agenda of council meeting - 20 november 2017 · web view2017/11/20 · the landscape plan must be...

NOTICE PAPERMonday 20 November 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 20 November 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 NOVEMBER 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 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.....................

2. PLANNING APPLICATION 0002/17 - 55 EMO ROAD, MALVERN EAST - CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DWELLINGS ON A LOT IN A NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE..................................................

3. AMENDMENT C234 - ST GEORGES ROAD NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER OVERLAY - CONSIDERATION OF PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................

4. AMENDMENT C264 - 6 MONARO ROAD, KOOYONG - PERMANENT HERITAGE CONTROLS - CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS................................................................................................

5. REFORMING THE VICTORIA PLANNING PROVISIONS........................................................................6. GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG CLUB ALTERNATIVE LOCATION INVESTIGATION .....................................7. FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD JULY TO SEPTEMBER 2017..................................................8. VEHICLE CROSSING APPLICATION - 10 RUSHMEAD STREET MALVERN........................................

m) Other General Businessn) Urgent Businesso) Confidential Business

1. DOCKLESS BIKE SHARE MODEL...................................................................................................2. PROPOSED PROPERTY PURCHASE................................................................................................3. POTENTIAL PROPERTY PURCHASE...............................................................................................

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.

ADOPTION AND CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

20 NOVEMBER 2017

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council confirms the Minutes of the Council Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 30 October 2017 and Minutes of the Confidential Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 30 October 2017 and Minutes of the Special Council Meeting of Stonnington City Council held on 2 November 2017 as an accurate record of the proceedings.

GENERAL BUSINESS20 NOVEMBER 2017

l) General Business

1. 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

Statutory Planning Coordinator: Phillip Gul Acting GM Planning & Amenity: Susan Price

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.

This item was considered at the Council meeting of 16 October 2017 to allow for a consultative meeting. The application is now re-presented to Council for further consideration.

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)

128

Trigger for referral to Council: Four (4) storey buildingNumber of objections: Three (3) objector propertiesConsultative Meeting: Yes – 1 November 2017Officer 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.

Page 7


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.

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.

Previous Planning Application(s)

Page 8


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.

Planning Controls

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

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

Page 9


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.

Particular Provisions

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:

Page 10


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.

Relevant Planning Policies

State Planning Policy Framework:

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 three (3) different properties have been received. A petition with 25 signatures has also been submitted. Grounds of objections raised can be summarized as below:

Neighbourhood Character and Visual Bulk

Page 11


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. Concern on the extent of shadow impact in winter solstice (21st June).

A Planning Consultation Meeting was held on the 1 November 2017. Councillors Davis and Atwell, objectors and Council Officers were in attendance. The consultation meeting did not result in any additional changes to the submitted plans.

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

Page 12


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.

Transport and Parking

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.

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.

Page 13


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.

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

Page 14


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.

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.

Page 15


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 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.

Page 16


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.

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

Page 17


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.

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

Side and Rear Setbacks

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

Page 18


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.

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






Page 19


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 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

Page 20


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

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

Page 21


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:

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 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

Page 22


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 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.

Car Parking and Traffic

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

Page 23


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

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

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

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

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.

Page 24


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 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 20 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

Page 25


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.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

Page 26


approved these form part of this Permit.

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 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;

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.

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. 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

Page 27


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.

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.

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

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.

11. 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.

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.

Page 28


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 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

Page 29


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

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.

Page 30


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 31


2. PLANNING APPLICATION 0002/17 - 55 EMO ROAD, MALVERN EAST - CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DWELLINGS ON A LOT IN A NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE

Statutory Planning Coordinator: Phillip Gul Acting GM Planning & Amenity: Susan Price

PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for construction of two dwellings on a lot within a Neighbourhood Residential Zone at 55 Emo Road, Malvern East.

This item was considered at the Council meeting of 30 November 2017 to allow for assessment of additional information. The application is now re-presented to Council for further consideration.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Chris PippoThe North Planning Pty Ltd

Ward: EastZone: Neighbourhood Residential Zone - Schedule 2 (Garden River

& Garden Suburban)Overlay: N/ANeighbourhood Precinct: Garden Suburban 4Date lodged: 30 December 2016Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

71

Trigger for referral to Council:

Number of Objections

Number of objections: 16Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on 26 September 2017Officer Recommendation: Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Finley Roberts Design and are known as File No. 16-154, and are Council date stamped 1 September 2017.

The proposal seeks to construct two double storey dwellings side-by-side on the lot, each comprising an open plan living, dining and kitchen area, separate lounge, study and sitting rooms and four (4) bedrooms. Each dwelling includes a single car space in a garage and a second uncovered space in a tandem arrangement.

The original application was lodged on 30 December 2016.

The application was subsequently revised following a further information request in June 2017 and this revision was advertised to surrounding owners and occupiers in June 2017. Prior to this, the applicant was advised of a number of issues of concern.

Page 33


Following concerns raised by planning officers, the application was formally revised under s57a of the Planning & Environment Act 1987 on 1 September 2017 and the associated plans were re-advertised in September 2017. It is these plans that form the basis of this assessment.

Based on verbal discussions with the applicant and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), the permit applicant lodged an Application for Review under Section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 against Council’s failure to determine the application within the prescribed timeframe. The application was made on 6th November 2017. VCAT have advised that the Application for Review will be listed on the Major Cases List.

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is regular in shape, has a primary frontage to Emo Road of approximately 15m and a depth of approximately 51m.

The site forms part of an established residential area exhibiting mostly detached single dwellings of various styles and periods. Predominantly, the houses are either Edwardian red brick bungalows or modern double storey rendered houses. Lot sizes in the surrounding area are roughly homogenous, averaging between 700 and 800sqm. There is a clear predominant character of 1-2 storeys. Second storeys are rarely recessed more than 2-3 metres behind the front wall of dwellings.

The following interfaces are relevant:

To the north is 57 Emo Road, which is a rectangular shaped lot of approximately 800sqm area, which houses a double storey rendered dwelling with hipped tile roof. A driveway is constructed along the northern boundary and serves a garage that forms part of the dwelling. To the south is 53 Emo Road, which is an L-shaped lot of approximately 1030sqm area, which houses a double storey timber dwelling with hip and gable metal sheet roof. A driveway runs along the southern boundary providing access to a carport sitting forward of the dwelling. The rear of the site is occupied by a full size tennis court. To the west is 28 Tennyson Street, which is a rectangular shaped lot of approximately 1130sqm area, which houses a double storey timber dwelling with hip and gable terracotta tile roof. A full size tennis court at the rear (east) of this site interfaces with the subject site.

To the east is Emo Road, a residential street which services the subject site. Opposite the subject site and facing the street is 88 Emo Road, which contains a double storey modern rendered dwelling with a double garage proud of the main built form.

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 05255 Folio 898 and described as lot 1 on Title Plan 252044J and no covenants or easements affect the land.

Planning Controls

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

Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 2Clause 32.09

Page 34


Pursuant to Clause 32.09-5, a permit is required to construct two dwellings on a lot. A permit is therefore required under this provision. Pursuant to Clause 32.09-5, an application must meet the requirements of Clause 55, including the varied requirements specified in Schedule 2 to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

Pursuant to Clause 32.09-4, whether or not a permit is required under the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, a development must meet the mandatory minimum garden area requirements. For a lot exceeding 650 square metres, 35% of the lot area at ground level must be set aside for garden area. Based on the information provided, 37.8% of the site area is set aside for garden area.

Pursuant to Clause 32.09-9, a building must not be constructed for use as a dwelling that exceeds 9 metres or more than two storeys at any point. These requirements are considered to be met.

Particular ProvisionsClause 52.06Pursuant to Clause 52.06-5, a dwelling of 3 or more bedrooms requires two car spaces, one of which must be covered. Two car spaces must therefore be provided to each dwelling. The proposal complies with this requirement.

Relevant Planning Policies

11.06 Metropolitan Melbourne15.01 Urban Environment 15.02 Sustainable Development 16.01 Residential Development 21.03 Vision 21.05 Housing 21.06 Built Environment and Heritage 22.05 Environmentally Sustainable Design 22.18 Stormwater Management 22.23 Neighbourhood Character Guidelines 32.09 Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 2 52.06 Car Parking 55 Two or More Dwellings on a Lot 65 Decision Guidelines

Advertising

The application was advertised in June 2017 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 1 sign on the site). The public notification of the application was completed satisfactorily.

The site is located In East Ward and objections from 16 different properties have been received. The objections can be summarized as follows:

Visual Bulk Neighbourhood Character and Density Amenity Impacts (Shadowing/Windows) Car Parking Site Coverage

Page 35


Following a formal revision of the application pursuant to Section 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the proposal was re-advertised in September 2017 (pursuant to Section 57B) by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land as well as objectors (1 sign was also placed on the site). The public notification of the application was completed satisfactorily. 3 supplementary objections were received from current objectors reiterating their previous objections.

A Consultative Meeting was held on 26 September 2017. The meeting was attended by Councillors Atwell and Davis, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. The meeting did not result in any further changes to the plans.

Referrals

Infrastructure – 24 June 2017

The application was referred to the infrastructure unit who stated:

The levels of the property and proposed development are significantly below Emo Street and it is not apparent to Infrastructure how the property is drained. The applicant will need to investigate this matter and demonstrate how the development can be reasonably drained before Infrastructure are in a position to comment further.

The subject site is not within a Special Building Overlay or Land Subject to Inundation Overlay and therefore is not considered to be in a high risk area. A drainage concept design has been requested as a condition on the permit allowing a further assessment by Council’s Infrastructure department.

Further discussions with Council’s Infrastructure department resulted in an agreement to place a condition on the permit to be addressed prior to plan endorsement and relating to the drainage design.

Further, the Infrastructure department requested that a number of other standard conditions be placed on the permit relating to legal point of discharge and additional stormwater retention.

Parks – 31 July 2017

The application was referred to the Parks unit who raised the following concerns:

The Jacaranda Mimosifolia (Jacaranda) is significant, has fair health and structure and is located well away from the proposed development. A Tree Management Plan will be required. No other significant trees are proposed for removal.

The proposed use of the Maidenhair Tree in the front setback is inappropriate and should be replace with either of the following:

o Zelkova serrata ‘Musashino’o Acer rubrum 'Bowhall'

The street tree must be retained and protected. A bond of $500 will be required for the protection of the street tree.

Conditions addressing these concerns will be placed on the permit.

Page 36


ASSESSMENT

Strategic Justification

The purpose of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, amongst others, is to implement State and local policies, to recognise areas of predominantly single and double storey residential development, and to manage and ensure that development respects the identified neighbourhood character, heritage, environmental or landscape characteristics.

Having regard to the objectives and provisions of the State and Local Planning Policy Framework alongside the controls of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, the proposed development is considered to be generally consistent with the Stonnington Planning Scheme. Specifically, the proposal is consistent with Clause 11.06 (Metropolitan Melbourne), 21.05 (Housing), and 21.06 (Built Environment and Heritage).

Clause 21.05 (Housing) directs new residential development to locations that are accessible to activity centres and public transport networks. The subject site is identified as being part of an incremental change area where the local planning policy framework seeks a moderate increase in housing density. The proposed development of two dwellings on a lot in an incremental change area is considered appropriate.

The subject site is well serviced and in close proximity to the Waverley Road, Malvern East Activity Centre (~170m) which consists of commercial facilities for regular as well as some specialist retail and service activities. Waverley Road is serviced by the Route 3/3a Tram which runs from Malvern East to Melbourne University.

