agenda of council meeting - 21 may 2018 · web viewwe acknowledge that we are meeting on the...

NOTICE PAPERMonday 21 May 2018 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.

NOTESCouncil 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.

This meeting is being live-streamed.

Members of the gallery will not be filmed however the recordings will capture any audio which will be transmitted and held on Council’s website.

Members of the gallery are not permitted to film or record the meeting on their own devices.

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

Council MeetingNotice Paper

Monday 21 May 2018Order 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 7 MAY 2018............................................................

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 0729/17- 97 ARGYLL STREET, MALVERN EAST VIC 3145- CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DWELLINGS ON A LOT IN A NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE................

2. PLANNING PERMIT 0322/16 - 2-6 COMMERCIAL ROAD, PRAHRAN VIC 3181- S72 AMENDMENT TO APPROVED PLANNING PERMIT AND PLANS INCLUDING A NEW ROOF DECK.............

3. PLANNING APPLICATION 0379/17- 1352 MALVERN ROAD, MALVERN VIC 3144 – PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR STOREY MIXED USED DEVELOPMENT CONTAINING A SHOP, FOUR DWELLINGS, FOUR CAR PARKING SPACES AND SIX BICYCLE SPACES..........................................................................................................................

4. MELBOURNE METRO TUNNEL PROJECT - COMMITMENTS AND ADVOCACY......................................5. STREET TREE PRUNING PROGRAM - RESIDENT NOTIFICATION..........................................................6. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION TARGETS..........................................................................................7. PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE AND SALE OF PART OF ROAD AT REAR 7 MILLICENT AVENUE

TOORAK.......................................................................................................................................8. FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 31 MARCH 2018......................................................9. RISK, SAFETY AND ASSURANCE REPORT FOR THE PERIOD 1 JULY TO 31 DECEMBER 2017..........10. COMMUNITY GRANT - PROUD 2 PLAY......................................................................................

m) Other General Businessn) Urgent Businesso) Confidential Business

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

21 MAY 2018

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council confirms the Minutes of the Council Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 7 May 2018 and Minutes of the Confidential Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 7 May 2018 as an accurate record of the proceedings.

GENERAL BUSINESS21 MAY 2018

l) General Business

1. PLANNING APPLICATION 0729/17- 97 ARGYLL STREET, MALVERN EAST VIC 3145- CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DWELLINGS ON A LOT IN A NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE

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

PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for the construction of two dwellings on a lot in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone at 97 Argyll Street, Malvern East.

Executive Summary

Applicant: BDN ProjectsWard: EastZone: Neighbourhood Residential ZoneOverlay: Nil Neighbourhood Precinct: Garden Suburban 5Date lodged: 27 July 2017Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

216

Trigger for referral to Council: More than 7 objectionsNumber of objections: 34 objections from 32 propertiesConsultative Meeting: Yes – held on 6 February 2018 Officer Recommendation: Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by BDN Projects and are known as File No. JY 1116 Drawing No.’s: 00PB, 10PD, 11PD, 50PD, 51PD, 60PC & 30PA and Council date stamped 17 October 2017.

Key features of the proposal are:

The development comprises two semi-attached two-storey dwellings set out in a side-by-side arrangement on the site. Each dwelling will have a bedroom, study and open plan kitchen/living/dining space on the ground floor and a further three bedrooms and rumpus space on the first floor.

The existing vehicle crossing will be retained and a new vehicle crossing constructed to provide access to a single space garage with a tandem car space shown in front of each garage. The garages will be constructed along the side boundaries (6.34m long along the western boundary and 6.46m along the eastern boundary).

Page 7


The dwellings will be setback 8.25m from Argyll Street, with each garage setback a further 5m behind the front wall of the dwellings. The ground level behind the garages is setback 1.585m from their respective side boundary and 8.76m from the rear boundary. The first floor level of both dwellings will incorporate a stepped/staggered setback arrangement from the side boundaries of 2.125m, 2.71m and 2.125m. This level is setback 9.570m from the rear boundary, with a 10.87m setback from Argyll Street.

The overall maximum building height above natural ground level is 7.56m. Each dwelling will have open space areas of approximately 25 sq m within their frontage

setback area, plus an additional 89 sq m secluded private open space at the rear of the site adjoining and accessible from the living area.

The dwellings as viewed from Argyll Street will be constructed of brickwork on the ground level, with some rendered details to the entry and porch, and a render finish to the first floor level. Beyond the façade, the dwellings will have a render finish with the exception of: the garage boundary walls which will be face brickwork; and a timber weatherboard cladding detail on the first floor level of the north (rear), east and west elevations. The individual hipped roof forms to each dwelling will be of steel.

A 1.2m high timber front fence with 50% openings is proposed along the site frontage, incorporating sliding gates to the driveways.

It is noted that the east and west elevations are incorrectly labelled on Drawing No 50PD. A condition of approval would require new elevation plans to correct this error.

The applicant provided ‘discussion plans’ to respond to officer and objector concerns relating to: the design of the development, particularly its integration within the streetscape and neighbourhood; reduction of the built-form in the rear section of the first floor portion of the development; and softening of the building form/interface with the adjoining secluded open space area at 99 Argyll Street. The ‘discussion plans’ do not formally replace the advertised plans described above, but assist in Council considering an alternative which attempts to address issues. The changes contained within the discussion plans can be incorporated within the planning approval as conditions. The changes made are as follows:

The design detail of the building façade has been simplified and made to look like a single large dwelling rather than two separate dwellings. This has been achieved by the use of a single roof form over both dwellings, with a smaller roof detail over one part reflecting the roof forms in the street. The window design and configuration is no longer a mirror-image design with the three openings appearing to belong to one dwelling. A single entry canopy has replaced the individual porches over the dwelling entries and varied materials and finishes on both levels have been utilised in an asymmetrical way.

