trigger the requirement for a Waste Management Plan. Notwithstanding this, a Waste Management Plan has been submitted with the application. The submitted Waste Management Plan responds well to the development and is supported.

KEY ISSUES

Strategic Justification

Page 33


The overarching policies and objectives at both a State and Local level encourage urban consolidation in established urban areas and medium density residential development in and around neighbourhood activity centres, where it is close to public transport. These strategies call for well-designed medium-density development that respects neighbourhood character, improves housing choice, makes better use of existing infrastructure and improves energy efficiency.

The subject site is not located on a main road and has no overlay restrictions. It is therefore classified as being within an Incremental Change Area according to Council’s Strategic Framework Plan (Clause 21.03-3). Policy directs that multi-unit development should occur in Incremental Change Areas on lots capable of accommodating increased density. The subject site has an area of 2001 square metres and is therefore considered to be capable of accommodating increased density in line with the policy.

In principle, the redevelopment of this land to provide additional housing opportunities in a well serviced location is supported. Specific elements of the proposal are examined in detail below.

Garden Area:

Under the provisions of the General Residential Zone, a lot with an area over 650 square metres requires 35% of the site to be Garden Area. This is a mandatory requirement of the zone that cannot be varied. Garden Area is defined by the Planning Scheme as:

An uncovered outdoor area of a dwelling or residential building normally associated with a garden. It includes open entertaining areas, decks, lawns, garden beds, swimming pools, tennis courts and the like. It does not include a driveway, any area set aside for car parking, any building or roofed area and any area that has a dimension of less than 1 metre

The application complies with the Garden Area requirement as 35.1% of the site is provided as Garden Area.

Neighbourhood Character:

The site is located within the Garden Suburban 3 Neighbourhood Character Precinct as defined by Council’s Local Neighbourhood Character Policy at Clause 22.23. The relevant section of the statement of preferred character for this precinct is as follows:

The Garden Suburban 3 (GS3) precinct comprises spacious and leafy streetscapes with Victorian, Edwardian, Interwar or Post-war era and new buildings set in established garden surrounds. Generous, regular front and side setbacks provide space around buildings and allow for canopy trees. New buildings or additions offer innovative and contemporary design responses while complementing the key aspects of building form, one-two storey scale and design detail of the older dwellings in the precinct. Low or permeable front fences retain views to gardens and buildings from the street.

The following is noted with regard to proposed development and the statement of preferred character:

The proposal incorporates a 9 metre street setback and proposes substantial landscaping within the front setback, including a number of canopy trees. This will contribute to the garden suburban setting of the area.

Page 34


The side and rear setbacks and the extent of the basement are satisfactory and will ensure adequate landscaping opportunity to the side and rear of the building.

The Huntingtower Road streetscape contains a number of single and double storey Edwardian dwellings, but also a range of more recent developments, including infill unit development. As such there is not a predominant architectural style that characterises the street. The street’s character is more a result of the setbacks, massing and landscaping around buildings. The proposed development is consistent with these elements. It is noted that Council’s Urban Designer is supportive of the application and has advised that the proposal’s “restrained form and design character integrates well with the varied streetscape character of Huntingtower Road”.

The proposed building is a contemporary two storey design response that will contribute to the mix of architectural styles in the street.

High fences are common in the Huntingtower Road streetscape. The proposed 1.6 metre high fence is consistent with this.

An important element of the Huntingtower Road streetscape is the avenue of mature plane trees planted along the street. The application proposes to access the site via an existing crossover and will not have a detrimental impact on the street trees in front of the site. Conditions are recommended to endure these trees are protected during construction.

The following is noted with regard to the Design Guidelines that apply to the Garden Suburban 3 precinct:

The proposal reflects the predominant two storey character of the street and provides a transitional built form between the two storey high pitched roof form at 37-39 Huntingtower Road and the low pitched roof of the single storey units at 29 Huntingtower Road.

The proposed building is a contemporary response to the streetscape that avoids any elements of a mock historical style. The façade of the building is highly articulated with recessed elements, balconies and window openings. The side elevations are also broken up with recessive elements, balconies and windows.

The use of a cream rendered finish to the external walls is consistent with colour palate of other buildings in the street. The use of a rough render finish and a smooth render finish for different elements of the building will provide a visual contrast and assist in breaking up the overall mass of the building.

Adequate spaces has been provided around the building to accommodate landscaping. It is noted that this has been reviewed by Council’s Parks Department who are supportive of the submitted landscape plan.

Built Form:

The application has been assessed against the objectives and standards of Clause 55 – Two or more dwellings on a lot (ResCode). A full assessment against the 49 standards and objectives of Clause 55 has been carried out. The development is generally compliant with these standards. The following relevant standard are highlighted and discussed: BUIILDING HEIGHT

Page 35


The proposal is seeking a maximum building height of 8.9 metres. This complies with the mandatory 9 metres maximum height of the General Residential Zone, Schedule 10.

SITE COVERAGE

Schedule 10 of the General Residential Zone asks that basements not exceed 75% of site area. The proposal’s basement is approximately 66% site coverage (including the access ramp) and complies with this requirement.

It is noted that the building’s site coverage is 62%, which is greater than the standard 60%. However, the site coverage is generally consistent with other multi-dwelling developments in the street and therefore the objective of the Clause to ensure site coverage respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character is met.

PERMEABILITY

Standard B9 of Clause 55.03-4 asks for at least 20% site permeability. The application proposes 23%.

SIDE BOUNDARY SETBACKS:

Both the northern and southern side setbacks propose variations to the side setback requirements of Standard B17:

NORTHERN ELEVATIONLocation Wall

HeightSetback Required

Setback Proposed

Shortfall

Box gutter parapet above master bedroom of Dwelling 8

8.17 metres

3.26 metres 2.88 metres 0.38 metres

The easternmost fireplace flue

8.49 metres


The westernmost fireplace flue

8.90 metres


Northwest corner of building

7.33 metres

2.42 metres 2.68 metres -

Dwelling 7 7.60 metres


Dwelling 9 8.30 metres


The level of variation to the northern boundary is acceptable because the following:

The variation does not apply to the whole elevation, but is limited to the three elements highlighted above. These consist of two flues/chimneys and the box gutter parapet above the master bedroom of Dwelling 8. These make up a small percentage of the overall elevation and the relatively small degree of variation will have a negligible impact on land to the north.

Page 36


There will be no overshadowing impact as a result of the variation.

The areas of variation are not within close proximity to any adjoining habitable room windows and will not result in an overly dominant building that imposes on adjoining private open space.

The articulated built form of the side elevation with recessed elements, balconies and window openings will ensure the mass of the elevation is not unreasonably bulky. In this context, the relatively minor areas of variation are not unreasonable.

SOUTHERN ELEVATIONLocation Wall

Height Setback Required

Setback Proposed

Shortfall

Western corner of box gutter parapet towards rear of building

8.25 metres


Eastern corner of box gutter parapet towards rear of building

8.18 metres


Southeast corner of building

7.55 metres

2.64 metres 2.67 metres

-

The variation to the southern side setback requirement consists of the box gutter parapet towards the rear of the building. This variation is not relevant as a condition will be required to address overshadowing of Units 2 to 5 at 29 Huntingtower Road (discussed below under overshadowing). This condition will result in the setbacks to the southern boundary being increased, or the wall height of the southern elevation being decreased, to reduce overshadowing of land to the south. Both these scenarios will result in the development achieving compliance with the setback requirements of Standard B17 on the southern elevation.

OVERSHADOWING OPEN SPACE:

Five units exits to the south of the subject site at 29 Huntingtower Road. Of these five units, the rear four (2 to 5) have primary secluded private open space areas to their north, which abut the southern boundary of the subject site. These ‘back yards’ have individual areas of approximately 40 square metres. Due to existing overshadowing from the boundary fence, these areas enjoy less than 40 square metres of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on the equinox. Standard B21 states that this degree of solar access should not be further reduced.

The submitted application plans show a building that would increase the level of overshadowing to these spaces during the times specified above. This is not acceptable. At the Consultative Meeting of the 5 September 2017, the applicant acknowledged this area of non-compliance and volunteered a condition that would require the standard to be met. A condition is therefore recommended to ensure this is the case.

Page 37


It is noted that the condition would only apply to the overshadowing of Units 2 to 5 Huntingtower Road and is not required for Unit 1/29 Huntingtower Road. Unit 1has a large area of secluded private open space in the frontage of the lot between the dwelling and the street. The level of solar access to this area of secluded private open space complies with Standard B17 of Clause 55.04-5 and is not required to be addressed by the condition.

OVERLOOKING:

All ground floor windows will be appropriately screened by boundary fencing.

All habitable first floor windows on side and rear elevations are shown with clear glass. This appears to be a drafting error as there is a typical window screening detail section on sheet TP13, however this screening is not shown on the elevation plans. All first floor windows on the side and rear elevations require screening in accordance with Standard B22 of Clause 55.04-6. This will be required via permit condition.

First floor balconies on side and rear elevations are proposed with planter-box screening to a height of 1.36 metres. This does not technically comply with the requirements of Standard B22, but seeks to meet the objective of the clause to ‘limit views into existing secluded private open space and habitable room windows’ by ensuring downward views are not possible. This approach is more typical of the upper levels of larger apartment buildings where planter box screening can work well. However, it is not considered an appropriate method of screening at first floor in this case as it does not achieve the objective of the clause. The planter boxes are not sufficient to adequately screen downward views into adjoining private open space and a condition is recommended that all balconies on the side and rear elevations are screened in accordance with Standard B22.

It is noted that there is currently a two storey development proposed at 16 Horsburgh Grove that is currently subject of a VCAT proceeding (hearing on 27 September 2017). If this building is approved and constructed it will result in habitable room windows and balconies facing the site. The conditions recommended above will ensure that any overlooking of this potential building is addressed in accordance with Standard B22.

SOLAR ACCESS TO OPEN SPACE

The private open space of Dwelling 5 is south facing and does not meet the requirements of Standard B29 with regard to solar access. However, it is expected that there will be a degree of departure from this standard in any apartment development on an east-west axis lot where full compliance would severely limit the development capacity of the lot. As 90% of dwellings have high levels of solar access to their open spaces, the proposed variation to Dwelling 5 is acceptable.

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE ABOVE GROUND FLOOR

Clause 55.07 (Apartment development) is a new clause of ResCode introduced to the Planning Scheme in March 2017. It includes Standard B43 of Clause 55.07-9, which relates to the provision of private open space above ground floor. The standard prescribes minimum balcony areas and dimensions for dwellings based on their number of bedrooms.

All dwellings comply with the standard, except for Dwelling 10. The balcony to Dwelling 10 meets the minimum area requirement of 8 square metres, but falls short of the minimum

Page 38


dimension of 2 metres. The minimum dimension is proposed at 1.88 metres. It is considered that meeting the minimum area requirements for the provision of private open space are important for the future amenity of residents. A condition is therefore recommended that the balcony of Dwelling 10 achieve compliance

ROOM DEPTH

Similar to the above, Standard B47 is a new standard under Clause 55.07 (Apartment development). The standard prescribes a maximum habitable room depth for single aspect rooms based on the floor to ceiling height of a room.

The dwellings have floor to ceiling heights of 3.2 metres. This allows single aspect habitable room to achieve room depths of 8 metres. All single aspect habitable rooms comply with this dimension except for the open plan living/kitchen/dining room of Dwelling 1. This room has a depth of 9.2 metres. This is acceptable given that the standard allows such open plan rooms to have a depth of 9 metres if they have a floor to ceiling height of 2.7 metres and include a kitchen, living and dining area, with the kitchen area being furthest from the window. As the floor to ceiling height is 3.2 metres, and the room enjoys an easterly aspect, the 0.2 metre variation to the standard is supported.

DEEP SOIL AREA

Standard B38 is another new standard under Clause 55.07 (Apartment development). It prescribes a minimum area and dimension for a deep soil area on site.

For the subject site, the Standard prescribes 10% site area with a minimum dimension of 6 metres as the required deep soil area. The application comes close to achieving compliance with the standard in the front setback, achieving approximately 9% site area with a minimum dimension of over 6 metres.

It is considered that the design can easily be amended to achieve the 1% increase required to achieve compliance. It is recommended that this is required by way of permit condition.


The application has a car parking requirement of 18 spaces (16 residential and 2 visitor). The application proposes 23 spaces, however only one of these is proposed as visitor parking.

At the Consultative Meeting on the 5th September 2017, the applicant volunteered a condition to require two visitor car spaces to be provided on site. This is easily achieved due to the surplus of overall car spaces.

The conditional requirement to provide two visitor spaces on site will result in full compliance with the provision of car parking required by Clause 52.06 – Car parking.

Council’s Transport and Parking Department have reviewed the provision of parking and the layout and access arrangements of the basement, and are supportive of the proposal. They have noted that the traffic generation from the proposal is considered satisfactory and is unlikely to have a significant impact on the operation of the surrounding road network despite the street being subject to peak congestion during the school pick up and drop off due to the proximity of Lauriston Grammar School.

Clause 22.05 – Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD):

Page 39


The applicant has submitted a Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) in response to the application requirements of Clause 22.05-4. The SMP uses the BESS tool to demonstrate that the objectives of Clause 22.05 have been addressed.

The BESS score achieved for the development is 58%. This score meets best practice and demonstrates the proposal adequately responds to the ESD objectives of Clause 22.05.

Clause 22.18 – Stormwater Management:

A Sustainability Management Plan and Water Sensitive Urban Design Response was submitted with the application. The report includes a STORM Rating Report showing a STORM rating of 100%. This meets the minimum requirement to satisfy Clause 22.18.



CONCLUSION


The application is consistent with State and Local Planning Policy that seeks to provide for well-designed medium-density residential development that respects neighbourhood character in established urban areas.

The proposal provides for a satisfactory landscape response that will contribute to the landscape character of the area.

The development will not unreasonably impact upon adjoining amenity as determined by compliance with ResCode (Clause 55) Objectives.

The proposal satisfies Council’s Environmental Sustainable Development and Stormwater Management policies.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PA - 593-17 - 33 - 35 Huntingtower Road Armadale - Attachment 1 of 1.PDF Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 593/17 for the land located at 33-35 Huntingtower Road, Armadale be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for a multi-dwelling development subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development, one (1) copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application Council date stamped 26 June 2017 but

Page 40


modified to show:

a) The building amended to achieve compliance with Standard B21 of Clause 55.04-5 (Overshadowing), so that sunlight to the secluded private open spaces to the north of Units 2 to 5 (inclusive) at 29 Huntingtower Road is not further reduced for a minimum of five hours between 9am and 3pm on 22 September (the equinox).

b) All first floor habitable room windows and balconies on the side and rear elevations, screened in accordance with Standard B22 of Clause 55.04-6 (Overlooking).

c) The dimensions of the balcony to Dwelling 10 increased to achieve compliance with Standard B43 of Clause 55.07-9 (Private open space above ground floor).

d) 10% deep soil area on site with a minimum dimension of 6 metres, in accordance with Standard B38 of Clause 55.07-4 (Deep soil areas and canopy trees).

e) The number of car spaces within the basement must comply with the requirements of Clause 52.06. This applies to residential and visitor parking.

f) The dimension of the ramp curve radius to ensure compliance with Clause 52.06.

g) All garage doors in the basement with a minimum headroom clearance of 2.2 metres.

h) The dimensions of columns in the basement in accordance with Clause 52.06.

i) A note on the ground floor plan that the permit holder will upgrade the outfall drain at the rear of the site through to the Council drain in Horsburgh Grove at their cost.

j) Any changes required by the Tree Management Plan required by Condition 6.

k) A Landscape Plan in accordance with Condition 3.l) A Sustainability Management Plan in accordance with Condition 10.

all to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


3. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a landscape plan to be prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and one electronic copy must be provided. The landscape plan must be in accordance with the preliminary landscape plan prepared by Myles Baldwin Design, revision C, dated 21/06/2017, but modified to show:

a) A survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be

Page 41


retained and/or removed;b) Buildings and trees (including botanical names) on neighbouring

properties within three metres of the boundary;c) Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways;d) A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers,

including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant;

e) Landscaping and planting within all open areas of the site;f) The extent of any cut, fill, embankments or retaining walls associated

with the landscape treatment of the site;g) Details of all proposed hard surface materials including pathways, patio

or decked areas;all to the satisfaction of the Responsibility Authority


5. Before the development starts, tree protection fencing must be erected around the three mature London Plane street trees in front of the site on Huntingtower Road. Fencing must comply with Section 4 of AS 4970.

6. Concurrent with the endorsement of development plans a tree management plan prepared by a suitably qualified arborist must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the tree management plan will form part of this permit and all works must be done in accordance with the tree management plan.

The tree management plan must detail measures to protect and ensure the viability of all trees on adjoining lane within three metres of the sites boundary.

Without limiting the generality of the tree management plan it must have at least three sections as follows:

a) Pre-construction – details to include a tree protection zone, height barrier around the tree protection zone, amount and type of mulch to be placed above the tree protection zone and method of cutting any roots or branches which extend beyond the tree protection zone.

b) During-construction – details to include watering regime during construction and method of protection of exposed roots.

c) Post-construction – details to include watering regime and time of final inspection when barrier can be removed and protection works and regime can cease.

Pre-construction works and any root cutting must be inspected and approved by the Parks Unit. Removal of protection works and cessation of the tree management plan must be authorised by the Parks Unit.

Page 42


7. Prior to the commencement of all works, a security deposit of $29,936 must be lodged with Council to ensure the development will not impact on the long term health of the three London Plane street trees in front of the site. This deposit will be refunded when Council is satisfied that the health of the trees has not been affected by the development.

8. No vehicular or pedestrian access, trenching or soil excavation is to occur within the Tree Protection Zone without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. No storage or dumping of tools, equipment or waste is to occur within the Tree Protection Zone.


10. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans pursuant to Condition 1 a Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon approval the SMP will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development must incorporate the sustainable design initiatives outlined in the SMP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The report must be generally in accordance with the SMP prepared by Ark Reasources and Council date stamped 26/06/2017.

11. All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Sustainable Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the Sustainable Management Plan may occur without written consent of the Responsible Authority.


13. Before the development starts, areas set-aside for parked vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be:

a) Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. b) Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with

the plans. c) Surfaced with an all-weather sealcoat. d) Drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. e) Line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes to the

satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times.

14. A report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in accordance with that report prior to a building permit being issued. All drainage must be by means of a gravity based system with the exception of any basement ramp and agricultural drains which may be pumped. The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer’s design and must include an upgrade the outfall drain at the rear of the site through to the Council drain in Horsburgh Grove at the permit holders cost.

Page 43


15. The existing footpath levels must not be lowered or altered in any way at the property line (to facilitate the basement ramp).

16. The redundant vehicular crossing must be removed and the footpath, naturestrip and kerb reinstated at the owner’s cost to the satisfaction of Council.

17. The applicant must at their cost provide a stormwater detention system to restrict runoff from the development to no greater than the existing runoff based on a 1 in 10 A.R.I. to the satisfaction of Council’s Infrastructure Unit. Alternatively, in lieu of the stand-alone detention system, the owner may provide stormwater tanks that are in total 7,000 litres greater than those tanks required to satisfy WSUD requirements for the development. Those tanks must be connected to all toilets.

18. Any poles, service pits or other structures/features on the footpath required to be relocated to facilitate the development must be done so at the cost of the applicant and subject to the relevant authority’s consent

19. All utility services to the subject land and buildings approved as part of this permit must be provided underground to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority by completion of the development.

20. All plant and equipment (including air-conditioning units) shall be located or screened so as not to be visible from any of the surrounding footpaths and adjoining properties (including from above) and shall be baffled so as to minimise the emission of unreasonable noise to the environment in accordance with Section 48A of the Environment Protection Act 1970 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

21. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies:

a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this permit.

b) The development is not completed within four years of the date of this permit.

In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a request may be submitted to the Responsible Authority within the prescribed timeframes for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

NOTES:

A. This permit does not constitute any authority to carry out any building works or occupy the building or part of the building unless all relevant building permits are obtained.

B. Nothing in this permit hereby issued shall be construed to allow the removal

Page 44


of, damage to or pruning of a significant tree (including the roots) without the further written approval of Council.

C. “Significant tree” means a tree:

a) with a trunk circumference of 180 centimetres or greater measured at its base; or

b) with a trunk circumference of 140 centimetres or greater measured at 1.5 metres above its base; or

c) listed on the Significant Tree Register.

Please contact the Council Arborists on 8290 1333 to ascertain if permission is required for tree removal or pruning or for further information and protection of trees during construction works.

D. Nothing in the permit hereby issued may be construed to allow the removal of, damage to or pruning of any street tree without the further written consent of the Stonnington City Council. Contact the Council Arborists on 8290 1333 for further information.

E. The owners and occupiers of the dwelling/s hereby approved are not eligible to receive “Resident Parking Permits”.

F. At the permit issue date, Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 stated that the Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing within the following timeframes:

i. Before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has not yet started; and

ii. Within 12 months after the permit expiry date, where the development allowed by the permit has lawfully started before the permit expires.

Page 45


3. PLANNING APPLICATION 1308/16 - 1034-1040 MALVERN ROAD & 16 MURRAY STREET, ARMADALE - PART DEMOLITION, USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND FOR A CHILDCARE CENTRE, PROVISION OF PART OF THE CAR PARKING REQUIREMENT ON ANOTHER SITE, AND VARIATION OF AN EASEMENT.

PLANNING APPLICATION 1309/16 - 1074-1076 MALVERN ROAD, ARMADALE - PARTIAL DEMOLITION, BUILDINGS AND WORKS, BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE ASSOCIATED WITH AN EXISTING EDUCATION CENTRE AND CHILD CARE CENTRE IN A HERITAGE OVERLAY, INCORPORATED PLAN OVERLAY AND GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE.


PURPOSE

For Council to consider planning applications for a staged redevelopment of part of Lauriston Girls School.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Message ConsultantsWard: SouthZone: General Residential Zone - Schedule 1

General Residential Zone - Schedule 10Overlay: Heritage Overlay

Incorporated Plan Overlay – Schedule 1Neighbourhood Precinct: Garden Suburban 3Date lodged: 22 December 2016Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

N/A – Failure to Determine Application (appealed on day )


Notable Application

VCAT Hearing Date 12 February 2018Number of objections: 1308/16: 4 statements of grounds (2 attending VCAT hearing)

1309/16: 5 statement of grounds (none attending VCAT hearing)And other interested parties

Consultative Meeting: NoOfficer Recommendation: That Council advise VCAT and other interested parties that

had a Failure to Determine appeal not been lodged, a Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit would have been issued for both 1308/16 and 1309/16.

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

This report details the assessment of two separate planning applications (1308/16 and 1309/16) pertaining to Lauriston Girls School.

Page 47


The applications were lodged concurrently, are linked via the proposed operation of the school, and are to be reviewed concurrently by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Lauriston comprises two sites in proximity to one another on the southern side of Malvern Road. The main school site is located between Huntingtower Road and Mercer Road and is known as the Huntingtower Campus. The second site is located in Murray Street and is referred to as the Blairholme site.

It is proposed to undertake a redevelopment of sections of the school campus across both sites. In simple terms, this involves relocation of the child care centre from the Huntingtower Campus to the Blairholme site. The prep to year 2 operations which are currently on the Blairholme site are to be relocated to the Huntingtower Campus so that all of the junior and senior year levels are located on one site. Several areas of the Huntingtower Campus are also proposed to be redeveloped with a new gymnasium, sports courts, basement car parking, a ‘kiss and drop’ and various alterations and additions to existing buildings.

Both planning applications were lodged on 22 December 2016. The applicant has appealed Council’s failure to determine the applications within the prescribed timeframe to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The appeals were lodged prior to the applications being advertised and notification has been conducted at the direction of the Tribunal. This report assesses Council’s position on both of the applications.

The proposed redevelopment has been broken up into 8 stages with Stages 1-6 and Stage 8 occurring on the Huntingtower Campus proposed under planning application no.1309/16 and Stage 7 occurring on the Blairholme site under planning application no. 1308/16. The details of each proposal are discussed below within the framework of each proposed stage.

Application 1308/16 – Blairholme Site

Planning Application No. 1308/16 involves Stage 7 of the wider Lauriston School redevelopment. The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by DesignInc Adelaide and are known as Drawing No.s:

A.2000 – A.2012 Council date stamped 17 March 2017. A.2100 – A.2118 Council date stamped 17 March 2017. Landscape Plans L.2001 – L.2003 Council date stamped 22 December 2016. Landscape Plans L.2101 – L.2103 Council date stamped 17 March 2017. Stormwater Diversion Plan, Civil Siteworks Layout Plan, Drainage Longitudinal Section

and Pit Schedule Council date stamped 22 December 2016.


Demolition of the rear of Blairholme House and part of the rear eastern façade. Demolition of the existing classroom buildings, outbuildings, sports courts to the rear of

the site. Demolition of the existing dwelling at No. 16 Murray Street (permit not required). Demolition of the existing pathways and paving throughout the side and rear setbacks. Construction of a double storey extension to the east side and the rear of the existing

Blairholme House. Construction of decking to the east of the existing building. Construction of a new car park to the west of the site with vehicle entry via a proposed

new crossover and exit via an existing vehicle crossover. The car park is to accommodate 20 car spaces for use by parents/patrons.

Page 48


A further 20 car spaces are proposed to be provided offsite on the Huntingtower campus within a proposed basement (basement is proposed as part of planning application no. 1309/16, discussed below).

Play equipment and landscaping to be introduced to the front (north) and west of the site.

Use of the land for a childcare centre to accommodate a maximum of 182 children with a maximum of 32 staff and hours of operation between 6.30am to 6.30pm Monday to Friday.

Variation of the easement running east-west along the south boundary of No. 1034-1040 Malvern Road to be relocated to the southern boundary of No. 16 Murray Street.

Application 1309/16 – Huntingtower Campus

Stage 1 Underground Carpark & Enabling Works

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by DesignInc Adelaide and are known as Drawing No.s A.1100 – A.1109 and Landscape Plans L.1101 – L.1103 Council date stamped 17 March 2017.