It is considered that the subject site has strategic support for the construction of two dwellings on the site. The location is considered an “incremental change area”, which is appropriate for infill development and provides an opportunity for increased housing choice within proximity to an activity centre. The proposed development adequately addresses policy objectives on urban consolidation, household diversity and building form and is generally responsive to its context. Detailed consideration must be given to how the proposal specifically responds to the neighbourhood character, design and residential amenity as detailed below.

Neighbourhood Character

Neighbourhood Character and Overall Massing

The relevant neighbourhood character assessments are at Clause 22.23 (Neighbourhood Character Policy), 55.02 (Neighbourhood Character & Infrastructure) and 55.03 (Site Layout and Building Massing). Assessments against the relevant standards and objectives follows:

The subject site is located within the Garden Suburban 4 Neighbourhood Character Precinct (GS4) as identified in the Neighbourhood Character Guidelines at Clause 22.23 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. The statement for the GS4 precinct states in part:

The Garden Suburban 4 (GS4) precinct comprises spacious and leafy streetscapes with Edwardian, Interwar or Post-war era and new buildings set in established garden surrounds. 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, 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.

Page 37


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.

More specifically, the neighbourhood character of Emo Road is mixed in terms of dwelling period and style but generally maintains a detached pattern with some landscape characteristics, particularly at the rear of the site. Notably the extent of garden area relative to dwelling area appears to have decreased over time with more modern dwellings. Driveways and vehicle accommodation, where not served by rear access is either prominently sited, often flush with dwelling, or sited towards the rear of the site with a long paved driveway extending the depth of the site. No consistent fence style could be identified, but wooden picket fencing is common.

In terms of scale and form, the proposal maintains the 1-2 storey character with hipped roof form common to the surrounding context. Despite the minimal first floor street setback, it is consistent with other modern dwellings and does not overly dominate the streetscape and can be considered appropriate.

The proposed side-by-side design and ultimate subdivision of the lot into two lots will be the first in this section of Emo Road, but should not be dismissed for this reason alone. The State Planning Policy Framework is clear in that suburban areas with convenient access to transport and activity centres (such as Malvern East) must ensure an adequate supply of redevelopment opportunities and increased residential densities to reduce pressure on fringe development.

It is further considered that side-by-side developments generally result in positive streetscape responses as both dwellings are better integrated with the street and driveways do not become the primary street interaction of the rear dwelling. The disadvantage is that they can result in walls on boundaries and increased bulk as a result of the requirement for two entries, car spaces, and habitable rooms facing the street. Although the subject proposal includes walls on one boundary, it is sufficiently setback behind the primary volume of the proposed building and therefore maintains the existing streetscape separation and rhythm between sites.

The total length of the first floor has been raised as an issue by objectors and as part of the consultative meeting. The proposed development has a minimum first floor setback from the rear boundary of 12m and this is less than any first floor setbacks on Emo Road with the exception of 88 Emo Road (directly across the road) which has an approximately similar rear setback of the first floor. A number of properties on the street have ground floors that extend further towards the rear of the site including 67, 76, 82, 86, 98 and 106 Emo Road.

There is only a single example of a second storey extending so close to the rear and it is on the opposite side of Emo Road. It is considered that an increase in the rear setback is required to maintain the existing backyard neighbourhood character and reduce visual bulk and allow visual relief to adjacent secluded private open space. Council officers have advised the applicant that the extent of the first floor may be problematic. They have elected not to make changes at this stage. A condition is recommended to be included, requiring the removal of the proposed master suite to dwelling one (south) and bedroom four to dwelling two (north). This will result in an increase to the rear setback of the first floor, bringing it further in line with the extent of ground floors of the neighbouring dwellings. It is noted that the first floor will still extend further into the site than the first floor elements of the neighbouring dwellings, however the conditioned reduction in extent will adequately maintain the backyard character. Importantly, the conditioned removal of these rooms is not related to the number of rooms but to the visual bulk impacts. The condition will be worded as such that internal re-arrangement will be possible.

Page 38


The hipped form of the roof, eaves and face brick/masonry materiality references the surrounding style of the neighbourhood while incorporating them into a modern design.

The proposal is considered to meet the Neighbourhood Character Standard B1 and Design Detail Standard B31.

Street SetbackStreet setback requirements are located at Clause 55.03-1. The standard specifies that where the average setback of neighbouring properties (9.15m) exceeds 9m, the dwelling should be setback 9m from the street. The standard allows porches and eaves to encroach up to 2.5m into this setback so long as they do not exceed 3.6m in height.

The front wall of the dwelling is setback a minimum of 9m from the street and the proposed porches are compliant with the standard.

Building Height The standard (B7) and the mandatory maximum height controls at 32.09-9 specify a maximum height of 9.0m. The proposal has a maximum height of 7.8m.

The proposed building height is lower than the roof forms at 53 and 57 Emo Road and therefore is consistent with the standard.

Site Coverage Standard B8 prescribes a maximum site coverage of 60% and the proposed development has a site coverage of 52.47% therefore meets the standard.

Permeability Standard B9 prescribes a minimum permeability of 20% and the proposed development has a permeability across the site of 37.85%. The proposal is considered to meet the standard.

LandscapeThe proposed landscape plan generally respects the existing and preferred neighbourhood landscape character. The proposed Maidenhair tree in the front setback has been considered inappropriate by Council’s Parks unit and a condition on the permit will require its substitution. The substituted tree must be a canopy tree, allowing the proposal to meet the varied requirements of Standard B13 under schedule 2 of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone which states that a tree must be provided on site.

Front FenceStandard B32 prescribes a maximum fence height of 1.5m.

The proposed fence has a maximum height of 1.7m and is composed of metal pickets and a rendered pier design generally matching the fence at 57, 88 and 86 Emo Road which are adjacent or directly across the road. Given the height of surrounding fences and the high permeability of the proposed fence design, the fence is considered generally acceptable and can be supported with relation to Standard B32.

Amenity Impacts

Side & Rear Setbacks Schedule 2 to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone specifies a side setback requirement of 1m & 2m off the side boundaries for 5m behind the façade for both dwellings. The proposal provides a 3.59m setback off the northern boundary and a 1.15m setback off the southern boundary.

Page 39


All ground floor elements are either built to the boundary or setback 1.0m or more, complying with Standard B17.

The assessment of the first floor follows:On the north elevation, the proposed development has a proposed maximum wall height of 6.48m, prescribing a setback of 1.864m. The proposed setback of 2.0m meets the Standard.

On the west elevation, the proposed development has a proposed maximum wall height of 6.67m, prescribing a setback of 1.921m. The proposed setback of 12.655m meets the Standard. A condition on the permit will increase this to 17m, allowing the proposal to further exceed the requirements of the Standard.

On the south elevation, the proposed development has a proposed maximum wall height of 6.67m, prescribing a setback of 1.921m. The proposed setback of 2.0m is considered to meet the standard.

Standard B17 is considered to be met.

Walls on Boundary Schedule 2 to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone specifies that walls cannot be located on side boundaries for 5m behind the façade. The proposed northern wall is setback 5.0m behind the front wall of the dwelling, complying with the varied standard. Proposed plans cut into natural ground level and result in the north elevation boundary wall having a maximum height of 2.65m and an average height of 2.5m. The proposed wall has a length on the boundary of 6.3m. The proposed boundary wall meets the standard.

Daylight to existing Windows Each neighbouring window is provided a sufficient light court in accordance with standard B19.

The north elevation is opposite a number habitable windows. The elevation has a first floor wall height of 5.73m, prescribing a 2.865m setback from the window. The proposed setback from the window of 3.29m is considered compliant.

The standard also requires that neighbouring windows are provided 3sqm of area open to the sky with a minimum dimension of 1m. Due to the eaves of the neighbouring building opposite the proposed garage, the open area clear to the sky has a minimum dimension of 0.91m which does not comply with standard B19. An objector has provided material suggesting that the setback of the eave from the boundary fence is 0.63m. Nonetheless, a condition will be included on the permit requiring that the proposed building is setback 1.0m from the edge of the eave to allow full compliance with standard B19.

North-Facing WindowsThe north-facing windows standard (B20) states that it applies to any north-facing window within 3.0m of the boundary. There are a number of ground and first floor north-facing windows at 53 Emo Road.

There are two sections with varying heights and setbacks from north facing windows. The central section is located opposite bedrooms 3 & 4, has a height of 6.2m and is setback 2.6m, the standard prescribes a setback of 2.56m and the proposal is considered to meet the standard. The eastern section located opposite the first floor sitting room has a wall height of 6.0m and a minimum setback of 2.45m is proposed. This complies with the standard which requires a setback of 2.44m. The proposal is considered to comply with Standard B20.

Page 40


OvershadowingThe 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 states: To ensure buildings do not significantly overshadow existing secluded private open space.

The dwelling at 53 Emo Road is benefitted by a large secluded private open space including a tennis court approximately 485sqm in area. More than 40sqm of this area receives direct sunlight for 5 hours out of the equinox.

No other properties will be affected by overshadowing at the equinox.

OverlookingAll habitable first floor north and south facing windows are screened to 1.7m and therefore comply with the standard.

The west facing window of the southern dwelling (dwelling 1) includes side wings that block views to the north and south. No overlooking diagram was included in the information submitted to Council. Given that the rear setback is to be increased to 17m and this will invariably involve new window locations, this assessment can be properly undertaken once the plans have been revised. A condition has been included to require screening to this window in accordance with the requirements of Standard B22 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

The proposed ground floor windows are located opposite 1.8m high paling fences and therefore meet the standard.

Subject to a condition, Standard B22 is considered to be met.

On-site Amenity

Dwelling Entry The proposed dwelling entries are benefitted by small porches that provide shelter and a sense of personal address. The proposal is considered to comply with the standard.

Daylight to New WindowsEach new window is provided an adequate light source of at least 3sqm (with a minimum dimension of 1m) as specified by standard B27

Private Open Space Each of the two dwellings is benefitted by more than 40sqm of private open space, including 25sqm meeting the requirements for secluded private open space. The proposal is considered to meet standard B28. The spaces are also east-west oriented, allowing compliance with the solar access to open space standard (B29).

Page 41


StorageEach of the two dwellings includes a 6 cubic metre shed in their respective backyards. This is considered to meet Standard B31

Car Parking and Traffic

Car Parking Fundamentally, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of the provision of parking spaces on site, and the overall access layout. Importantly, each driveway is to have a minimum width of 3.0m in compliance with the accessway standard.

At Clause 52.06-9, Design Standard 1requires a corner splay (2m wide by 2.5m deep) to be 50% clear of obstructions above 900mm in height. The proposed pier and picket design is not considered to meet this requirement. A condition will be placed on the permit requiring a revised fence design meeting the access way car parking design standard. A number of other requirements relevant to the car parking design standards (including design standards 1 and 3) are not specified and these will be required by conditions on the permit.

In response to objections relating to the lack of car parking, it is noted that Clause 52.06 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme requires a dwelling with 3 or more bedrooms to provide two car spaces (one of which must be covered). This is achieved.

Vehicle CrossoversStandard B14 under the access objective prescribes that as the street frontage is less than 20m, the width of all accessways combined should not exceed 40% of the total frontage. The two crossovers amount to 35.29% of the street frontage which accords with the standard.

Environmentally Sustainable DesignClause 22.05 requires that a development of 2-9 dwellings include a Sustainable Design Assessment demonstrating best practice. The proposal includes a BESS report achieving a 50% score. Despite achieving the requisite score, there are a number of issues relating to the waste, transport and Stormwater categories that have already been highlighted to the applicant. The SDA report was not updated as part of the revision made in September 2017 and a condition will be placed on the permit ensuring a revised report to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

ObjectionsIn relation to specific issues raised in objections that have not been previously raised, the following comments are made:

Retaining WallsThe proposed plans do not readily distinguish between the proposed garage wall and the proposed retaining wall both on the northern boundary. A condition is recommended to clarify these two walls on revised plans.