The footprint of the first floor has been altered with the size of the rear portion of the development reduced so that Bedrooms 2 & 3 and the relocated bathroom are proposed to be setback 2.71m from the side boundaries (the advertised plans show a setback of 2.125m and 2.71m for this section) and the setback from the rear of the site increased from 9.57m on the advertised plans to 11.07m. The master bedroom of Unit 2 is positioned to sit slightly forward of Unit 1, but the setback from the eastern boundary is increased in line with WIR (ie increased from 2.125m to 2.71m). The asymmetrical positioning of the first floor level accords with the changes to the elevation above.

The planting of two trees within the eastern side setback area to soften the built form as viewed from the adjoining open space area. Council’s Arborist has advised that the location and tree species (Pyrus calleryana ‘Capital’ achieving 11m height and 3m radius) is appropriate.

Page 8


Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the north side of Argyll Street approximately 50m west of the intersection with Ayr Street. The site has the following significant characteristics:

The site has a frontage of 15.24m, a depth of 42.672m and an area of approximately 650 sq m. It is currently developed with a single-storey weatherboard dwelling with an existing crossing on the western side providing vehicle access to the site. Site levels drop from the rear of the site to the front by approximately 1.3m.

A significant tree (6m height and 5m canopy width) is located within the frontage setback of the dwelling. The Arborist report accompanying the application (prepared by Mark Reynolds and dated 6 March 2017) notes that this is a Corymbia calophylla (Marri Gum) tree in fair condition and of medium arboricultural value and with some fungal growth. It is proposed that this tree be retained. Other trees on the site are of low arboricultural value and do not fall within the significant tree parameters. There is no significant vegetation on adjoining sites within proximity of the proposed development.

A juvenile Flaxinus ornus (Manna Ash) is located within the road reserve in front of the site. The development plans note that this tree is to be removed and replaced.

A single storey cream-brick dwelling with tiled roof is located to the west on the corner of Ayr Avenue (95 Argyll Street). The portion of this dwelling adjoining the subject site is setback 9.02m from Argyll Street. It is noted that the dwelling entry is setback approximately 15m from the frontage. A double car garage accessed via Ayr Avenue is located on the north-east corner of this lot adjoining the subject site, with the secluded private open space of this dwelling (approx. 90 sq m) located between the dwelling and garage and extending to Ayr Avenue, with a parcel to the west of the dwelling. This dwelling has two habitable room windows facing the subject site and setback 1.78m from the common boundary.

A single storey cream-brick dwelling with tiled roof is located to the east of the subject site (99 Argyll Street). The portion of this dwelling adjoining the subject site is setback 7.47m from Argyll Street, though noted that the dwelling entry is setback approximately 12m from the frontage. A single car garage accessed via a driveway along its eastern boundary is located behind the dwelling on this lot, with the secluded private open space of this dwelling (approximately 200 sq m) located behind the dwelling. This dwelling has one habitable room window facing the subject site and setback 1.35m from the common boundary.

A two-storey dwelling is located behind (north) of the subject site, part of a three-dwelling development on the lot. It is setback 3m & 4.8m from the common boundary at ground level and approx. 4m on the first floor. A number of ground floor habitable room windows face the subject site, with secluded private open space for this dwelling (65 sq m) located within the setback area.

The wider neighbourhood is comprised of a mix of developments, predominantly single-storey brick dwellings similar to that on the subject site but with a number of newer two-storey dwellings including one at 101 Argyll to the east and a side-by-side two-storey two-dwelling development at 100 Argyll Street to the south-west of the site. A single-storey garage at the rear of 60 The Boulevard is constructed to the Argyll Street boundary of that site. Most sites have low front fencing with some anomalies, including a high timber fence immediately opposite the subject site. A small number of sites within the immediate neighbourhood have large canopy trees within the dwelling frontage areas. Most sites within the immediate neighbourhood in Argyll Street have a single vehicle crossing, the exception being 100 & 100A Argyll Street diagonally opposite the subject site.

The site is located approximately 215m west of Warrigal Road (local shopping centre) between the Malvern Valley Golf Course to the north and Holmesglen Institute to the south, and is approximately 15m to the east of Ayr Avenue. Holmesglen railway station

Page 9


is approximately 100m to the south of the site, with Chadstone shopping centre approximately 1.2km to the south.

Previous Planning Application(s)

A search of Council records indicates that there are no relevant planning applications for the subject site.Council records show the following relevant planning applications for adjoining or nearby sites: Planning Permit 684/16 was issued on 22 September 2017 for the construction of two

two-storey dwellings at 114 Argyll Street. This site is approximately 60m to the east of the subject site. This development comprised a side-by-side arrangement of the dwellings, each with a single garage accessed by a separate crossing and four bedrooms. It appears that construction of this development has not commenced.

Planning Permit 364/12 was issued on 20 March 2014 for the construction of two two-storey dwellings at 100 Argyll Street diagonally opposite the subject site. This development comprised a side-by-side arrangement of the dwellings, each with a single garage accessed by a separate crossing. Each dwelling contains four-bedrooms plus a study nook. This development has been completed.

Planning Permit 734/12 was issued on 12 November 2013 for the construction of three two-storey dwellings at 52-54 The Boulevard at the rear of the subject site. Unit 2 of this development is immediately to the rear of the site and contains three-bedrooms plus study with a double garage setback 3m & 4.8m from the common boundary at ground level and approx. 4m on the first floor. This development has been completed.

Planning Permit 434/16 would have been refused by Council had a failure application not been made to VCAT. This application proposed the construction of two two-storey dwellings in a side-by-side arrangement at 39 Argyll Street approximately 490m to the west of the subject site. Each dwelling was provided with a single garage and four bedrooms. VCAT upheld Council’s position in its decision dated 24 April 2018.