Key features of Stage 1 of the proposal are:

Construction of a 4427 square metre basement located in the north-west (Huntingtower and Malvern Road) corner of the site with access from a two-way ramp and widened crossover to Huntingtower Road (widened to 8.8 metres).

Removal of a mature street tree (Plane tree) located on the nature strip to facilitate the widened crossover.

Basement to include 143 car spaces, 20 of which are to be allocated to the proposed Blairholme child care centre staff (planning application 1308/16).

Construction of a substation kiosk within the site adjacent to the proposed vehicle ramp.

A stairwell to the north-west corner of the site and an attached stair and lift to the south-east of the basement are proposed. These will provide access to the sports field at ground level above the basement and will have a height of 3–4.8 metres above ground.

A mechanical vent for the basement car park proposed with a maximum height of 5.1 metres and two 1.1 square metre signs attached to the north (Malvern Road) and west (Huntingtower Road) elevations.

A total of 11 at-grade car spaces removed from the existing car park located to the south-west of the site to facilitate a single storey (maximum 4.5 metres high) extension of the Irving Hall / Music School building.

New 2.1 metre high brick plinth and metal picket fence to part of the Malvern Road boundary in front of the sports courts.

Stage 2 Temporary ELC Village

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by DesignInc Adelaide and are known as Drawing No.s A.1200 – A.1204 and Landscape Plans L.1201 and L.1202 Council date stamped 17 March 2017.


A temporary childcare / early learning centre proposed within two relocatable single storey (maximum height of 3.77 metres) buildings located to the north of the site, setback a minimum of 6.69 metres from Malvern Road.

Page 49


This will accommodate the existing childcare operations on site to enable demolition of the existing buildings within which this use is currently accommodated.

Stage 3 Sports and Wellbeing Centre

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by DesignInc Adelaide and are known as Drawing No.s A.1300 – A.1313 and Landscape Plan L.1301 Council date stamped 17 March 2017.


Full demolition of Michael House and Sutherland House. Demolition of existing play equipment, fencing and pathways. Construction of a new gymnasium in the north-east corner of the site adjoining the

existing swimming pool building. The gymnasium is to accommodate two sports courts, seating, change rooms, storage and offices at ground level and a weights room, yoga room, and cardio room at first floor level.

The gymnasium is to have a maximum height of 11.12 metres (measured on the west elevation).

Two new signs are proposed including:- A 7.54 square metre, non-illuminated sign applied to the north elevation of the

gymnasium facing Malvern Road- A 4.08 square metre, non-illuminated business identification signage applied to

the east elevation of the gymnasium facing Mercer Road. Proposed gymnasium materials and finishes include reclaimed red brick, metal

cladding in blue, charcoal and grey, cement sheeting, glazing, polycarbonate in blue and ‘ice’.

New trees are proposed to be planted throughout the Mercer Road and Malvern Road setbacks of the gymnasium.

A new 2.1 metre high fence is proposed along the Malvern Road and Mercer Road boundaries at the north-east corner of the site.

A total of 12 native trees are proposed to be removed to facilitate Stage 3.

Stage 4 Combined Junior School

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by DesignInc Adelaide and are known as Drawing No.s A.1400 – A.1421 and Landscape Plan L.1401 and L.1402 Council date stamped 17 March 2017


Partial demolition of the Montrose House building (which is within Heritage Overlay Schedule 367) including removal of an external staircase and a ground level window to the north of the building.

Demolition of play equipment and pathways in front of Montrose House. Demolition of the southern façade and stairwells of the Kay Irving building (this is within

Heritage Overlay Schedule 367 but is not a significant building). Construction of a new double storey (6.2 metres high) extension to the south of the Kay

Irving building to accommodate practice rooms. Construction of a new single storey building linking Montrose House and the existing

gymnasium (which is to be converted to a ‘learning common’). The new link building is to have a height of 5.31 metres to the front (facing Mercer

Road) and 6.075 metres to the rear (west). The link building has a multi-faceted frontage which is proposed to be situated as

follows:

Page 50


- Its main façade to be setback 5.62 metres from the projecting bay and 1.28 metres from the primary façade of Montrose House.

- The link building has a recessed entry which is to be setback 8.08 metres from the projecting bay and 4.255 metres from the primary façade of Montrose House.

- The link building has a projecting roof which covers the front plaza area and sits 2.47 metres forward of the primary façade of Montrose House and 1.785 metres back from the projecting bay.

A new plaza, ramp and pathways are to be constructed in front of the link building and a new plaza and steps are to be constructed to the rear to provide access.

New landscaping and playground equipment are proposed within the Mercer Road setback.

Stage 5 Mercer Road Kiss and Drop

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by DesignInc Adelaide and are known as Drawing No.s A.1500 – A.1503 and Landscape Plan L.1501 Council date stamped 17 March 2017.


Construction of two new vehicle crossovers linked by a driveway / drop-off parking area to the east of the site.

A total of 6 new parallel car parking spaces within the kiss and drop. Proposed relocation of the existing pedestrian crossing on Mercer Road (outside of site

boundaries). Construction of a new 2.1 metre high brick and metal picket fence. New planting between the proposed driveway and the Mercer Road (east) boundary as

well as to the west of the car parking spaces within the site.

Stage 6 Nature Play

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by DesignInc Adelaide and are known as Drawing No.s A.1600 – A.1603 and Landscape Plans L.1601 – L.1603 Council date stamped 17 March 2017.

Stage 6 of the proposal involves installation of new playground equipment to the east of the site. This includes new decking, surface treatments, planting, sandpits, climbing structures, shade structures, and seating.

Stage 8 Sports Courts & Learn to Swim Pool

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by DesignInc Adelaide and are known as Drawing No.s A.1800 – A.1809 and Landscape Plan L.1801 Council date stamped 17 March 2017


Construction of an extension to the existing swimming pool building to accommodate a new learn to swim pool, storage, and spectator seating. This will extend the existing building further north toward Malvern Road and further west.

The swimming pool building extension will have a maximum height of 5.602 metres and will be setback 5.8 – 6 metres from Malvern Road.

Construction of four new outdoor sports courts to the north-west corner of the site.

Page 51


Cricket nets to be located to the north-west of the site. These will have a height of 3.6 metres and are to be setback 3.28 – 4.42 metres from Malvern Road and 5.96 metres from Huntingtower Road.

It is noted that it is unclear whether the learn to swim component of the proposal requires a planning permit for use as an indoor recreation facility. The applicant has not specifically applied for this land use or demonstrated existing use rights. The submitted reports indicate that this is an existing operation that will continue to be utilised after school hours by various users groups such as learn to swim classes, and sporting clubs. Additional research of the school facilities indicates that learn to swim classes are already offered. There is no known record of a permit being issued for this indoor recreation use or information about how long this use has existed to demonstrate existing use rights.

The consolidation of the Junior and Senior schools at the Huntingtower Campus will alter the existing student numbers at that site from 874 students and 190.2 full time equivalent staff to 906 students and 142 full time equivalent staff. However, as the land has been used as a school for over 15 years continuously, existing use rights can be established and no planning permit is required for the use.

Site and Surrounds

In its wider context, the school is located within an established area which is predominantly residential. A range of dwelling types are present within a network of surrounding streets.

The school is accessible to public transport and vehicle access along the major east-westarteries of Malvern Road and High Street, both of which host tram services. Toorak and Armadale railway stations are within a walking distance of approximately 1km and can be accessed by tram. A variety of retail and other services are available along High Street and Glenferrie Road to the south of the school.


The site is located on the north-east corner of Malvern Road and Murray Street in Armadale and comprises No. 1034-1040 Malvern Road as well as No. 16 Murray Street. The site has the following significant characteristics:

A frontage to Malvern Road of 40.54 metres, a frontage to Murray Street of 106.68 metres and an area of approximately 4568 square metres.

No. 1034-1040 Malvern Road currently contains an A2 graded Victorian building (Blairholme House) which is currently used by Lauriston Girls School for prep to year 2 students with a total of 91 students and 7 full time equivalent staff. The applicant has advised that Lauriston purchased the property known as Blairholme located at 1034 Malvern Road, Armadale in 1976. There is no onsite car parking provided and student pick up and drop off is undertaken kerbside in Murray Street where the entry to Blairholme is located.

The site is affected by Heritage Overlay Schedule 528 on an interim basis (controls expire on 13 March 2018). Schedule 528 to the Heritage Overlay also confirms that tree controls apply to the Camphor Laurel tree in the front setback. This tree is proposed to be retained.

Sports courts, sheds and shade sails are located within the south and east setbacks. Landscaping includes border trees along the west and south boundaries, and small

trees throughout the rear play area. There is a drainage easement located along the south boundary of No. 1034-1040

Malvern Road.

Page 52


There is an existing crossover located to the centre of the Murray Road frontage of No. 1034-1040 Malvern Road.

No. 16 Murray Street contains a single storey dwelling with rear shed and garage. This property contains a number of small trees predominantly through the front and north setback. There is a crossover located to the south end of the frontage.

There are 9 street trees located on the Murray Street nature strip in front of the site.

The properties neighbouring the site are as follows:

To the north of the site is Malvern Road with single dwellings located opposite on the corners of Albany Road at No. 1 Albany Road and No. 1031-1033 Malvern Road.

To the south of the site is a single dwelling at No. 14 Murray Street. This property is located within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 2 and includes a crossover and driveway to the south end of the site providing access to a garage.

To the east of the site are 4 dwellings which adjoin the eastern boundary at No’s. 1044 Malvern Road, 69 Huntingtower Road, 65 Huntingtower Road, and 3/59 Huntingtower Road. These properties include a mixture of detached and semi-detached dwellings with open space facing the subject site. Each of these dwellings are located within the General Residential Zone Schedule 10 with the exception of No. 1044 Malvern Road which is within the General Residential Zone Schedule 1.

To the west of the site is Murray Street and beyond that are dwellings at No’s. 11 Murray Street which is within the Neighbourhood Residential Zone Schedule 2, 13 and 15 Murray Street which is within the General Residential Zone Schedule 10, 17 Murray Street which is within the General Residential Zone Schedule 1, and 19 Murray Street which is within the General Residential Zone Schedule 1.


The site is located on the south side of Malvern Road and is bordered to the east by Mercer Road and to the west Huntingtower Road. The site has the following significant characteristics:

The subject site is occupied by a school which has been operating since c1907. The Huntingtower Campus of the school currently accommodates 874 students and 190.2 full time equivalent staff.

The Huntingtower site also currently accommodates an early learning/childcare centre and education from years 3 to 8 and years 10 to 12. It is noted that year 9 is undertaken off-site and, as discussed above, years prep to 2 are undertaken on the Blairholme site.

The Sutherland House Child Care Centre at 1076 Malvern Road was purchased by the school in July 2002. This property has operated as a child care centre since 1984 (Planning Permit 168/94 increased the number of places from 40 to 60).

The site includes a number of buildings and structures dispersed throughout. The built form is broken up with open space areas and open sports courts located to the east and north-west of the site.

The Huntingtower Campus currently has a total of 92 car spaces which comprises 12 pick-up/drop-up spaces and 80 staff spaces.

Montrose House is a heritage building located to the east of the site facing Mercer Road. This building is an A2 graded double-storey Italianate Victorian mansion.

It is noted that Sutherland House was previously existing on the land and was considered to have heritage value by Council. Amendment C243 was prepared to introduce permanent heritage protection to 1074-1076 Malvern Road, Armadale (Sutherland House) and 1034-1040 Malvern Road, Armadale (Blairholme House).

Page 53


However, Sutherland House was recently demolished prior to any interim or permanent heritage controls being applied.

The properties neighbouring the site are as follows:

To the north of the site are a mixture of dwellings including single detached dwellings, semi-detached, and apartment buildings on the northern side of Malvern road.

To the south of the site are dwellings facing Huntingtower and Mercer Roads. These dwellings are a mixture of detached and semi-detached residences.

Adjoining the south boundary of the site is a double storey apartment building containing 12 dwellings at No. 31 Mercer Road. In addition, a detached dwelling is located at No. 34 Huntingtower Road.

To the east of the site is Mercer Road and beyond that are a number of detached, semi-detached and apartment dwellings located on the east side of Mercer Road.

To the west of the site is Huntingtower Road and beyond that are a number of detached and semi-detached dwellings located on the west side of Huntingtower Road.


There are numerous (approximately 62 known) planning permits relating to both the Blairholme site and the Huntingtower Campus dating back to 1964. The most relevant planning permits are as follows:

Blairholme Site

Planning Permit No. 123/85 was issued 15 July 1985 to construct and use an extension as part of an existing school building.

Planning Permit No. 197/99 was issued 26 October 1999 for alterations and additions to the existing building including the location of two single storey buildings (portables) for use as additional class rooms and multi-purpose room, development of covered play area, and alterations to existing timber deck.

Huntingtower Campus

Planning Permit No. 103/79 was issued 15 September 1980 for four temporary classrooms at 1066-1068 Malvern Road.

Planning Permit No. 155/85 was issued 28 April 1986. The permit relates to one of the school buildings facing Malvern Road and allows building alterations and use for educational purposes. The permit included a condition requiring the school to advise of future activities and development and projections of the school population proposed by the Applicant. In response to this, a set of guidelines was provided which, among other things, outlined that the school had no intention to increase student numbers beyond the 1000-1050 range.

Condition 12 of Planning Permit 155/85 issued28 April 1986 required:

Within six months of the date hereof a plan and written submission shall be submitted for approval by the Responsible Authority showing any future activities and development and projections of the school population proposed by the

Page 54


Applicant within the subject land or on adjacent lands. The said plan and submission shall become part of an agreement entered into between the applicant school and the Council of the City of Malvern under section 16 of the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1983 and Section 52A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1961 (as amended).

The Guidelines set out the Schools intentions for the future, a development program for the school, and a commitment to keep Council informed of future development through discussion and consultation.

Clause 10 of the Guidelines outlines the right of the school to apply for a planning permit as follows:

The Council and Lauriston acknowledge that changing circumstances, including educational requirements, Federal/State/Local Government demands and contingencies, and possible changes in town planning and community requirements for development of residential areas, may necessitate review of these guidelines from time to time. Should either the Council or Lauriston require that these guidelines be reviewed, then the relevant party shall notify the other of the proposed change and shall convene a meeting to which up to three representatives of the surrounding area shall be invited in order to discuss the proposed changes. The party requesting the review shall provide full and appropriate documentation in support of the review and any changes proposed. Should agreement not be reached at any such meeting to the satisfaction of all parties, the right of Lauriston to apply for a Town Planning Permit is recognised, including any matters on which agreement has not been reached. Should the matter not be resolved to Council's satisfaction in consideration of the application, it may be taken on appeal by the applicant to the Planning Appeals Board for determination.

Planning Permit No. 110/87 was issued 10 August 1987 for buildings and works for an indoor swimming pool and associated facilities on part of the land.

Planning Permit No. 214/92 was issued 29 April 1993 to use the land for a 40 place child care centre and associated off-street car parking.

Planning Permit No. 168/94 was issued 12 October 1995 for increase to the number of places from 40 to 60 children in the existing child care centre.

The Title


The site is comprised of a number of different parcels as described on the following Certificates of Title:

Volume 6305 Folio 817/ Plan of Subdivision and no covenants affect the land. The plan of subdivision shows part of the easement on Certificate of Title Volume 8296 Folio 597/ Plan of Subdivision 001508 (referred to below). This easement is for drainage purposes and is proposed to be relocated as part of planning application no. 1308/16.

Volume 9153 Folio 816/ Title Plan 177569M and no covenants or easements affect the land.

Volume 8296 Folio 597/ Plan of Subdivision 001508 and no covenants affect the land. The plan of subdivision shows that there is a drainage easement located on the south boundary of this parcel of land. This is proposed to be relocated.

Volume 8812 Folio 397/ Title Plan 819323W and no covenants affect the land.

Page 55



The site is comprised of a number of different parcels as described on the following Certificates of Title:

Volume 11096 Folio 144/ Plan of Consolidation 369729Y and no covenants affect the land. There is a drainage easement located within the north-west corner of the site. The applicant has advised that this easement is for draining and carrying off of surface water in favour of two lots of land which both form part of 1074-1076 Malvern Road.

The rights granted in the easement (amongst other things) allow for a drainage pipe to be installed in the easement, which is approximately 54m south from the corner of Malvern Road along Huntingtower Road. Both affected lots are owned by Lauriston Girls’ School, with the land being in common ownership since early 2008.

The applicant has advised that they intend to, at some point in time, be making an application to the Registrar of Titles to remove the recording of the easement from the servient tenement under section 73 of the Transfer of Land Act 1958. The Stonnington Planning Scheme and the Planning and Environment Act 1987 do not regulate the variation or removal of the easement in these circumstances.

Overall, the easement appears to be redundant given both affected properties are owned by Lauriston. As such, it is anticipated that there will be no adverse impacts as a result of the proposal.

Volume 3388 Folio 469/ Title Plan 585833V and no covenants or easements affect the land.

Volume 07679 Folio 056/ Title Plan 889060H and no covenants or easements affect the land.

Volume 8214 Folio 944/ Plan of Subdivision 037391 and no covenants or easements affect the land.

Volume 8110 Folio 125/ Plan of Subdivision 33444 and no covenants or easements affect the land.

Planning Controls



Zone

Clause 32.08 – General Residential Zone

Pursuant to Clause 32.08-2 a permit is required to use the land for a child care centre.

Pursuant to Clause 32.08-8 a permit is required to construct or carry out works associated with a Section 2 use.

Schedule 1 and Schedule 10 to the General Residential Zone include maximum mandatory building height requirements of 14.5 metres and 9 metres respectively. However, the maximum height limit only applies to a building used as a dwelling or residential building. As such, the maximum height limit does not apply based on the intended use of the buildings.Overlay

Page 56


Clause 43.01 – Heritage Overlay

Pursuant to Clause 43.01 a permit is required to demolish (including partially demolish) a building and to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

It is noted that the Heritage Overlay on the site was introduced under Amendment C242 and has been applied on an interim basis (controls expire on 13 March 2018).

Particular Provisions

Clause 52.02 – Easements, Restrictions and Reserves

Pursuant to Claus 52.02 a permit is required before a person proceeds under Section 23 of the Subdivision Act 1988 to create, vary or remove an easement.

Clause 52.06 - Car Parking

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-2 before a new use commences the number of car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5 must be provided to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Clause 52.06-5 requires 0.22 car spaces to be provided to each child. The proposed child care centre seeks to accommodate a maximum of 182 children on site at any one time. This results in a requirement for 40 car spaces to be provided.

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-3 a permit is required to provide some or all of the car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5 or in a schedule to the Parking Overlay on another site.

It is proposed to provide all 40 required car parking spaces. However, 20 car spaces are proposed to be provided off-site at the Huntingtower Campus at 1074-1076 Malvern Road within the basement car park proposed under planning application no. 1309/16. These basement car spaces are proposed to be used for staff of the child care centre. The remaining 20 car spaces are proposed to be provided on the subject site and are intended to accommodate the drop off of children to the child care centre.

1309/16 – Huntingtower Campus


Zone

Clause 32.08 – General Residential Zone

Pursuant to Clause 32.08-2 a permit is required to use the land for an education centre. However, as the land has been used as a school for over 15 years continuously, existing use rights can be established and no planning permit is required for the use. Clause 63 (Existing Uses) stipulates that no building or works are constructed or carried out without a permit. A permit must not be granted unless the building or works complies with any other building or works requirement in this scheme.

Page 57


As noted above, it is unclear as to whether approval is sought for an indoor recreation facility associated with the learn to swim pool. If so, a permit would be required for this use under Clause 32.08-2.

Overlays

Clause 43.01 - Heritage Overlay

Pursuant to Clause 43.01-1 a permit is required to demolish (including partially demolish) a building and to construct a building or construct or carry out works. The Heritage Overlay affects the portion of the site containing the Montrose House building and surrounds.

Clause 43.03 – Incorporated Plan Overlay

Pursuant to Clause 43.03-1 a permit must not be granted to construct a building or construct or carry out works until an incorporated plan has been incorporated into this scheme unless a schedule to this overlay specifically states that a permit may be granted before an incorporated plan has been incorporated into this scheme.

Schedule 1 to the Incorporated Plan Overlay specifies that a permit may be granted to construct a building or construct or carry out works before an incorporated plan has been incorporated into this scheme. There is no incorporated plan included in the Planning Scheme for Lauriston Girls School.


Clause 52.05 – Advertising Signs

Pursuant to Clause 52.05-9 a permit is required for business identification signage.

The proposal includes four business identification signs as follows:

- A 7.54 square metre, non-illuminated sign applied to the north elevation of the gymnasium facing Malvern Road

- A 4.08 square metre, non-illuminated business identification signage applied to the east elevation of the gymnasium facing Mercer Road.

- A 1.1 square metre sign attached to the north (Malvern Road) elevation of the mechanical vent to the north-west corner of the site.

- A 1.1 square metre sign attached to the west (Huntingtower Road) elevation of the mechanical vent to the north-west corner of the site.

Clause 52.06 – Car Parking

The table at Clause 52.06-5 specifies that for a primary school a total of 1 car space is required to each employee that is part of the maximum number of employees on the site at any time. For a secondary school a total of 1.2 car spaces are required to each employee that is part of the maximum number of employees on the site at any time.The requirements of Clause 52.06-3 do not apply to the application given there is no proposed increase in staff numbers. The applicant has confirmed that the Huntingtower site currently operates with total of 190.2 full time equivalent staff and is proposed to operate with a total of 142 full time equivalent staff.

Clause 52.17 – Native Vegetation

Page 58


Pursuant to Clause 52.17-2 permit is required to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation, including dead native vegetation. Typically, there is an exemption for native vegetation removal where it is on land which, together with all contiguous land in one ownership, has an area of less than 0.4 hectare. Given the overall subject site has an area of 3.2 hectares, this exemption does not apply in this instance.

There is also an exemption for vegetation where it has been planted or grown as a result of direct seeding for aesthetic or amenity purposes. Based on the small size of a number of the native trees to be removed, it appears that this exemption may apply. However, this has not been confirmed by the applicant and it is not clear whether this exemption applies.

It is noted that Clause 66.02-2 requires referral of applications under Clause 52.17 to the Secretary to the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning where the area of vegetation removal is 0.5 hectares or more, or for an application classed as a high-risk based pathway. Neither of these factors apply to the proposal and referral is, therefore, not required.

It is proposed to remove 13 tree which are identified as native trees (indigenous to Victoria) within the arborist report submitted by the permit applicant.

General Provisions

Clause 62 - Uses, Buildings, Works, Subdivisions and Demolition not Requiring a Permit

It is noted that Clause 62.02-2 states that furniture and works normally associated with an education centre including, but not limited to, outdoor furniture, playground equipment, art works, drinking fountains, rubbish bins and landscaping does not require a planning permit unless specifically required by the planning scheme.

The Heritage Overlay, Incorporated Plan Overlay and General Residential Zone do not specifically require a planning permit for furniture and works normally associated with an education centre.

Clause 63 – Existing Uses

Pursuant to Clause 63.05 a use in Section 2 or 3 of a zone for which an existing use right is established may continue provided:

No building or works are constructed or carried out without a permit. A permit must not be granted unless the building or works complies with any other building or works requirement in this scheme.

Any condition or restriction to which the use was subject continues to be met. This includes any implied restriction on the extent of the land subject to the existing use right or the extent of activities within the use.

The amenity of the area is not damaged or further damaged by a change in the activities beyond the limited purpose of the use preserved by the existing use right.


Clause 11.06 Metropolitan MelbourneClause 15.01 Urban EnvironmentClause 15.02 Sustainable DevelopmentClause 15.03-1 Heritage ConservationClause 19.02-2 Education Facilities

Page 59


Clause 21.03 VisionClause 21.04-4 Commercial and Community Uses in Residential Zones Clause 21.06 Built Environment and Heritage Clause 21.08 Infrastructure Clause 22.04 Heritage PolicyClause 22.05 Environmentally Sustainable Development Clause 22.16 Institutional Use PolicyClause 22.18 Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design)Clause 32.08 General Residential ZoneClause 43.01 Heritage OverlayClause 43.03 Incorporated Plan OverlayClause 52.06 Car ParkingClause 52.34 Bicycle ParkingClause 63 Existing UsesClause 65 Decision Guidelines

Amendment C243 - Heritage Protection for Sutherland House and Blairholme House, Lauriston Girls' School

Amendment C243 has been prepared to introduce permanent heritage protection to 1074-1076 Malvern Road, Armadale (Sutherland House) and 1034-1040 Malvern Road, Armadale (Blairholme House).

The amendment has been exhibited and submissions were considered by Council at its meeting on 22 May 2017.

Earlier this year the Council sought interim heritage protection for the building known as Sutherland House due to this planning application being predicated on its demolition. The Minister for Planning refused this request noting “Amendment C243 is the most appropriate process to determine if an individual heritage overlay is warranted”. Following this decision the school lodged a formal request for demolition of Sutherland House with Council, prior to consideration of Amendment C243. Once again, Council sought interim heritage protection from the Minister, pending the C243 panel hearing (scheduled to commence on Thursday 21 September 2017). This request for interim controls was also refused by the Minister. Based on this, Council was under a statutory obligation to issue consent for the demolition request. The building was demolished on the day before the C243 panel hearing was scheduled to commence. As such Amendment C243 now relates to Blairholme House only.

Amendment C132 – Heritage Policy and Guidelines

Amendment C132 proposes to update Clause 22.04 Heritage Policy and the reference document Heritage Design Guidelines. The amendment has been forwarded to the Minister for Planning for approval and is considered to be a seriously entertained document. As such, the Draft Heritage Policy and Guidelines and will be used in the assessment of this proposal.

Advertising

The application has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of surrounding land and by placing 8 signs on the Huntingtower site (2 signs to Malvern Road, 3 signs to Mercer Road, 3 signs to Huntingtower Road) and 3 signs of the Blairholme site (1 sign to Malvern Road, 2 signs to Murray Street) on the site.