Overlooking from non-habitable bathroomStandard B22 does not apply to windows to non-habitable rooms such as bathrooms. Despite this, the applicant has agreed to a condition requiring all north facing windows to be non-openable below 1.7m

Overlooking from alfresco deckStandard B22 does not apply to ground floor decks and terraces where there is a visual barrier of at least 1.8 metres (such as a fence) and the deck/patio is less than 0.8m above ground level at the boundary.

Page 42


As this requirement is met, the standard is not considered to apply. Regardless, the applicant has agreed to a condition to extend the proposed freestanding screens a minimum of 2m beyond the rear of the deck.

Garage Wall on BoundaryAn objection suggests that the boundary wall of the northern garage should be reduced by 200-300mm. The proposed northern boundary wall has a maximum height of 2.65m relative to the neighbour, complies with the walls on boundary standard and does not require a setback under the daylight to existing windows standard. While a reduction in the height of this garage may marginally improve daylight to the south-facing window, it is considered unreasonable having regard to the fact that the proposal meets the relevant standards. Given the dimensions of the wall height are not clear on the plans, a condition will also be included on the plans to ensure they are clearly expressed.

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

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

The proposed design adequately responds to the neighbourhood character context of the proposal

The proposed design response is compliant with Clause 54 conditional to a number of minor changes

The proposal is generally consistent with the Stonnington Planning Scheme

ATTACHMENTS

1. Planning Application 0002/17 - 55 Emo Road Malvern East - Attachments Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That Council advise VCAT and other interested parties that if the applicant had not lodged an appeal pursuant to Section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Council would issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 002/17 for the land located at 55 Emo Road Malvern East be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for construction of two dwellings on a lot in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development, 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 advertised in September 2017 but modified to show:

a. The first floor of dwelling 1 to be setback a minimum of 16.8m from the rear title boundary and the first floor of dwelling 2 to be setback a minimum of 17.5m from the rear title boundary. All other setbacks

Page 43


must be maintained.b. All rear (west) facing first floor windows to comply with the

requirements of Standard B22 of Clause 55.04c. All north facing windows to be non-openable below 1.7m above the

finish floor leveld. The freestanding overlooking screens associated with the rear

alfresco areas to extend a minimum of 2m beyond the rear (western) edge of the alfresco areas

e. The proposed northern boundary retaining wall and garage wall differentiated on floor plans and elevations

f. The width of all vehicle accessways noted on floor plans as a minimum of 3m in accordance with Design Standard 1 (Accessways) at Clause 52.06-8 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme

g. The headroom of the garages (including headroom under the garage door) in compliance with Design Standard 1 (Accessways) at Clause 52.06-9 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme

h. Corner splays (or alternate measures such as convex mirrors) to the vehicle accessways along Emo Road in compliance with Design Standard 1 (Accessways) at Clause 52.06-8 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme shown on the plans.

i. The gradient of all vehicle accessways notated and in compliance with Design Standard 3 (Gradients) at Clause 52.06-8 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme

j. Changes as required by condition 3 of this permitk. Changes as required by condition 4 of this permitl. Changes as required by condition 5 of this permitm. A drainage concept design in accordance with Condition 8 of this

permitn. Changes as required by condition 10 of this permito. Updated annotations clearly showing the height of the garage on the

northern wall with a maximum height above natural ground level of 2.65m and a maximum average height above natural ground level of 2.5m

p. A minimum setback of 1 metre (horizontal distance) between the eave gutter of the existing dwelling at No. 57 Emo Road and the proposed garage wall on the northern boundary

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. Before the development starts, 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. The landscape plan must be in accordance with the landscape concept plan prepared by Zenith Concepts and received by Council on 2 June 2017, but modified to show:

Page 44


a. The retention of the existing Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda)b. The proposed Ginko Biloba (Maidenhair Tree) replaced with one of the

following:i. Zelkova serrata (Musashino), orii. Acer rubrum (Bowhall), oriii. Another species to the satisfaction of the responsible

authority.

4. 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 the Jacaranda mimosifolia (Jacaranda).

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.

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 in accordance with the SDA report prepared by Green Rate and received by Council 2 June 2017 but modified to show:

a. The BESS report claiming at least one point under the transport category or the report modified to address the objectives of Clause 22.05 that relate to transport to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority

b. The BESS report claiming at least one point under the waste category or the report modified to address the objectives of Clause 22.05 that relate to waste to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority

c. Water Credit 2.1 of the BESS report modified to specify connection to all toilets

Page 45


All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed SDA Report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the SDA Report may occur without written consent of the Responsible Authority.

6. Before the development (including excavation and demolition) starts, a tree protection fence must be erected around the Koelreuteria paniculata (Golden Rain Tree) street tree. Fencing is to be compliant with Section 4 of AS 4970.

7. Before the commencement of the development, an asset protection bond of a minimum of $500 for the protection of the Koelreuteria paniculata (Golden Rain Tree) 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.

8. The owner must at their cost construct an outfall drain in Emo Road to connect with the closest Council drain located approximately 20m to the South of the property. A detailed drainage design must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer and approved by Council’s Infrastructure Unit. The drain must be constructed under the supervision and to the satisfaction of Council’s Infrastructure unit.

9. 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.

10. Prior to the occupation of the development, 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 3,000 litres greater than those tanks required to satisfy WSUD/SDA requirements for the development. Those tanks must be connected to all toilets and shown on endorsed plans.

11. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, the permit holder must obtain approval from Council’s Building and Local Laws Department to construct or modify any vehicle crossovers providing access to the subject site. The issue of a planning permit does not provide approval for vehicular crossovers which are outside of the title boundary.

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, the walls on the boundary of the adjoining properties must be cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Page 46


14. 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.

15. 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

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

3. AMENDMENT C234 - ST GEORGES ROAD NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTER OVERLAY - CONSIDERATION OF PANEL RECOMMENDATIONS

Page 47


Acting GM Planning & Amenity: Susan Price

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for Council to:

Consider the recommendations of the Planning Panel on Amendment C234.

Decide whether to adopt the Amendment with or without changes or abandon the Amendment.

BACKGROUND

Amendment C234 relates to an earlier proposed Amendment C189 Toorak House Precinct. Amendment C189 sought to apply the Heritage Overlay to 19 properties in St Georges Road as a heritage precinct and was based on the recommendations of a heritage assessment prepared by Nigel Lewis Pty Ltd.

Following the commencement of Amendment C189, Council progressed its heritage Interwar Houses Study. This Study identified four properties of potential heritage significance which were also proposed for inclusion in the Toorak House Precinct Heritage Overlay (HO) via Amendment C189.

At its meeting on 27 October 2014, Council resolved to put Amendment C189 on hold pending consideration of a further report on the final recommendations of the Interwar Houses Study (Amendment C222).

The heritage assessment prepared by Nigel Lewis had originally identified eight of the 19 houses within the proposed precinct did not contribute to the significance of the precinct and were ungraded. Following this, a further house was demolished which increased the number of ungraded places to nine and as a result, the potential heritage precinct began to lack cohesion and consistency from a heritage perspective.

As the Interwar Houses Study progressed a detailed comparative analysis between the two studies was undertaken. Council resolved on 14 December 2015 to further defer consideration of Amendment C189 to investigate whether the neighbourhood character of St Georges Road was of special significance.

In January 2016, Council prepared Amendment C222 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme to implement the findings of the Interwar Houses Study, which recommended applying the HO to 41 significant places in Toorak, Malvern and Armadale (including six (6) properties in St Georges Road). Amendment C222 was considered by a Panel in June 2016, and was approved by the Minister for Planning in June 2017.

In April 2016 the City of Stonnington St Georges Road, Toorak, Review of Potential Special Character Area was prepared by Planisphere (now EthosUrban). The Review recommended that a Neighbourhood Character Overlay (NCO), Design and Development Overlay (DDO) and a new schedule to the General Residential Zone (GRZ) be applied to the area.

Three planning tools (NCO, DDO and GRZ schedule) were recommended to be applied to the area as the NCO was not fit for purpose to manage all of the different character elements considered to be special by the Review.

At its meeting on 23 May 2016 Council resolved to seek authorisation to prepare Amendment C234 and abandon Amendment C189. On 16 June 2016, the Notice of Lapsing of Amendment C189 was published in the Victoria Government Gazette. In January 2017, Amendment C234 was initiated to implement the findings of this Review, and apply the NCO and DDO to the identified area as well as a new schedule to the GRZ.

Page 48


Exhibition

Amendment C234 was placed on public exhibition from 2 March to 3 April 2017.

Notification and exhibition of the Amendment was undertaken in accordance with section 19 of the Planning and Environmental Act 1987 including:

Letters & Fact Sheet were sent to the owners and occupiers of all affected properties on 27 February 2017.

Letters sent to the prescribed authorities on 27 February 2017, including Heritage Victoria.

Notices placed in the Stonnington Leader on 28 February 2017 and the Government Gazette on 2 March 2017.

All amendment documentation was available on the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) and Council’s website. Affected parties were also offered meetings with Council Officers if they wished to obtain more information on the Amendment. One of the affected property owners requested a meeting.

Consideration of Submissions

During the exhibition period, two (2) submissions were received, both objecting to the Amendment. Key issues raised in submissions were: The area does not exhibit character warranting further protection through the proposed

controls. The proposed subdivision controls are excessive in the context of an inner urban area The existing planning controls are adequate in requiring development outcomes that

respond to existing neighbourhood character. Amendment C234 will present a significant, undue constraint on the appropriate

development potential of the land for the purpose for which it is zoned.

At its meeting on 26 June 2017, Council resolved to request the Minister for Planning to appoint a panel to hear and consider submissions.

Amendment VC110During the exhibition of Amendment C234, a notice of approval for Amendment VC110 was published in the Victorian Government Gazette (27 March 2017). This Amendment was prepared by the Minister for Planning and introduced revised Residential Zones into the Victorian Planning Provisions. This included a mandatory garden area requirement and the ability to include neighbourhood character objectives within schedules to the General Residential Zone.

At the time, advice from the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) was sought regarding the changes and their impact on Amendment C234. DELWP advised that the merit of the Amendment should be the focus in considering its progression and any translation if needed should be more of a procedural issue.

Panel HearingThe Panel Hearing to consider submissions to Amendment C234 was held on 31 August 2017 at the Malvern Town Hall. The Panel member was Annabel Paul and one submitter

Page 49


appeared at the Hearing. The Panel Report (refer Attachment 1) was received by Council on 6 October 2017.

DISCUSSION

Panel ReportThe C234 Panel Report addresses the issues raised in submissions and the evidence presented.

The Report recommends that:

Amendment C234 be abandoned, and

Council consider working with the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning to investigate using the strategic work undertaken to develop neighbourhood character objectives and/or further variations to ResCode, for inclusion in Schedule 8 to the General Residential Zone.

To reach the above recommendations the Panel considered the following issues as summarised below.

Issue 1 – The Amendment’s response to the Strategic Assessment GuidelinesThe Panel agreed with Council that both State and local planning policies seek to balance the need to ensure choice and growth in housing, while also protecting neighbourhood character and a sense of place, including valued areas.

Issue 2 – Whether the St Georges Road area is of a special character that warrants its inclusion in the Neighbourhood Character OverlayThe Panel accepted that St Georges Road has an identifiable character, however it did not consider that the area is special when compared to the wider character area it sits within, that is, the ‘Garden Estate Precinct’ which is described in Stonnington’s Neighbourhood Character Local Planning Policy. The Panel considered that the existing planning framework including Neighbourhood Character Local Policy and Schedule 8 to the General Residential Zone provides the appropriate recognition of existing character. Therefore, the Panel recommended that the Neighbourhood Character Overlay (NCO) was not warranted.