Council’s position on the application, in summary, was that the mass and scale of the development was inappropriate in the site context, would result in visual bulk, provide inadequate landscaping and failed to respect neighbourhood character. The Tribunal made the following comments with regard to the neighbourhood character:

I agree with the applicant that the Planning Scheme expressly contemplates change and the neighbourhood character policies guide that change. I accept that emerging contemporary development has introduced new character in this area and, in the absence of heritage or character overlays, the evident built form change is relevant in assessing whether this proposal will achieve an acceptable ‘fit’ in the neighbourhood.

The inclusion of two storey built form adjacent to single storey represents a graduated change of height and in a neighbourhood where double storey form is present, this will not be a foreign element. The proposal includes some elements that respond well to what is sought for the neighbourhood including setbacks to both side boundaries, opportunity for landscaping in the front and rear setback of each dwelling and compliance with the varied clause 55 standards in in NRZ2. I do not agree with Council that the spacious backyard character of the area will be compromised. The minimum 5.3 metre setback at ground level from the roofed alfresco area to the rear boundary maintain a sense of spaciousness to the rear and provides landscaping opportunities.

Despite these positive comments, the Tribunal found that the following (paraphrased) were failures of the proposal:

Page 10


The design presenting to the street with only front doors and garages at ground level create an inactive interface, effectively turning its back on the public realm. There is a pattern of openness to the street with windows and dwelling entries facing the frontage and the proposal failed to respect this characteristic.

The setback of the enclosed-style balcony and the porch elements 7.1m and 6m respectively from the frontage would result in a dominating built form forward of adjoining development.

Failure to adequately address the sensitive western interface (dwelling adjoining the subject site) which has a number of habitable room windows, a deck and secluded private open space area, with the upper level built form presenting unreasonable bulk with limited opportunity to provide landscape screening of the building.

Other comments made by the Tribunal relate to the two vehicle crossings and other approved developments in the neighbourhood, as follows:

Although I agree with submissions that the predominant pattern is a single crossover per lot, I would not reject the application for the inclusion of two vehicle crossings. I say this having regard to the Council approvals of dual occupancies nearby on similar width lots and the angled design of the driveways (as shown on the landscape plan) that allows landscaping between the driveways and to side boundaries...

I have considered the two developments in Argyll Street supported by Council and referred to by the applicant. I have also reviewed the plans of the side-by-side pair of dwellings at 45 Thurso Street and 100 Argyll Street provided by Council at the hearing. Each of those sites have an individual context and the detail of the proposals vary. I acknowledge there are some elements of approved developments in the area that similar to proposed on the review site but I am not persuaded that there is a pattern of development or approvals that override the character concerns I have set out above. Each proposal must be considered on its individual merits.

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 07239 Folio 636 / Lot 459 on Plan of Subdivision 010296. A 1.83m wide drainage and sewerage easement is located along the rear of the site. Covenant 2041269 affects the land, stating that the owner ‘…shall not at any time hereafter excavate carry away or remove any earth clay stone gravel or sand from the said land hereby transferred except for the foundations of any building to be erected thereon or use or permit to be used for the manufacture or winning or bricks tiles potteryware…’. The proposed development would not be contrary to this restriction.

Planning Controls

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

Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 2Clause 32.09

Pursuant to Clause 32.09-6 a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on the lot and an application must meet the requirements of Clause 55, including the varied requirements specified in Schedule 3 to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone.

Page 11


Pursuant to Clause 32.09-4 a lot above 650 sq m in area is required to provide a minimum 35% of garden area. The proposal provides 246 sq m garden area, equating to 37.8% of the site and meeting this requirement.

Pursuant to Clause 32.09-9 and Schedule 2 to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, a building must not be constructed for use as a dwelling that exceeds 9 metres or more than two storeys in height at any point.

Particular Provisions – Car ParkingClause 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 includes a single car space garage with a tandem car space in front to each dwelling and therefore meets the requirements of this provision.

Relevant Planning Policies

Clause 11.04 Metropolitan MelbourneClause 15.01 Urban environmentClause 15.02 Sustainable developmentClause 16.01 Residential developmentClause 18.01 TransportClause 21.03 VisionClause 21.05 HousingClause 21.06 Built environment and HeritageClause 21.08 InfrastructureClause 22.05 Environmentally Sustainable DevelopmentClause 22.18 Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design)Clause 22.23 Neighbourhood Character Policy Clause 32.09 Neighbourhood Residential Zone – Schedule 2Clause 52.06 Car ParkingClause 55 Two Dwellings on a LotClause 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 sign on the site). The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.The site is located in East Ward and 34 objections from 32 different properties have been received. The objections can be summarized as follows: Impact on the neighbourhood character including: side by side and boundary

construction; dominance of garages; roof forms; building mass; use of rendered materials; fence etc.

Loss of garden areas and canopy trees, inadequate open space areas and landscaping, removed trees should be replaced.

Inadequate car parking. Loss of on-street car parking from additional crossover, especially near a transport hub. Increased traffic congestion. Flooding problems created/exacerbated by the boundary to boundary construction and

any retaining walls required to be constructed. Inadequate storage including rubbish storage. The floor levels/finished levels on the plans are unclear/misleading.

Page 12


A Consultative Meeting was held on 6 February 2018. The meeting was attended by Councillor Davis, a representative of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. The meeting did not result in any formal revisions to the application plans, but the meeting provided a forum for discussion. In particular there was discussion about possible drainage issues and the need for a retaining wall between the subject site and 99 Argyll Street given the difference in levels between the two sites, with the subject site being higher. The applicant agreed to a condition on any approval addressing the need for a retaining wall. In addition, conditions would be included to address possible impacts on the significant tree from gas service installation and that any bamboo planted be non-invasive.