Page 60


It is noted that the application was advertised at the direction of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal following the lodgement of the appeal against Council’s failure to make a decision within the prescribed timeframe.


Four statements of grounds have been received. One statement of grounds indicates that the submitter represents people from 53 different properties. The statements of ground raise the following concerns:

Heritage impacts Hours of operation Traffic impacts Additional planting should be provided Noise issues The proposed building does not comply with Clause 55.04-1 or standards A10 / B17

(side and rear setbacks). The B17 envelope depicted on Section E has been taken from the ground floor level

rather than natural ground level.

It is noted that the National Trust of Australia (Victoria) made a submission to Council prior to the application being advertised. This submission advises that two trees on the Huntingtower Campus and one tree on the Blairholme site are classified by the National Trust. It has been advised that these trees include a Himalayan Cedar (Cedrus deodar) (proposed to be removed) and a Morton Bay Fig (Ficus macrophylla) (to be retained) at the Huntingtower Campus as well as a Camphor Laurel (Cinnamomum camphora) (proposed to be retained) on the Blairholme site. These trees are said to be part of the original plantings of the ‘Brocklesby’ property which in 1907 became the Lauriston Girls’ School.

A total of 94 letters of support have been received.

No consultative meeting was held.


Five statements of grounds have been received. One statement outlines support for the proposal on the Huntingtower campus (application 1309/16) and the submitter does not wish to attend the hearing.

The second statement of grounds raises the following concerns:

Heritage impacts Opposed to demolition of Sutherland House Gymnasium is visually dominant Traffic impacts Impacts of proposed relocation of pedestrian crossing on Mercer Road Impact on property values

A total of 97 letters of support have been received.

No consultative meeting was held.

Page 61


Referrals

Application 1308/16 - Blairholme Site

Environmental Sustainable Design (ESD)

The building is able to be naturally ventilated, but it is not clear whether the windows to the east are operable. This will assist in natural ventilation of the building. Additionally it is not clear whether the skylights are operable.

Daylight modelling has been conducted and a 2% daylight factor to more than 30% of the habitable areas achieved.

The building has significant volumes of glass on the west façade, however this has been protected well using a generous overhang of approximately 2.5 metres.

The building is well protected from the western sun and there are minimal windows on the east.

Whilst it is not clear as to what the Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) strategy is exactly, the consistent aspect and well protected western glass will preserve thermal comfort.

Given the practice of running HVAC with open doors which is prevalent in child care centres information on how this would be serviced / zoned is required.

A strong commitment to low VOC’s has been made. The proposal will have a 10% improvement on deemed to satisfy criteria for facades

and glazing. It is not clear from the BESS report or the SMP what type of hot water system is

proposed. This should be confirmed. It is not clear why the solar photovoltaic credit was scoped out / disabled. Given the

use which matches very well the solar generation curve, the applicant is expected to demonstrate a commitment to renewable energy, sized to provide an appreciable proportion of electricity consumption based on a significant day time load for this type of facility.

A STORM rating has been provided citing a 109% rating. It is not clear whether the full roof is proposed to be used. If not, the STORM assessment should be redone to incorporate a non-treated area.

Rainwater tanks are proposed around the site and have been nominated on plans. A roof plan demonstrating catchment area should be required.

A large outdoor area is proposed with various gardens. Rainwater end use could be extended to landscape areas.

The submitted SMP has provided no information in relation to use of recycled materials, efforts to reduce embodied energy, or efforts to incorporate sustainable timbers.

No bicycle parking has been nominated, noting there is a lack of statutory requirement for child care centres. It is recommended that dedicated bicycle parking for parents and staff be provided.

It is recommended that at least one unisex shower be provided for staff that want to ride to work.

No obvious storage is provided for prams, children’s bicycles and scooters. This is a disincentive to children and parents walking / riding to childcare. A dedicated storage area should be provided or the store in the south west or eastern boundary nominated clearly for this purpose. If this is the intention for proposed storage areas then a note will suffice.

The existing building is being reused, but there are no targets for construction waste. There is opportunity to incorporate food waste practices into composting on site

(including education value) given the kitchen on site Plain English building users guide has been committed to. Planner Note:

Page 62


Any permit issued should require the proposal to address the above comments in order to satisfy Clause 22.05.

Infrastructure Unit

If a permit is issued a condition must be included requiring a report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in accordance with that report prior to a building permit being issued. The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer’s design.

If a permit is issued a condition must be included requiring that the owner must at their cost, relocate the easement and the stormwater easement drain. The drain must be relocated in accordance with a plan prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer and approved by Council’s Infrastructure Unit. The drain must be constructed in accordance with the approved plan under the supervision and to the satisfaction of Council’s Infrastructure Unit.

Parks Unit

Tree removals within the site are all of a size where they are not considered ‘significant’ under Council Local Law.

A TMP must be conditioned for the retained trees, particularly the significant Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Laurel) on the Malvern Road frontage which is on the National Trust Register for Significant Trees.

The landscape concept is supported, with further planting detail to follow.

Transport and Parking Unit

The proposal includes 20 off-street parking spaces at the Blairholme Site and 20 spaces will be allocated at the Huntingtower Campus site, fully accommodating the parking requirement.

The TIA states that based upon other child care centres located throughout metropolitan Melbourne an approximate 50/50 split can be expected between long term staff parking and short term pick-up/drop-off parking. As such, applying this to the statutory requirement of 40 car spaces, 20 spaces are required for staff and 20 spaces for pick-up/drop-off.

The 20 staff car spaces are proposed within the Huntingtower Campus (north) car park which is located in close proximity to Malvern Road and 115 metres from the proposed child care centre.

According to the number of spaces proposed throughout all the proposed car parks at the Huntingtower Campus, a surplus of 32 parking spaces will be provided through these car parks. The Blairholme Campus is proposed to have 32 staff members which will be allocated parking at the Huntingtower Road site which can be catered for with this surplus.

The 20 off-street parking spaces proposed at the Blairholme Campus, noting that one (1) parking space is to be marked as a disabled parking space, are proposed to be allocated for casual use by visitors to the facility, mostly catering for pick-up and drop-off movements for children at the facility.

Noting that the capacity of the facility is 182 children, some parking is likely to occur on-street, though the degree to which this occurs will depend on the spread of arrival times through the morning and evening peaks. It is anticipated that if pick-up/drop-off

Page 63


movements are seen as more easily completed using kerbside parking areas, that this will be the desired option rather than entering the site.

The site has a long frontage to Murray Street currently covered by short duration parking restrictions during pick up/drop off times. This area is appropriate for future overflow use should this occur. The Malvern Road frontage of the site is also available outside of the morning ‘Clearway’ times.

During the PM peak it is anticipated that out of the total 182 children, 120 kindergarten children will be picked up earlier in the afternoon based on the operation hours of the kindergarten. As such, the TIA has split the two uses to demonstrate the traffic generation at each pick up time.

Based upon the above and the existing conditions outlined in the TIA, an additional 77, 25 and 53 movements are expected in the AM, early afternoon and evening peak hours respectively. The traffic distribution split has been adopted based on the existing turning movements that were previously surveyed by GTA. However, an assumption has been made in the TIA that due to increased delays by drivers turning right into Malvern Road, all vehicles from the proposed site will turn left out of Murray Street onto Malvern Road or Kooyong Road.

It appears that at the Malvern Road/Murray Street intersection there is actually a 50/50 split between vehicles turning left and right out of Murray Street. During the survey conducted by GTA, slightly more vehicles turned right out of Murray Street than left during the AM peak period. As such, it is reasonable to suggest that this trend will continue rather than all vehicles turning left out of Malvern Road as shown in the TIA.

It is expected that right turn traffic will increase and may have an impact on the traffic flow out of Murray Street onto Malvern Road. It is recommended that further analysis be provided. This analysis is to include a more realistic split of traffic movements between left and right turns at the Malvern Road/Murray Street intersection and how this will impact traffic in Murray Street.

The proposed circulation of the car park has not been confirmed on the plans or in the TIA. Based on the layout of the car park, the appropriate method of flow would be one-way from the north driveway to the south driveway. The applicant is to confirm what arrangements are proposed, and any appropriate management, such as line marking is to be included on the plans.

The plans submitted do not show any sight triangles at the property boundary. This should be shown.

The parking spaces are proposed as 45 degree angle parking. They have been dimensioned at 4.9m by 2.6m which are accessed from an aisle width of 3.5m. These spaces have been designed in accordance with the Planning Scheme and can be considered satisfactory.

Wheel stops are shown for all the spaces proposed. The applicant is to revise the material to dimension the position of the wheelstops so that an adequate assessment can be made.

The TIA states that the gradients within the car park comply with the Planning Scheme, however no further information has been provided. The applicant is to revise the plans to include the proposed gradients throughout the car park for further assessment.

The plans submitted do not detail the proposed floor gradients of the parking areas. The minimum gradient of the parking area shall be 1 in 100 (1.0%) for outdoor areas to allow for adequate drainage as per AS2890.1.

No dimensions of the proposed vehicle crossing or the new kerbside lengths have been provided on the plans. This should be shown.

It is also noted that the current vehicle crossing along the Murray Street frontage will no longer be in use. A redundant crossing no longer in use is to be removed with any footpath, nature strip, kerb and channel made good to Council requirements at the cost of the owner at the time of the change to the property.

Children and Family Services

Page 64


The application for Lauriston Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority and the Department of Education and Training will assess the application for compliance with Education and Care Services National Law Act and Regulations.

There are no identifiable issues with the plans, and the proposal aligns with Councils early childhood agenda to ensure high quality early childhood services are available to the community.

Waste

I believe existing legislated requirements under the various Federal, State & Local governments’ health acts along with the legislated requirements under the Environment Protection Act and the City of Stonnington Local Law will be sufficient to regulate the management of wastes at this site.

A Waste Management Plan prepared by Leigh Design Pty Ltd dated 21 December 2016 and date-stamped by Council 22/12/2016 accompanied this proposal.

While I don’t believe a Waste Management Plan must necessarily be conditioned within any Planning Permit issued for this development, if a Waste Management Plan is submitted it should be similar to that previewed here.

Heritage

The subject property at 1034 Malvern Road, Armadale – otherwise known as Blairholme – is a single-storey Victorian Italianate mansion with a central tower.

The current application seeks planning approval to demolish the rear of the existing building in order to construct a new double-storey envelope to accommodate a child care centre.

The proposed extent of demolition is limited to fabric that is either not visible from the street or is of little or no significance, and poses no issues from a heritage perspective.

The new double-storey envelope has been sited in the least sensitive portion of the site where it will be largely concealed by Blairholme in principal views to the site. The additions would have little impact on the building’s presentation to Malvern Road.

Although a car park would extend much the length of the Murray Street frontage, the car park’s visual impact would be mitigated to some extent by the proposed landscaping. It is appropriate that the building remains in a garden setting. The range of proposed fencing styles are all sympathetic to Blairholme, both in terms of height and character.

The proposed development scheme has been sensitively designed and can be supported from a heritage perspective.


Urban Design

There is no concern with the scope of the redevelopment, other than to emphasise the importance of maintaining a strong perimeter landscape setting for the campus - in particular, the Malvern Road and Mercer Road landscaped setbacks.

From an examination of the drawings, it appears that there is limited space for medium-scale canopy tree planting between the Eastern face of the new Sports & Wellbeing Centre and Mercer Road (Refer to Section B – Drawing No. A.1309). In addition, there is an inconsistency between this Section B drawing and the Landscape Concept Plan, with respect to the space available for in-ground canopy tree planting.

There is also insufficient detail to determine if the Northern extent of the proposed Underground carpark will have any detrimental impact on the ability to achieve a satisfactory deep-soil canopy-tree landscape setting to Malvern Road.

Page 65


Subject to the clarification of these matters, I would support the proposal.

Environmental Sustainable Design (ESD)

Daylighting

The Daylight Assessment Report concludes that both the New Sports & Wellbeing Centre (NSWBC) and the Junior School meet Council’s best practice standard for daylight – a daylight factor (DF) of 2% for at least 30% of the floor area of regularly occupied spaces.

37% of the NSWBC reaches a DF of 2%. However, the Daylight Assessment Reports notes that there is poor daylight uniformity. This means that some parts of the NSWBC will have adequate access to natural light, but the remaining area will fall well short. Because of this, the majority of the south court in the NSWBC will not reach Council’s best practice standard.

The applicant should provide a calculation that shows how much of the south court will achieve a DF of 2.0%.

41% of the Junior School reaches a DF of 2%. It is not clear from the Daylight Assessment Report which figures corresponds to the rooms on the plans. For example, Figure 6 denotes ‘GLA Prep 1’. There is a ‘GLA Year 1’ on the plans, but no ‘GLA Prep 1’. The applicant should provide daylight modelling that is superimposed on the plans, or follow the naming convention on the plans.

Ventilation

While credits aren’t available in BESS for developments of this type, it’s important that the applicant shows there’s adequate ventilation.

Shading

Fixed external shading is required for all north elevation windows in order to prevent passive solar gain in summer while enabling warming winter sun to reach the glazing. A fixed overhang that projects 45% of the glazing height should achieve this.

Operable external shading should be provided to east and west facing glazing and is preferred to fixed shading devices. This could be in the form of operable louvers, sliding shutters or external blinds.

Energy Performance A 10% improvement on the Building Code of Australia (BCC / National Construction

Code (NCC) has been committed to. In relation to facades and the 10% improvement upon minimum DTS insulation

requirements, the applicant will need to specify an R-value on the plans. In relation to glazing and the 10% improvement upon minimum DTS requirements, the

applicant will need to provide a BCA Glazing Calculator output. No on-site renewable energy generation is proposed. Considering the roof space and

solar access available, a solar hot water system and/or a solar PV system is recommended to reduce energy use and costs. This will significantly improve the environmental performance of the development.

Water Resources

Page 66


The applicant is only committing to the 3 Star WELS minimum for showerheads. A better WELS Rating is preferred.

As mentioned below under Stormwater Management, water balances are required for all of the proposed RWTs.

Stormwater Management

The applicant has provided 4 x STORM Rating Report for the following stages of the development:

- Stage 1: Uniform Shop + Underground Carpark + 3 x Sports Courts - Stage 4: Combined Junior School (southwest)- Stage 5 & 6: Kiss & Drop + Nature Play- Stage 8: Sports & Wellbeing Centre + Learn To Swim + 1 x Sports Court

These STORM reports do not cover the extensions / developments at the southwest of the site at Irving Hall / Music School and Gladys Davies / Administration – if the combined size of these extensions exceeds 50m2, the applicant will need to submit another STORM Rating Report.

Stage 1

The applicant is proposing that water will be captured from the sports courts (2,981m2) and will drain to a 22m2 raingarden for treatment. The applicant will need clearly show on the plans where the proposed location of the raingarden is. Also, it will need to be clearly explained how water will drain from the sport courts to said raingarden.

Stage 4

There are several buildings in the Stage 4 area nominated in the SMP – Junior Library, 5 & 6 Centre, New Link etc. The STORM report claims that 1,285m2 of building rooftops will collect water into a 30,000L RWT. It’s not clear which buildings are included in this. The applicant will need to clearly specify which buildings will capture stormwater into the modelled 30,000L RWT.

The STORM RR has also modelled that 20 ‘bedrooms / no. of occupants’ will have access to toilets that use the RWT storage for flushing. Because this input calculates a water balance based on residential usage patterns, a separate water balance calculation / report will need to be provided to ensure that a 30,000L RWT is appropriate.

A 5m2 raingarden has also been modelled to treat 496m2 of impermeable surface. It is unclear what impermeable surface this is referring to. Also, no raingarden can be seen on the plans. The applicant will need to clearly mark a location for the raingarden and will need to show how stormwater will drain to it. The catchment area will also need to be clearly indicated.

Stage 5 & 6

An 8m2 raingarden has been modelled to treat 1,054m2 of impermeable surface. It is unclear what impermeable surface is being referred to and how all of this area will drain the specified raingarden. No raingarden can be seen on the plans.Stage 8

Page 67


The applicant is proposing that stormwater collected from the Sports & Wellbeing Centre will drain to a 30,000L rainwater tank.

It’s also being proposed that the tank will be connected to toilets for flushing – 100 ‘bedrooms / no. of occupants’ have been modelled in STORM. Again, a separate water balance calculation / report will need to be provided to Council to ensure that a 30,000L RWT is appropriate.

Another large raingarden (20m2) has been proposed for the sports court not captured by Stage 1. This raingarden cannot be seen on the plans. It will need to be clearly explained how water will drain from the sport court to said raingarden.

There are 4 x 30,000L RWTs in the basement carpark (A. 1102). It is not clear which of these correspond to the above discussed STORM Rating Reports.

Building Materials

The SMP has not committed to use of sustainably sourced timber. The SMP should also commit to the use of environmentally sustainable materials for

other high volume materials. For example, a commitment to a specified percentage reduction in Portland cement use for pre-cast and in-situ concrete, and a commitment to sourcing recycled steel for all or part (e.g. concrete reinforcing).

Transport

24 bicycle spaces in the basement carpark have been committed to. These cannot be seen on the plans. Above ground is preferred to encourage student uptake. It should be confirmed whether there area any existing above ground bicycle parking facilities.

Waste Management

For educational purposes, this development should be committing to the collection of greenwaste. Credits can then be claimed for Waste 2.1 – Operation Waste – Food & Garden Waste.

The applicant is claiming credits for Waste 2.2 – Conveneice of Recycling. Further information is required on this.

Urban Ecology

Pg. 17 of the Strategic Framework submitted to Council (dated November 2016) details food production for the Junior School. The applicant should be claiming credits for Urban Ecology 3.2 – Food Production – Non-Residential.

Construction and Building Management

No commitment to waste management is included in the SMP. A 70% or 80% recycling target during demolition and construction should be committed to and followed through to construction completion

Planner Note:

Any permit issued should require the proposal to address the above comments in order to satisfy Clause 22.05.

The extensions to the Irving Hall /Music School building and the Gladys Davies /Administration building are less than 50 square metres combined. As such, a water sensitive

Page 68


urban design response is not required for this aspect of the proposal as noted by Council’s ESD officer.If a planning permit is granted, condition should be included requiring the abovementioned questions and concerns to be addressed.

Parks Unit

Tree Removals

The applicants submitted tree report has listed 172 trees as assessed within this site. Of these 172 trees, 126 are listed to be removed.

Thirteen trees classed as ‘significant’ under Council’s Local Law are included in the 126 removals. A Cedrus deodara (Himalayan Cedar) listed by the National Trust of Australia as being of Regional Significance is also in this group.

Tree No. 9, a mature Quercus palustris (Pin Oak) of high retention value on the Malvern Road frontage of the site is listed as retained in the tree report, but the submitted plans list cricket nets to be constructed within this vicinity. This needs clarification.

Vehicle Crossovers

The proposed widening of the current vehicle crossover in Huntingtower Road (opposite No. 57) will most likely impact the health of the two significant Platanus x acerifolia (London Plane) street trees at this location. Widening of the crossover will only be considered if supported by a non-destructive root investigation detailing that no structural roots will be compromised by the excavation works.

The creation of a new vehicle crossover on the Mercer Road frontage of the property (opposite No. 34) ) will most likely impact the health of the two Quercus canariensis (Algerian Oak) street trees at this location. The creation of the crossover will only be supported if a non-destructive root investigation detailing that no structural roots will be compromised by the excavation works is provided.

Summary

The applicants disregard for a mature tree of Regional Significance is of concern. The removal of 126 out of 172 assessed trees is also of concern. Further detail is required with regards to the full extent of vegetation removal for this

project. Mature trees listed as retained in the submitted tree report are in fact shown as removed in the plans submitted to Council.

The creation of new vehicle crossovers / extension of current structures will not be approved unless supported by additional root investigation works.

Landscape replacement is restricted mainly to narrow perimeter areas between new buildings / basement construction and the property boundary, with limited above and below ground space to replicate what is proposed to be removed from the site.


It is proposed to include a total of 192 parking spaces at the Huntingtower Road campus (43 spaces south of the site accessed from Huntingtower Road, 143 spaces within the proposed basement, 6 pick-up/drop-off spaces accessed from Mercer Road) with 186 parking spaces allocated to staff and six (6) parking spaces allocated for pick up/drop off.

Page 69


As part of the Blairholme Campus application, it was proposed to provide a minimum of 20 staff car parking spaces within the proposed car park of the Huntingtower Campus development, fully accommodating this parking requirement.

According to the number of spaces proposed throughout all the proposed car parks at the Huntingtower Road Campus of the school, a surplus of 31 parking spaces will be provided through these car parks. The Huntingtower Campus is proposed to have 142 staff members. This can be catered for within the proposed parking spaces of the campus whilst still allocating 20 spaces to the required staff allocation of the Blairholme Campus.

As such, it appears that this is an appropriate outcome to cater for the demand from staff parking across the two campuses.

The six (6) off-street parking spaces (kiss and drop to Mercer Road) proposed at the Huntingtower Campus, are proposed to be allocated for pick-up and drop-off movements for children at the facility.

Noting that the capacity of the facility is 906 children, parking is likely to occur on-street. It is anticipated that if pick-up/drop-off movements are seen as more easily completed using kerbside parking areas, that this will be the desired option rather than entering the site.

The site has long frontages on Malvern Road, Huntingtower Road and Mercer Road currently covered by short duration parking restrictions in sections of the frontages during pick up/drop off times, to assist the school use. This area is appropriate for future overflow use should this occur. The Malvern Road frontage of the site is also available outside of the morning ‘Clearway’ times.

Notwithstanding, it is noted that 12 pickup/drop off spaces are currently provided on site. The impact to the surrounding area regarding the decrease of pick up/drop off to six (6) spaces has not been provided. Further clarification to this impact should be provided by the applicant.

It is understood the relocating the existing Kindergarten/Early Learning Centre to the Blairholme campus may reduce the level of traffic in the Huntingtower Campus area. Separate Transport and Parking comments have been provided for the childcare centre application (1308/16).

As Huntingtower Road is proposed to reduce the number of pick up/drop off spaces but increase the number of staff parking spaces due to the access point of the car park, it is expected that the traffic is to reduce during school times but increase outside of these times due to staff arrivals and departures. As most of the pickup/drop off spaces are proposed to increase on Mercer Road, it is expected that the reverse would occur on Huntingtower Road.

The proposal is for an increase to over 100 parking spaces on site for staff. The TIA has not outlined where the existing staff trips are generated. If a majority of staff travel to the site in a personal vehicle and park on-street in the surrounding area, then the installation of this car park is to have little impact to the existing number of trips to the site. However, if most staff are travelling via other modes of transport, this new car park would provide staff members the opportunity to park thus increasing the overall trips to the site. This could have a larger effect to the traffic conditions in the area and is to be considered for further analysis.

The TIA has provided volume counts previously conducted in Huntingtower and Mercer Roads, however these were conducted in March 2013. These counts are now four years old and it is expected that the traffic conditions in the area have changed.

It is recommended that further volume counts and expected traffic generation analysis and clarification, be completed by the applicant.

In relation to the pickup/drop off parking spaces (kiss and drop to Mercer Road the TIA suggests that vehicles enter from the south access point on Mercer Road and exit to the north (south to north one way flow). A queueing area of 8 metres is also proposed

Page 70


to minimise the impact of queues overflowing onto Mercer Road. As stated in the TIA, it is a concern that if left unmanaged, vehicle queues may have a major impact on the circulation of traffic on Mercer Road.

It is recommended that the applicant address this concern by providing further analysis on how this area is intended to be managed and how this will affect queueing and traffic flow on Mercer Road.

The plans show that the basement car park will have a vehicle ramp accessed from Huntingtower Road which has been dimensioned at 7.2 metres between the walls. This exceeds the requirements of the Planning Scheme for a passing area.

The ramp reduces in width at the base to 6.55 metres. At the narrowest point, the width of the accessway is sufficient for simultaneous two-way traffic despite being constrained by 300mm wide kerbs on either side. The accessway width can be considered satisfactory.

The Planning Scheme requires that the accessways have a minimum radius of 4m at the change of direction or be at least 4.2m wide. The plans show that the change of direction is proposed at a width of 7.2 metres which exceeds the above requirements and can be considered satisfactory.

The plans highlight that the headroom clearance provided at the entrance to the basement is 2.15m with the garage door in an open position.

It is noted that the Planning Scheme states that at least 2.1m headroom is to be provided beneath overhead obstructions, calculated for a vehicle with a wheel base of 2.8m. The applicant is to either provide 2.2m headroom, or demonstrate with a vertical clearance template that it meets the Planning Scheme.

The required headroom clearance has been met through the basement car park, however the applicant must revise the headroom clearance at the entry point to the basement.

The plans submitted do not show any sight triangles at the property boundary of the access point on Huntingtower Road. This should be addressed.

The applicant has proposed sight distance triangles on the northern crossover of the pickup/drop off area only. The dimensions of these triangles have not been shown on the plans. This should be shown.

The parking spaces within the basement garage and the at grade car parking spaces have been dimensioned at 4.9 metres by 2.6 metres which are accessed from an aisle width of 6.4 metres. These spaces have been designed in accordance with the Planning Scheme and can be considered satisfactory.

Parallel parking spaces are also proposed, in particular for the pickup/drop off parking spaces. These spaces have been dimensioned at 2.3 metres wide by 6.7 metres long. These spaces meet the requirements of the Australian Standards and can cater for the pickup/drop off movements required.

Three (3) accessible parking spaces are proposed in the underground car park. These parking space have not been dimensioned, however the TIA states that they have been designed in accordance with AS 2890.6

The columns located within the underground car park have been designed with the appropriate clearance from the parking aisle in accordance with Clause 52.06-8 Diagram 1, however the depth of the columns could not be confirmed as they have not been dimensioned on the plans.

The plans submitted show the proposed ramp gradients and grade changes. These accord with the requirements of the Planning Scheme and Australian Standards, and can be considered satisfactory.

The plans submitted do not detail the proposed floor gradients of the parking areas. The minimum gradient of the parking area shall be 1 in 100 (1.0%) for outdoor areas to allow for adequate drainage as per AS2890.1.