Further considerations

In response to submissions, the Panel also considered whether the NCO would duplicate the Heritage Overlay (HO) where it applies. This is often an area of debate given that heritage values can contribute to the neighbourhood character of an area. In this case, the Panel concluded that should the application of a NCO be supported, it would have been appropriate to apply both the NCO in addition to the HO as the HO applies to individual buildings rather than a precinct in this instance.

The Panel responded to Council’s concern that the majority of lots within the St Georges Road area are greater than 500 square metres and therefore single dwelling developments are largely exempt from the planning process. The Panel outlined that variations to ResCode can be used to control single dwelling developments through the building permit system and there was no justification for including a control within the Planning Scheme.

The State Government Reformed Residential Zones Amendment VC110 is also discussed in the Panel’s Report. The Panel highlighted the mandatory garden area requirement and the ability to include neighbourhood character provisions within the residential zone schedules.

Given that the Panel does not consider St Georges Road to have a special character, the Panel encouraged Council to work with DELWP to make use of these existing provisions. This is discussed further in the ‘next steps’ section.

Issue 3 – Whether the proposed subdivision and front fence controls are justified

Page 50


Amendment C234 proposed to introduce a discretionary minimum subdivision area of 500 square metres and front fence controls, in line with the recommendation of the Planisphere Review.

The Panel considered that the existing General Residential Zone already provides the appropriate control regarding subdivision and did not believe an additional permit requirement was necessary to achieve the desired outcome. Regarding front fences, the Panel highlighted that the design of fences in the area were not particularly special when compared to the surrounding area.

With respect to both elements, the Panel concluded that the proposed controls are not justified.

Amendment VC110Following receipt of the Panel’s Report, an update was requested from DELWP regarding the progress of the planned programme regarding the residential zone reforms. Workshops have recently been held with stakeholders to identify any issues with the reformed provisions and this may result in changes to the Victorian Planning Provisions, although the timing is uncertain.

Next StepsIn accordance with Section 27 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, the Planning Authority must consider the Panel’s Report before deciding whether or not to adopt the Amendment. Should Council accept the Panel’s recommendations and abandon the Amendment, the Planning Authority must tell the Minister in writing. A decision must be made by 27 November 2017, unless an exemption is sought to Ministerial Direction 15 timeframes.

It is considered that the Panel has provided a balanced discussion of the issues raised and in particular reflected on the changing policy context since the commencement of Amendment C234. The Panel has concluded that in this case the NCO and DDO controls are unnecessary to achieve the desired outcome. They are of the view that the existing Neighbourhood Character Local Policy and reformed General Residential Zone and Schedule Templates provide opportunity to manage the impact of new development in the area.

It is unclear in the Panel’s Report what is intended by the further recommendation to:

‘…..work with DELWP to investigate using the strategic work undertaken to develop neighbourhood character objectives and/or further variations to ResCode, for inclusion in Schedule 8 to the General Residential Zone.’

The strategic work undertaken for Amendment C234 was the Planisphere Review which focused on St Georges Road, Toorak. This Review resulted in Amendment C234 which proposed a new Schedule to the GRZ, applying just to the St Georges Road area. Schedule 8 to the General Residential Zone is an existing schedule that applies to the wider Garden Estate precinct roughly between Orrong and Glenferrie Roads.

Acting upon the Panel’s further recommendation means that the Minister for Planning will need to consider whether the adoption of any changes are still within the scope of Amendment C234. This consideration will be given in the context of the first recommendation to abandon the full Amendment.

There are three options to consider:

1. Include the Review’s identified neighbourhood character objectives and/or variations to ResCode within the existing GRZ8 schedule which applies to the wider area in accordance with the Panel’s recommendation.

Page 51


Given owners and occupiers in the wider GRZ8 area were not notified of this change during exhibition, it is not considered that this is a policy neutral change and unlikely that DELWP would consider it to be within the scope of Amendment C234.

2. Include the Review’s identified neighbourhood character objectives and/or variations to ResCode within the proposed GRZ16 schedule which would apply to the St Georges Road area.

It is considered that there is limited justification to include variations to ResCode at this point in time, given the Panel’s conclusions that the NCO and DDO provisions are not warranted. The inclusion of just objectives within the GRZ schedule would be more closely aligned with the recommendations of the Panel. This option is also more likely to be considered as within the scope of the Amendment, given the objectives were part of the exhibited Amendment C234 and those affected were notified during exhibition.

However, this option is not considered workable given the absence of ResCode variations and decision guidelines to implement the objectives. There is also the question of whether the Planisphere Review could meaningfully be included within the Planning Scheme as a Reference Document (as intended with Amendment C234). In addition, the State Government’s programme of residential zone reforms continues and there are likely to be further changes to the Victorian Planning Provisions as flagged by the recently released Discussion Paper ‘Reforming the Victoria Planning Provisions’. Council intends to review its current schedules (and is required to do so within a three year timeframe from March 2017). It is considered that a better outcome could be reached by re-considering whether any limited changes should be included for the St Georges Road area at this point.

3. Abandon Amendment C234 in line with the Panel’s first recommendation.

This is the recommended option, given that the Panel did not consider the area to be of special character when compared to the surrounding area, the changing planning context (in particular the residential zones) and given the limited benefit of pursuing options 1 or 2. It is considered there is minimal scope to challenge the Panel’s conclusions.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Amendment C234 was prepared on the recommendation of an independent review of neighbourhood character within St Georges Road and in line with the following Council Plan (2017-2021) strategy:

Ensure that development enhances and contributes to the preferred neighbourhood character of an area.

It was also considered consistent with Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement of the Stonnington Planning Scheme which seeks:

To protect and enhance the varied, distinctive and valued character elements of residential neighbourhoods across the City of Stonnington; and

To repair and reinforce the high quality landscape character of the city.

Plan Melbourne states that the residential zones have been amended to better reflect the balance between protection of neighbourhood character and well-designed developments, and include consistent and strengthened mandatory height controls and building coverage requirements.

The intent of these changes was to provide greater certainty to the community about the level of development that can occur so that it does not detract from the character of the suburbs.

Page 52


An independent Planning Panel was appointed by the Minister for Planning under Part 8 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to consider the submissions made on Amendment C234. The Panel report records the outcome of the public consultation process involving exhibition, submissions and Hearing, provides an independent assessment of the issues arising from that process, and provides recommendations.

The Panel’s report concluded that the planning provisions proposed through Amendment C234 Neighbourhood Character Overlay, Design and Development Overlay and new Schedule to the GRZ were not warranted and that existing provisions in the Stonnington Planning Scheme are sufficient (as changed with the reforms to the residential zones) to achieve the desired outcome. The Panel’s report is not binding on the Council, or the Minister. If the Council does not adopt a Panel recommendation, it must give reasons as to why it is of a contrary view.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

The financial costs of planning scheme amendments has been included in the budget of Council’s Strategic Planning Unit for 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18.

LEGAL ADVICE & IMPLICATIONS

All affected parties have been given the opportunity to make submissions on the Amendment and to be heard by an independent Panel.

CONCLUSION

The Panel has considered the key issues raised in submissions and the Amendment and does not consider that the St Georges Road area exhibits a neighbourhood character that is ‘exemplary, rare or atypical’ as compared to other parts of the municipality, that in turn would justify the application of the NCO.

In particular, the Panel considers that the study area does not display uniqueness as compared to the surrounding ‘Garden Estate Precinct’ as identified in Schedule 8 of the General Residential Zone and in the Neighbourhood Character Policy at Clause 22.23 of the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

The Panel also considers that there is no strategic justification for the proposed minimum subdivision area or fencing controls in the proposed DDO. The policy context has changed since the preparation of Amendment C234 and the intent of those changes was to better reflect the balance between protection of neighbourhood character and well-designed developments.

As such, the Panel recommends that the Amendment be abandoned and further to this that Council considers working with DELWP to utilise the Planisphere Review to amend the existing GRZ8 Schedule. Given the wider area that this Schedule applies, this is not considered a policy neutral change.

Overall it is considered that the Panel has provided a balanced assessment of submissions and strategic justification for the Amendment and there is minimal scope to challenge this assessment.


This recommendation complies with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - C234 Panel Report Excluded

Page 53


RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Notes the release of the Panel report for Amendment C234.2. Abandons Amendment C234 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme pursuant to

Section 23 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.3. Writes to the Minister for Planning pursuant to Section 28 of the Planning and

Environment Act 1987 advising of its decision to abandon Amendment C234 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

4. Advises the submitters to Amendment C234 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme of its decision.

Page 54


4. AMENDMENT C264 - 6 MONARO ROAD, KOOYONG - PERMANENT HERITAGE CONTROLS - CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS

Manager City Strategy: Susan Price

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for Council to:

Consider the submissions received on Amendment C264;

Consider a response to the submissions received; and

Consider whether to request the Minister for Planning to appoint an independent Panel to consider submissions to Amendment C264 which cannot be resolved.

BACKGROUND

Heritage StrategyIn December 2006, Council undertook a Heritage Strategy Review and adopted a Heritage Strategy Action Plan (Action Plan). The Action Plan provides a framework for reviewing existing houses and heritage citations and assessing new houses. Over 2000 places have been included in the heritage overlay since 2007.

The current stage of the Action Plan is the assessment of buildings not currently included within the Heritage Overlay (HO) with potential individual heritage significance. The aim is to seek heritage controls for all A1 graded buildings and A2 graded buildings (meeting or exceeding the threshold of local significance).

Federation Houses Study 2017Council has undertaken an investigation for the Federation houses thematic group and completed the Federation Houses Heritage Study (September 2017). This recommended forty (40) Federation places and two precincts to be included within the Heritage Overlay.

Four of the forty (40) individual places have been the subject of an application for demolition (under Section 29A of the Building Act 1993), which includes 6 Monaro Road Kooyong. Separate amendments have been progressed for these four properties as Council is required to act within 15 business days in order to suspend consideration of the demolition request. Amendment C270 is currently being progressed which intends to apply the Heritage Overlay to the remaining thirty-six (36) individual places and two precincts.

Amendment C264 – ExhibitionFormal exhibition of Amendment C264 took place from 31 August to 2 October 2017.

Notification and exhibition of Amendment C264 was carried out via the following measures:

A letter including site specific heritage citation and Frequently Asked Questions sheet were sent to the owner of 6 Monaro Road.

Letters including a Frequently Asked Questions sheet were sent to all adjoining property owners.

Letter were sent to prescribed authorities and stakeholders.

Notice was placed in the Government Gazette on 31 August 2017.

Full amendment documentation on the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) and City of Stonnington websites.

Page 55


Council offered an on-on-one meeting with Council Officers and its heritage consultant if the owner wished to obtain more information on the Amendment. The owner did not take up this offer, however Council Officers have been in contact with the owner throughout the process.

DISCUSSION

As a result of exhibition, Council received one submission from the owner objecting to Amendment C264. The owner had engaged two architectural experts who have provided two separate reports objecting to the amendment, these have been listed as submissions 1a and 1b.

Submission 1 A was prepared by Professor Phillip Goad, an architectural historian.

Submission 1B has been prepared jointly by Trethowan Architecture and the owners.

Both Phillip Goad and Trethowan have provided an analysis of the place at 6 Monaro Road, Kooyong as an individual building and have provided a recommendation based on their inspection. Their assessments have focused on this specific house rather than a broader comparative analysis as done within the Federation Houses Study. This was noted in submission 1B:

“While I have not undertaken an extensive survey of Federation houses in the City of Stonnington I have included another example of Federation Dwelling (the example is one of a group of over 20 Federation dwelling located within its immediate proximity) to indicate the extensive nature of the collection of Federation houses located within the City.”