Referrals

Transport & Parking

Council’s Traffic Engineer has provided the following comments, noting that changes were made to the plans and/or issues addressed as part of the further information submission. Only the latest and outstanding issues are discussed below, with comments to address objector concerns also included. The Traffic Engineer has advised as follows:

The proposed development provides a single car garage and a car space within the accessway for each dwelling. This meets the requirements of the Planning Scheme.

The increase in the number of dwellings to two is not expected to significantly impact upon existing traffic conditions in the area.

A minimum clearance of 2.2m is to be provided to the garage entry when the garage door is open

Show the sight distance triangles on the east side of the accessway for Unit 2 and on the west side of the accessway for Unit 1 with a note that no further obstructions and/or landscaping higher than 0.9m are to be to be located within the areas.

Provide alternative measures such as convex mirrors to allow for pedestrian visibility on the west side of the accessway for Unit 2 and on the east side of the accessway for Unit 1.

The minimum gradient of the parking area to be 1 in 100 (1.0%) for outdoor areas and 1 in 200 (0.5%) for covered areas to allow for adequate drainage as per AS 2890.1.

The clearance between the existing crossing proposed to be retained to service Unit 2, and the proposed crossing is 6.6m which is satisfactory.

The clearance between the proposed crossing and the crossing of the abutting property on the east side is 11.5m which can formally accommodate two on-street parking spaces with 0.7m remaining kerb length. Currently, the east side of the existing vehicle crossing of this property can formally accommodate four on-street parking spaces and with the proposed crossing in place one on-street parking space will be lost. This can be considered reasonable as the proposed crossing allows access to two off-street parking spaces, and therefore there will be no net loss.

Planner Comment:The comments note that adequate car parking is provided to the new dwellings, that there would not be unreasonable traffic impacts resulting from the development, and that the loss of one on-street car space will not result in the net loss of parking within the neighbourhood, though it is noted that it will remove one on-street car space currently available to all and provide on-site parking for the exclusive use of the residents of the site. On balance, however, this is not unreasonable. Appropriate permit conditions will address the other concerns.

Infrastructure

Page 13


The Infrastructure Engineer has advised that there will be additional stormwater runoff generated by the development and there are known drainage problems and flooding downstream of the property. The following conditions are required to be included on the approval:

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

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 2,500 litres greater than those tanks required to satisfy WSUD requirements for the development. Those tanks must be connected to all toilets.

Planner Comment:The above will be included as conditions of approval.

Arborist

Council’s Arborist has advised that:

Considering the poor structure of the small Fraxinus ornus (Manna Ash) street tree at this location, Council would be supportive of the street tree removal and replacement as a part of the crossover proposal.

A Tree Management Plan is required to facilitate retention of the significant Corymbia calophylla within the front setback area of the site, though it is noted that this tree is in decline.

The landscape plan needs to remove the notation of the installation of a new street tree as Council will attend to this post construction completion.

Attempting to establish a new tree directly beneath the retained tree will most likely not be a successful venture. The installation of 2 Pyrus ‘Chanticleer’ behind the front fence will be more successful, and also compliment the retained tree.

Planner Comment:Conditions of approval will require: the cost of the removal and replacement of the street tree to be borne by the developer; a Tree Management Plan to facilitate retention of the significant Corymbia calophylla; removal of the notation of the installation of a new street tree replacement from the landscape plan; and the installation of 2 Pyrus ‘Chanticleer’ trees behind the front fence. A bond for the protection of the significant tree is not proposed to be required as a condition of approval as Council’s Arborist has advised that the tree is in decline and may not survive the proposed development. All possible measures for its protection will be addressed within the Tree Management Plan.

KEY ISSUES

Page 14


The key issues with the proposal include whether the development respects the existing neighbourhood character and whether the proposal will have an adverse impact on residential amenity. These key issues as well as issues raised by objectors are discussed in detail below.

Local Planning Policy Framework

In considering an appropriate design response, Clause 21.06 (Built environment and heritage) of the Stonnington Planning Scheme emphasises the need for development to make a positive contribution to the streetscape and respect the amenity of adjoining properties. Within residential areas, it is policy to ‘protect and enhance the varied, distinctive and valued character elements of residential neighbourhoods across the City of Stonnington’ by retaining ‘ the low rise character of the majority of the incremental and minimal change areas’ and providing ‘for medium density (2-3 storey) development provided the development respects the preferred character of the precinct.’

Other relevant objectives in this part of the planning scheme include ‘to repair and reinforce the high quality landscape character of the City’ achieved by: retaining established trees and vegetation in front and side setbacks; ensuring that developments incorporate a designated landscape setting, particularly by providing consistent front setbacks, with substantial canopy tree vegetation; and avoiding extensive site coverage in medium and higher density developments so as to provide canopy landscaping, having regard to the existing or preferred character of the area.

Achieving ‘high standards of amenity within new developments, and with adjoining developments’ is a key objective to be achieved by: ensuring that there is no unreasonable amenity impact on adjoining residential properties through overlooking, overshadowing or traffic and parking associated with the use; ensuring a sensitive transition with adjoining lower density development in terms of built form, scale, setbacks and visual bulk; and encourage planting appropriate to the character of the area in front gardens and native planting (preferably indigenous) in rear gardens, to enhance habitat values while also respecting the area’s character, amenity and European heritage.

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”, given that it is not within a Heritage or Neighbourhood Character Overlay, which is appropriate for infill development and provides an opportunity for increased housing choice within proximity to an activity centre (Chadstone).

Neighbourhood CharacterBuilt Form and Neighbourhood Character

The application has been assessed against Clauses 16.01 and 21.05 and is considered to be a site responsive design which will sit comfortably in the emerging streetscape, acknowledging that there will be some change in neighbourhood character (two-storeys in a predominantly single-storey area). The extent of built form through the site is appropriate, particularly by the recessing of the upper level towards the rear of the site. The overall two-storey height of the proposed development is appropriate within this area.