In relation to bicycle parking it should be noted that only the raw figure of primary school students proposed has been provided. As such, it is not clear how many of

Page 71


these students are over year 4 and the total figure provided has been used in this instance.

The applicant is proposing 24 bicycle parking spaces within the underground car park. This represents a shortfall of up to 165 bicycle parking spaces. Notwithstanding, it is understood that this car park is proposed to be predominately used by the school staff. It is not expected that students to the school would be using these bicycle facilities. As such, the number of bicycle spaces proposed is in excess of the Planning Scheme requirement for staff.

It is not clear from the proposal if any bicycle parking is proposed for the students. The applicant should confirm this and install bicycle parking for students.

The applicant has not provided the generic specifications of the proposed bicycle parking apparatus or any design dimensions of the proposed bicycle parking design. This information should be provided.

The proposed widened vehicle crossing to Huntingtower Road does not strictly comply with Council’s Vehicle Crossings Policy (not part of the Planning Scheme). It is expected that this will assist with access to the underground car park and as no parking currently occurs at this location this can be supported.

The two proposed crossovers to Mercer Road are wider than the required width permitted in Council’s Vehicle Crossings Policy (not part of the Planning Scheme). However, it is expected to assist with access and based on the proposed use of the site this can be accepted.

It is proposed to relocate the existing school crossing and concrete kerbing on Mercer Road. The relocation of existing treatments is not a straight-forward process and typically require an act of Council. From a Transport and Parking perspective, the location of the crossing was selected to assist the school but also to minimise impact to the surrounding community. Changes would be subject to consultation with the surrounding community.

This process is unlikely to occur quickly, due to the consultation and reporting required. The process is separate from the Planning process, and is not specifically related to securing a Planning permit. Please note that the granting of a Planning permit does not mean that the relocation of the crossing is approved. This is an entirely separate process as the treatment is located outside the property boundary.

Infrastructure

When assessing any application relating to easements it is assumed that at some stage in the future, the use and ownership of the various titles may change and not remain in the same hands. On this basis there may be concern at a building permit stage to agreeing to any works that may unreasonably impact on the use of easements. In this case, that concern can apparently be easily satisfied by the owner consolidating the subject titles which would make the easements redundant.

If the lots are consolidated any such existing drainage becomes the sole responsibility of the property owner.

If a permit is issued, the following should be included as conditions:

- A report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in accordance with that report prior to a building permit being issued. All drainage must be by means of a gravity based system with the exception of any basement ramp and agricultural drains which may be pumped. The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer’s design.

Page 72


- The existing footpath levels must not be lowered or altered in any way at the property line (to facilitate the basement ramp). This is required to ensure that normal overland flow from the street is not able to enter the basement due to any lowering of the footpath at the property line

- There will be significant additional stormwater runoff generated by the development and there are known drainage problems and flooding downstream of the property. The applicant must at their cost provide a stormwater detention system to restrict runoff from the development to no greater than the existing runoff based on a 1 in 10 A.R.I. to the satisfaction of Council’s Infrastructure Unit. Alternatively, in lieu of the stand alone detention system, the owner may provide stormwater tanks for recycling that are in total equivalent to the capacity required for the detention system plus the capacity of the tanks required to satisfy WSUD requirements for the development. Those tanks must be connected to all toilets.

Heritage Advice

The Statement of Significance for this individually listed place (Montrose House HO367) indicates that it architecturally significant for the following reasons:

Montrose House is of architectural significance as a typical rather than an extraordinary exemplar of a once common suburban dwelling in the Italianate mode. It informs an understanding of the Italianate architectural expression within this section of the Municipality and the pursuit of suburban ideal of Rus en Urbe in Malvern. The Italianate form of architectural expression came to define the character of this section of the Municipality during the late nineteenth century and it could be argued that this expression is of greater import within the City of Stonnington than is the case in other, younger Municipalities. In this section of Malvern it informs an understanding of the role of houses as a symbols of wealth, status and taste, for Melbourne's middle classes. The building is of architectural significance at a local level.

The proposal is to construct a modern styled linking building abutting the northern elevation of the house and joining it to the modern school building to the north.

Whilst it would seem reasonable to allow such a link, the current design is far too close to the front of Montrose House with the new roof extending forward to the point from which the semi-octagonal bay springs.

It would be preferable for the link to be set back to a point adjacent to the door in the northern wall of Montrose House.

The design of the building is unequivocally modern and this is considered appropriate, especially given the modern form of the classrooms to the north.

The demolition of Sutherland House cannot be supported. The consideration of the application of a Heritage Overlay would indicate that it is of such significance that total demolition is inappropriate (Planner Note: written prior to the buildings demolition).

Without the application of any heritage overlay in the area it is unnecessary to make comment on the design of the new Sports Centre.

KEY ISSUES

State and Local Planning Policy

Planning policy encourages the integration of education facilities within local communities. Infrastructure should be provided in response to social needs, and the efficient use of existing infrastructure is encouraged. At the local level, Clause 21.08-1 outlines that addressing the need for social and physical infrastructure is a focus for future development

Page 73


planning in Stonnington. Clause 21.08-5 seeks to acknowledge the importance of public institutions to the economic and social viability of the City, and recognises that addressing the potential impacts of many institutional uses on residential amenity in residential areas is a key issue.

Clause 21.02-3 (key influences and challenges) identifies the management of the location, expansion and increased levels of use of educational, medical and institutional uses and their integration into the community and established residential areas as a challenge. Clause 21.08-5 (community infrastructure) seeks to ensure the effective management and community integration of the use and development of institutional uses including health, education and recreational facilities. Clause 22.16 (Institutional Uses policy) seeks to accommodate the future use and development needs of institutional uses, whilst ensuring they take place in an orderly manner and are complementary to the surrounding residential context.

Clause 21.04-4 (Commercial and community uses in residential zones) seeks to ensure that non-residential uses in residential zones are located to achieve maximum accessibility to the communities they serve, respect the preferred character of the area and respect residential amenity.

The proposed development seeks to rationalise and improve the facilities at the existing school to better respond to the community’s needs. The school is located within close proximity to a number of Neighbourhood Activity Centres and has excellent access to public transport services. The proposed development is consistent with broader State Planning Policy directions.

Whilst there is strategic support for the proposed redevelopment of the school in terms of its use, operation and contribution as a community service, the proposed built form and traffic and parking impacts are also a key considerations.

Relevant built form policies include Clause 15 which outlines that high quality urban design outcomes be achieved and contribute to the local urban character, amenity and safety of the public realm. Clause 21.06 also includes objectives and strategies relating to amenity, and built form character. In addition, Clause 15.03 (Heritage) seeks to provide for the conservation and enhancement of places which are of aesthetic, archaeological, architectural, cultural, scientific, or social significance. Development should respect places with identified heritage values and create a worthy legacy for future generations. The local heritage policy at Clause 22.04 includes similar objectives. The application does not address these policies as it includes an extension to Montrose House which is considered to be unsympathetic the heritage place.

Clause 12.01-2 seeks to ensure that permitted clearing of native vegetation results in no net loss in the contribution made by native vegetation to Victoria’s biodiversity. Clause 21.06-2 seeks to retain established trees and vegetation as well as Clause 21.06-2 aims to repair and reinforce the high quality landscape character of the City.

For the reasons discussed further below, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of its use and improvements to the operations of the school. However, aspects of the proposed buildings and works are problematic and not supported.

Application 1308/16 – Blairholme Site Child Care Centre

This application seeks to construct a double storey extension to the rear of the existing Blairholme House to accommodate use of the land as a child care centre. Having considered the relevant planning policies, the key issues are:

Page 74


Whether the proposed use is appropriate in this locality and the impact of the use on the amenity of neighbouring residential properties

Whether the proposal will result in unreasonable traffic and parking impacts. The impact of the buildings and works on the heritage and general character of the

area. Whether the variation of easement will have an impact on drainage of the site.

Proposed Use

The subject site is located within the General Residential Zone. The purpose of the General Residential Zone (among others) includes 'to allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of other non-residential uses to serve local community needs in appropriate locations'. This indicates that such uses may be appropriately located in residential areas, even though they may represent a commercial intrusion.

Council's Economic Development Policy at Clause 21.04-4 (Commercial and communityuses in residential zones) seeks to ensure non-residential uses in residential zones are located to achieve maximum accessibility to the communities they serve and respect the preferred character of the area and residential amenity. The strategies to achieve this include (as relevant) to:

1.1 Encourage commercial and community uses permissible in residential zones to locate close to activity centres, community hubs, public transport and other related uses.

1.5 Ensure large and I or purpose built, non-residential uses to locate in or beside activity centres or beside those parts of main roads which have a mixed use character

1.7 Ensure non-residential uses do not have an adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding residential area through noise, hours of operation, traffic or parking associated with the use.

1.8 Ensure development associated with the use (including landscaping and the location and extent of on-site car parking) respects the prevailing character of the area and meets other provisions in this planning scheme

It is considered that the proposed child care centre is generally consistent with Clause 21.04-4. The subject site is located on a main road (Malvern Road). In addition, the subject site is located within close proximity to public transport services including tram services along Malvern Road. It is also of note that the majority of the subject site (i.e. 1034-1040 Malvern Road) is currently used by Lauriston Girls School for Prep to Year 2 students. The nature of the proposed use as a child care centre will not be starkly different compared with existing conditions.

The location of the proposed child care centre is in line with the policy direction. It is considered that the proposal will generally serve a local clientele. The proposal is considered to be appropriately located as childcare centres should be accessible to the community they are to serve.

The proposed operating hours are between 6.30am and 6:30pm, Monday to Friday. No later weekday use and no weekend use is proposed. These operating hours are not considered to be excessive and would continue to allow the evening and weekend amenity of neighbouring residential properties to be protected. The use will operate mainly during business hours and will not adversely impact on the amenity of the area, given many nearby residents would be at work at these times.

Page 75


Potential noise impacts are not anticipated to be unreasonable. It is recommended that, if a permit is issued, a condition be included which requires that the proposal complies with the relevant EPA regulations. The proposal is not expected to result in adverse amenity impacts in relation to waste collection. Council’s waste management coordinator has advised that Council’s Local Laws along with Federal and State legislation will be sufficient to regulate the management of wastes at the site. Notwithstanding, a waste management plan has been submitted by the applicant and this has been deemed satisfactory by Council’s waste management coordinator.

The proposed child care centre is considered to be appropriate in that it will cater for local community needs and will not impact adversely on the operation of the zone. In light of the above, the proposed use is considered to be in accordance with the relevant policies of the Stonnington Planning Scheme and is an appropriate use in this location.

Traffic and Parking

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5, a child care centre is required to provide 0.22 car spaces to each child. The proposal includes a maximum of 182 children. As a result, it generates a parking requirement of 40 car parking spaces. The proposal has the potential to meet the car parking requirements with 20 car spaces provided on site (for pick-up/drop-off) and 20 car spaces provided on the Huntingtower Campus (for staff).

The 20 off-site staff car spaces are proposed to be located within a basement which is proposed as part of the Huntingtower Campus redevelopment (under planning application no. 1309/16). There is no certainty around whether planning application no.1309/16 will be approved. This uncertainty and the physical disconnection of the car parking from the proposed use can be addressed by tying the sites together with a legal agreement via Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The agreement would require that the 20 staff car spaces be available at all times on the Huntingtower Campus for the child care centre staff. This could be addressed as a condition if a permit is issued.

The provision of staff car parking off-site is considered acceptable in this instance. Relevant decision guidelines at Clause 52.06 require consideration of the proximity of the car parking on the alternate site to the subject site and the likelihood of the long term provision and availability of the car parking spaces. The car parking is a short distance (approximately 150 metres) from the proposed child care centre. In terms of long term provision and availability, this should be ensured via permit conditions and the abovementioned Section 173 Agreement.Council's Transport and Parking Unit have raised concerns with the potential traffic generation as a result of the proposal.

Clause 21.06-3 seeks to ensure that new development does not unreasonably affect the amenity of any adjoining residential properties through traffic and parking associated with the use. There will be increased traffic as a result of the proposed child care centre. The activity patterns will be staggered, particularly in the afternoon, due to pick-up occurring at various times.

The traffic assessment provided by the applicant assumes that, due to increased delays by drivers turning right at the Murray Street and Malvern Road intersection, all vehicles from the proposed child care use will turn left out of Murray Street onto Malvern Road or Kooyong Road. However, Council’s Transport and Parking Unit have indicated that there is actually a 50/50 split between vehicles turning left and right out of Murray Street. During the survey

Page 76


conducted by GTA (the applicants traffic consultant), slightly more vehicles turned right out of Murray Street than left during the AM peak period.

On this basis, it is expected that right turn traffic will increase and may have an impact on the traffic flow out of Murray Street onto Malvern Road. At this stage it is unclear what the true impact will be within Murray Street and further analysis is required. Given this issue is unresolved, the proposal is not supported.

Following the advice of Council’s Transport and Parking Unit, it is recommended that if a permit is issued the following should be addressed:

Confirmation of what arrangements are proposed for circulation of vehicles using the on-site car spaces and any appropriate management, such as line marking is to be included on the plans.

Sight triangles at the property boundary. Dimensions of the setback of wheelstops from the end of car spaces. Gradients throughout the car park. Floor gradients of the parking areas to be a minimum of 1 in 100 (1.0%) for outdoor

areas to allow for adequate drainage as per AS2890.1. Dimensions of the proposed vehicle crossing and the new kerbside lengths.

It is noted that the design of car parking spaces and the vehicle aisle is acceptable.

It is recommended that if a permit is issued a condition be included requiring the redundant vehicle crossing on Murray Street be removed with any footpath, nature strip, kerb and channel made good to Council requirements at the cost of the owner at the time of the change to the property.

In addition, the proposal will have no impact on traffic conditions during the evenings and on the weekends, when most residents are likely to be at home. Accordingly it is considered that Murray Street will continue to operate under similar conditions outside of the child care hours of operation.

Buildings and Works

The proposed extension is a simple contemporary style building. It is double storey scale to the north end and transitions down to single storey at the rear. This respects the scale of existing residential development within the street. The presentation to Malvern Road is generally unchanged by the proposal and the approximately 25-28 metre setbacks of the extension from Murray Street ensures that is well recessed compared with nearby dwellings.

Even though the height limit within the General Residential Zone does not apply, it is noted that the portion of the site within General Residential Zone Schedule 1 (maximum 14.5 metre height limit) includes buildings works to a maximum height of 10.44 metres. The area of the site within the General Residential Zone Schedule 10 (maximum height of 9 metres) includes buildings and works to a maximum height of 7.28 metres. Accordingly, the proposed buildings and works generally reflect the heights anticipated under the zone within the surrounding residential area.

The proposal also includes construction of a shed situated along part of the eastern boundary adjacent to No. 69 Huntingtower Road and No. 1042-1044 Malvern Road. This is considered a small structure with a height of approximately 3 metres and a length of 3.3 metres along the eastern interface. This is the only structure located within close proximity to the east boundary and the shadow diagrams show that it will not introduce an unreasonable amount of additional shadow as discussed further below.

Page 77


The proposed decking to the east is low level with a height of 200mm above ground level. This will not be visible from neighbouring properties and is not expected to have a detrimental impact.The application has been assessed against Clause 22.04 and Council’s Heritage Guidelines as well as Amendment C132.

Demolition

The subject building is an A2 graded Italianate villa. Council’s Heritage Guidelines 2002 and the draft Heritage Policy (Clause 22.04 proposed under Amendment C132) discourage demolition of parts of significant buildings unless it can be demonstrated that:

The fabric to be demolished has no significance. The demolition is minor in scale. The demolition will not adversely affect the significance of the heritage place. The works will assist in the long-term conservation of the heritage place. The replacement built form is sympathetic to the scale, setback and significance of the

heritage place

The proposed demolition of the rear transportable class rooms and play equipment is acceptable as these are not original and have no heritage significance. The rear portion of Blairholme House is assessed to be non-original and its demolition is therefore acceptable. Council’s Heritage Advisor has confirmed that the extent of proposed demolition is acceptable. It is noted that the dwelling at No. 16 Murray Street is not within the Heritage Overlay and a planning permit is not required for its demolition.

Additions

Given the heritage building in question was constructed as a dwelling and is within a residential area, it is considered appropriate to apply the residential guidelines (rather than the guidelines for commercial buildings) contained within Council’s policies and guideline documents. The Heritage Guidelines 2002 outline that:

Additions to the ground floor should almost always be set back from the façade in order to allow the façade to retain its primacy and integrity in terms of views from the street. A setback of 3-4m is often sufficient to achieve this objective.

And continue:

New envelope and/or additional storeys should not be added directly above the front façade of a building. In general, two storey additions to residential buildings will require that new works are setback 8-10 metres or more behind the principal façade.

The Draft Heritage Guidelines which form part of the proposed Planning Scheme Amendment C132 specify that upper level additions should be setback such that they are not visible based on a sightline from the opposite side of the footpath. The guidelines advise that where visually recessive additions cannot be achieved, they must be carefully designed to integrate with the form and character of the existing building.

The part of the extension closest to the front façade is at ground level associated with the ‘1-2’s Room’. This is setback 13 metres from the front façade (not the projecting bays) of the original building. The proposed first floor is setback approximately 22.9 metres from the front façade and 2.7 metres from the rear roofline of the original building.

Page 78


The majority of the proposed extension is also recessed from the Murray Street façade with a ground floor setback of 2.7 – 13.8 metres and a first floor setback of 13.97 metres. Given the site is on a corner it is not considered feasible to ensure that it is of limited visibility from Murray Street. The setbacks proposed from Murray Street and the eastern façade of Blairholme House are considered generous and will allow the original heritage building to be the more prominent built form on the site.

The new play equipment is considered acceptable it is to the rear and sits in front of the proposed addition. As such it is considered that this aspect of the proposal is acceptable.

The proposed car park is acceptable as this is at ground level and is not a structure that would impede views to the original building. The visual impact will be mitigated by proposed landscaping which will ensure that a garden setting around Blairholme House is maintained. A total of 10 trees are proposed to the east side of the car park and 15 trees to the south side closest to Murray Street. Details of tree species and heights have not been provided and it is recommended that this be required as a condition if a permit is issued.

Given the scale of the building and the setbacks proposed, the proposed extension is considered acceptable with regard to heritage.

Amenity Impacts

Whilst Clause 54 is not applicable to the assessment of a non-residential building, a number of the objectives and standards are considered appropriate to use as a guide in assessing the proposal and to test whether it would have an unreasonable impact on surrounding dwellings.


The side and rear setbacks objective at Clause 54.04-1 seeks to ensure that the height and setback of a building from a boundary respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the impact on the amenity of existing dwellings. Standard A10 requires setbacks based on the proposed wall heights of a building.

The proposal responds to the standard as detailed below.

East – Ground Floor

Maximum Wall Height: 5.9 - 6.28 metresSetback required: 1.69 – 1.82 metresSetback Proposed: 1.41 – 3.2 metresEast – Plant and Store

Maximum Wall Height: 4.28 metresSetback required: 1.204 metresSetback Proposed: 1.41 metres

East – First Floor

Maximum Wall Height: 9.67 metresSetback required: 4.76 metresSetback Proposed: 4.8 – 5.6 metres

South – Ground Floor

Page 79


Maximum Wall Height: 6.28 metresSetback required: 1.8 metresSetback Proposed: 6.98 – 7.67 metres

South – Plant and Store

Maximum Wall Height: 3.5 – 4.5 metresSetback required: 1 – 1.27 metresSetback Proposed: 4.1 - 4.67 metres

The majority of the proposal responds to the setbacks sought under Standard A10. The east setback of the ‘3 YO Room’ is 1.41 metres which falls short of the setback sought by the standard by 28cm. The ‘3 YO Room’ is located opposite windows at No. 3/59 Huntingotwer Road which are setback 2 metres from the common boundary with the subject site. It is considered that the proposal should be setback further to respond to Standard A10 in order to minimise visual bulk. If a permit is issued, it is recommended that this be addressed as a condition. It is not expected that the additional 28cm required to meet the setback standard would have a significant impact on the internal layout of the proposal.

One of the submitted statements of grounds indicates that the plans show the Clause 54 setback envelope taken from floor level instead of ground level which is inaccurate. It is noted that all setbacks detailed above have been based on the height of the proposal above natural ground and not floor level.

Walls on Boundaries

Standard A11 requires that boundary walls (including walls within 200mm of a boundary) should not abut the boundary for a length of more than 10 metres plus 25 per cent of the remaining length of the boundary of an adjoining lot. In addition, a new boundary wall should not exceed an average height of 3.2 metres with no part higher than 3.6 metres. The proposal includes a new shed located along part of the east boundary shared with No. 1042-1044 Malvern Road. The shed has a height of 3.06 metres and is limited in length at 3.28 metres. The proposed shed is considered acceptable as it responds to Standard A11.

Daylight to Existing Windows and North Facing Windows

The objective at Clause 54.04-3 requires that development allow adequate daylight into existing habitable room windows. Standard A12 specifies that a light court should be provided for adjoining windows and walls or carports more than 3 metres in height opposite an existing habitable room window should be set back from the window at least 50 per cent of the height of the new wall. The adjoining windows at No. 3/59 Huntingotwer Road are setback 2 metres from the common boundary with the subject site. The proposal complies with the setbacks from windows as follows:

Maximum Wall Height: 5.9 - 6.28 metresSetback required: 2.95 – 3.14 metresSetback Proposed: 3.41 metres Given the setbacks proposed from adjoining windows, the proposal is not expected to have an unreasonable impact on daylight to adjoining dwellings.

Page 80


At No. 69 Huntingtower Road, the nearest windows to the subject site are 5.8 metres from the common boundary. The proposed double storey extension is setback 10.5 - 14.6 metres from the neighbouring windows at this property which will ensure that daylight is not unreasonably impacted. The dwelling at No. 65 Huntingtower Road is setback 10.13 – 17.28 metres from the common boundary with the subject site and the windows at this location will not be unreasonably impacted by the proposal.

There are no new works opposite windows facing the subject site at No. 1044 Malvern Road. The proposed extension is not located directly opposite windows at No. 14 Murray Street. However, the works are within a 3 metre offset from the edge of the nearest window to this dwelling. Standard A13 specifies that, in order to allow adequate solar access to existing north-facing habitable room windows, a setback of 2.608 metres from the southern boundary is required for the proposal. The south elevation of the building is setback 6.93 metres from the boundary and the south elevation of the plant and store is setback 4.1 – 4.67 metres from the south boundary. The proposal satisfies this standard and it is considered that it will not unreasonably impact northern solar access.

Overshadowing

Although not strictly applicable, the overshadowing objective at Clause 54.04-5 seeks to ensure buildings do not significantly overshadow existing secluded private open space (SPOS). Standard A14 states the following:



Shadow diagrams provided by the applicant show that the proposal will not cast additional shadow to any property between 9am and 12pm. The proposed extension will increase shadow to the east adjoining properties from 1pm until 3pm. The additional shadow complies with Standard A14 with each adjoining open space area maintaining more than 40 square metres of sunlight between 9am and 3pm. It is noted that No. 3/59 Huntingtower Road will be most affected as it has the smallest secluded private open space area at 78.2 square metres. The proposal will affect this space most at 3pm and leave it with 42 square metres of sunlight which complies with Standard A14. No 65 Huntingtower Road will receive the most shadow cast from the proposal (a maximum of 60.5 square metres of additional shadow), however, the secluded private open space area is 571.4 square metres and this additional shadow will not be unreasonable.

Overlooking

The proposed extension is oriented west with no new windows facing the south or east adjoining residential properties. The western decking is enclosed within the roof line and southern wall of the building which will screen views from this location as well.

Variation of Easement

Page 81


The applicant seeks to remove the existing drainage easement along the southern boundary of No. 1034-1040 Malvern. Council’s Infrastructure Unit has no objection to the removal of the easement given that the benefiting land is No. 16 Murray Street which also forms part of the subject site and is owned by Lauriston.

The Infrastructure Unit has advised that if a permit is issued, the a condition must be included requiring the relocation of the stormwater easement and drain at the cost of the permit applicant.

Application 1309/16 – Huntingtower Campus Redevelopment

Buildings and Works

Stage 1 Underground Carpark & Enabling Works

The proposed basement car park will have limited visual impact on the site or adjoining properties. The basement includes 143 car parking spaces, 20 of which are associated with the proposed Blairholme child care centre application (no. 1308/16). As advised by Council’s Transport and Parking Unit, the general layout and design of the basement car parking is acceptable and meets the design standards of Clause 52.06. Some further details of the car park should be provided as discussed further below.

The access to this car park includes widening of an existing crossover to Huntingtower Road within close proximity to two mature Council street trees (London Plane Trees). One of these trees is proposed to be removed.

Clause 21.06-4 (Built Form Character) specifies that where vehicle crossovers are supported on street frontages, ensure they are designed to minimise any reduction in continuity of the footpath, minimise the loss of on-street parking, maximise the retention of street planting, including nature strip areas, and include appropriate landscape design to soften areas of hard-standing and garages. Given the tree in question is a mature Council tree, its removal is not supported.

It is considered that the street tree should be retained and, as advised by Council’s Parks Unit, a non-destructive root investigation be provided detailing whether structural roots to both trees adjoining the proposed crossover will be compromised by the excavation works associated with the crossover. If the investigation reveals that the crossover will have a detrimental impact on the trees, the vehicle access and potentially the basement should be relocated/redesigned. On this basis, it is considered that this matter cannot be addressed as a condition of any permit issued. The investigation should be provided prior to a determination being made on the proposal. The assumption that the basement crossovers impact on the street trees is acceptable is flawed. It fails to respect the contribution the street tree males to the public realm. This is a site constraint that must be respected. The basement entrance in its proposed location is not supported.

Stage 1 also includes removal of 7 significant trees within the site.