The objecting submission presents a variety of issues including; concerns about the heritage significance, the grading of the property, the lack of architect or builder and errors in the citation.

The key issues raised in the submissions and the proposed Council response to these issues, are outlined below. A more detailed response is included in Attachment 1.

Key Issues Raised in the SubmissionsHeritage Significance/ Heritage Grading/ Comparative Analysis

Issue Summary:

The submission argued that 6 Monaro Road, Kooyong did not meet the threshold for heritage significance due to the alterations and additions to the house. It noted that these changes have impacted the integrity of the house, therefore does not meet the threshold for individual heritage significance as an A2 graded building.

The submission argued that the comparative analysis used to justify the introduction of the Heritage Overlay was “poor” and the houses identified in the citation are larger and are associated with an architect/builder.

Officer Response:

With regards to heritage significance of the house, Council’s heritage consultant noted:

“The ‘Integrity’ section within the citation notes that the house has undergone some alterations and additions. However, it is considered that these changes do not diminish the ability to understand and appreciate the place as a fine example of a Federation house” (Point 3, Attachment 1)

A more detailed response to specific alteration and additions affecting the heritage significance is provided in Attachment 1.

With regards to the heritage grading of 6 Monaro Road, Council’s Heritage Consultant noted:

Page 56


“The subject place has been assessed as meeting the threshold for local significance as detailed in the citation and in accordance with the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning’s Planning Practice Note 1: Applying the Heritage Overlay (2105). As a fine and representative example of a Federation house, the subject place plays an important role in demonstrating architectural development within the City of Stonnington” (Point 25, Attachment 1)

With regards to the comparative analysis used in the citation, Council’s heritage consultant noted that:

“The place was compared with all the Federation Queen Anne style houses already included in the City of Stonnington HO on an individual basis. The most direct comparison can be made with places recently added to the HO as part of Amendment C225, particularly the houses at 177 (overpainted) and 179 Kooyong Road, Toorak. In both cases an architect was not conclusively identified, but the quality of the design suggested architect involvement” (Point 10, Attachment 1)

No change to the Amendment or citation is recommended.

Citation

Issue Summary:

Submission 1b commented that they could not find any evidence that the property’s name was ‘Glen Loeman’.

Submission 1b raised a few points regarding the description of 6 Monaro Road, Kooyong in the citation. The large majority were acknowledging non-significant elements to the house.

Officer Response:

Regarding the name of the house, Council’s heritage consultant noted that:

“Historical research located a primary source that reported that the house was called ‘Glen Loeman’ by owner William Crosbie. These articles, referenced in the history, date to 1912 and 1947 (see page 4 of the citation). Often there is no physical evidence on the property (in the form of plaques or inscriptions) that identify earlier names of a house. These details are normally identified in written historical sources instead” (Point 9, Attachment 1)

There are several disagreements regarding the description of 6 Monaro Road, Kooyong in the citation. While most points have already been identified in the citation as non-significant, minor updates can be made to ensure the citation is clear in its wording (points 14, 16 and 19 in Attachment 1).

No change to the Amendment and minor changes to citation recommended (refer to Attachment 1).

Lack of Builder or Architect

Issue Summary:

The house at 6 Monaro Road, Kooyong is not associated with any architect or builder. The submission raised concerns about the significance, if there was no builder or architect is associated with the property.

Officer Response:

Page 57


Regarding the lack of architect or builder associated with the house and how it impacts the heritage significance, Council’s Heritage Consultant noted that:

“Many places included in the HO have not been attributed to a specific architect but are of sufficient architectural quality to be recognised as warranting inclusion in the Heritage Overlay. No architect has been identified for the place; however this does not mean that an architect was not involved in the design” (Point 7, Attachment 1)

No change to the Amendment or citation is recommended.

Next StepsAlthough some minor updates to the citation are proposed to address the submission, there are several outstanding issues raised. If Council is not prepared to vary the Amendment to address these issues and it intends to continue with the amendment process it must refer the unresolved submission to an independent Planning Panel for review.

Pre-set panel dates for a directions hearing and panel hearing were arranged prior to exhibition. The following dates have been set pending Council’s resolution:

Directions Hearing: week commencing 29 January 2018

Panel Hearing: week commencing 5 March 2018

On receipt of the Panel report for Amendment C264, a report will be prepared for Council to consider the Panel’s recommendations for final consideration of the Amendment prior to lodgement with the Minister for Planning for approval

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The proposed amendment is consistent with policy direction in Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement:

Protect and enhance all places which are significant and contributory to the heritage values of the City of Stonnington (Clause 21.06-10 – Objective 1).

Protect and reinforce Stonnington’s distinctive built form character, in particular identified places and precincts of heritage significance (Clause 21.06-1 – Objective 1.1).

The proposed amendment is consistent with the following liveability strategy in the Council Plan (2017-2021):

Preserve Stonnington’s heritage architecture and balance its existing character with complementary and sustainable development.

The proposed amendment is also consistent with Council’s Local Heritage Policy at Clause 22.04. This seeks to:

“Recognise, conserve and enhance places in the City identified as having architectural, cultural or historic significance.”

The Amendment is consistent with Council’s Heritage Strategy (2006) and Heritage Strategy Action Plan which is currently focusing on the assessment of individual houses not included within the HO.


Heritage investigations represent a significant commitment of resources by the City Strategy Unit. The financial cost and resourcing of heritage investigation and planning scheme amendments has been included in the budget of Council’s City Strategy Unit for 2017/2018.

The indicative timeframe for Amendment C264 is shown in the table below:

Page 58


July 2017 September 2017 March 2018 May 2018 June 2018

Authorisation Exhibition Panel Adoption Approval


The submitter to Amendment C264 will have the opportunity to be heard by an independent Planning Panel to be appointed by the Minister for Planning.

CONCLUSION

Exhibition of Amendment C264 is complete and Council received one submission (in three parts). On considering the issues raised in the submission, some minor changes to the heritage citation are recommended. However these changes do not address all of the issues raised in the submission.

If Council is not prepared to abandon the Amendment to address all of the issues raised in the submission and intends to continue with the Amendment it must refer the submission to a Planning Panel for consideration.

It is proposed that Council’s position will be based on the response to the submission outlined in this report and Attachment 1.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Response to Submission Table - Am C264 Excluded

2. Attachment 2 - Communication Timeline - C264 Excluded

3. Attachment 3 - Citation - C264 Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Requests the Minister for Planning appoint a Panel pursuant to Section 23 of the

Planning and Environment Act 1987 to hear submissions and consider proposed Amendment C264 to the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

2. In its submission to the Panel Hearing, adopt a position in support of Amendment C264, generally in accordance with the Officer’s response to the submissions as contained in this report and Attachment 1.

3. Refer the submission and any late submissions received prior to the Directions Hearing affecting Amendment C264 to the Panel appointed to consider the Amendment.

4. Advise the submitter to proposed Amendment C264 of Council’s decision.

Page 59


5. REFORMING THE VICTORIA PLANNING PROVISIONS

Acting GM Planning & Amenity: Susan Price

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to:

Brief Council on the State Government’s consultation document “Reforming the Victoria Planning Provisions”; and

to endorse Council’s submission for lodgement with State Government prior to the deadline of 24 November 2017.

BACKGROUND

Smart PlanningThe Victorian State Government commenced a two-year reform program, ‘Smart Planning’, on 1 July 2016 with the purpose of making Victoria’s planning system more efficient, accessible, open and collaborative through simpler rules and policy and modern digital planning resources. This includes reviewing the Victoria Planning Provisions (VPP), which contribute to long and complex planning schemes as a consequence of cumulative amendments to the VPP and local planning schemes over the past 20 years.

The Minister for Planning amended the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes on 24 May 2017 under Section 7(5) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. The proposed VPP reforms envisage substantial further amendments to this Direction, which would have significant and far greater impact on future amendments to the Stonnington Planning Scheme than was envisaged by the previous review of the State Planning Policy Framework proposed in 2014.

Previous Council Submission on SPPF Review 2014At its meeting in May 2014 Council adopted a submission on the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) Review, which proposed a future integration of the State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks (SPPF and LPPF). The current VPP reforms also propose an integration of the two Policy Frameworks as part of a wider restructure of planning scheme provisions. The Council Report on the SPPF Review outlined the following five key considerations:

Key consideration one: “whether the future integration of the Municipal Strategic Statement and local policies into the new combined Planning Policy Framework structure will enable Stonnington to appropriately express the vision for the municipality.”

Key consideration two: “the effect of the new structure on decision making at the local level. Whether any of Council’s local policy and context will be lost in the future integration of the LPPF into the new combined format.”

Key consideration three: “whether any state policies have been modified and if so what the implications are for decision making and Council’s strategic planning priorities.”

Key consideration four: “the implications of moving from area based policies to theme based policies.”

Key consideration five: “the impact of the new combined format on Council’s resources including current planning scheme amendments and upcoming planning scheme review.”

Page 61


These key considerations are re-considered against the proposed VPP reforms and inform part of Council’s final submission. Another consideration is the potential impact on the current planning scheme review being undertaken, due to be completed by June 2018.

Short timeframe for finalising Council’s submissionThe consultation period of six weeks and deadline of 24 November 2017 for submissions provides Council officers with little time to review and prepare a submission to meet Council reporting deadlines. It is understood this is a concern state-wide. Consequently, the key issues are outlined in the report which would inform a more detailed submission.

DISCUSSION

Discussion Paper – ‘Reforming the Victoria Planning Provisions’ (October 2017)The VPP reforms are informed by a discussion paper, Reforming the Victoria Planning Provisions (October 2017; DELWP), which seeks comment on proposed changes grouped under five proposals:

Proposal 1: A simpler VPP structure with VicSmart assessment built in (page 10).

Proposal 2: An integrated planning policy framework (page 15).

Proposal 3: Assessment pathways for simple proposals (page 23).

Proposal 4: Smarter planning scheme drafting (page 30).

Proposal 5: Improve specific provisions (page 36).

The streamlining of planning schemes under the above proposals and improvement of the Victorian planning system through ‘Smart Planning’ initiatives is generally welcomed and supported. However, there are several concerns about the specifics of the proposed changes, which are further outlined.

Expansion of Principles underlying the VPPFour Principles underpin the current VPP, which intended planning schemes to have a policy focus, facilitate appropriate development, be usable and be more consistent across the state. These have been adapted and expanded to six Principles of a modern planning scheme, with added emphasis on digital technology and imposing a regulatory burden that is proportional to the planning and environmental risks (refer Figure 1, page 7 of the Discussion Paper).

The six Principles guide the changes outlined under the five main Proposals, which would alter the structure of planning scheme Policy, Decision and Operational rules, as shown in Figure 2 on pages 12-13 of the Discussion Paper. The new emphasis on digital technology is intended to improve access and usability of planning schemes, including potential digital access to external documents through insertion of hyperlinks in planning scheme provisions.

Summary of VPP ReformsThe relevant changes to the structure of planning schemes are (refer Attachment 3 for a more detailed summary):

Changes to Policy Rules (New Structure of Planning Policy Framework)

Proposed new policy rules intend to merge the existing State and Local Planning Policy Frameworks (SPPF and LPPF) into one new Planning Policy Framework (PPF) (Proposal 2.1). Planning policy statements would be made more relevant to each municipality by commencing with vision and context statements for the municipality, then three levels of policy (State, Regional and Local) arranged according to state policy themes. Each policy level would be given equal weight; whereas, currently, State policies prevail over Local policies.

Page 62


The MSS would be redistributed into the vision and context statements and the local tier of each relevant policy. The current Local policies would also be directed into the Local policy tier (Proposals 2.2 and 2.3).