Council’s Neighbourhood Character Policy (Clause 22.23) seeks to clarify the existing neighbourhood character for an area and assist in ensuring that a development proposal respects and reinforces any preferred character.

The subject land forms part of the ‘Garden Suburban 5’ precinct. This has the following preferred character statement:

Page 15


The Garden Suburban 5 (GS5) precinct is defined by spacious and leafy streetscapes with Interwar or Post-war era and new buildings set in established garden surrounds. Generous, regular front and side setbacks provide space around buildings and allow for canopy trees. New buildings or additions offer innovative and contemporary design responses, while complementing the key aspects of building form, scale and design detail of the older dwellings in the precinct. Open frontages, or low front fences retain views to gardens and buildings 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.

Further, the following relevant design objectives apply:

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

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

details of buildings in the area. To maintain and reinforce the 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.

There is no demolition protection to consider retention of the existing dwelling on the site. The neighbourhood comprises generally single-storey building designs with pitched roof forms utilising predominantly cream brick. Newer developments are predominantly two-storeys in height including the dwelling at 101 Argyll located 15m to the east of the subject site and a side-by-side two-dwelling development at 100 Argyll Street diagonally opposite the subject site. These developments have used a combination of brick (light and dark colours) and render, with some stone detailing. The materials palate proposed is therefore considered acceptable, noting that a materials and finishes schedule will be required as part of this approval.

The design of the development as shown in the advertised plans clearly differentiates each of the dwellings giving them a distinct presence in the street. In order to better respond to the neighbourhood character, the applicant was required to make changes to the detailing to make the two dwellings appear as one larger dwelling – these were provided in the form of ‘Discussion Plans’. The changes made result in the building appearing as a single larger dwelling rather than two separate dwellings achieved by the use of a single roof form over both dwellings, with a smaller roof detail over one part reflecting the roof forms generally in the street. The window design and configuration on the first floor appears to belong to one dwelling. The use of a single entry canopy replacing the individual porches over the dwelling entries and the varied use of materials and finishes in an asymmetrical way on both levels further reinforces this.

It is considered that the change as shown in the diagram below is successful and not inconsistent with the design of dwellings found nearby. This would better reflect the character and provide an improved and more respectful response to the predominant scale and character of dwellings in the neighbourhood.

97 Argyll Street, Malvern East – Advertised 97 Argyll Street - Discussion plans

Page 16


Boundary to boundary construction is not typical within the neighbourhood, but its impact within this streetscape is minimised by the setback of the garages 5m behind the front wall of the dwellings and approximately 13m from the front boundary. It is noted that the garage boundary walls are setback approximately 4m behind the façade of the adjoining dwelling T 95 Argyll Street and approximately 6m behind the façade of 99 Argyll Street – within this context, the impact of the boundary to boundary construction would not be highly visible from oblique views, and would therefore be minimised to a reasonable level.

The design changes are consistent with the objectives of Clause 22.23 which seek that new dwellings reference rather than mimic the existing dwellings.

As noted earlier in this report, a recent VCAT decision to refuse an application for a side-by side development was handed down in April 2018. This decision related to 39 Argyll Street approximately 490m to the west of the subject site. The Tribunal found that the emerging contemporary/newer development in the neighbourhood had introduced new character in the area, with two storey built form adjacent to single storey development presenting a graduated change of height in the neighbourhood. A major issue with that development related to the inactive ground level frontage of the dwellings, where only the front door and garage door addressed the street – this was found to be a failure of the proposal. The proposal on the subject site, however, provides a study on the ground level of each dwelling with a full height window, activating the dwelling frontage and providing visual surveillance to the street. A further issue with the development at 39 Argyll Street related to the encroachment of the enclosed-style balcony and the porch elements which were found to be dominating given that they were forward of adjoining development. The siting of the proposed development on the subject site provides a stepped setback so that it sits between the two adjoining dwellings, and the upper level is recessed further which minimises its visual impact in the street. Finally, it was found that the upper level built form was unreasonably bulky with limited opportunity to provide landscaped screening of the building. In this case the upper level of the proposed dwellings on the subject site extends into the site and adjoins a secluded private open space area, the first floor built form has a greater setback from the side boundaries than the ground level and the changes included in the discussion plans increase this setback to 2.71m to Bedrooms 2 & 3 on both dwellings. It has also been demonstrated that there is opportunity to provide canopy vegetation to screen the eastern elevation and minimise the visual bulk as viewed from the adjoining secluded private open space area.

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

Street Setback

Page 17


Street setback Standard at Clause 55.03-1 of the Scheme indicates that a new building should be setback the average of the dwellings on either side of the subject site or 9m, whichever is the lesser. 95 Argyll Street has a street setback of 9.02m to the front wall (approx. 15m to the front door) and 99 Argyll Street has a street setback of 7.47m to the front wall (approx. 12m to the front door), resulting in a prescribed setback requirement of 8.25m. The development proposes a setback 8.25m to the study wall, approx. 8.5m to the dwelling entries and 13.25m to the garages, which meets the standard. The proposal complies.

Building Height The ResCode standard (B7) and the mandatory maximum height controls at Clause 32.09-9 specify a maximum height of 9.0m, or 10m if the slope is greater than 2.5 degrees over a distance of 8m. The proposal has a maximum height of 7.58m above the existing natural ground level, complying with the standard.

Site Coverage Standard B8 prescribes a maximum site coverage of 60% and the proposed development has a site coverage of 53.8%, meeting the standard.

Permeability Standard B9 prescribes a minimum permeability of 20% and the proposed development has a permeability across the site of approximately 30%. The proposal meets the standard.