Trees 8, 132 and 18 are located over and within close proximity to the proposed basement. The Himalayan Cedar (Tree 132) is identified as being of very high retention value and is in good health as detailed within the submitted arborist report. The National Trust has also highlighted the significance of this tree indicating that it is part of the original plantings of the

Page 82


‘Brocklesby’ property which in 1907 became the Lauriston Girls’ School. On this basis, it is considered that the removal of this tree and the basement location is not appropriate.

Tree 18 is considered capable of retention given it is located between buildings (to the east edge of the proposed basement). This would require some basement redesign or reduction.

The proposed driveway to the basement impacts Trees 200 and 201 which are located within the site close to the Huntingtower Road boundary. The arborist report indicates that Tree 200 is in fair health and Tree 201 is in good health. These trees are located within side setbacks close to the west site boundary and are assessed as being significant under Council’s Local Law. It is considered that these trees are capable of being retained if the accessway for the proposed basement is relocated/redesigned. A new stairwell and mechanical vent is proposed to be constructed in the north-west corner of the site and a new lift/stair structure to the south-east of the basement. Both of these structures are above ground and provide access between ground level and the basement.

The footprint of these structures is small and is not considered to have a significant impact on the appearance of the school site or streetscape.

The proposed signage attached to the mechanical vent is considered acceptable. Relevant decision guidelines at Clause 52.05-3 require consideration of the scale and proportionality of signage, the need and opportunities for identification, and the sensitivity and character of the area. The proposed signage is oriented toward the Malvern Road frontage where the residential character is disrupted by large road infrastructure. This ensures that the signage is directed away from the more typical residential setting within Huntingtower Road. The signage is also considered to be relatively small with each sign having an area of 1.1 square metres. The plans do not confirm whether the signs are illuminated or not. It is suggested that a condition be included on any permit issued requiring the signs be non-illuminated to ensure that they will not impact the amenity of adjoining residential properties.

Stage 1 of the proposal also includes removal of 11 existing staff car spaces to make way for a single storey (maximum 4.5 metres high) extension of the Irving Hall / Music School building. The extension is approximately 69 square metres and is setback 10.7-12.91 metres from the Huntingtower Road boundary. The street setback of the extension is generally aligned with the façade of the existing building and is considered sympathetic to the existing buildings in this location. The trees and landscaping along the west boundary and the nature strip will screen views to the extension. These works are considered acceptable.

Stage 2 Temporary ELC Village

The proposed temporary ELC village includes installation of two single storey portable buildings. It is noted that Clause 62.02-1 states that a permit is not required for a temporary portable classroom associated with an education centre located on a site for three years or less. However, the applicant has not advised the length of time these are to be present on site other than to confirm that the temporary facilities will remain in place until the new combined ELC on the Blairholme site is completed (subject to application no. 1308/16). It has also been confirmed that the numbers of staff and child places in the temporary ELC will remain unchanged from the current ELC use on site.

The two portable buildings are small in scale (maximum height of 3.77 metres), are located toward Malvern Road, and are temporary. Accordingly, there is no concern with this aspect of the proposal. It is suggested that a condition be included on any permit issued requiring the buildings to be removed once they are no longer occupied by the ELC operations.

Stage 3 Sports and Wellbeing Centre

Page 83


The proposal seeks to construct a new gymnasium in the north-east corner of the site which will be attached to an extended swimming pool building. Sutherland house has been demolished to facilitate this. Michael House (directly to the west of Sutherland House) is also proposed to be demolished. This building is not subject to an existing or proposed heritage overlay.

The building is located close to the Malvern Road frontage of the site and away from the more pristine residential areas to the south along Mercer Road. The building has a simple contemporary form with a height of 9.45 - 11.12 metres. The building includes setbacks of 6.06-7.57 metres from Malvern Road and 3 metres to Mercer Road which will be vegetated with a mixture of large and medium sized trees. It is noted that Council’s Urban Designer has indicated that a 3 metre east setback may not be sufficient to accommodate the proposed medium sized trees. Council’s Parks Unit has confirmed that a 3 metre setback is suitable for a Capital Pear (Pyrus celleryana) which is one of the medium sized trees nominated on the proposed planting plant palette. Council’s Urban Designer has also indicated that there may be inconsistencies between the floor plan of the gym and Section B daigram. The section diagram shows that the Mercer Road setback of the Sports & Wellbeing Centre includes retaining walls and is sloped which would suggest that the ability for planting and/or establishment of trees may be limited in this location. It is considered that landscaping is essential to soften the built form of the Sports and Wellbeing Centre given its large size and exposed position on the site. It is unclear whether adequate landscaping is possible in the east setback of this building.

There are significant trees existing within the north-east corner of the site (Trees 34, 35, 58, 59 and 60) and it is considered that these trees should be retained given their established nature, large size and location close to site boundaries. The submitted arborist report indicates that these trees are in good health. The retention of these trees would provide a partial landscaping buffer to the gym which provides an instant benefit and is preferred over new landscaping which takes time to establish.

Tree 102 is located in the middle of where the proposed gymnasium is to be constructed. This tree is identified as having fair health and form. Tree 119 is located to the south end of where the proposed gym is to be constructed. It is considered that if the office, foyer and canopy area were redesigned and/or reduced, Tree 119 could be retained. Tree 27 is located within the Malvern Road setback and it is considered that the building should be redesigned and further setback from the north in order to accommodate retention of this tree.

The nearest residential properties are separated from the site by Malvern Road and Mercer Road and would not be detrimentally affected by the proposed gymnasium in terms of its built form.

Two new signs are proposed to be attached to the north and east elevations of the gymnasium. Relevant decision guidelines at Clause 52.05-3 require consideration of the scale and proportionality of signage, the need and opportunities for identification, and the sensitivity and character of the area.

Having regard to the decision guidelines, the signage is considered acceptable as it is proportionate to the proposed building and is well incorporated into the design. In context of the scale of the building the signage does not present as unreasonably dominant. The two signs are both situated toward the Malvern Road interface of site where the residential character is disrupted by large road infrastructure. This ensures that the signage is directed away from the more typical residential setting within Mercer Road. The signs are not illuminated and will not impact the amenity of adjoining properties in that regard.

Page 84


Proposed fencing along the Malvern Road and Mercer Road boundaries in the vicinity of the gymnasium is acceptable. The fencing is to be a combination of solid brick and metal pickets to a height of 2.1 metres. This is similar to the 1.8-2.2 metre high fencing which currently exists in this location. As such, the fencing aspect of the proposal will have little impact on the surrounding character compared with existing conditions.

Stage 3 of the proposal results in removal of a number of significant trees and it is not clear whether the landscape response, particularly to the east setback, is feasible. Accordingly, this aspect of the proposal is not supported.

Stage 4 Combined Junior School

The application has been assessed against Clause 22.04 and Council’s Heritage Guidelines as well as Amendment C132.

Demolition

The proposed demolition relating to Montrose House includes removal of the external staircase to the north of the building and removal of a ground level window to create a new door opening to the north of the building.

Council’s Heritage Guidelines 2002 and the draft Heritage Policy (Clause 22.04 proposed under Amendment C132) discourage demolition of parts of significant buildings unless it can be demonstrated that:

The fabric to be demolished has no significance. The demolition is minor in scale. The demolition will not adversely affect the significance of the heritage place. The works will assist in the long-term conservation of the heritage place. The replacement built form is sympathetic to the scale, setback and significance of the

heritage place

The proposed demolition of the stairs and window is minor in scale and the stairs are not original. The demolition of these features will not impact the significance of the heritage place. As such, the proposed demolition to Montrose House is considered acceptable.

Additions

Given the heritage building in question was constructed as a dwelling and is within a residential area, it is considered appropriate to apply the residential guidelines (rather than the guidelines for commercial buildings) contained within Council’s heritage policies and guideline documents. The Heritage Guidelines (2002) outline that:

Additions to the ground floor should almost always be set back from the façade in order to allow the façade to retain its primacy and integrity in terms of views from the street. A setback of 3-4m is often sufficient to achieve this objective.

The Draft Heritage Policy which forms part of proposed Planning Scheme Amendment C132 specifies that all additions and alterations be setback behind the primary building volume and adopt a visually recessive design.

The proposed link building does not respond to the existing or draft heritage policy and guidelines. The new link building is to have a height of 5.31 metres to the front (facing Mercer Road) and 6.075 metres to the rear (west). The link building has a multi-faceted frontage which is proposed to be situated as follows:

Page 85


- Its main façade to be setback 5.62 metres from the projecting bay and 1.28 metres from the primary façade of Montrose House.

- The link building has a recessed entry which is to be setback 8.08 metres from the projecting bay and 4.255 metres from the primary façade of Montrose House.

- The link building has a projecting roof which covers the front plaza area and sits 2.47 metres forward of the primary façade of Montrose House and 1.785 metres back from the projecting bay.

The setbacks proposed from the original building façade are minimal and not sufficient to achieve a visually recessive design. The roof of the proposed building sits forward of Montrose House and will have an overbearing appearance in relation to the heritage building. Council’s Heritage Advisor has suggested that the building be setback to a point in line with the existing door in the northern wall of Montrose House. This would result in the existing building being the more prominent form with the extension setback to the depth of the front rooms of Montrose House. This would also be more consistent with the recession sought under heritage policies and guidelines.

It is noted that the architectural style is acceptable as it is simple and contemporary and will be distinguishable from the original heritage fabric. The extension as proposed will undermine the primacy of Montrose House and is not supported.

Stage 5 Mercer Road Kiss and Drop

The proposed works involved in the Mercer Road kiss and drop are considered to be relatively minor and will partially replace areas currently occupied by play equipment and sports courts.

Clause 21.06-4 (Built Form Character) seeks to minimise the impact of vehicle crossovers and parking on the character of the area and the pedestrian experience. Relevant strategies include:

5.1 Ensure (where possible) that vehicle parking, including hard surface, carports and garages, is not located in front setback areas.

5.3 Where vehicle crossovers are supported on street frontages, ensure they are designed to minimise any reduction in continuity of the footpath, minimise the loss of on-street parking, maximise the retention of street planting, including nature strip areas, and include appropriate landscape design to soften areas of hard-standing and garages.

5.4 Seek reduction and / or removal of vehicle crossovers to improve pedestrian movement and safety.

5.5 Ensure provision for car parking is integrated into the overall building design and does not compromise the active frontage and pedestrian experience.

The location of the driveway and parking within the title boundaries of the property is acceptable for the following reasons:

For the majority of its length, the kiss and drop is located in an open area in front of sports courts rather than directly in front of buildings.

Page 86


The kiss and drop will result in loss of on street car parking but will provide on-site car parking for school users to free up traffic flow on Mercer Road.

The kiss and drop includes new and increased landscaping (compared with existing conditions) on site. The landscape concept plan indicates 8 medium trees directly in front of the driveway and another 8 medium trees around the north and west sides of the kiss and drop. Currently, there are no trees in this location on the subject site.

Notwithstanding the above, the proposed northern vehicle crossover associated with the kiss and drop (opposite No. 34 Mercer Road) is not considered acceptable. As advised by Council’s Parks Unit the crossover will most likely impact the health of the two Quercus canariensis (Algerian Oak) street trees on either side of it. The extent of any such impact is not clear. As such, a non-destructive root investigation must be provided detailing whether structural roots to both trees will be compromised by the excavation works associated with the crossover. This should be carried out prior to a determination being made on the application in the event that redesign or relocation of the crossover is required to avoid impact to the trees. On this basis, it is considered that this matter cannot be addressed as a condition of any permit issued. Accordingly, the proposed kiss and drop is not supported in its current form.

The existing pedestrian crossing on Mercer Road requires relocation to facilitate the proposed kiss and drop. This is not part of this planning application given it is on Council land and requires separate approval.

The proposed fence in front of the kiss and drop is to be 2.1 metres high and a combination of metal pickets and solid brick. The fence will be partially visually permeable and is considered acceptable.

Stage 6 Nature Play

Stage 6 of the proposal involves installation of new playground equipment to the east of the site. This includes new decking, surface treatments, planting, sandpits, climbing structures, shade structures, and seating.

Clause 62.02-2 states that furniture and works normally associated with an education centre including, but not limited to, outdoor furniture, playground equipment, art works, drinking fountains, rubbish bins and landscaping does not require a planning permit unless specifically required by the planning scheme.

Stage 8 Sports Courts & Learn to Swim Pool

The swimming pool building extension wraps around the existing structure to the north and west and is to be approximately 5.6 metres high. The extension is setback 5.8-6 metres from Malvern Road which is generally consistent with the setbacks of the proposed gymnasium (6.06-7.57 metres from Malvern Road). The extension is to the centre-north of the site and will not directly impact adjoining properties. The setbacks proposed allow space for planting and some retention of existing trees which will soften its form in views from Malvern Road. Accordingly, this extension is considered acceptable.

As previously noted is unclear whether the learn to swim component of the proposal requires a planning permit for use as an indoor recreation facility. The applicant has not demonstrated existing use rights for the ‘learn to swim’ component. If a planning permit is sought, details of the hours, student numbers staff numbers and general operation of the use would be required to enable a full assessment. Given the part use of the land as an indoor recreation

Page 87


facility has not been specifically applied for and no detail provided, this aspect is not supported.

The proposed sports courts in the north-west corner of the site are to be ‘plexipave’ surface and generally maintain the same level as existing ground level. The cricket nets and fencing around the sports courts will be the most visible structures in this location. The proposed fence to Malvern Road is to be retained, the fencing around the sports courts is 3.6 metre high cyclone mesh with a setback of 9-12.29 metres from Malvern Road and 2.2 metres from Huntingtower Road. The cricket nets are to be a retractable tennis curtain to a height of 3.6 metres, setback 3.28-4.42 metres from Malvern Road. The proposed sports courts fencing is relatively high, however given the high level of transparency and the existing and proposed vegetation between the fencing and the street frontages, this is considered acceptable.

As advised by Council’s Parks Unit the submitted arborist report and the plans are unclear in relation to Tree 9 (a significant tree) as to whether this will be removed or retained. The location of proposed cricket nets appears to preclude retention of this tree. The removal of this tree is not supported and the applicant should clarify whether or not it is proposed to be removed.

Tree 15 is located within front Malvern Road setback and has been identified within the submitted arborist report as being in good health. The tree is proposed to be removed partially to make way for one of the at-grade sports courts. It is considered that this tree should be retained given its location toward the outer edge of the site and given its large size and good health. The removal of this tree does not appear necessary as a structure is not proposed in this location (but rather an open-air, ’plexipave’ court).

The proposed removal of significant trees to make way for Stage 8 works is not supported.

Traffic and Parking

As formerly noted, the school has been operating for over 15 years continuously and enjoys existing use rights. The number of car spaces required under Clause 52.06 for primary schools and secondary schools is based on the number of staff on site at any one time. The proposal involves reduction in the number of staff on the Huntingtower Campus from 190.2 to 142 and therefore does not result in an increase in the statutory parking requirement.

Notwithstanding, it is considered appropriate to examine the traffic and parking impacts of the proposal. Clause 63.05 specifies that a Section 2 use may for which an existing use right is established may continue provided the amenity of the area is not damaged or further damaged by a change in the activities beyond the limited purpose of the use preserved by the existing use right.It is proposed to include a total of 192 parking spaces (43 existing spaces south of the site accessed from Huntingtower Road, 143 spaces within the proposed basement, 6 proposed pick-up/drop-off spaces accessed from Mercer Road) at the Huntingtower Road campus with 186 parking spaces allocated to staff and six (6) parking spaces allocated for pick up/drop off. Having regard for the statutory car parking requirement the site would have a surplus of 31 car spaces throughout all the proposed car parks at the Huntingtower Road Campus of the school.

As confirmed by Council’s Transport and Parking Unit the proposed car parking provided is an appropriate outcome to cater for the demand from staff parking across both Huntingtower Campus and Blairholme.

Details of the traffic impact as a result of the increased staff car parking on site have not been provided by the applicant. The additional car parking may increase traffic outside of

Page 88


school times associated with staff arrival and departures. Details of where existing staff trips are generated is required to allow analysis of whether or not the proposed car parking will alter traffic generation in the area.

Traffic volume counts were conducted in Huntingtower and Mercer Roads, however these were conducted in March 2013. These counts are now four years old and it is expected that the traffic conditions in the area have changed. Further volume counts and expected traffic generation analysis and clarification, is required for assessment.

The basement ramp width to Huntingtower Road, the ramp gradients, the basement aisle widths, basement headroom clearances, size of car parking spaces, and basement column locations all comply with relevant design standards at Clause 52.06.

If a permit is issued the following design details should be addressed in relation to the proposed basement car park:

Demonstration that the headroom clearance provided at the entrance to the basement to complies with the Planning Scheme.

Plans to show sight triangles at the property boundary of the access point on Huntingtower Road including dimensions of these triangles.

Plans dimensioned to show depth of columns from the vehicle aisles.

The proposal results in a reduction to the number of on-site car parking spaces from 12 to 6 (within the kiss and drop to Mercer Road). The site has long frontages on Malvern Road, Huntingtower Road and Mercer Road currently covered by short duration parking restrictions in sections of the frontages during pick up/drop off times, to assist the school use. Council’s Transport and Parking Unit have indicated that this area is appropriate for future overflow use should this occur. The Malvern Road frontage of the site is also available outside of the morning ‘Clearway’ times. However, the impact to the surrounding area regarding the decrease of pick up/drop off to six (6) spaces has not been provided. Further clarification to this impact should be provided by the applicant.

In relation to the pickup/drop off parking spaces (kiss and drop to Mercer Road) the TIA suggests that vehicles enter from the south access point on Mercer Road and exit to the north (south to north one way flow). A queueing area of 8 metres is also proposed to minimise the impact of queues overflowing onto Mercer Road. As stated in the TIA, it is a concern that if left unmanaged, vehicle queues may have a major impact on the circulation of traffic on Mercer Road.

It is recommended that the applicant address this concern by providing further analysis on how the kiss and drop area is intended to be managed and how this will affect queueing and traffic flow on Mercer Road.

The dimensions of parallel parking spaces in the kiss and drop comply with the Planning Scheme.

If a permit is issued the following design details should be addressed in relation to the proposed kiss and drop:

sight distance triangles for both proposed Mercer Road crossovers including dimensions of these triangles.

Plans to show the minimum gradient of the parking area to be 1 in 100 (1.0%) for outdoor areas to allow for adequate drainage as per AS2890.1.

Page 89


The applicant is proposing 24 bicycle parking spaces within the underground car park. This represents a shortfall of up to 165 bicycle parking spaces. It is understood that this car park is proposed to be predominately used by the school staff. It is not expected that students to the school would be using these bicycle facilities. As such, the number of bicycle spaces proposed is in excess of the Planning Scheme requirement for staff.

It is not clear from the proposal if any bicycle parking is proposed for the students. The applicant should confirm this and install bicycle parking for students. The applicant has not provided the specifications of the proposed bicycle parking apparatus or any design dimensions of the proposed bicycle parking design. This information should be provided.

The traffic implications of the proposal are considered to be unresolved and, as such, the proposal is not supported.

Tree Removal

Clause 21.06-2 (Landscape Character) seeks to retain established trees and vegetation in front and side setbacks and to ensure new developments incorporate a designated landscape setting with substantial canopy tree vegetation.

The proposal includes removal of 15 trees defined as significant under Council’s Local Law. These include Trees 8, 9, 15, 27, 34, 35, 58, 59, 60, 119, 132, 18, 133, 200, 201 (as referred to in the submitted arborist report).

Trees 8, 15, 27, 34, 35, 58, 59, 60 are all within front and side setbacks and have been identified within the submitted arborist report as being in good health. It is considered that these trees should be retained given their location toward the outer boundaries of the site, their large size and their good health. It is preferable to retain existing mature trees on site rather than plant new, immature trees which take time to establish.

In relation to the removal of the Himalayan Cedar (Tree 132) the arborist report indicates that this tree is of very high retention value and is in good health. The National Trust has also highlighted the significance of this tree indicating that it is part of the original plantings of the ‘Brocklesby’ property which in 1907 became the Lauriston Girls’ School. This tree is located over the proposed basement.

Tree 18 is considered capable of retention given it is located between buildings (to the east edge of the proposed basement). This may require some basement redesign. Similarly Tree 119 is considered capable of retention given it is located to the south of the proposed gym. This would also require some redesign.

Tree 133 is located over the proposed basement and tree 102 is located where the proposed gymnasium is to be constructed. Both of these trees are identified as having fair health and form.

Tree 200 is in fair health and Tree 201 is in good health and are proposed to be removed. These trees are located within side setbacks close to the west site boundary and appear to be significant under Council’s Local Law. It is considered that these trees are capable of being retained if the accessway for the proposed basement is relocated/redesigned.

As advised by Council’s Parks Unit the submitted arborist report and the plans are unclear in relation to Tree 9 as to whether this will be removed or retained. The location of proposed cricket nets appears to preclude retention of this tree. The applicant should address this.

Page 90


The landscape response shows installation of 52 medium trees (ranging between 6 metres to 11 metres in height and 3 metres to 8 metres canopy width), and 23 large trees (ranging between 10 metres to 12 metres in height and 6 metres to 11 metres canopy width). This is a total of 75 proposed trees in lieu of the 172 trees to be removed from the site.

In relation to native vegetation, decision guidelines at Clause 52.17 require consideration of:

The contribution that native vegetation to be removed makes to Victoria’s biodiversity. This is determined by:

- The extent and condition of the native vegetation. - The biodiversity value of the native vegetation, including whether the native vegetation

is important habitat for rare or threatened species.- Whether the removal of native vegetation is defined as being in the low, moderate or

high risk-based pathway, as defined in the Permitted clearing of native vegetation – Biodiversity assessment guidelines (Department of Environment and Primary Industries, September 2013) and apply the decision guidelines accordingly.

The native vegetation to be removed is within the low risk-based pathway. As formerly noted, the applicant has not demonstrated whether the native vegetation was planted for aesthetic purposes and therefore, it is unclear whether Clause 52.17 applies. If it does apply the biodiversity impacts of the removal of native vegetation must be offset in accordance with the Permitted clearing of native vegetation – Biodiversity assessment guidelines (Department of Environment and Primary Industries, September 2013).

Overall, the proposed tree removal and landscape response is not considered acceptable and is not supported.



CONCLUSION

1308/16 – Blairholme Site

Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be refused for the following reasons:

The traffic impacts of the proposal are unresolved. Part of the proposed car parking provision is provided off-site as part of a separate

application which is also not supported.

1309/16 – Huntingtower Campus

Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be refused for the following reasons:

The proposal will have an unreasonable impact on the heritage significance of Montrose House which is within Heritage Overlay Schedule 367.

The proposal removes native vegetation and does not address Clause 52.17 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

Page 91


The proposal removes significant trees from the site and does not provide and adequate landscape response.

The proposed crossover locations impact mature street trees which is not supported. The ‘learn to swim’ and use of land as indoor recreation is unresolved.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PA - 1308-16 & 1309-16 - Lauriston Girls School Plans

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council advise VCAT and other interested parties that had a Failure to Determine appeal not been lodged, a Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit No: 1308/16 would have been issued for the land located at 1034-1040 Malvern Road & 16 Murray Street Armadale under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for part demolition, use and development of the land for a childcare centre, provision of part of the car parking requirement on another site, and variation of an easement subject to the following grounds:

1. The traffic impacts of the proposal are unresolved.

That Council advise VCAT and other interested parties that had a Failure to Determine appeal not been lodged, a Refusal to Grant a Planning Permit No: 1309/16 would have been issued for the land located at 1074 - 1076 Malvern Road Armadale under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for partial demolition, buildings and works, business identification signage associated with an existing education centre and child care centre in a Heritage Overlay, Incorporated Plan Overlay and General Residential Zone on the following grounds:

1. The proposed extension to Montrose House is unsympathetic to the heritage place and contrary to the objectives of Clause 15.03 (Heritage) and Clause 21.06-10 (Heritage), Clause 22.04 (Heritage Policy) and Clause 43.01 (Heritage Overlay) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

2. The design response relies on the removal of a number of significant trees. The removal of these trees is not supported. The development must be redesigned to ensure the retention of all significant trees.

3. The proposal fails to retain existing significant trees on the site and does not provide an adequate landscape response as sought by Clause 21.06 (Built Environment and Heritage) and Clause 22.23 (Neighbourhood Character Policy).

4. The proposed crossover locations involve removal of mature street trees and the impact on a number of other street trees is unresolved.

5. The landscape response and whether adequate space is available for

Page 92


proposed planting is unresolved.

6. The traffic and parking impacts of the proposal are unresolved.

7. The ‘learn to swim’ and use of land as indoor recreation is unresolved.

Page 93


4. PLANNING APPLICATION 234/17 - 254 WATTLETREE ROAD, MALVERN - CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR STOREY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CONTAINING SIX DWELLINGS, REDUCTION IN CAR PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERATION TO A ROAD IN A ROAD ZONE, CATEGORY 1


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for construction of a multi-dwelling development and reduction of statutory car parking requirement and alterations of access to a road in a Road Zone 1 at 254 Wattletree Road, Malvern.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Mr Joseph IndomenicoC/- Tract Consultants Pty Ltd

Ward: EastZone: General Residential Zone, Schedule 3Overlay: N/ANeighbourhood Precinct: Garden Suburban 1Date lodged: 22 March 2017Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

93

Trigger for referral to Council: Four (4) storey buildingNumber of objections: Two (2) objector propertiesConsultative Meeting: NoOfficer Recommendation: Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by BayleyWard Architecture and Interiors and are known as Job No. 1429, Drawing No.s: TP001 to TP004, TP201 to TP216, TP401, TP501 to TP503, TP701, TP1001 to TP1009 and Council date stamped 20 June 2017, advertised in July 2017.

The proposal is for the construction of a four (4) storey residential building on the subject site containing the following key features:

A total of six (6) dwellings, three (3) two-bedroom and three (3) three-bedroom dwellings.

A total of nine (9) car parking spaces are provided for residents within the basement which is accessed from Wattletree Road.

The provision of resident storage, 6 bicycle parking spaces and communal waste storage room are also provided within the basement.