A new Business Unit within DELWP would draft all proposed provisions in accordance with stricter policy rules. The main purpose of the new Business Unit is to improve the consistency and quality of local policies across all planning schemes and to help prevent approval of local policies that go beyond the bounds of policy coverage that is envisaged by the VPP (Proposal 4.2).

Changes to Decision Rules (Zones, Overlays and Particular Provisions):

Changes to the decision rules includes integrating the VicSmart provisions with overlays and schedules and the Particular Provisions (Proposal 3.1), with the latter to also be restructured according to function (Proposal 1.1).

New code-based assessment provisions (Proposal 3.2) are intended to provide an additional quick assessment pathway for simple proposals, such as small cafes, home occupation, secondary dwellings and small lots. These provisions would likely cover car parking waiver/reduction, low-impact advertising signs, liquor licenses and minor buildings and works.

Potential changes to specific provisions are outlined in Appendix 2 of the Discussion Paper (Proposal 5.1).

Changes to Operational Rules (General Provisions and Definitions):

All operation and administrative clauses would be merged into current Clause 61 (‘Administration of this scheme’) of the General Provisions (Proposal 1.3). The List of Incorporated documents would also be moved into the General Provisions under a new Clause 68, with documents updated to current versions (Proposal 1.3). Outdoor Advertising Terms would be removed from a dedicated clause and merged with General Terms, whilst Land Use Terms and nested uses would be updated (Proposal 5.2).

Digital Platform for Planning SchemesThe expansion of the Principles that underpin the VPP adds a new emphasis on digital technology, which would drive a shift from a documents-based planning scheme to a database-based scheme (Proposal 4). This change would be facilitated by:

Development of a new VPP user manual that could be electronically integrated with the necessary templates and the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes (Proposal 4.1);

A new Business Unit within DELWP that would draft all planning scheme provisions in strict accordance with business rules to ensure a consistent drafting format (Proposal 4.2); and

Creation of an Online Library that would contain all documents referred to in the scheme and that could be immediately accessed through hyperlinks inserted in planning scheme provisions, which would also allow rapid movement between different sections within a scheme (Proposal 4.3).

A database-based planning scheme would enable search queries for properties to indicate all relevant planning permit triggers for different proposals.

Timeline for VPP Reforms and ImplementationThe Timeline for the VPP reforms is shown below and includes proposed gazettal in mid-2018 without any detail of what would be gazetted.

Page 63


Discussions with DELWP indicate that initial gazettal would include the proposed state policy themes shown in Appendix 1 of the Discussion Paper and the potential changes to specific provisions outlined in Appendix 2. These could be further amended after submissions have been considered, which could also yield preliminary information on timelines for policy translation work. Council is expected to proceed with its current strategic projects as is until further advice is received from DELWP.

Main Issues for Stonnington

Streamlining of planning schemes and reducing their complexity under the proposed VPP reforms is generally supported, subject to areas of concern for Stonnington being adequately addressed.

Support for Proposed Changes

Merging the policy frameworks:

The grouping of all planning scheme policies in one location (Proposal 2.1) is supported because it would make all relevant planning scheme policies easier to locate and more transparent.

The re-structuring and grouping of all policy according to theme and consistency in how each level of policy is applied (Proposal 2.1) is supported to the extent that it would make it easier to compare Stonnington’s local policies with state policies and the local policies of other planning schemes. This would help to more easily identify any policy gaps in the Stonnington Planning Scheme. However, this may also have the potential to fragment current area-based policy, which was a concern under Key consideration four in response to the proposed SPPF Review in 2014.

Any efficiencies gained and/or overall improvement in the quality and consistency of policy drafting for the Stonnington Planning Scheme through adherence to stricter business and policy rules would be supported (Proposal 4.2). However, this should not be achieved by watering down any currently intended local policy outcomes under the proposed new policy structure (Proposals 2.1 – 2.5).

Page 64


Commencement of the policy section in each planning scheme with vision and context statements as relevant to each municipality followed by three tiers of thematically arranged policies (Proposals 2.1 and 2.2) would improve the relevance and overall usability of the Stonnington Planning Scheme. The new structure appears to generally address the previous concerns expressed for presenting Council’s vision under Key consideration one in response to the proposed SPPF Review in 2014.

The removal of regional and local objectives that repeat state objectives (Proposal 2.4) is generally supported to reduce repetition. The current Planning Scheme Review being undertaken may need to examine if this will affect existing and any proposed local objectives in the Stonnington Planning Scheme.

Integrating VicSmart Provisions:

The integration of the VicSmart provisions with Overlay schedules and Particular Provisions (Proposals 1.2 and 3.1) will make the VicSmart provisions more visible and help to more easily identify quicker assessment pathways for planning applications triggered by Overlay schedules and Particular Provisions..

New digital format:

The move to a digital platform (Proposal 4) for the Stonnington Planning Scheme is supported, especially if this would improve the ability to navigate between different sections of the scheme and to quickly access any document or legislation that are referred to in planning scheme provisions. This would benefit regular and professional users of the Stonnington Planning Scheme and occasional users who have limited or no understanding of how planning schemes govern land use and development, especially if property queries can readily identify all relevant permit triggers, application requirements and decision guidelines.

More detail required:

Potential expansion of exemptions to permit requirements (Proposal 3.1) is generally supported, especially if this would result in a reduction in the number of planning applications. However, this should not be achieved at the expense of Council’s ability to protect the general amenity of the Stonnington Community, e.g. liquor licensing (Proposal 3.2), which Council can appropriately consider by deciding such planning applications on their individual merits.

The updating of definitions (Proposal 5.2) and regular review and monitoring of the VPP (Proposal 5.3) is generally supported in principle.

Areas of Concern

Expansion of State Policy themes and implications for current Local Policy:

Current local policies and potential future policies that are flagged in the MSS (and current MSS Review) need to be compared against the proposed themes shown in Appendix 1 of the Discussion Paper to inform submission comments on additional State themes that could be required (Proposal 2.3). For example, ‘Affordable Housing’ may need to be added as a theme under Clause 11, which is dedicated to Settlement.

There is no guarantee that the Minister for Planning will accept all themes put forward in submissions from Local Government. Consequently, there is concern about

Page 65


Council’s future ability to address all local issues that are important to the municipality under the proposed and potentially expanded policy themes.

There is also concern that elements of current local policy content that do not fit neatly into the new structure could be discarded. Similar concerns were expressed in Key considerations two and three during the previous SPPF Review in 2014. These concerns are amplified by the intention for the proposed new Business Unit to more strictly adhere to policy rules.

One example of a potential consequence of being made to fit into the new policy structure is that Council’s substantial investment in structure planning for activity centres could be undermined or even wasted if the hierarchy of centres implied in Stonnington’s current MSS, Local Polices and Incorporated documents is made to align more closely with the hierarchy of centres outlined in Plan Melbourne when translated into the new PPF structure. This could result in Council not being able to achieve all of the currently intended policy outcomes for activity centres in Stonnington.

There is a concern that a new theme-based policy structure (Proposals 2.1 and 2.3) could fragment policies for particular areas, e.g. structure planning for activity centres. This mirrors the concern expressed under Key consideration four in response to the proposed SPPF Review in 2014.

Impact on current strategic projects:

There is uncertainty resulting from how shifting goal posts (Proposals 1, 2, 3 and 5) could affect current strategic projects, e.g. the Planning Scheme Review 2018 and current amendments such as C223 (Glenferrie Road and High Street Structure Plan) just to name two. Amendment C223 includes alterations to three MSS clauses and has recently been heard by a Panel.

Proposed VPP reforms include merging of the policy frameworks and integrating VicSmart provisions into overlays and their schedules. Simpler and faster assessment pathways and current exemptions could also be expanded. These changes could affect MSS clauses and all overlays that are currently proposed to be implemented and that are at various stages of the amendment process, including upcoming panel hearings. However, DELWP has advised to proceed with these projects as is until Council is advised further. Therefore, it remains unclear if, how and when these amendments may need to be altered in the future and their resource implications. The Department should provide timely advice and support to ensure such amendments are not unnecessarily delayed

It is also unclear if their intended policy outcomes could be achieved under stricter policy rules once the LPPF has been translated into the new policy structure. Consequently, it is difficult to assess if the intended outcomes may require alternative approaches with the policy tools and provisions that are made available under the reformed VPP.

The previous planning scheme review was delayed by two years on the understanding that the previous SPPF review would be implemented. The new VPP reforms could significantly impact the current planning scheme review. The work involved in undertaking the review is substantial and maps out the further strategic work to be undertaken. The proposed VPP reforms would inevitably impact on the recommendations of that review. However, Councils are expected to proceed with their current projects until

Page 66


further advised by DELWP. Consequently, potential impacts on these projects cannot be assessed without that further advice. These concerns mirror the concerns expressed under Key consideration five regarding the previous SPPF Review in 2014.

Implications of code-based assessment:

The introduction of code-based assessment for simple proposals is intended to eliminate much of the subjectivity and delay in decision-making. However, it could also result in some loss of planning control over issues that are important to the municipality and should be assessed against the appropriate planning provisions, e.g. liquor licensing and single dwellings on small lots (i.e. under 300m² or 500m²).

Liquor licensing can contribute to adverse impacts on residential and commercial amenity if not appropriately regulated. Therefore, proposed measures to remove liquor licensing from assessment under the planning scheme (Proposal 3.2 and Proposal 5.1 - Clause 52.27 ‘Licensed premises’) are not supported.

The inclusion of smaller lots standards as part of code assessment is not supported, especially if it could result in the loss of the assessment process against the relevant planning provisions in relation to side and rear setbacks of dwellings and upper-storey additions. This could result in unacceptable visual bulk and detrimental impact on neighbouring private open space.

An increase in the number of assessment pathways could result in a substantial increase in the number of applications that Council would be expected to decide quickly, which could increase the workload of Council’s existing planning staff.

It is considered that VicSmart categories could be increased to maintain the current two assessment pathways (i.e. standard 60 days and 10 days for VicSmart applications) rather than increase the number of assessment pathways for simple proposals. This would be more consistent with the intent to streamline planning schemes and planning processes.

Lack of information on timelines and funding:

Although the discussion paper states that translation work would need to be undertaken through a series of amendments in cooperation with Local Government (Proposals 1 and 2), no timeframes are stated for when this work is expected to commence or what length of time would be allocated for the translation to be completed. Additionally, there is no indication of what funding resources would be allocated to support this work.

The translation of the LPPF and local content in schedules and overlays could be supported if sufficient funds and lead up times were allocated for this task and if sufficient training was provided with regard to interpretation and navigation of new planning scheme provisions. However, this does not eliminate the uncertainty over how current strategic projects might be affected and the urgent need for further guidance on this issue from DELWP.

Council would need assurance from the State government that sufficient funding would be allocated for the translation work to minimise the potential financial burden on municipalities.

No information on how new initiatives would be tested:

Page 67


The Discussion Paper states that new initiatives should be tested in partnership with local government; however it does not explain how they would be tested (Proposals 1 and 2). A trial run with selected planning schemes would be supported, provided there was subsequent opportunity for Councils to make a submission on the results of such a trial.

Ownership of policy translation work:

It is important for Council to maintain ownership of its strategic work to translate local policy content into the new PPF structure (Proposals 1, 2 and 5) to help ensure that intended policy outcomes are achieved. However, this ability could be limited by the proposed new Business Unit’s enforcement of stricter policy rules (Proposal 4.2).

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The proposed VPP reforms will have major policy implications for Council because all of the LPPF will need to be translated into the proposed new policy structure. However, the Discussion Paper does not explain when Local Government is to commence undertaking this work or how long to complete it. The lack of information on timelines also makes it unclear if, how or when Council’s current strategic work may need to be amended.