LandscapeSchedule 3 to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone requires at least one canopy tree to be planted on the site. The existing significant tree located within the frontage setback area has been retained and incorporated within the proposal. Conditions to facilitate its retention (a TMP) will be included on any approval, in addition to conditions to address other matters including appropriate supporting vegetation/trees within the frontage of the site and the two canopy trees proposed in the ‘Discussion Plans’ (Pyrus calleryana ‘Capital’ achieving 11m height and 3m radius) to soften the visual impact of the development on adjoining open space areas will be placed on approval. The landscaping will therefore provide an appropriate response to this standard.

Front FenceA 0.9m high render base with steel infill panels (with 50% openings) is proposed for the front fence along the frontage. Fencing in the neighbourhood consists of low (approx. 0.5m high) brick or rendered fences with several examples of higher fencing and the use of different materials. It is noted that the relevant standard (B32) permits a front fence of up to 1.5m in height. The proposed fence complies with the standard, and is respectful of the neighbourhood character and considered appropriate.

Amenity ImpactsSide & Rear Setbacks Standard B17 at Clause 55.04-1 is the relevant assessment for side and rear setbacks, noting that Schedule 3 to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone requires the side setback for at least 5 metres behind the front facade of a new building of a minimum of 2 metres from one side boundary and 1 metre from the other side boundary. The proposed development achieves a setback of 3.545m from both side boundaries for 5m behind the front façade, meeting the varied standard.

The eastern and western walls of the ground level of the development are setback at least 1.585m from the boundaries, meeting the requirements of the standard.

The first floor generally follows the outline of the prescribed setback requirements (see Drawing 50PB Elevations on which the South Elevation shows the B17 setback line).

Page 18


The assessment of setbacks is as follows:

Wall Height Required Setback Proposed Setback Complies? East- Ground Floor- First Floor

3.7m 5.95m

1.03m1.705m

1.585m2.125m (minimum)

Yes Yes

North (Rear)- Ground Floor- First Floor

3m 5.85m

1m 1.675m

8.76m9.57m

Yes Yes

West- Ground Floor- First Floor

3.5m5.8m

1.0m1.66m

1.585m2.125m (minimum)

Yes Yes

The proposal meets this standard.

The two-storey form of the proposed dwellings does extend further into the site than the dwellings on the adjoining lots and will be visible from the secluded private open space areas of the adjoining dwellings. A double car garage is located on the north-east corner of 95 Argyll Street adjoining the subject site to the west, with the secluded private open space of this dwelling (approximately 90 sq m in area) is located between the dwelling and garage and extends to Ayr Avenue, with a parcel to the west of the dwelling and protected from the proposed development. The layout of buildings on this site minimises the visibility of the proposed development from the secluded private open space area. It is considered that the visual impacts of the development on this side will not be excessive.

Visibility of the proposed development from the secluded private open space of 99 Argyll Street to the east of the subject site is greater as the dwelling on this site has a smaller building footprint, so the first floor of the proposed development would be visible from the large area of secluded private open space located behind this adjoining dwelling. Whilst the proposed development meets and exceeds the required side boundary setbacks (compliance with B17 is seen as adequately minimising visual bulk impacts) and the upper level is articulated and not one continuous form, it is considered appropriate that additional treatment be provided on the eastern side to soften the built form from adjoining site. The applicant has suggested the planting of two trees within the eastern side setback area to soften the built form as viewed from the adjoining open space area. The tree species (Pyrus calleryana ‘Capital’ achieving 11m height and 3m radius) has been reviewed by Council’s Arborist who has advised that they are appropriate for this purpose. A condition of approval will require that they be incorporated within the development.

Walls on Boundary

Standard B18 at Clause 55.04-1 is the relevant assessment for walls on boundaries, noting that Schedule 3 to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone sets out that walls should not be located on side boundaries for a distance of 5 metres behind the front facade of the building fronting the street. The boundary walls of the proposed development are setback 5m from the front wall of the dwellings, meeting the varied standard.The east and west title boundaries have a length of 42.67m, allowing a maximum wall length of 18.17m along the boundaries. The proposed length of wall of 6.34m (west) and 6.46m (east) on the boundaries meets this requirement. The walls have a height of 3.05m and 3.2m, meeting the 3.2m average requirement, and the height will not exceed the maximum height of 3.6m specified. Standard B18 is considered met.

Daylight to existing Windows West

Page 19


The dwelling at 95 Argyll Street to the west of the subject site has two habitable room windows facing the subject site which are setback 1.78m from the common boundary. The garage wall (height of 3.2m) of Unit 2 is opposite one window. The closest wall opposite the second window is the wall of the rumpus room which has a height of approximately 5.85m. These habitable windows are provided a sufficient light court in accordance with standard B19 (minimum 3 sq m with minimum 1m dimension clear to the sky). An assessment of these windows against this standard is provided below:

Wall Wall Height

Required Setback

Proposed Setback Complies?

Ground Floor 3.2m 1.6m 1.78m - Complies Yes First Floor- Front habitable room window- Rear habitable room window

6.2m5.85m

3.1m2.93m

3.9m – Complies 3.9m - Complies

Yes Yes

East The dwelling at 99 Argyll Street to the east of the subject site has one habitable room window facing the subject site which is setback 1.35m from the common boundary. The garage wall of Unit 1 is partly opposite this window - a wall height of 3.005m is shown on the elevation plans but the height would be less than 3m above natural ground level given that this part of the development would be excavated to sit below natural ground level. Standard B19 states that a wall greater than 3m in height opposite a habitable room window should be setback from that window at least 50% of the wall height – as the wall height would be less than 3m above the natural ground level, the development complies with this part of the standard. The setback of the first floor level from the window meets the standard. An assessment is provided below:

Wall Wall Height Required Setback Proposed Setback Complies?

Ground Floor <3m (garage wall)

NA as wall height is less than 3m

1.35m NA

First Floor 5.85m 2.93m 3.475m Yes

North-Facing WindowsThere are no north-facing windows.