The building presents as a modern and highly articulated three storey base with a recessed fourth storey. The building features a flat roof with a maximum building height of 11.68 metres above natural ground level.

The external materials proposed include a combination of brick, natural concrete finish, metal, timber, colourbond and glazing.

Page 95


The proposal also includes a 1.7 metre high metal batten front fence that is setback 1.2 metres from the frontage, with service cupboards constructed of brick that will also be 1.7 metres in height within the 1.2 metres setback.

Pedestrian access to the building is via a path along the eastern boundary which leads to an entry foyer area located centrally to the building.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the southern side of Wattletree Road, approximately 93 metres west of the intersection with Tooronga Road. The site has the following significant characteristics: A frontage of 15.01 metres to Wattletree Road, a length of 39.27 metres and a total site

area of approximately 592 square metres. The site is rectangular in shape with an upward slope of 1.3 metres from the frontage

(north) to the rear (south) of the site. The subject site does not contain any significant trees. There is a single width crossover at the northwest corner of the site providing access to

the subject site. A double storey brick detached dwelling currently occupies the subject site.

The subject site is surrounded by a number of different uses, including a childcare centre and a number of non-residential uses further to the east towards Tooronga Road, while residential uses are found to the west and south. The adjoining property to the west is a double storey detached dwelling, while a single storey dwelling fronting Lysterville Avenue is located to the south.

The emerging character of the area includes more recent higher density developments, including 244-246 Wattletree Road (898/04, approved by VCAT in January 2005), as well as at 238, 240 and 248 Wattletree Road, which all contain a three storey building. Furthermore, a number of two storey commercial buildings, with higher floor to ceiling heights, are found near the intersection with Tooronga Road, within the Wattletree Village Activity Centre.

Wattletree Road adjoins the site to the north. It is a declared arterial road within a Road Zone, Category 1 with two lanes of traffic running in each direction. Wattletree Road is also a Tram Priority Route in accordance with Clause 21.03 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

The subject site has good access to a full range of recreation and community facilities. In particular the site is located 13 metres from the Wattletree Village Activity Centre. Furthermore, it is well serviced in terms of public transport with a tram service operating along Wattletree Road, while the closest tram stop is at the intersection of Wattletree Road and Tooronga Road, which is 93 metres to the east of the subject site. Malvern Railway Station is located approximately 800 metres to the southwest. These transport options provide convenient access to the wider metropolitan area.


A search of Council records indicates that there has not been any planning permit issued or sought for the subject site.

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 5053 Folio 535 and Plan of Subdivision 22918 and no covenants affect the land.

A 1.83 metres wide drainage and sewage easement is found along the southern boundary.

Page 96


Planning Controls


Zone

Clause 32.08 – General Residential Zone, Schedule 3 (Residential Boulevards & Corridors)

Pursuant to Clause 32.08-06, a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot.

On 27 March 2017, Planning Scheme Amendment VC110 was gazetted. As a result of this amendment, two mandatory requirements were introduced, that is the minimum garden area requirement under Clause 32.08-4 and the maximum building height requirement under Clause 32.08-9.

Pursuant to Clause 32.08-4, the minimum garden area required to be provided on a lot between 501 and 650 square metres is 30 percent of the lot; while Clause 32.08-9 stipulates that a building must contain no more than 3 storeys at any point.

In accordance with Clause 32.08-14 (Transitional Provisions), the minimum garden area and number of storeys does not apply to a planning permit application for the construction of a residential building lodged before the approval date of Amendment VC110. Given that the application was lodged on 23 March 2017, this proposal is not assessed against the minimum garden area and maximum number of storey requirements.

Furthermore, Amendment VC136 was gazetted on 13 April 2017 imposing the Better Apartment Design Guidelines into the Planning Scheme via the introduction of Clause 55.07, for any residential apartment with four storey or less and Clause 58, applicable to apartment developments of five storey or more or that in a Commercial Zone.

Pursuant to Clause 32.08-6, Clause 55 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, as in force immediately before 13 April 2017, continues to apply to an application for a planning permit lodged before that date. As this application was lodged on 22 March 2017, and was never formally amended, this application is not required to be assessed against Clause 55.07.

Schedule 3 to the General Residential Zone also varied the following Clause 55 requirements:

Site Coverage (Standard B8) – Basement should not exceed 75% of the site area. Landscaping (Standard B13) – In addition to the requirements of B13, at least one

canopy tree should be planted on the site. Side and rear setbacks (Standard B17) – For a distance of at least 5 metres behind

the front façade of the building fronting the street, setback new building (including basements) a minimum of 2 metres form a least one side boundary and at least 1 metre from the other side boundary up to 3.6 metres in height.

Where no setback is specified, standard A10 or B17 applies. Walls on boundaries (Standard B18) – Wall should not be located on side

boundaries for a distance of 5 metres behind the front façade of the building fronting the street.

Overlay The subject site is not affected by any overlay.

Page 97



Clause 52.06 – Car Parking

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-2 prior to a new use commencing or a new building being occupied, the car spaces required under Clause 52.06-5 must be provided on the land or as approved under Clause 52.06-3 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. As stipulated under Clause 52.06-5 each two bedroom dwelling must provide a least one (1) car parking space and each dwelling with three or more bedrooms must provide at least two (2) car parking spaces. Furthermore, one (1) visitor car parking space is to be provided for each five (5) dwellings.

The development proposes three (3) two-bedroom dwellings and three (3) three-bedroom dwellings, that generates a statutory resident car parking rate of nine (9) parking spaces and one (1) visitor car parking space.

The proposal includes a total of nine (9) parking spaces for residents and seeks a reduction of one (1) visitor car parking space, a permit is therefore required under this provision.

Clause 52.29 – Land Adjacent to a Road Zone, Category 1, or a Public Acquisition Overlay for a Category 1 Road

In accordance with this provision, a permit is required to create or alter access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1.

The proposal includes physical alteration to the vehicle crossover, as well as intensification in traffic volume accessing to and egressing from the subject site. A permit is therefore triggered under this provision.

Clause 52.34 – Bicycle Facilities

Pursuant to Clause 52.34-1, a new use must not commence or the floor area of an existing use must not be increased until the required bicycle facilities and associated signage has been provided on the land.

Pursuant to Clause 52.34-3, a dwelling requires the following rates:

The proposal is required to provide one (1) bicycle parking spaces for residents. The proposal exceeds this requirement by providing six (6) spaces to be shared between residents and visitors within the basement.

Clause 55 – Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential buildings

Pursuant to Cluse 55 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, a development of two or more dwelling on a lot, which does not exceed four storeys, must meet the objectives of this provision.


State Planning Policy Framework:

Page 98


Clause 9 Plan MelbourneClause 11.06 Metropolitan MelbourneClause 15.01 Urban EnvironmentClause 15.02 Sustainable DevelopmentClause 16 HousingClause 18.02 Movement Networks

Local Planning Policy Framework:

Clause 21.03 VisionClause 21.05 HousingClause 22.05 Environmentally Sustainable DevelopmentClause 22.18 Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design)Clause 32.08 General Residential Zone

Particular Provisions:

Clause 52.06 Car ParkingClause 52.34 Bicycle FelicitiesClause 55 Two or More Dwellings on a Lot or Residential Building (ResCode)

General Provisions:

Clause 65 Decision Guidelines

Advertising

The application has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land and by placing one (1) sign on the site. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

The site is located in East Ward and objections from two (2) different properties have been received. Grounds of objections raised can be summarized as below:

Neighbourhood Character and Visual Bulk The proposed building with a height of four (4) storeys is not in keeping with the

predominant height of the surrounding neighbourhood. Visual bulk when viewed from the childcare centre. All setbacks from side boundaries

should comply with Standard B17.

Traffic and Parking The increase in density will result in further increase in traffic volume. The site should provide the number of car parking spaces required by the planning

scheme, any reduction will impact nearby residential properties.

Landscaping Any trees planted along the boundary will result in root growing into the adjoining

properties due to the limited deep soil area for root development. Due to the extent of the basement the landscaping opportunities appears to be limited.

Amenity Impacts Potential increased in overlooking and noise. Unreasonable overshadowing to the childcare centre from 3pm onwards.

Page 99


Concern on the extent of shadow impact in winter solstice (21st June).

Referrals

External Referral – VicRoads (Determining Referral Authority)

The application has been referred to VicRoads as a determining referral authority, who has no objection to the proposal. However, the following deficiencies were identified: The proposal does not meet Design Standard 1 – Accessways at Clause 52.06-9 of the

Stonnington Planning Scheme as there are no corner splays provided. The proposal seeks a reduction of the car parking requirements which brings the number

of vehicles down to 9, which would not require a passing area where one has been proposed. The proposed passing area also does not meet the design standards at Clause 52.06-9.

While VicRoads accepts, in this instance, that the passing area standard may be used in lieu of the corner splay standard, the relevant standard must be met.

If Council does not approve a reduction of the Car Parking requirement to fewer than 10 vehicles, VicRoads would require both abovementioned standards be met.

Given Councils pending approval, if a redesign was necessary/possible VicRoads would prefer both abovementioned standards be met.

VicRoads requires these deficiencies to be addressed via permit conditions to be imposed. Conditions required by VicRoads will be included as condition should a permit be issued.

Urban Design

Council’s Urban Designer has reviewed the proposal and considered the proposal to be well considered and the proposed materials and colour palette were also supported. They are however concerned that the proposal may result in impact to trees located within the front setback of the adjoining childcare centre to the east of the subject site.

Infrastructure

The proposal has been reviewed by Council’s Infrastructure Engineer, who has no objection to the proposal, provided that standard conditions in relation to legal point of discharge, footpath levels and provision of stormwater detention system are included on any permit issued.

Waste Management

The Waste Management Plan submitted with the application was reviewed by Council’s Waste Management Officer and was deemed satisfactory.


Following a review of the submitted architectural plans and Transport Engineering Assessment, Council’s Transport Engineer provided the following comments:

The shortfall of one (1) visitor parking space is justified, as the existing on-street parking supply can cater for the visitor parking demands.

The design and gradient of the ramp is generally supported, however, clarification that a minimum of 3 metres, excluding kerb, is provided at the narrowest point.

Clarification required to demonstrate that a minimum 2.3 metre headroom clearance is achieved while the car park door is opened.

Page 100


Access by B99 vehicles entering and existing the accessway at the same time has been demonstrated and deemed satisfactory.

Sightline triangle has not been provided to the west. The dimensions of the car parking spaces and the arrangement are deemed

satisfactory. Confirmation that column locations are designed in accordance with the requirements

under Clause 52.06-8 of the Planning Scheme. Car parking space 7 is proposed as a car shifter. It appears that this has been

proposed to allow independent access to parking space 1 and 2 when space 7 is occupied. A Klaus PQ-278 Car Shifter is proposed. The specifications suggest that the platform is to be 2.78m by 5.6m accessed from a 6.4m aisle width. The dimensions of the platform appear suitable to cater for up to a B99 vehicle, however the width of the space is slightly reduced due to the location of the column between spaces 6 and 7. The use of the car shifter can be supported as the space appears wide enough for access, however the applicant must confirm if access into the car shifter is not impacted due to the location of this column.

Confirmation is required that a minimum gradient of 1 in 200 be provided in parking area for adequate drainage as per AS2890.1.

Arborist

Following a review of the submitted architectural plans and Tree Impact Assessment, Council’s Arborist provided the following comments:

All trenching for services must be outside of the Structural Root Zone of the street tree Eucalyptus sideroxylon. Include tree protection conditions in accordance with AS4970.

Large trees within the property to the east of this site must be protected during construction of this development, with the aid of a Tree Management Plan condition.

A Tree Management Plan will be required to ensure that trees within the adjoining property to the east will not be detrimentally affected.

Due to the extent of the basement, large landscape elements are not promoted along the eastern and western aspects of the site.

Trees along the eastern boundary should be evergreen specimens for maximum screening purpose to the existing childcare facility.

If Brachychiton rupestris is to be considered as a single feature tree for the front setback, it must be installed at a minimum 5m in height.

KEY ISSUES

Strategic Context

The overarching policies and objectives at both a State and Local levels encourage urban consolidation in established urban areas and medium density residential development in and around neighbourhood activity centres and close to public transport. These strategies call for well-designed medium-density development that respects neighbourhood character, improves housing choice, makes better use of existing infrastructure and improves energy efficiency.

The subject site is located on a main road that is defined as being a “tram / bus priority route” within Council’s Strategic Framework Plan (Clause 21.03-3). At Clause 21.05-2, medium density housing is directed to sites with an immediate abuttal to a main road which is on a “tram / bus priority route”. These sites are defined as being suitable for “substantial change”. The subject site is within 15 metres of the Wattletree Village Activity Centre which provides a range of services and community facilities.

Page 101


The site is within the Garden Suburban 1 Neighbourhood Character Precinct as defined by Council’s Local Neighbourhood Character Policy at Clause 22.23. The statement of preferred character for this precinct includes the following:

The Garden Suburban 1 (GS1) precinct comprises leafy streetscapes with a range of Victorian, Edwardian or Interwar era and contemporary buildings set in established garden surrounds. In typical streets regular front and side setbacks provide space around buildings and allow for small, well designed garden areas that contribute to the landscape quality of the street. New buildings or additions offer innovative and contemporary design responses while complementing the key aspects of form, general one-two storey scale and design detail of the older buildings. Low, visually permeable front fences retain views to gardens and dwellings from the street. Areas within a Residential Growth or Mixed Use Zone or within a substantial change area will accommodate more development with a more compact setting but with space for canopy trees and other vegetation and high quality, responsive design.

The subject site is on a main road, within a substantial change area and therefore can accommodate more development with a more compact setting. The subject site is also located within close proximity to an activity centre and has excellent access to public transport, furthermore, abuts a non-residential use to the east. These are all contributing elements that a more robust development is considered appropriate at this location, provided that appropriate boundary treatments are in place providing relief to the adjoining residential properties to the west and south.

In principle, the redevelopment of this land to provide medium density housing in a well serviced location is supported. However, additional considerations may be required to ensure that amenity impact to the immediate properties and the streetscape is kept to an acceptable level. Further consideration of neighbourhood character and amenity impacts are discussed in the following sections of this report.

Built Form

An assessment has been carried out against the Objectives of the relevant State and local planning policies and Clause 55 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. The issues of particular relevance are discussed below:

Neighbourhood Character

The proposal is considered an appropriate response to design objectives of Clause 22.23 (Neighbourhood Character Policy) as it relates to the Garden Suburban 1 Neighbourhood Character Precinct. The following objectives are applicable:

To ensure new buildings and extensions do not dominate the streetscape. To encourage a high quality of building detailing that references, without mimicking, the

details of buildings in the area. To maintain and reinforce the rhythm of spacing between and around buildings. To maintain and strengthen the garden settings of buildings and the tree canopy of the

neighbourhood. To prevent the loss of front garden space and the dominance of car parking structures. To ensure fences complement the predominant style of front boundary treatment in the

street and retain views to dwellings and gardens.

Page 102


Clause 22.23-3 states that when assessing a proposal within a “substantial change area”, it is policy to allow for greater change while reflecting the element of the preferred character. It is considered that the proposal satisfactorily responds to the above-listed objectives.

The proposal is setback 10.3 metres from its Wattletree Road frontage for the first three levels, while Level 4 is setback 12.35 metres. Furthermore, the building has been designed to provide a sense of openness within the front setback. The building is setback 2.44 metres from the eastern boundary for the first half of the site and between 0 and 1.65 metres wide landscaping between the western boundary and the acccessway. It is considered that the setback to western boundary along the accessway can be improved to provide deep soil planning opportunity along the accessway to soften the extent of hard surface presenting to the street for the western half of the site. It will be a permit condition requiring the basement western wall to be setback a minimum of 1.12 metres to achieve deep soil planting opportunities at this location. These are considered an acceptable landscape response, subject to condition, to the streetscape and the preferred character outcome which calls to prevent the loss of front garden space.

The proposed maximum building height of 11.68 metres complies with the General Residential Zone maximum building height control of 12 metres and is appropriate in a “substantial change area”. As demonstrated in the streetscape elevation submitted (refer to figure below), due to the high pitched roof form of the existing double storey dwelling to the west, and the fourth level of the proposed building being well setback from the street and the western boundary, it is considered a natural transition.

Figure - Streetscape elevation illustrating propsoed built form in context with the adjoning properties. While the proposed height is considered appropriate, it is considered that the building setback adjacent to Apartment 1 of between 0.92 and 1.03 metres along the western side boundary is insufficient to provide an appropriate rhythm of spacing and for the provision of meaningful landscaping. Through negotiation with the permit applicant, it is proposed that the ground level setback be increased by 410mm to achieve a setback between 1.235 and 1.349 metres. The permit applicant has also agreed to setback the basement, where under the access ramp, a minimum of 1.12 metres to achieve deep soil planting opportunities. As this area is adjacent to the service yard of the adjoining property to the west, and the setback increases to 2.18 metres on the first floor, the increased setback on the ground level will be sufficient to provide planting in the form of a green wall, climbers or columnar canopy trees. A permit condition will be included requiring the setback to be increased, along with the provision of the above-listed vegetation types. It is noted that the majority of the basement is setback 1.68 metres form the western boundary. The front section is reduced to 1.12 metre as mentioned above and is considered to be appropriate to provide sufficient deep soil planting volume within this setback.

The proposal ensures that car parking and services, where possible, are provided within the basement. This is again a positive response to the preferred objectives under the Garden

Page 103


Suburban 1 precinct which seeks to prevent dominance of car parking structures to the street.

In light of the above, the proposal is considered to be an appropriate response to the neighbourhood character policy considering the locality of the site, being within a General Residential Zone, a substantial change area and on a declared major arterial road.

Clause 55 – Two or more dwellings on a lot and residential building

It is considered that the subject site has strategic support for more robust medium density development. The location is appropriate for urban consolidation and provides an opportunity for increased housing choice. Notwithstanding the general assessment, detailed consideration must be given to how the proposal specifically responds to Clause 55 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. These will be discussed below.

Integration with the Street

The common pedestrian entry to the building is orientated towards the east via a designated pedestrian walkway off Wattletree Road along the eastern boundary of the subject site. The building has also been designed to ensure that only limited amount of services as required by relevant authorities are provided within the front setback while the remaining frontage area is either occupied by accessways or battens screen that allow views to and from the subject site. Each level of the proposed development has also been equipped with balconies and habitable room windows facing north towards the street to provide passive surveillance opportunities from the upper levels.

Street setback

The proposal is setback between 1.2 and 8.9 metres from Wattletree Road at the basement level, 10.36 metres at ground floor and 8.3 metres at the first and second floor levels to the face of the balcony. At the uppermost floor the face of the balcony is setback 10.35 metres from the front title boundary.

In accordance with Standard B6, a new building should be setback the average distance of the abutting properties or 9 metres whichever is lesser. Given that both abutting properties are setback greater than 9 metres, the proposed ground level setback at 10.36 metres is in excess of the required 9 metres.

It is noted that the proposal includes balconies overhanging into this setback on the first and second levels. Given the balconies will be equipped with glazing balustrades and batterns screens, they will act as architectural features in the streetscape. These overhangs will also provide appropriate weather protection to the private open spaces on the level below, as well as appropriate articulation to the façade of the building which is again encouraged under design guidelines pursuant to Clause 22.23 of the Planning Scheme.

Building Height

The Objective of Standard B7, is to ensure that the height of buildings respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character. Schedule 3 to the Zone states that buildings must not exceed a height of 12m on the subject site.

This development seeks to construct the building to 11.68 metres, which is within that permitted under Schedule 3 to the Zone. The proposed height also responds positively to the built form in the immediate area.

Page 104


Site Coverage and Permeability

The proposed building will result in 49.5% site coverage and permeability of 25.8%. These figures comply with the Standards. Additionally, the basement coverage equates to 68% coverage of the overall site area, which also complies with the 75% basement coverage requirement under Schedule 3 to the Zone.

While development with a more compact setting is encouraged, spaces for canopy trees and other vegetation and high quality responsive design are still expected. It is considered that the proposal will provide a suitable landscape response as sought by Standard B13 of ResCode and Clause 22.23 (Neighbourhood Character Policy), subject to conditions. This will be discussed further below.

Landscaping

As mentioned earlier in this report, a condition will be included on the permit requiring Apartment 1 and the basement area under the basement access ramp to be further setback from the western boundary. The provision of additional landscaping will be required along this setback. This will be required as a condition of this permit. Subject to this condition, the building setbacks (including basement) are considered adequate and allow for appropriate landscaping to be established around the building.

No noteworthy vegetation has been removed from the subject site in the 12 months prior to the application being made. The concept landscape plan demonstrates that the site can accommodate a feature canopy tree within the communal area at the frontage of the building, four (4) within the rear setback and smaller arrow form trees and screening hedge along the communal walkway and western setback of Apartment 2. The provision of landscaping will be further improved by requiring additional planting required as a result on the increased setback of Apartment 1 bedrooms to the western side boundary. Furthermore, as a result of conditions imposes by VicRoads, the accessway will be reduced within the front setback by approximately 1 metre, which will also provide greater landscaping opportunities between the accessway and the western boundary. Energy Efficiency

The applicant has submitted with the application a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) and Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) Report.

It is considered that the proposal has made appropriate use of daylight where possible. All apartments have access to windows and balconies to take advantage of the daylight and solar energy. All habitable rooms will also have a window on the external wall of the building. Although Apartments 2, 4 and 6 are primarily orientated to the south, the design of these apartments has successfully incorporated east and west facing windows to habitable areas and rooms to ensure that these areas received the best possible internal amenity. The submitted SDA demonstrates that Apartment 1, north facing apartment on the ground level, will achieve a Star Rating of 6.3, while Apartment 4, south facing apartment on the first floor, will achieve a Star Rating of 6.6, with the overall development achieving an overall Star Rating of 6.5. These Star Ratings demonstrate that the proposal will achieve reasonable internal amenity, as it meets the minimum 6 Star Rating requirement under the Building Code of Australia.

The development will be equipped with a 7000 litre rainwater tank under the basement and a 4 square metres rainwater garden adjacent to the access ramp to the basement car park. The proposal therefore meets Councils Water Sensitive Urban Design requirements under Clause 22.18 of the Planning Scheme.

Page 105


Access

The proposed development is to be accessed via a widened crossover off Wattletree Road. The existing crossover is proposed to be widened to 5.5 metres to facilitate two way movements.

As indicated in the referral section of this report, both VicRoads and Council’s Transport Engineer are generally satisfied with the arrangement, subject to alterations to provide a passing area and corner splay in accordance with Design Standard 1 under Clause 52.06-9 of the Planning Scheme.

Offsite Amenity Impacts


Basement

The basement is setback to the street (north) a distance of between 1.2 metres, towards the western end under the basement access ramp, and 8.98 metres for the remaining length. To the east a setback of 1.23 metres is proposed and to the west the setback varies between 0 under the basement access ramp, this will be increased to 1.12 metres as per condition of permit, and 1.68 metres for the reminder. To the rear (south), the basement is setback 2.04 metres.

These setbacks at basement level are considered acceptable, given the strategic context and the locality of the subject site. These setbacks will provide deep soil planting opportunities.

Ground Level

The ground floor level building setbacks to the west vary between 0.93 and 2.9 metres, with deep soil planting areas between 0.93 and 1.47 metres in width provided, other than where the car park ramp is found setback 0.5 metres from the western boundary.

The building is setback between 0 and 2.44 metres from the eastern side boundary, with a 1 metre wide deep soil planting area provided for the first 8 metres of the site, then reduced to 0.6 metres for another 12.5 metres. Apartment 2 is proposed to be constructed on the eastern side boundary and setback 20.5 metres from the front boundary, abutting a building that is also constructed on the common boundary on the adjoining lot.

A 2 metre setback is proposed along the rear (south) boundary, as the basement is setback the same distance, the entire boundary is considered to be a deep soil planting zone. Although this area is encumbered by a drainage and sewage easement, it is not currently occupied by any assets. Furthermore, due to the fall of the land towards the street, all existing drainage and sewage assets are found on the kerbside along the Wattletree Road. It is also worth noting that the easement only runs along the rear boundary of the subject site and the adjoining property to the west and does not extend into the property further to the west, which as a secondary frontage to Lysterville Avenue. Due to the above reasons, it is unlikely that any assets will be installed in the easement in the future.

The ground level setbacks comply with the setbacks required by Standard B17. The planting zones along each boundary allow for screening vegetation and canopy tree planting to soften the building bulk when viewed from the adjoining residential properties and among the streetscape.

Page 106


First, Second and Third Floor Levels

The minimum setbacks at the upper levels are set out in the table below:

East West South (Rear)

First Floor LevelWall height 6m for Apartment 3

4.76m for Apartment 45.84m for Apartment 34.76m for Apartment 4

3.68m to the face of the balcony; 5m to the first floor wall

Required setback 1.72m for Apartment 31.38m for Apartment 4

1.67m for Apartment 31.35m for Apartment 4

1.02m to the face of the balcony; 1.42m to the first floor wall

Proposed setback 2.19m for both apartments


2.06m to the face of the balcony; 4.08m to the first floor wall

Complies? Yes Yes YesSecond Floor LevelWall height 9.2m for Apartment 5

7.96m for Apartment 69m for Apartment 5 7.9m for Apartment 6

6.55m to the face of the balcony; 7.85m to the second floor wall

Required setback 4.29m for Apartment 53.05m for Apartment 6






Complies? No No for Apartment 5Yes for Apartment 6

Yes

Third Floor Level (walls measured to top of parapet)Wall height 12.65m for Apartment

5 Upper Level11.4m for Apartment 6 Upper Level

12.42m for Apartment 5 Upper Level


9.55m to the face of the balcony; 11.29m to the third floor wall

Required setback 7.74m for Apartment 5 Upper Level 6.49m for Apartment 6 Upper Level

7.51m for Apartment 5 Upper Level 6.47m for Apartment 6 Upper Level



6.48m to Apartment 5 Upper Level



Complies? No No Yes

In this instance, the numerical requirements of the side setback requirement are not fully met at the eastern and western elevation at levels 2 and 3. It is however considered that these setbacks comply with the objective of Clause 55.04-1 which aims to ensure that the height

Page 107


and setback of a building from a boundary respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and limits the impact on the amenity of the existing dwellings.