The implementation of the reforms to the Victoria Planning Provisions will entail a series of amendments that propose to transform Victorian planning schemes. The impact on Stonnington will be significant because the entire content of the Stonnington Planning Scheme’s MSS and Local policies will need to be rewritten and translated into the proposed new Planning Policy Framework structure. Additional strategic work may also need to be undertaken on existing and proposed schedules to various planning scheme overlays. The translation work will likely require substantial allocation of financial and human resources.

At this stage it remains unknown what resources will be provided by the Victorian Government for Councils to undertake the translation work or the timeframe for which additional resources would be needed. Council may need to invest substantial resources to maintain ownership of the policy translation work; however this could also be precluded to a large extent by a new Business Unit that would have responsibility for the drafting of provisions, including all planning scheme policies.

It also remains unclear how existing strategic projects, e.g. Planning Scheme Review 2018 and current planning scheme amendments, would be affected. These projects may require additional allocation of resources if they need to be amended closer to when implementation of the reforms is due to commence in mid-2018.

Council may need to invest heavily in obtaining legal advice on how existing local policies should be re-written to fit a new policy structure and on the interpretation of new planning scheme provisions. However, it remains unclear which budgetary periods would be affected because the only timeframe indicated in the Discussion Paper for implementation of the reforms is proposed gazettal in mid-2018, with no details given on what is to be gazetted and no timelines provided for the policy translation work. Lack of details on timelines notwithstanding, it seems inevitable that there would be some impact on Council’s 2018-2019 budget and could also impact funding allocation for the current 2017-2018 period.


Page 68


Legal advice is not yet required at this stage. However, proposed re-arrangement of policy structure and new planning scheme provisions may require legal interpretation and advice on the translation of polices and when new provisions are tested in future VCAT cases and at planning panel hearings. This could result in legal advice needing to be sought more often than Council is normally accustomed to in the lead up to, during and immediately after any translation periods that may be set by the Minister for Planning and/or under the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

CONCLUSION

The proposed VPP reforms are supported in principle because they promise a more usable, transparent and streamlined Stonnington Planning Scheme. This includes the grouping of planning scheme policies in one location and the integration of the VicSmart provisions with Overlay schedules and Particular Provisions. However, there are some concerns regarding the future translation of the LPPF into the new PPF structure. Additionally, the lack of information on timelines for implementation creates uncertainty regarding the potential impact of the reforms on Council’s strategic work programme. The short timeframe available for making a submission requires that the recommendation of this report seek approval to make a submission generally in accordance with the main issues for Stonnington that have been outlined in this report.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - VPP Reforms - Discussion Paper Excluded

2. Attachment 2 - VPP Reforms - Discussion Paper - Appendix 1 - Proposed Table of Contents with track changes

Excluded

3. Attachment 3 - Table summary of Proposed VPP reforms Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Notes Reforming the Victoria Planning Provisions – A discussion paper, October

2017, has been released by the State Government and that the proposed reforms, if implemented, would impact Council’s future key strategic planning projects and policies.

2. Authorises Council Officers to make a submission on Reforming the Victoria Planning Provisions generally in accordance with the issues for Stonnington outlined in this report and attachments for lodgement with State Government prior to 24 November 2017.

3. Continues to advocate on the implementation of projects and policies that have an impact on the City of Stonnington.

4. Monitors the implementation of initiatives under the Victorian Government’s Smart Planning programme.

Page 69


6. GERMAN SHEPHERD DOG CLUB ALTERNATIVE LOCATION INVESTIGATION

Manager Community Facilities: Tony Oulton General Manager Community & Culture: Karen Watson

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present the findings of an investigation into the feasibility of re-locating the German Shepherd Dog Club to an alternate location and prior to the commencement of the 2018 football season.

BACKGROUND

Council received a request from the East Malvern Junior Football Club (EMJFC) in April 2017 requesting to use Basil Reserve Oval on Sunday mornings. The Club has a total of 786 juniors registered with the Club including 140 girls (up from 48 in 2016) all participating in weekend matches. The Club has requested the use of Basil Reserve Oval on Sunday mornings in addition to Lucas Oval and Stanley Grose Oval to enable it to better consolidate its match day activities and improve access for its members in the one sporting precinct. Overflow matches are currently played at Waverley Oval.

The German Shepherd Dog Club (GSDC) has run dog obedience programs at Basil Reserve Oval on Wednesday evenings (under lights) and Sunday mornings for approximately 40 years. The GSDC uses Basil Reserve Oval and the adjoining Sheridan Pavilion on Wednesday evenings from 7pm – 10pm and Sunday mornings from 9am – 12pm all year round. The GSDC provides basic dog obedience training skills, together with socialisation and lifestyle training to enable handlers and dogs to participate in community activities and family environments.

The Club is one of 11 branches of the German Shepherd Dog Club of Victoria located throughout metropolitan Melbourne (Bundoora, Malvern, Keilor Downs, Skye and Wantirna) and regional Victoria. The current membership of the Club is 147. The percentage of membership that are Stonnington residents is 43.5%.

At a Council meeting held 29 May 2017, it was resolved that Council:

1. Advise East Malvern Junior Football Club that it is not prepared to relocate the German Shepherd Dog Club from Basil Reserve Oval during the 2017 winter season;

2. Advise the German Shepherd Dog Club that it wishes to explore options to relocate the Club to another venue in the future; and

3. Receive a report on the options to accommodate the German Shepherd Dog Club at any alternate locations suitable for the Club’s activities by September 2017.

At the Council meeting held Monday 16 October, Cr Atwell tabled correspondence from the EMJFC President outlining concerns that up to 200 children would miss out on the opportunity to play football next year if the club did not receive access to Basil Oval in 2018 due to the growth in female participation in Australian Rules Football.

Cr Atwell requested that Officers investigate and report back to Council on a possible interim relocation of the German Shepherd Dog Club from Basil Reserve to Waverley Oval in East Malvern before the 2018 football season to enable the EMJFC to accommodate the expected demand due to the increased size of Basil Oval and ability to facilitate concurrent junior matches.

DISCUSSION

Page 71


Officers previously met with the GSDC to discuss specific requirements in relation to any proposed relocation options within the municipality as part of a longer term strategy.

A set of proposed assessment criteria was agreed between the GSDC and Officers to assist with assessing possible relocation sites. The assessment criteria looked to ensure that the GSDC received access to an equivalent facility including pavilion, kiosk, lighting, car parking and access.

The GDSC noted that the safety of its members and their animals was paramount to their activities and protection provided by Basil Reserve oval, pavilion, carpark and separation from roads and through traffic was highly regarded.

Initial Site investigations

Officers undertook an assessment of potential sites to accommodate the GSDC including sportsgrounds, parks and public school sites. Each site was assessed against the agreed selection criteria and for its impact on existing users. The results of the assessment for each site are included within Attachment 1 to this report and demonstrate that there is no comparable site within Stonnington to relocate the GSDC.

Due to the size and facilities available at Basil Reserve Oval, no site is able to replicate the Club’s existing environment.

Due to the inherent lack of open space within Stonnington, and the lack of facilities in public parks to support club activities, any potential relocation option would be difficult to achieve and cause disadvantage to other users.

Of the open space options assessed, Tooronga Park was viewed as having some merit and the greatest capacity to provide a potential long-term solution and Waverley Oval as the best short-term or interim solution.

Tooronga Park is located west of Council’s Depot wedged between the Glen Waverley railway line and Monash Freeway. The park runs west from Council’s Animal Pound and Shelter to Toorak Road with access from Weir Street, across the railway line from Milton Parade or Toorak Road. The open space available is approximately 15,655m2 and includes a range of facilities in the park including a playground, BBQ area, basketball ring and pad, and a single cricket practice net. The land is subject to inundation. There are no amenities located in the park to support club activities including clubrooms, kiosk, storage or floodlighting. The park is currently a dog off-lead park.

Due to its location, physical barriers and relative isolation, the park has previously been mooted as a dedicated dog park and may therefore present an opportunity for Council to potentially accommodate the GSDC and establish its first dedicated dog park. Some changes to the park including relocation of facilities and construction of club facilities would be required to accommodate the GSDC.

Waverley Oval is located relatively close to Basil Oval and was viewed as being the most suitable interim solution due to its capacity to accommodate most of the club’s needs and ability to make short term improvements to further improve its capacity.

The site is currently used by the EMJFC on Sunday mornings and would therefore serve as replacement to the GSDC. The ground is available on Wednesday evenings, is located next to train station parking, has sportsground lighting and is almost entirely fenced. The facility lacks available storage. A temporary storage facility to accommodate the club’s needs could be installed for less than $5,000 and would cost approximately $300 per month on an ongoing basis or until a long term solution is identified.

Initial discussion has been held with the GSDC regarding the potential use of Tooronga Park as a long term solution and Waverley Oval as an interim solution site. The Club has

Page 72


expressed some concerns with the Tooronga Park site but expressed a preparedness to explore its potential as a long term solution.

The GSDC has provided a written email response regarding the suitability of Waverley Oval as an interim solution in Attachment 2. The club have noted that Basil Oval meets their requirements and that Waverley Oval does not meet all the criteria established with Council Officers. Storage and security is a core concern under the Waverley Oval relocation. Having storage separate from the pavilion at Waverley Oval would materially impact on which activities the club continues to conduct.

Other Options

Officers could seek to accommodate the GSDC at an alternative location outside of Stonnington. This would require a longer term commitment from Council and potential funding to be provided to another municipality to accommodate the move and provide comparable facilities.

Alternatively, Council may choose not to renew the Club’s seasonal allocation. Under the terms of their current agreement, Council has no legal obligation to renew the GSDC seasonal allocation beyond that of any other club. This would place the onus to find a new site on the Club. This however would not be recommended given the long term relationship the Club has with Stonnington.

Status Quo

On the basis that no comparable alternative exists, the existing arrangement could continue, however the use of football ovals on Sunday mornings will remain a point of conflict as both groups have a long tradition of operating at that time.

It is important to note, the EMJFC already has access to multiple grounds however their request for the use of Basil Oval on Sunday mornings in place of Waverley would enable it to consolidate its match day activities in one sporting precinct and conduct additional matches due to the greater size of Basil and its ability to accommodate concurrent matches for juniors on reduced ovals within the larger space.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The Recreation Strategy 2014-2024 requires Council to promote local area participation in sport and recreation for females, juniors and older adults through the development of policy, facility design and programs. It also requires that Council provide facilities that support casual sport and recreation opportunities to enhance health, wellbeing and social inclusion.

The potential creation of a dedicated dog park and continued support of the GSDC is consistent with Council’s Domestic Animal Management Plan 2016-2021 and the promotion of responsible management of cats and dogs as part of the community and the benefits of dog obedience training.

Council’s Public Realm Strategy 2010 also identifies the need to implement special ‘dog parks’ or smaller dog enclosures within appropriate public spaces.


No budget exists for this project. The cost to accommodate the potential relocation of the GSDC has not been considered at this stage of the project, however will be considered if Council’s resolves to further consider the matter. The development of a proposal to establish a dog park at Tooronga Park can be accommodated within existing resources.

CONCLUSION

Page 73


Officers have undertaken an assessment of potential sites to accommodate the GSDC within Stonnington including sportsgrounds, parks and school sites. The assessment identified that no location was comparable to the proposed criteria established in conjunction with the GSDC.

A number of potential options to accommodate the GSDC at alternate locations suitable for the Club’s activities have been explored through this report including permanent, temporary and options to accommodate the Club outside the municipality.