Overshadowing

The relevant assessment mechanism for overshadowing of neighbouring areas of private open space is the Overshadowing Open Space Objective, including Standard B21. This Standard states the following:

Where sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is reduced, at least 75 per cent, or 40 square metres with minimum dimension of 3 metres, whichever is the lesser area, of the secluded private open space should receive a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9 am and 3 pm on 22 September. If existing sunlight to the secluded private open space of an existing dwelling is less than the requirements of this standard, the amount of sunlight should not be further reduced.

Shadows would be cast over a portion of the secluded private open space area of 95 Argyll in the morning hours – even in the worst case scenario at 9am, adequate solar access in

Page 20


accordance with the standard would be available to the open space area this dwelling. Likewise at 3pm when the greatest impact would occur to the dwelling at 99 Argyll Street, the open space area this dwelling would receive adequate solar access in accordance with the standard.

Given the orientation of the site and the size of the adjoining open space areas, the proposal meets these requirements.

Overlooking

First floor windows other than windows facing Argyll Street either have a sill height of 1.7m above floor level, or have fixed obscure glass to 1.7m. This meets the requirements of Standard B22.

Internal Amenity

An appropriate level of internal amenity for future residents of the site is provided as follows:

Dwelling Entry The dwelling entries will be accessed via the individual driveways to Argyll Street with the entries protected by a porch (on the advertised plans) but to be changed to a canopy (in accordance with the ‘Discussion Plans’ as discussed elsewhere in his report) providing a sense of personal address.

Daylight to New WindowsAdequate daylight is provided to all habitable rooms, including kitchens, and each 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 120sqm of private open space, including 85sq m secluded private open space within the rear yard, meeting the requirements of Standard B28. The secluded private open space is oriented to the north, complying with the solar access to open space standard (B29).Views into secluded private open space areas are limited from within the development (that is between the dwellings) as required, ensuring an appropriate level of privacy for residents.

StorageEach of the two dwellings includes sufficient storage throughout the site including a nominated space for an external shed within the secluded private open space. This is considered to meet the requirements of Standard B31.

Having regard to all of the above, the proposal is considered to generally meet the provisions of Clause 55, subject to the conditions discussed.

Car Parking and Traffic

Council’s Traffic Engineer is satisfied that the local road network can accommodate the anticipated increase in traffic that will be generated by the proposal and that the loss of one on-street car space is not excessive in the neighbourhood.

Objections

Page 21


In response to the grounds of objection (including issues that arose at the planning consultation meeting) not already discussed in the report, the following comments are made:

Redevelopment of a site will generally result in the loss of garden areas – often there is a loss of canopy trees, though in this case the significant tree within the front setback area is to be retained and incorporated within the development (by way of adequate setbacks and the use of a tree management plan) to ensure its protection and retention. Despite the overall reduction in open space area on the site, there will be adequate open space areas and landscaping opportunities on the site.

Council’s Infrastructure Engineer has commented that there are known drainage problems and flooding downstream of the property and has required additional measures (drainage by a gravity based system and provision of a stormwater detention system to restrict runoff from the development to no greater than the existing runoff). The boundary to boundary construction and any retaining walls required to be constructed were not seen as an issue.

An adjoining neighbour who attended the planning consultation meeting was concerned with the excavation required for parts of the development and noted that the natural ground levels of the site relative to adjoining sites is different. There was some discussion regarding the need for retaining walls along the boundary, and that they be shown on the plans. This is not generally a matter assessed as part of the planning approval (given the limited extent of retaining walls in this case) but will be included as a condition of approval given the commitment given a the planning consultation meeting.

There will be adequate space and opportunities available for the storage requirements of residents, including the storage of rubbish bins.

There was concern that the floor levels/finished levels on the plans are unclear or misleading. A previously noted, the site levels drop from the rear of the site to the front by approximately 1.3m, with levels along the frontage rising from 34.06 on the south-western corner of the lot to 34.55 at the south-eastern corner. The elevation plans show both the existing natural ground level (noted at XNGL) on all elevations and in some cases the proposed ground level (PNGL notation). The details are provided for clarity.

There was concern that that any bamboo planted on the site be non-invasive. This can be addressed as a condition of approval regarding the landscape plan.

.Environmentally Sustainable Design

Clause 22.05 requires that a development of 2-9 dwellings include a Sustainable Design Assessment demonstrating best practice. An SDA has been submitted and the development achieves a BESS score of 55%. The SDA report has some incomplete sections (mainly relating to items to be marked on the floor plans) and a condition will be placed on the permit ensuring a revised report be submitted to the satisfaction of Council. A Water Sensitive Urban Design response has also been provided and a STORM rating of 100% is achieved.

Human Rights Consideration

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

CONCLUSION

Page 22


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. Whilst the proposal will change the immediate context, it nevertheless represents an appropriate architectural response which responds to its wider context within the neighbourhood. The development, as presented in the ‘Discussion Plans’, would sit comfortably within the emerging streetscape of Argyll Street.

The proposed height and form is appropriate within the area where newer dwellings are typically two storeys in height.