The setbacks are considered to satisfy the objective in the following ways: The site is designated as a ‘substantial change area’ under Council’s Local Planning

Policies. State and Local Planning Policy both provide strong strategic support for residential

intensification in ‘substantial change areas’. The building is well articulated to enhance the visual interest and breakdown the visual

mass. The adjoining property to the east is used as a child care centre, with a building

constructed on the common boundary. Due to the use and building location within the adjoining property to the east, it is considered that these elements make the proposed development which have a more robust response to this interface an acceptable response. It is also noted that the development provides appropriate landscaping along this boundary.

The western setback variation on Level 3 sought by the applicant is 2.38 metres where it abuts the private open space of the adjoining property, as the setback proposed is 4.09 metres, when the standard requires 6.47 metres. The reduced setback is considered acceptable in this instance, due to the following reasons:- The length of the built form on Level 3 that abuts the private open space measures

is 3.2 metres.- There is an outbuilding constructed near the southeast corner of the adjoining

property, while the area between the dwelling and the outbuilding appears to be a planting area. The primary private open space of the adjoining property is therefore setback a minimum 3 metres from the common boundary. The impacts as a result of the reduced setback, resulting in a separation of 7.09 metres between the proposed Level 3 and the primary private open space of the adjoining property to the west is therefore considered not to be unreasonable.

Council’s Urban Designer has commented that the proposed three-storey base with recessed third level is an appropriate response due to the site’s location, interfaces and strategic context.

The reduction in side setback will not result in unreasonable loss of daylight nor unreasonable overshadowing to the adjoining properties. This will be discussed further below in the offsite amenity impact section.

The proposed setbacks are generally consistent with the rhythm of space between properties along Wattletree Road. As a result, it is considered that the non-compliance with the numerical standards will not significantly impact the character of this area.

Walls on Boundaries

Standard B18 details that a new wall constructed on or within 200mm of a side or rear boundary should not abut the boundary for a length of more than 10 metre plus 25% of the remaining length of the boundary of an adjoining lot, or the length of the existing or simultaneously constructed walls, whichever is the greater. The height of the wall should not exceed an average of 3.2 metres with no part higher than 3.6m unless abutting a higher existing or simultaneously constructed wall.

The proposal includes two sections of walls to be constructed on the eastern boundary for a total length of 13.45 metres. The site has a total length of 39.27 metres along the eastern boundary, in accordance with the standard a total length of 17.32 metres is permitted to be constructed on the boundary. The proposed wall height on the boundary is 1.9 metre from natural ground level. The proposal therefore complies with Standard B18.Daylight to windows

Page 108


Standard B19 requires a new wall to be setback a minimum 1 metre from an existing habitable room window on an adjoining lot, and that walls more than 3 metres in height should be setback a distance at least half their height. The setback requirement is measured from the floor level of the affected window.

To the west, a double storey detached dwelling is located within the adjoining property. A number of east facing windows facing the subject site are setback 1.9 metres from the common boundary. The application proposed a 2.2 metres high wall setbacks between 2.83 and 2.94 metres from these windows. As mentioned earlier, a condition will be included on the permit requiring this wall to be setback an additional 400mm from the boundary. This results in the new wall being setback 3.23 and 3.34 metres from the window, complying with Standard B19.

The proposed building setbacks on other levels from the west boundary at the distances listed in the table below:Level Building separations proposed

to neighbour’s east facing windows/wall

Requirements under Standard B19

Complies?

First Floor Level

4.04m to the first floor wall 2.99 to the first floor wall Yes

Second Floor Level



Yes

Third Floor Level

8.37m to the third floor wall 6.21m to the third floor wall Yes

Based on these distances, the setbacks to the existing windows on the properties to the west comply with the recommendations of Standard B19.

Existing north facing windows

The subject site abuts the private open space of the adjoining property to the south, therefore, there is no existing window within 3 metres of the subject site and this standard is not applicable.

Overshadowing

Overshadowing impacts are assessed against Standard B21, which the requirements states that:


Page 109



The shadow diagrams provided by the Applicant confirm that additional overshadowing will occur to the west at 9am the Equinox. While additional shadow will be casted within the private open space of the adjoining property to the south between 10am and 2pm.

The proposal will also result in increased shadow between 1pm and 3pm into the adjoining property to the east. The shadow will affect part of the front setback of the childcare centre, as well part of the building. The shadow is considered acceptable as the site if of non-residential use and only affects a small percentage of the overall childcare centre site.

It is considered that the additional overshadowing to the west and south is acceptable, given that the at least 40 square metres of the private open space of the adjoining properties will remain unaffected, the proposal therefore complies with Standard B21. It is also worth noting that the test under Standard B21 applies to shadow cast by a proposal on 22nd September (spring equinox) between the hours of 9am and 3pm.

Overlooking

With regard to overlooking, Standard B22 specifies that any new windows or balconies with an outlook to a sensitive interface within 9 metres are to be screened appropriately.

It appears that all west facing habitable room windows and balconies will be appropriatly screened by the ways of batterns screens on balconies or provision of obscured glazing to habitable room windows. It is however noted that clear glazing has been proposed to the 1.7 metres high balustrade of the west facing balcony of Apartment 5 lower level, it will be a condition requiring these to be replaced by obscured glazing. Similarly, on the southern elevation, clear glazing is proposed above the solid balustrade of Apartment 4 balcony up to 1.7 metre from the finished floor level of the balcony, it will be a condition requiring this to be replaced by obscured glazing. Furthermore, it will also be a permit condition requiring annotation on the plans that any overlook measures to have a maximum transparency of 25 percent as required under Standard B22.

It is considered that subject to conditions, the proposal generally complies with Standard B22.

Trees within the adjoining properties

As indicated in the submitted architectural drawings and the arborist report, two (2) trees within the adjoining property to the east are within close proximity to the subject site. An Allocasuarine torulosa (Tree 3) and a Leptospermum petersonii (Tree 4). Tree 3 has a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) of 3.8 metres and a Structural Root Zone (SRZ) of 2 metres, while Tree 4 has a TPZ of 2.8 metres and a SRZ of 1.9 metres. Furthermore, there is also an Eucalyptus sideroxylon within the nature strip. A permit condition will require tree protection measures to be included to protect the street tree and trees within the adjoining property.

On-site Amenity

The proposal is considered to be well designed to ensure that all habitable rooms within the development are equipped with openable windows on the external wall. Furthermore, all bedrooms has a minimum dimension of 3 metres. The building is also designed in a way that

Page 110


all apartments will be able to be naturally ventilated to reduce reliance on fossil fuel. It is also noted that all communal areas within the development are naturally lit and capable of being naturally ventilated.

The proposal demonstrates acceptable internal amenity for the reasons discussed above.


The development provides a total of nine (9) car parking spaces, when the statutory rate is ten (10), which represent a shortfall of one (1) car parking spaces. In accordance with Clause 52.06, a minimum of one (1) visitor car parking space should be provided on site. The shortfall of one (1) visitor car parking space is accepted by Council’s Transport Engineer as the site has convenient access to public transport and the shortfall is likely to be absorbed by on-street parking along Wattletree Road.

Some concerns have been raised by Council’s Transport Engineers with regard to the sightline triangle, column location and height clearance. All of these details will be addressed via condition of permit.

Council’s Transport Engineer also note that car parking space 7 is proposed as a car shifter. It appears that this has been proposed to allow independent access to parking spaces 1 and 2 when space 7 is occupied. The specifications of the proposed Klaus PQ-278 Car Shifter suggest that the platform is to be 2.78m by 5.6m accessed from a 6.4m aisle width. The dimensions of the platform appear suitable to cater for up to a B99 vehicle, however the width of the space is slightly reduced due to the location of the column between spaces 6 and 7. The use of the car shifter can be supported as sufficient width appears to have been provided for access. It will be a permit condition requiring confirmation that access into the car shifter is not impacted by the location of column.

As include in the referral section of this report, VicRoads as a Determining Referral Authority raised no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions in relation to the passing area, provision of satisfactory corner splays in accordance with Design Standard under Clause 52.06. Although the reduction in visitor car parking space is supported by Council, a passing area is still provided within the development. Conditions of permit requiring compliance with these standards are propsoed.

Bicycle Facilities

It is acknowledged that the proposal has a surplus of bicycle parking spaces on site and are provided within the basement.

Water Sensitive Urban Design

As part of the Sustainable Design Assessment, the applicant has submitted a STORM rating that details the treatment measures proposed. The development achieves a STORM rating of 108%, which complies with the minimum 100% required. The proposed stormwater management meets the water quality objectives of the Stormwater Treatment Policy at Clause 22.18.

Objections not previously addressed

Page 111


In response to the ground of objection not already discussed in the report, the following comments are made:

Tree planting near boundary

It is not uncommon to have trees planted near a boundary on sites in a metropolitan setting which may result in branches and roots to pass a boundary. This is not governed under the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Noise impact

The proposed building is of residential use in a residential area. It is unlikely that the proposal will result in noise impacts that exceeds relevant EPA regulations.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION


CONCLUSION


The application responds positively to the State and Local Planning Policy that seeks to provide for well-designed medium-density residential development that respects neighbourhood character in established urban areas, within proximity to activity centres and with convenient access to public transport.

The proposal, subject to conditions, provides a satisfactory landscape response that will contribute to the landscape character of the area.

The development will not unreasonably impact upon adjoining amenity as determined by compliance with Objectives under Clause 55.

The proposal satisfies Council’s Environmental Sustainable Development and Stormwater Management policies.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Planning Permit 234-17 - 254 WattleTree Road Malvern - Objector Map Plans

2. Planning Permit 234-17 - 254 WattleTree Road Malvern - Plans Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 234/17 for the land located

Page 112


at 254 Wattletree Road, Malvern be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for a multi-dwelling development, reduction in car parking requirements and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1, subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development, one (1) copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application Council date stamped 20 June 2017 but modified to show:

a) Alterations required by VicRoads under Condition 18 of this permit.b) Provision of planting area with a minimum width of 1.3 metres along the

west of the passing area for the first 7 metres from the front boundary, generally in accordance with the non-prejudice plans, prepared by Bayley Ward Architecture and Interiors, Revision B, dated 4 September 2017.

c) Provision of sightline triangle in accordance design standard under Clause 52.06-96, particular to the west of the accessway.

d) The western basement wall under the basement access ramp must setback a minimum of 1.12 metres from the western side boundary, generally in accordance with the non-prejudice plans, prepared by Bayley Ward Architecture and Interiors, Revision B, dated 4 September 2017.

e) The northern and southern bedrooms of Apartment 1 must be setback a minimum of 1.35 metres and 1.24 metres from the western side boundary respectively. These areas must be developed as a garden area, generally in accordance with the non-prejudice plans, prepared by Bayley Ward Architecture and Interiors, Revision B, dated 4 September 2017.

f) Provision of obscured glazing or other materials with a maximum transparency of 25 percent in lieu of the clear glazing on the south facing balcony balustrade of Apartment 4, and west facing balcony balustrade of Apartment 5 Lower Level.

g) Notation on the site and elevation plans that all overlooking screens will have a maximum transparency of 25 percent in accordance with Standard B22 of Clause 55 of the Planning Scheme.

h) All column dimensions and locations within the basement must comply with Design Standard 1 under Clause 52.06 of the Planning Scheme.

i) The accessway must have a minimum width of 3 metres excluding kerbs.j) The car park entrance to have a minimum height clearance of 2.3 metres

when the car park door is opened.k) The car park area must have a minimum gradient of 0.5% in accordance

with AS2890.1.

l) The dimension of the accessway within the basement cleared of the car shifter.

m) The dimensions of columns in the basement in accordance with Clause 52.06.

Page 113


n) Notation on the site and landscape plan that no trenching for services into the subject site within the Structural Root Zone of the Eucalyptus sideroxylon (street tree).

o) Any changes required by the Tree Management Plan required by Condition 6. The Management Plan must include:

i. The Eucalyptus sideroxylon (street tree) must be protected by tree protection fencing in a compliant with Section 4 of AS4970.

ii. Mitigation measures in place if buildings and works will result in more than 10 percent encroachment into the Tree Protect Zone of Tree 3, Allocasuarine torulosa, and Tree 4, Leptospermum petersonii within the adjoining property to the east.

iii. No roots of the street tree, Trees 3 and 4 that is greater than 40mm in diameter may be pruned or damaged.

p) A Landscape Plan in accordance with Condition 3. The plan must include the following:

i. Provision of vegetation maintained at a maximum height of 3 metres to the west of the accessway for the entire length, other than where a sightline triangle required by Design Standard 1 under Clause 52.06. These vegetation must be planted at a minimum height of 1.5 metres.

ii. The courtyard feature tree proposed within the front setback must be planted at a minimum height of 5 metres.

iii. Provision of a mix of ground covers, shrubs and columnar trees, green wall or climbers within the western setback of Apartment 1.

iv. Provision of evergreen specimens along the eastern boundary.v. No trenching for services into the subject site within the Structural

Root Zone of the Eucalyptus sideroxylon (street tree).All of the above must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Once approved these form part of this Permit.


3. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a landscape plan to be prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be drawn to scale with dimensions and one electronic copy must be provided. The landscape plan must be in accordance with the preliminary landscape plan prepared by Tract, revision 01, dated 13 June 2017, but modified to show:

a) A survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be retained and/or removed;

b) Buildings and trees (including botanical names) on neighbouring properties within three metres of the boundary;

Page 114


c) Details of surface finishes of pathways and driveways;d) A planting schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers,

including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant;

e) Landscaping and planting within all open areas of the site;f) The extent of any cut, fill, embankments or retaining walls associated

with the landscape treatment of the site;g) Details of all proposed hard surface materials including pathways, patio

or decked areas;All of the above must be to the satisfaction of the Responsibility Authority. Once approved the landscape plans will form part of this permit.


5. Before the commencement of the development, an asset protection bond of a minimum of $21,085 for the protection of the Eucalyptus sideroxylon street tree must be paid to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Please note this bond value only valid for twelve (12) months from the issue date of this permit.

6. Before the commencement of the development, tree protection fencing must be erected around the Eucalyptus sideroxylon street trees in front of the site on Wattletree Road. Fencing must comply with Section 4 of AS 4970.

7. Concurrent with the endorsement of development plans a tree management plan prepared by a suitably qualified arborist must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the tree management plan will form part of this permit and all works must be done in accordance with the tree management plan.The tree management plan must detail measures to protect and ensure the viability of all trees on adjoining lane within three metres of the sites boundary.Without limiting the generality of the tree management plan it must have at least three sections as follows:

a) Pre-construction – details to include a tree protection zone, height barrier around the tree protection zone, amount and type of mulch to be placed above the tree protection zone and method of cutting any roots or branches which extend beyond the tree protection zone.

b) During-construction – details to include watering regime during construction and method of protection of exposed roots.

c) Post-construction – details to include watering regime and time of final inspection when barrier can be removed and protection works and regime can cease.

Pre-construction works and any root cutting must be inspected and approved by the Parks Unit. Removal of protection works and cessation of the tree management plan must be authorised by the Parks Unit.

Page 115


8. No vehicular or pedestrian access, trenching or soil excavation is to occur within the Tree Protection Zone without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. No storage or dumping of tools, equipment or waste is to occur within the Tree Protection Zone.


10. All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Sustainable Management Plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the Sustainable Management Plan may occur without written consent of the Responsible Authority.


12. Prior to the occupation of the building, areas set-aside for parked vehicles and access lanes as shown on the endorsed plans must be: a) Constructed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. b) Properly formed to such levels that they can be used in accordance with

the plans. c) Surfaced with an all-weather sealcoat. d) Drained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. e) Line-marked to indicate each car space and all access lanes to the

satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Parking areas and access lanes must be kept available for these purposes at all times.

13. A report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in accordance with that report prior to a building permit being issued. The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer’s design. Please do not state drainage design to satisfaction of Council, that is the responsibility of the relevant building surveyor to check and approve.

14. The existing footpath levels must not be lowered or altered in any way at the property line (to facilitate the basement ramp). This is required to ensure that normal overland flow from the street is not able to enter the basement due to any lowering of the footpath at the property line.

15. The redundant vehicular crossing must be removed and the footpath, naturestrip and kerb reinstated at the owner’s cost to the satisfaction of Council.

16. There will be significant additional stormwater runoff generated by the

Page 116


development and there are known drainage problems and flooding downstream of the property. The applicant must at their cost provide a stormwater detention system to restrict runoff from the development to no greater than the existing runoff based on a 1 in 10 A.R.I. to the satisfaction of Council’s Infrastructure Unit.

Alternatively, in lieu of the stand-alone detention system, the owner may provide stormwater tanks that are in total 2,000 litres greater than those tanks required to satisfy WSUD requirements for the development. Those tanks must be connected to all toilets.

17. Any poles, service pits or other structures/features on the footpath required to be relocated to facilitate the development must be done so at the cost of the applicant and subject to the relevant authority’s consent

18. All utility services to the subject land and buildings approved as part of this permit must be provided underground to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority by completion of the development.

19. All plant and equipment (including air-conditioning units) shall be located or screened so as not to be visible from any of the surrounding footpaths and adjoining properties (including from above) and shall be baffled so as to minimise the emission of unreasonable noise to the environment in accordance with Section 48A of the Environment Protection Act 1970 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

VicRoads Conditions

20. Amended plans must be submitted to and approved by the Roads Corporation. When approved by the Roads Corporation, the plans may be endorsed by the Responsible Authority and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and two copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the floor plans TP211 and TP212, dated 16/6/17, prepared by Bayley Ward and annotated as but modified to show:a) A passing area at the entrance at least 5 metres wide and 7 metres long,

and/orb) A corner splay or area at least 50 per cent clear of visual obstructions

extending at least 2 metres along the frontage road from the edge of the driveway and 2.5 metres along the driveway from the frontage, to provide a clear view of pedestrians on the footpath of Wattletree Rd. The area clear of visual obstructions may include adjacent landscaped areas, provided the landscaping in those areas is less than 900mm in height.

21. The crossover and driveway are to be constructed to the satisfaction of the Roads Corporation and/or the Responsible Authority and at no cost to the Roads Corporation prior to the occupation of the works hereby approved.

22. All vehicles must enter and exit the site in a forward direction.

End of VicRoads Conditions

Page 117


23. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this

permit. b) The development is not completed within four years of the date of this

permit. In accordance with Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, a request may be submitted to the Responsible Authority within the prescribed timeframes for an extension of the periods referred to in this condition.

NOTES:

A. This permit does not constitute any authority to carry out any building works or occupy the building or part of the building unless all relevant building permits are obtained.

B. Nothing in this permit hereby issued shall be construed to allow the removal of, damage to or pruning of a significant tree (including the roots) without the further written approval of Council.

C. “Significant tree” means a tree:a) with a trunk circumference of 180 centimetres or greater measured at its

base; or b) with a trunk circumference of 140 centimetres or greater measured at 1.5

metres above its base; orc) listed on the Significant Tree Register.

Please contact the Council Arborists on 8290 1333 to ascertain if permission is required for tree removal or pruning or for further information and protection of trees during construction works.

D. Nothing in the permit hereby issued may be construed to allow the removal of, damage to or pruning of any street tree without the further written consent of the Stonnington City Council. Contact the Council Arborists on 8290 1333 for further information.

E. The owners and occupiers of the dwelling/s hereby approved are not eligible to receive “Resident Parking Permits”.

F. At the permit issue date, Section 69 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 stated that the Responsible Authority may extend the periods referred to if a request is made in writing within the following timeframes:a) Before or within 6 months after the permit expiry date, where the

development allowed by the permit has not yet started; and b) Within 12 months after the permit expiry date, where the development

allowed by the permit has lawfully started before the permit expires.

Page 118


5. STATEMENT OF COMMITMENT TO CHILD SAFETY

Manager Children & Family Services: Cath Harrod General Manager Community & Culture: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

This report is to provide Councillors with information related to the Victorian Government’s Child Safe Standards and to recommend for adoption by Council a Statement of Commitment to Child Safety (Standard 2) that will apply to all employees, contractors, volunteers and Councillors.

BACKGROUND

In April 2012, the Victorian government initiated a parliamentary inquiry into the handling of child abuse by religious and other non-government organisations. The inquiry’s final report, Betrayal of Trust, made 15 recommendations aimed at making the community safer for Victoria’s children, and to improve access to justice for survivors. These recommendations have since been acted on by the State Government and were implemented in three phases:

Criminal law reform – introduction of new offences related to grooming, failure to protect and failure to disclose.

Creating child safe organisations – introduction of mandatory minimum child safe standards and a reportable conduct scheme.

Civil law reform – removal of the time limit on legal action.

In 2015, the State Government introduced minimum compulsory child safe standards (the Standards) for organisations regulated or funded by government that provide services for children. Established by the Child Wellbeing and Safety Act 2005, the Standards aim to create and maintain child safe environments and takes into account the sexual, physical, emotional, and psychological abuse, and serious neglect of children under the age of 18.

There are seven standards that Council must implement:

Standard 1 Strategies to embed an organisational culture of child safety, through effective leadership arrangements

Standard 2 A Child Safety Policy or Statement of Commitment to Child Safety

Standard 3 A Code of Conduct that establishes clear expectations for appropriate behaviour with children

Standard 4 Screening, supervision, training and other human resource practices that reduce the risk of child abuse by new and existing personnel

Standard 5 Processes for responding to and reporting suspected child abuse

Standard 6 Strategies to identify and reduce or remove risks of child abuse

Standard 7 Strategies to promote the participation and empowerment of children

Each standard must also incorporate the following principles:

the cultural safety of Aboriginal children

Page 119


the cultural safety of children from culturally and/or linguistically diverse backgrounds the safety of children with a disability

As a Category 1 organisation Council is required to meet compliance, or demonstrate that the organisation is working towards compliance with the Standards from 1 January 2017.

DISCUSSION

Standard 2 of the Child Safe Standards requires Council to have a Statement of Commitment to Child Safety. The Statement of Commitment aims to create a foundation for a child safe environment which:

documents how to meet legal and duty of care responsibilities to children

affirms a commitment to child safety and the best interests of children

makes a commitment to child safety clear to people within Council, children and families, and the community

The Statement of Commitment also needs to:

1. be made available to all Council employees, contractors, volunteers and Councillors, and be made accessible to the public

2. include Council’s commitment to the cultural safety of Aboriginal children, children from culturally and/or linguistically diverse backgrounds, and the safety of children with a disability.

Following the recommendations of the Commission for Children and Young People (CCYP) who administer the Child Safe Standards, benchmarking with other LGAs, and consultation with both Council’s Child Safety Reference Group (which was established in 2017) and the Executive Management Team, a final draft of the Statement of Commitment to Child Safety has been developed and is recommended for endorsement. See below:

City of Stonnington has a zero tolerance to child abuse. All Council Officers, including employees, contractors, volunteers and Councillors have a legal and moral obligation to keep children safe and promote their best interests. All children regardless of their age, gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religious beliefs, ability and family background have the right to be protected from harm and to be treated with dignity, respect and integrity.

As a child safe organisation we are committed to providing welcoming, safe and accessible environments where children feel valued, listened to and considered in decisions that affect their lives. The need to remove or reduce the risk of child abuse informs our decision making concerning children in our care. We have specific policies, procedures and practices in place to support our people to achieve these commitments.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

This policy supports Council’s ongoing commitment to the Council Plan 2017-2021, specifically the pillar Community – Strategy C1: Enhance community health and wellbeing

Page 120


outcomes through quality service delivery and strategic partnerships; Strategy C2: Strengthen Council’s commitment to support our diverse and inclusive communities; and C4: Enhance community engagement to ensure Council makes long-term decisions in the best interests of the community.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

There are no costs associated with the development or endorsement of the Statement of Commitment to Child safety beyond internal project management resources.

LEGAL ADVICE & IMPLICATIONS

The Child Wellbeing and Safety Act 2005 (Vic) is the legislative basis for the Child Safe Standards.

CONCLUSION

Endorsement of the Statement of Commitment to Child Safety will ensure compliance with Standard 2 of the Victorian Government Child Safe Standards and will support the broader activities being undertaken by Council to protect all children in Council’s care from abuse and to embed child safety into the organisational culture, service planning and decision-making.


Both the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC) and the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (the Charter) have been considered in developing this policy.

Universal child safe procedures are founded on CROC which recognise that children have a right to be protected from physical and mental harm and neglect; and to enjoy the full range of civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights.

The Charter outlines the basic human rights of all people and necessitates that governments, councils and other public authorities not act inconsistently with the Charter and consider relevant rights when making decisions.

This recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council resolve to endorse the Statement of Commitment to Child Safety as

Page 121


required under the Victorian Government Child Safe Standards, as follows:“City of Stonnington has a zero tolerance to child abuse. All Council Officers, including employees, contractors, volunteers and Councillors have a legal and moral obligation to keep children safe and promote their best interests. All children regardless of their age, gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religious beliefs, ability and family background have the right to be protected from harm and to be treated with dignity, respect and integrity. As a child safe organisation we are committed to providing welcoming, safe and accessible environments where children feel valued, listened to and considered in decisions that affect their lives. The need to remove or reduce the risk of child abuse informs our decision making concerning children in our care. We have specific policies, procedures and practices in place to support our people to achieve these commitments.”

Page 122


6. STONNINGTON PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELLBEING PLAN 2017-2021

Community & Health Planner: Adam Zimmermann Manager Advocacy, Performance and Improvement: Tracey LimpensChief Executive Officer: Warren Roberts

PURPOSE

This report seeks to adopt the Stonnington Public Health and Wellbeing Plan 2017-2021.

BACKGROUND

The Stonnington Public Health and Wellbeing Plan 2017-2021 (SPHWP) is one of Council’s key strategic documents and is closely aligned with the Council Plan and Municipal Strategic Statement (refer Attachment 1).

The Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 mandates that Local Governments must prepare a Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan every four years following Council elections. The new Plan must be submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services by 22 October 2017

A Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan must:

i. include an examination of data about health status and health determinants in the municipal district (refer Attachment 2).

ii. identify goals and strategies based on available evidence for creating a local community in which people can achieve maximum health and wellbeing.

iii. provide for the involvement of people in the local community in the development, implementation and evaluation of the public health and wellbeing plan.

iv. specify how the Council will work in partnership with the Department and other agencies undertaking public health initiatives, projects and programs to accomplish the goals and strategies identified in the Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan.

v. ensure consistency with the Council Plan and the Municipal Strategic Statement

The development of the SPHWP has also taken into consideration the health objectives and priorities of the Victorian Public Health and Wellbeing Plan 2015-2019.

On 4th September 2017, Council resolved to exhibit the draft SPHWP. Exhibition of the included notification in local newspapers, Council’s website, the Connect Stonnington engagement portal, service centres and letters to stakeholders (6 to 27 September 2017).

DISCUSSION

SubmissionOne online submission was received for the SPHWP 2017-2021 (Attachment 2). Summarising:

Submission feedback/response Council Officer response

Active & Healthy Lifestyle No change proposed. Addressed by Action 1.3.1 –

Page 123


Strategies in the Plan should seek to understand why people stop exercising and develop tactics to get them engaged in their health again.

Develop a framework to link and promote active recreation opportunities (Active Stonnington Framework). The Framework will seek to understand which groups of the population are not exercising to the recommended levels, understand why people stop exercising and develop relevant strategies to engage people in regular physical activity.

Community Safety

Identify areas where people feel unsafe and develop targeted plans to resolve this.

No change proposed. Addressed by:

Action 2.3.2 - Target and reduce anti-social behaviour in and around identified community hot spots, in partnership with Victoria Police;

Action 2.3.4 – Identify partnership and funding opportunities for prevention and early intervention initiatives in relation to community safety; and

Action 2.4.6 – Proactively respond to requests from the community to address safety concerns

Vulnerable Communities

Discuss further the support provided to vulnerable communities regarding the health impacts of climate change.

More on gambling related health issues

More around homelessness

Plan to be amended with the following (Climate Change Statement):

Continue to support and encourage safety by circulating Heat Health alerts from the Department of Health and Human Services to organisations working with vulnerable people.

Continue to implement the Heatwave Policy (note: sub plan of the Municipal Emergency Management Plan that covers response and recovery).

In response to gambling related health issues:

No change proposed. Council provided input to the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation Research Agenda 2018-2022 on a number of health and wellbeing issues related to gambling requiring further investigation.

In response homelessness:

No change proposed. Addressed by Action 3.2.2 – Facilitate Homelessness Round Table to identify and respond to emerging issues and trends. Council recently adopted Stonnington Homelessness Protocol to outline Council’s role and agency networks to support rough sleepers.

More education around Domestic Violence

No change proposed. The Plan comprehensively addresses domestic violence in the following ways:

Action 5.1.1 – Support initiatives related to ending family violence

Action 5.1.2 – Investigate options to deliver gender equity programs in sporting clubs

Action 5.1.3 – Promote awareness campaigns, services and resources to reduce violence

Action 5.2.2 – Deliver gender equity training and education across Council

Action 5.2.3 – Provide enhanced training for service delivery staff to better support victims of family violence

Page 124


Final PlanThe City of Stonnington plays a key role to enhance and support the public health and wellbeing of Stonnington residents throughout all life stages. The health of individuals and the community are influenced by the social determinants of health; the conditions in which we live and work, including our built, social, natural and economic environments.

The evidence shows that across many areas, Stonnington residents continue to enjoy higher levels of health and wellbeing than the rest of Victoria, yet there are still some concerning trends. This plan has been developed in response to a series of identified key health indicators and issues and proactively addresses the community’s health and wellbeing priorities.

The final Plan sets out five (5) overarching priority areas (or pillars) that Council and its partners will prioritise to deliver improved health and wellbeing outcomes for the community.

Pillars MPHP Strategies 2017-2021

Active and Healthy Lifestyle

1. Promote and provide opportunities for active transport2. Promote the importance of and provide opportunities for healthy nutritional

choices3. Increase physical activity across all life stages4. Ensure the built environment supports residents to lead active and healthy

lives5. Encourage local health services to deliver targeted programs to address

community health needs

Community Safety

1. Provide public spaces and places where people can feel safe and enjoy2. Recognise Council’s statutory role and its contribution to community

safety3. Provide a leadership role in integrated community safety4. Strengthen Community Resilience

Vulnerable Communities

1. Support the community to age well 2. Minimise health inequalities across groups within the community3. Support marginalised residents and vulnerable communities4. Support communities from culturally diverse backgrounds5. Improve social and emotional wellbeing of young people

Harmful Alcohol and Other Drug Use

1. Minimise harm from alcohol2. Promote smoke free environments3. Develop partnerships related to minimising harm from pharmaceutical

and illicit substances

Violence and Injury

1. Support community initiatives related to the prevention of violence2. Provide supportive work practices across Council business related to

gender equity and preventing violence3. Promote initiatives and campaigns designed to reduce injury

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Page 125


The Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 mandates that Local Governments must prepare a Municipal Public Health and Wellbeing Plan every four years following Council elections. The new Plan must be submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services by 22 October 2017.


The plan is subject to review and may change as circumstances change. Council’s financial support to the MPHWP will be subject to Annual Budget processes.

CONCLUSION

The SPHWP is an evidenced-based, strategic document to guide Council’s planning, policy and strategic direction in response to community health and wellbeing priorities.

Through the implementation of the SPHWP, Council aims to maintain and improve public health and wellbeing at a local community level. A focus on prevention and early intervention activities to promote the achievement of health and wellbeing goals is central to the effectiveness of the SPHWP implementation.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Submission 1 Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Adopts the Stonnington Public Health and Wellbeing Plan 2017-2021; and2. Submits the Stonnington Public Health and Wellbeing Plan 2017-2021 to the

Department of Health and Human Services.

Page 126


7. ANNUAL REPORT 2016/17

Manager Advocacy, Performance and Improvement: Tracey LimpensManager Finance: Scott Moore General Manager Corporate Services: Geoff CockramChief Executive Officer: Warren Roberts

PURPOSE

This report presents the City of Stonnington’s Annual Report for the 2016/17 financial year.

BACKGROUND

The Local Government Act 1989 requires:

Council to prepare an Annual Report which must be submitted to the Minister for Local Government within three months of the end of each financial year (Section 131).

Within one month after submitting the Annual Report to the Minister, Council must hold an open meeting to consider the report, with 14 days public notice given (Section 134 and Regulation 22 of the Local Government (Planning and Reporting) Regulations 2014).

Statutory advertising of the meeting; undertaken in ‘The Age’ on 23 September 2017 and the ‘Stonnington Leader’ on 26 September 2017, with copies of the Annual Report available for inspection at Council’s service centres, libraries and website.

To meet the timeframe required by the Local Government Act 1989, the Annual Report was submitted to the Minister for Local Government on 27 September 2017, and Council will receive the Annual Report at its meeting on 16 October.

DISCUSSION

As required by the Local Government Act 1989 Section 131(2), the Annual Report must contain:

(a) A report of the operations of Council;

(b) An audited performance statement;

(c) Audited financial statements;

(d) A copy of the auditor’s report on the performance statement, prepared under section 132;

(e) A copy of the auditor’s report on the financial statements under Part 3 of the Audit Act 1994;

(f) Any other matter required by the regulations.

Highlights

Financial Summary

Page 127


At the end of June 2017, Council’s financial position remains strong with more than $2.62 billion of community assets under Council’s stewardship. Operating expenditure for 2016/17 was tightly controlled and Council’s underlying operating income and expenditure were within 8.4 per cent and 0.3 per cent respectively of the annual budget adopted in June 2016.

In 2016/17, Council achieved a surplus of $42.26 million. Council’s long-term financial strategy projects that surpluses will continue to be strong over the next ten years reaching $47.36 million in 2026/27, providing a sustainable level of funding for the refurbishment and replacement of community assets at an average of $55.06 million per annum.

Major Capital Works

During 2016/17 the overall cost of capital works was $46.23 million and included:

Open space ($14.42 million) - including strategic land purchase and park developments around the municipality.

Cato Square development project ($2.34 million) - three year project which commenced in 2016/17, including redevelopment of Council owned high-value land with opportunities to incorporate public plaza/park in an urban setting.

Road, Footpath & Bridges ($4.96 million) - including Allenby Avenue road reconstruction ($0.68 million).

Drainage improvements ($3.05 million) - including road drainage replacement works.

Buildings ($8.19 million) - Dunlop Pavilion redevelopment $0.28 million, Chapel off Chapel toilet upgrade $0.35 million, Harold Holt Swim Centre pool tiling $0.60 million, Malvern Valley Golf Course Hub redevelopment $0.59 million, Prahran Market works $0.70 million, Civic Precinct works ($0.26 million).

Recreation, Leisure and Community Facilities ($2.54 million) - including sportsground improvement works $0.79 million, park floodlight upgrade ($0.11 million), and tennis facilities renewal ($0.23 million).

Parks, open space and streetscape excluding Cato Square development ($5.29 million) - Yarra River Biodiversity project $1.159 million, Forrest Hill Masterplan implementation $0.96 million, Windsor Siding Masterplan implementation $0.33 million and Chapel Street Streetscape Masterplan Implementation ($1.45 million).

Bicycle strategy and path improvement $0.26 million.

Plant and equipment ($4.40 million) - including information technology $0.40 million, scheduled replacement of Council's fleet and equipment $1.064million, library materials $0.79 million and art and sculpture acquisition program $0.07 million.

Service Achievements

Finalised plans and launched Cato Square transformational open space project.

Provided 34,630 hours of Domestic Assistance/Home Care, 18.538 hours of Personal Care, 6,549 hours of Respite Care and delivered/served 27,551 meals.

Adopted the Domestic Animal Management Plan 2016/2021.

Page 128


Delivered events and programs, including the annual VIVA Youth Festival achieved approximately 2,500 attendees.

3110 tonnes of garden waste collected through our kerbside garden waste service

Successfully met our 2015 greenhouse gas emissions target (20% below 2005 levels), and on target to meet the 2020 target (30% below 2005 levels)

Delivered 25 sustainability sessions at 23 schools through Stonnington Green Schools’ Network.

Completed 1,099 food premises inspections, 165 health premises inspections, and investigated 502 complaints.

Energy saving initiatives also include upgrading the King Street Carpark to include energy efficient LEDs, replacing high energy consuming lights at Chapel Off Chapel, upgrading Council's computer servers to the cloud and improving energy data monitoring systems.

Amendment C212 included the Malvern Road-Burke Road Urban Design Framework as a reference document to guide new development and increased open space opportunities in this area

Successful mid-cycle review of the Rainbow Tick in Aged Care Services, which lets LGBTI customers and the community know that our services are committed to being an inclusive service within the community.

Chapel Off Chapel Theatres well utilised, with 36,557 attendances at 300 ticketed events between the Chapel, Loft & Mezzanine Theatres.

Developed a partnership with IMAP Councils to increase Stonnington's profile with Destination Melbourne.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The Annual Report reports on the Council Plan 2013-2017, Council’s primary strategic document.

All legislative requirements have been met, with the financial statements prepared as required by the Local Government Act 1989, the Local Government (Planning and Reporting) Regulations 2014, Australian Accounting Standards and other mandatory professional reporting requirements.

In addition, the Annual Report incorporates the Better Practice Guide recommendations of Local Government Victoria.


The financial position of Council remains strong; with the financial statements considered by the Audit Committee on Monday 21 August 2017 and Council on 4 September 2017. The Victorian Auditor General’s Office has provided unqualified audit opinion on the financial and performance statements for 2016/17.

Page 129



All legislative requirements have been met and the Annual Report has been submitted to the Minister for Local Government within the timeframe required by the Local Government Act 1989.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this report is to receive the City of Stonnington’s Annual Report for the 2016/17 financial year.

Council’s financial position remains strong, with the Victorian Auditor General’s Office providing unqualified audit opinion on the financial and performance statements.



ATTACHMENTS

1. City of Stonnington Annual Report 2016/17 Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:

1. Receives the Annual Report 2016/17.

2. Notes that the Victorian Auditor General’s Office has provided unqualified audit opinions on the financial statements and performance statement.

3. Notes the Annual Report has been submitted to the Minister for Local Government in accordance with legislative requirements.

Page 130


8. DARLING ROAD, MALVERN EAST - PROPOSAL TO INSTALL ILLUMINATED SCHOOL ZONE SIGNAGE

Traffic Engineer: Joan Ramos Manager Transport & Parking: Ian McLauchlanGeneral Manager Assets & Services: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to seek approval to install illuminated School Zone signage on Darling Road, Malvern East.

BACKGROUND

Darling Road, Malvern East is a Council managed road that runs north-south between Malvern Road and Dandenong Road. The street is generally subject to a 60km/h speed limit, with an existing 40km/h school zone speed limit operating 8:00am to 9:30am and 2:30pm to 4:00pm school days, between Waverley Road and Ailsa Avenue.

There are a number of schools in the area including the Currajong School, on the corner of Darling Road and Olive Street, and Lloyd Street Primary School, accessed via Summerhill Avenue and Rothesay Avenue. A supervised school crossing operates across Darling Road between Dundonald Avenue and Summerhill Avenue.

The existing school zone speed limit is controlled by static signage at either end of the restriction, as well as interim reminder signage along the length. The existing signs are in accordance with the Australian Standards and display the ‘School Zone’ legend, the 40km/h limit, and the times of operation. Site inspection indicates that the signs are clear and visible, and an image of the signs at the north end of the zone is shown below.

A request was received from a resident in November 2016 to review the existing signage (another request was also received later in January 2017), due to motorists travelling over the 40km/h limit during school times. Speed and volume surveys were subsequently undertaken during school term in December 2016 at two locations within the school zone: outside 86 Darling Road (close to the Currajong School), and between Summerhill Avenue and Hilda Street (close to the school crossing).

Referring to the table below, the data showed that the 85th percentile speed (the speed at which 85% of vehicles are travelling at or under) during the school zone operating period was 51km/h outside 86 Darling Road, and 52km/h in the section between Summerhill Avenue and

Page 131


Hilda Street. The average speed was 41km/h outside 86 Darling Road and in the section between Summerhill Avenue and Hilda Street. Speeds were typically higher in the afternoon school period than in the morning school period.

The data also showed that the 85th percentile speed outside of the school zone operating period, when a 60km/hr speed limit operates, was 56km/h outside 86 Darling Road, and 59km/h in the section between Summerhill Avenue and Hilda Street. The average speed was 50km/h outside 86 Darling Road, and 53km/h in the section between Summerhill Avenue and Hilda Street.

40km/h School Zone Speed Limit Operates

Outside of the School Zone Speed Limit Operating Period

Weekday 85th

Percentile Speed (km/h)

Average Speed (km/h)

Weekday 85th

Percentile Speed (km/h)

Average Speed (km/h)

Outside 86 Darling Road

51 41 56 50

b/w Summerhill Avenue and Hilda Street

52 41 59 53

During the speed investigation, Malvern Police also advised that they were monitoring speeds during the school zone operating times.

The Mayor, Cr Jami Klisaris has been approached by a resident expressing their concern about motorists speeding on Darling Road, particularly during school zone times. It was suggested to lobby VicRoads to lower the speed limit, however, the main concern is that majority of the motorists do not comply with the 40km/h school zone speed limit. The 60km/hr limit is generally obeyed as shown in the above survey results. The Mayor, Cr Klisaris has indicated support to have this report to Council for consideration.

In addition to the above surveys, a spot speed check was conducted on 13 September 2017 around 3:00pm approximately in the middle of the school zone outside 112 Darling Road. It was noted that 6 out of 10 vehicles that were randomly checked were driving over 40km/h but below 60km/h.

The VicRoads CrashStats database indicates that there have been 27 casualty crashes on Darling Road since 1 January 2006. Only one of these crashes occurred within the school zone area, out of school times, and 14 occurred at the intersection of Dandenong Road.

DISCUSSION

The school zone on Darling Road is clearly signed by static speed signs. The survey demonstrated that majority of the motorists do not comply with the 40km/h school zone speed limit, however the 60km/hr limit is generally obeyed. It appears that motorists may not be always aware if they are travelling within the time periods or days of the week that the school zone takes effect. Motorists may also be driving over 40km/h but below 60km/h as they consider their speed consistent with the road environment in Darling Road which is similar to the nearby arterial roads, typically subject to 60km/h speed limit.

To improve awareness when the school zone speed limit operates and encourage motorists to comply with the speed limit when there are high pedestrian movements, it may be appropriate to install illuminated school zone signs.

These signs are highly visible and provide a real-time reminder of the 40km/h speed limit during the nominated school zone times. This may also be appropriate on a road that carries a high volume of traffic.

Page 132


Although Darling Road is a Council road, the installation of speed signage including illuminated school zone signage must be authorised by VicRoads. The data obtained was forwarded to VicRoads to determine in-principle support for the installation of illuminated school zone signage to support the existing restriction.

VicRoads has advised that they have no objections to the installation of illuminated school zone signage in Darling Road, provided that Council fully the cost for installation as well as 10 year maintenance of the signs.


Quotes have been sought for the supply and installation of illuminated school zone signage.

The estimated capital cost for installation of the signage is $50k. The 10 year maintenance costs are estimated to be in the order of $35k.

Therefore, the total cost to Council to deliver (installation and 10 year maintenance) the illuminated 40km/h school zone signage on Darling Road is estimated to be in the order of $85k plus GST.

It is proposed to fund this project from within the 2017/2018 Council’s Capital Works budget for Road Safety Works Implementation and Traffic Engineering Equipment.

CONCLUSION

The illuminated signage proposed will likely assist in achieving greater motorist compliance with the 40km/h school speed zone limit in Darling Road.

Funding for this work is proposed to occur within budget on Council’s current capital works program.



RECOMMENDATIONThat the proposal to install illuminated school zone signage in Darling Road, Malvern East between Ailsa Avenue and Waverley Road, be endorsed.

Page 133


9. RECREATION PROJECTS WADSWORTH FIELD AND SIR ROBERT MENZIES RESERVE

Manager Community Facilities: Tony Oulton General Manager Community & Culture: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present the summary findings on the community consultation undertaken for two proposed recreation projects and to seek Council endorsement to proceed with both projects.

BACKGROUND

Community consultation was recently undertaken on two proposed recreation infrastructure projects in Sir Zelman Cowan Park, Kooyong and Sir Robert Menzies Reserve, Malvern.

Consultation for both projects occurred from Monday 14 August to Sunday 3 September 2017 and included direct mail out to an extended area of adjoining residents, on site promotion and online survey. Full details about both projects was made available on Council’s website for the duration of the consultation period. Details on each project is outlined below.

Wadsworth Field – Baseball Facility Upgrade

This project seeks to upgrade the baseball practice facilities at Wadsworth Field – Sir Zelman Cowan Park – Kooyong. The proposed upgrade will consolidate existing training facilities and provide enhanced training and game day experiences for baseball participants.

The current practice facilities are in poor condition and the existing layout poses safety concerns for pedestrians and players. Pedestrian safety and improving OH&S in relation to game day movement of equipment makes the revised layout much safer for park users and players alike.

The upgraded baseball practice facilities will include:

Two enclosed batting cages with lighting Consolidated pitching and hitting mounds Improved player, pedestrian and spectator safety Incorporated storage within the design to consolidate equipment and ease game day

logistics Crushed rock and concrete bases for the cage and bullpen.

The works will include: Demolition and removal of the existing facilities Upgrade practice facilities to meet Baseball Facility Standards Upgrade lighting levels within the batting cage to meet Australian Standards Reposition / align the practice facilities connecting the existing player dugout and

player dugout and playing surface Construction of two batting cages and enclosure the pitching and hitting mounds.

A 3D rendered image of the proposal is included as Attachment 1 to this report.

Sir Robert Menzies Reserve - Cricket Net Installation

Page 135


This project looks to install cricket practice facilities at Sir Robert Menzies Reserve. The sportsground at the reserve is currently used by St Andrews Gardiner Cricket Club and Malvern Cricket Club Juniors for matches only as no practice facilities are present to support training at the reserve. The proposed installation of cricket practice nets will allow clubs to train at the ground and significantly improve access to quality facilities for junior sport within the local community. The cricket practice facilities will be available for casual use by local residents at all other times.

The cricket practice net facilities are proposed to be built on the western side of the reserve. The nets would be located on the sportsground side of the path, set into the slope and setback from the playground. In consultation with Council’s arborist, three small trees will be removed and replaced within the reserve. The nets will not impact on the open space at the south end of the reserve. Specifically works will include:

Construction of two new hard wicket synthetic practice nets which meet Cricket Australia’s facilities guidelines

Installation of a retaining wall along the length of the cricket practice net facility PVC coated black chain mesh side and roof fencing

Sub soil drainage around the perimeter of the cricket practice net facility including retaining wall.

The cricket practice net facility will:

Enhance junior sport involvement in the local area, especially during the summer period Support training requirements for existing cricket club teams who currently compete at the

reserve Enhance player retention and recruitment across both cricket clubs resulting from a

greater connection between training and match day Further activate the reserve providing additional recreation opportunities for local resident

and casual users.

A 3D rendered image of the proposal is included as Attachment 2 to this report.

DISCUSSION

Both projects received overwhelming support through the consultation period. The results of the online survey showed that 98% of respondents were in favour of the Wadsworth Field baseball facility upgrade and 95% were in support of the proposed installation of cricket practice nets at Menzies Reserve. A total of 252 and 214 survey responses were received for each project respectively. A breakdown of data revealed that local residents who live within 2km’s also strongly supported each project with 93% and 92% of respondents being in favour.

A summary of the results for both surveys is included as attachment 3 to this report.

In addition to survey results, Council received a total of thirteen written submissions for both projects. A total of six written submission were received in relation to the Wadsworth Field proposal including four people writing in support and two opposed. A total of thirteen written submissions were received for the Menzies Reserve proposal including seven letters in support and six opposed.

A copy of all written responses collected through the survey period for both projects is included as attachment 4 to this report.

Written objections generally cited the impact on open space, the negative impact of sport to local residents and the need for both facilities, in particular the cricket practice facilities. The

Page 136


location of club practice facilities in relation to where a club plays its matches is intrinsic to the functional operation of the club, especially cricket clubs that rely on using significant amounts of training equipment. The importance of both projects to local clubs is therefore acknowledged through the overwhelming level of support for both projects.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Currently, only two in five Australian adults and one in five children are getting enough physical activity to benefit their health. Over 40% of Stonnington residents are overweight or obese. Council’s draft Public Health and Wellbeing Plan 2017-2021 supports initiatives that promote healthy active lifestyles. Pillar One – Active and Healthy Lifestyle, specifically contains the following relevant strategic directions:

Increase physical activity across all life stages Ensure the built environment supports residents to lead active and healthy lives Encourage local health services to deliver targeted programs to address community

health needs.

Both projects are also consistent with Council’s Recreation Strategy 2014-2024 and a range of other strategies that support the provision of quality and accessible facilities to promote active participation and recreation.


A total project budget of $436,000 is available from Council’s current capital works program to undertake the works associated with both projects. Cost estimates for each project have been obtained are expected to cost $235,000 and $192,000 for the baseball practice facility and cricket net installation respectively.

CONCLUSION

Participation in physical activity contributes to the health and wellbeing of individuals and provides a range of social, environmental and economic benefits for the community.

Council has a clear and strong commitment to supporting and improving the physical and mental health and wellbeing of its community. The provision of facilities and services such as sportsgrounds, recreation facilities and programs is an important part of how Council contributes to realising this commitment.

Council understands the value and importance of casual and flexible recreation opportunities and is committed to providing resources to support these activities.

A commitment to proceed with the Wadsworth Field baseball practice facility and Menzies Reserve cricket net proposal is consistent with the broader objectives of Council and will significantly improve outcomes for the community.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Wadsworth Field - Practice Facility Attachment 1 of 4 Excluded

2. Sir Robert Menzies Reserve - Cricket Nets Attachment 2 of 4 Excluded

3. Summary Report Attachment 3 of 4 Excluded

4. Survey - Written Responses Attachment 4 of 4 Excluded

Page 137


RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Note the summary findings of community consultation undertaken the

proposed upgrade of Baseball Practice Facilities Upgrade at Wadsworth Field, Sir Zelman Cowan Park, Kooyong and proposed installation of cricket practice nets at Sir Robert Menzies Reserve, Malvern.

2. Endorse the commencement of both projects.

Page 138


10. COUNCIL MEETING DATES 2018

Manager Governance & Corporate Services: Fabienne Thewlis General Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to set the Council meeting dates for 2018.

BACKGROUND

Section 89 (1) of the Local Government Act 1989 outlines that any meeting of a Council must be open to members of the public, with section 89(4) requiring Council to give reasonable notice of meetings of the Council.

DISCUSSION

Council departments require direction to enable forward planning for the forthcoming year as the time-tabling for such matters as the progress of the Budget, Council Plan or planning items to meet statutory deadlines is essential.

The following meeting dates of Council and the closed Councillor Briefings are proposed for 2018 (public holidays and school terms are included for information only).

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The March to June period for Council establishes the statutory timelines for the advertising, review and submissions before adoption of the Council Plan and Annual Budgets. Dates in August to October set the timelines for the completion of the Annual Report.


The setting of Council meeting dates is a statutory requirement.

CONCLUSION

Council is required to set the dates for Council meetings and advertise accordingly


This recommendation has been reviewed and complies with the requirements of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment One - Council Meeting Dates 2018 Excluded

RECOMMENDATION

Page 139


That Council:1. adopts the listed Council meeting dates for 2018;

2. advertises the Ordinary Council meeting dates in the Local Leader newspaper; and

3. lists the Ordinary Council meeting dates on its website.

Page 140

agenda of council meeting - 16 october 2017 · web viewas such, there are several examples of high...

Documents