The only option within Stonnington recommended for further investigation is the option to create a dedicated dog park in Tooronga Park Reserve with facilities to accommodate the GSDC’s needs and further support the operations of the pound to provide greater community benefit.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Alternate Site Analysis Excluded

2. GSDC Response to Waverley Oval Relocation Option Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Work with the German Shepherd Dog Club, Malvern Branch and operator of

Council’s Pound to develop a proposal to establish a permanent dog park at Tooronga Park for the community and to accommodate the needs of the German Shepherd Dog Club and further support pound operations.

2. Receive a proposal to establish a permanent dog park at Tooronga Park for further consideration.

3. Agree to relocate the German Shepherd Dog Club from Basil Oval to Waverley Oval by March 2018 to allow for the expansion and growth of junior sport in Stonnington, including junior girl’s football.

Page 74


7. FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD JULY TO SEPTEMBER 2017

Manager Finance: Scott Moore General Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE

To provide Council with an update of financial performance for the three months ended September 2017.

BACKGROUND

Section 138 of the Local Government Act requires the provision of a quarterly financial report to an open Council meeting comparing the budgeted revenue and expenditure for the financial year with the actual revenue and expenditure to date.

DISCUSSION

Executive SummaryThe year to date net surplus including open space contributions at 30 September 2017 was $12.8M against a budget of $10.6M, a positive variance of $2.2M.

The year to date net surplus excluding open space contributions at 30 September 2017 was $10.6M against a budget of $8.1M, a positive variance of $2.5M.

The surplus is expected to increase to $36.5M by 30 June 2018 ($26.5M excluding open space contributions), resulting in a favourable full year variance to budget of $84K.

The favourable $2.2M year to date surplus budget variance was largely due to: Higher operating income (excluding contributions) $255K, particularly higher user

fees $395K, operating grants $134K, reimbursements $75K, interest income $79K and other revenue $200K, offset by lower statutory fees ($238K) and capital grants ($384K).

Lower contributions income ($504K), due to timing of the receipts of open space and developers contributions ($416K) and capital works contributions ($88K).

Lower employee costs $1.2M, materials and services expenditure $883K (year to date budget timing differences largely not forecast to continue to year end), community grants $126K, finance costs $202K and operating initiatives expenditure $243K. These are marginally offset by an unfavourable variance in depreciation and amortisation ($93K).

As at 30 September 2017, Council held cash and investments before restricted cash assets totalling $109.5M ($20.1M after restricted cash assets of statutory reserves, discretionary reserves, unspent grants and capital works deferrals).

With Net assets of $2.7B at 30 September 2017, Council achieved a year to date working capital ratio of 1.73, indicating continued strong ability to meet its current financial commitments.

Page 75


Operating ResultThe favourable full year forecast to budget variance of $84K is expected to be primarily due to the net effect of the following items:

$143K lower than budgeted statutory fees and fines, mainly due to reduced parking enforcement income following commencement of the Cato Square project.

$415K higher than budgeted user fees, mainly due to increased permanent carpark income following the Cato Street carpark closure $293K and higher Building and Local Law lodgement and applications fees from increased activity $111K.

$50K higher than budgeted contributions income, where unbudgeted capital works contributions are expected from Wattletree Early Centre to fund the Buildings Accessibility Improvement project.

$152K higher than budgeted operating grants income in the Assessment, Youth and Transport services.

$68K higher than budgeted capital grants, predominantly from the Transport Accident Commission for Greville Street Public Realm Improvement $50K.

$160K higher than budgeted interest income, mainly due to higher 1 July 2017 cash holdings resulting from increased capital carryovers/deferrals to 2017/18 than expected.

$212K higher than budgeted other revenue, mainly due to unbudgeted income received from a granting of easement over Council land $217K and VEC election infringements receipt $130K. These were offset by lower work zone fee income ($50K), less than budgeted Library facilities rental income ($30K) and reduced Prahran Market rental income ($48K).

$911K net underspend in employee costs against budget through various position vacancies and lower service utilisation levels, including: Governance & Corporate Support $49K; Business Systems & Technology $35K; Aged & Health Administration $36K; Child Care Services $45K; In Home Services $322K; Library Services $115K; Building & Local Laws $31K; Statutory Planning $98K; Urban & Infrastructure Projects $20K; Project Management & Delivery $20K; Property Maintenance $35K; Roads & Drains $111K; and Waste Management $39K. Partly offsetting these reductions are overspends in Transport temporary and casual staff costs ($107K).

$51K net underspend in materials and services costs against budget. This includes lower than budgeted expenditure in Physical Operation tipping costs due to lower waste tonnage than expected $158K. This forecast underspend is partly offset by higher than budgeted Business System and Technology major contract and IT supplies costs ($24K), increased investment property maintenance in Property & Coordination ($28K) and Youth Services events and programs overspend ($23K).

$709K higher than budgeted depreciation, as a result of revaluation increments in roads, bridges, land and land under roads assets at 30 June 2017.

$600K lower than budgeted interest expense, as a result of the Cato Square project loan borrowings now deferred to approximately April 2018.

$1.7M higher than budgeted operating capital expenditure, mainly due to LED street lights upgrade expenditure. This is partly funded from prior year carbon tax refund and operating capital expenditure savings. The Energy Efficient Street Lighting Conversion capital budget deferred from 2016/17 will also provide funding.

Page 76


Capital Works ExpenditureNet committed Capital Works expenditure excluding Operating Initiatives at30 September 2017 was $28.7M. This includes:

Dunlop Pavilion redevelopment $4.3M,

Chapel Street Precinct masterplan implementation $3.8M,

Local Road refurbishment and resurfacing $2.9M,

Cato Square development $2.5M,

Gardiner Park redevelopment $2.5M,

Prahran Town Hall masterplan $1.9M,

Property purchases for open space realm $1.9M,

Malvern Golf Course condition audit $1.4M,

Civic Centre basement rectification $429K,

Forrest Hill Public Realm $439K.

Net year to date committed capital expenditure equates to 33% of the full year net budget.

Full year net capital expenditure (excluding Operating Initiatives) is forecast to be $76.4M against a net budget of $87.1M. Capital works carry-overs and deferrals to 2018/19 are currently estimated at $14.2M (Cato Square project).

Cash FlowCash and investments total $109.5M as at 30 September 2017, with $89.4M restricted to reserve funds, long service leave entitlements, trust funds and deposits, unspent grants and capital works carry-overs and deferrals.

The cash position is expected to be $108.3M surplus at 30 June 2018 before restricted cash assets ($10.8M cash surplus after total restricted cash assets; $38.7M cash surplus after restricted cash assets excluding discretionary reserves).

The attachment provides Council with the following: Income Statement to 30 September 2017 Full Year Forecast Major Variance Analysis as at 30 September 2017 Balance Sheet as at 30 September 2017 Cash Flow Statement as at 30 September 2017 Financial Performance Indicators to 30 September 2017 Capital Works Expenditure Report as at 30 September 2017.



ATTACHMENTS

Page 77


1. Financial Report for the period July to September 2017 Attachment 1 of 1 Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council receives and notes the Financial Report for the City of Stonnington for the three months ended 30 September 2017.

Page 78


8. VEHICLE CROSSING APPLICATION - 10 RUSHMEAD STREET MALVERN

Manager Building and Local Law Services: Madeleine Grove Acting GM Planning & Amenity: Susan Price

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to determine a Vehicle Crossing Application for 10 Rushmead Street, Malvern.

This Report has been prepared in response to a call up by Councillor Jami Klisaris.

BACKGROUND

Council’s Vehicle Crossing Policy was adopted by Council on 17 September 2007.

On 17 July 2017, Council received an application for a new vehicle crossing at 10 Rushmead Street, Malvern (refer Site Locality Plan in Attachment One). The property is situated in a residential street.

The applicant proposes to construct a new vehicle crossing on Rushmead Street. The proposal is for a 3m wide vehicle crossing with 1.3m straight splays on either side of the crossing. The proposed crossing would be located 3.3m from the western building line, not including splays.

The application was formally refused by Officers in a letter to the applicant, dated 25 July 2017.

In arriving at that decision the Officer took account of Council’s Arborist’s advice that:

The semi-mature Melia azedarach (White Cedar) was about 15 years of age;

The tree is in good health and is a component of an avenue of this species within Rushmead Street;

Removal would be counter to Council’s Vehicle Crossing Policy and Urban Forest Strategy objective of not supporting the removal of an established, healthy street trees to accommodate a new vehicle crossover.

On 24 October 2017, a second Vehicle Crossing Application was received for the construction of a new crossing at 10 Rushmead Street, Malvern. This second application included additional photographs but did not change any aspect of the original application regarding either the location or dimensions of the proposed vehicle crossing.

DISCUSSION

Removal of a Healthy Street Tree

The applicant is proposing to remove a 15 year old semi-mature Melia azedarach (White Cedar) from its present location in the nature strip at this property (refer Attachment Two).

The relevant objectives are considered to be:

To prevent inappropriate loss of significant street trees, vegetation and landscaping;

To control the impact of crossings on utility infrastructure, street furniture and other assets;

Council’s Arborist is of the view that a successful relocation of such a substantial tree is not possible with existing equipment.

As a consequence, the choice is either to retain a healthy street tree or to remove the tree to allow for the construction of the proposed vehicle crossing.

Page 79


Impact to on-street car parking

The relevant Policy objective is:

To prevent unnecessary loss of on-street car parking

The vehicle crossing application will result in the loss of one on-street car park as a result of the vehicle crossing installation but at least one car park will be provided on site to compensate for this loss.

Only two properties in Rushmead Street have vehicle crossings along the alignment of the street; 33 Glendearg Grove and 5 Rushmead Street (refer Attachment Two)

Transport and Parking

Assessment by Council’s Transport and Parking Officers of the off street parking alternatives for this property consider the rear of Brooks Lane, a better alternative access point to this property. This is similar to the access arrangement of other adjacent properties. The rear of the property has sufficient space available for car parking (refer Attachment Two).

No. 2, 4 and 6 Rushmead Street utilise the rear laneway (Brooks Lane) for vehicle access to their properties. It should be noted that 35 Glendearg Grove and 2 Raleigh Street also use the same laneway for vehicle access to their properties. 8 Rushmead Street has recently completed renovations and have opted not to utilise the laneway for vehicle access.

CONCLUSION

The Vehicle Crossing application for 10 Rushmead Street, Malvern has been considered on two occasions by Officers in consultation with relevant Council Departments.

It is considered that the application fails to meet Council Vehicle Crossing Policy objectives, namely:

To prevent inappropriate loss of significant street trees, vegetation and landscaping;

The outstanding factor of the application and the basis for the Officers refusal is the removal of the White Cedar street tree. The vehicle crossing application is not supported as the crossing cannot be constructed along the frontage of 10 Rushmead without the destruction of the street tree.



ATTACHMENTS

1. PA - 10 Rushmead St Vehicle Crossing Application Attachment One Excluded

2. PA - 10 Rushmead St Vehicle Crossing Application Attachment Two Excluded

RECOMMENDATION

Page 80


That Council:1. Refuse the Vehicle Crossing Application for 10 Rushmead Street, Malvern on the

basis of non-compliance with Council’s Vehicle Crossing Policy and the Urban Forest Strategy objective to prevent inappropriate loss of significant street trees, vegetation and landscaping;

2. That the Applicant be advised of Council’s decision.

Page 81


o) Confidential

1. DOCKLESS BIKE SHARE MODEL

Sustainable Transport Planner: Tom HaysomConfidential report circulated separately.

2. PROPOSED PROPERTY PURCHASE

Property Coordinator: Peter AngwinConfidential report circulated separately.

3. POTENTIAL PROPERTY PURCHASE

Property Coordinator: Peter AngwinConfidential report circulated separately.

Page 83

agenda of council meeting - 20 november 2017 · web view2017/11/20 · the landscape plan must be...

Documents