The development would not unreasonably impact on the amenity of adjoining residents; The retention of the existing significant tree and the additional landscaping proposed

would maintain and strengthen the garden setting within the neighbourhood and ensure that the dwellings appropriately screened.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PA 0729/17 – 97 Argyll Street, Malvern East Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 729/17 for the land located at 97 Argyll Street, 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 electronic copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted to Council on 17 October 2017 (Drawing No.s: 00PB, 10PD, 11PD, 50PD, 51PD, 60PC & 30PA) with the following changes:

a) The changes to the south (front) elevation and roof as shown in the ‘Discussion Plan’ received by Council on 30 April 2018.

b) The changes to the first floor plan as shown in the ‘Discussion Plans’ received by Council on 7 March 2018.

c) Additional landscaping within the east boundary setback as shown on the ‘Discussion Plan’ received by Council on 4 April 2018.

d) Correct annotation of the east and west elevations.e) The east and west elevations to correctly show the first-floor overhang.f) A minimum clearance of 2.2m provided to the garage entry doors when

the door is open.g) Show the sight distance triangles on the east side of the accessway for

Unit 2 and on the west side of the accessway for Unit 1 with a note that no further obstructions and/or landscaping higher than 0.9m to be located within the areas.

h) Alternative measures such as convex mirrors to allow for pedestrian visibility on the west side of the accessway for Unit 2 and on the east side of the accessway for Unit 1.

Page 23


i) The minimum gradient of the parking area to be 1 in 100 (1.0%) for outdoor areas and 1 in 200 (0.5%) for covered areas to allow for adequate drainage as per AS 2890.1.

j) The location of the rainwater tanks on the ground floor plans including annotation that they are connected to all toilets for flushing.

k) The retaining walls along the eastern and western boundaries.l) A schedule of the materials and finishes.m) Any changes as required by Condition 4 (stormwater management

measures) of this permit.n) Any changes as required by Condition 5 (Sustainable Design

Assessment) of this permit.o) Any changes as required by Condition 9 (Tree Management Plan) of this

permit.p) Any changes as required by Condition 11 (landscape plan) of this permit.

All to the satisfaction of Council.

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, without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

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

4. 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 2,500 litres greater than those tanks required to satisfy WSUD requirements for the development. Those tanks must be connected to all toilets.

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 Passive Energy and received by Council on 17 October 2017 but updated to: ensure that all sections are complete; and incorporate any changes to the plans required by conditions of this permit.

6. 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.

Page 24


7. The project must incorporate the Water Sensitive Urban Design initiatives detailed in the endorsed site plan and Water Sensitive Urban Design response.

8. Prior to the occupation of the building, fixed privacy screens (not adhesive film or timber battens) designed to limit overlooking as required Standard B22 at 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.

9. 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 Corymbia calophylla within the front setback area of the subject site including protection from the installation of services including meters.

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.

10. 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.

11. Before the development starts, a landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, must be

Page 25


approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan is to be based on the Landscape Plan prepared by BDN Projects and Council date stamped 17 October 2017 but modified to: remove the notation of the installation of a new street tree; include the installation of two Pyrus ‘Chanticleer’ behind the front fence; include the installation of two Pyrus calleryana ‘Capital’ within the building setback on the eastern side of the development in accordance with the ’Discussion Plans’ received by Council on 5 April 2018; and note that any bamboo planted on the site be a non-invasive type, all to the satisfaction of Council.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. All costs for the removal and replacement of the street tree are to be borne by the permit holder and paid for at the time of applying for a vehicle crossing permit. All works (removal, species selection and planting) in this regard will be undertaken by Council.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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:

Page 26


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.“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.

C. 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.

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

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

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

Page 27


2. PLANNING PERMIT 0322/16 - 2-6 COMMERCIAL ROAD, PRAHRAN VIC 3181- S72 AMENDMENT TO APPROVED PLANNING PERMIT AND PLANS INCLUDING A NEW ROOF DECK


For Council to consider a planning application for a S72 Amendment to the approved Planning Permit and Plans (Construction of a multi-dwelling development in a Residential Growth Zone, Special Building Overlay and Design and Development Overlay) to include a new roof deck and incorporate new windows at 2-6 Commercial Road, Prahran.

This item was considered at the Council meeting of 7 May 2018. The application is now re-presented to Council for further consideration.

Executive Summary

Applicant: Axiom PlanningWard: SouthZone: Residential Growth Zone - Schedule 1Overlay: Design & Development Overlay 17 - Alfred Hospital Flight

Path Protection, Special Building Overlay

Neighbourhood Precinct: Inner UrbanDate lodged: 04 October 2017Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

48

Trigger for referral to Council:

Number of Objections

Number of objections: 17Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on 31 January 2018Officer Recommendation: Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant an Amendment to the

Existing Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Kennedy Nolan and are known as File No. 1517 and Council date stamped 9 March 2018.

Key features of the proposal are:

Creation of a roof deck facing Commercial Road and associated increase to overall height and form.

Changes to the ground floor glazing to the south of the dwellings between the living room and ground floor courtyards

The application was formally revised on 9 March 2018. The original amendment application included changes to the garage and condition 6 (Section 173 Agreement), but these are no longer proposed to be changed.

Site and Surrounds

Page 29


The site is located on the south side of Commercial Road, approximately 37m east of Punt Road in Prahran. The subject site and surrounding area have the following significant characteristics:

The subject site is rectangular in shape and comprises 3 separate titles at No. 2, No. 4 and No. 6 Commercial Road.

The overall frontage to Commercial Road is 18.28 metres, the depth of the site is 37.95 metres and the area is 693 square metres.

The three sites are currently undergoing construction associated with Planning Permit 322/16 and the works are substantially complete.

A right of way abuts the rear (south) boundary of the site and connects to Punt Road and Alfred Street.

Built form within the surrounding area predominantly consists of 1 to 3 storey scale with some larger buildings dispersed throughout the area including those at No. 5 Commercial Road (formerly known as the Saville Hotel) which is 7 storeys and the Alfred Hospital buildings (located within the City of Melbourne) which are in the order of 8 storeys;

The surrounding area features a mixture of commercial and residential development. Properties to the south of the site facing Alfred Street are zoned Neighbourhood

Residential. To the south of the site on the opposite side of the right of way is a row of double

storey dwellings at No. 242-248 Punt Road as well as a double storey building containing 4 apartments at No. 81-83 Alfred Street.

To the north of the subject site is Commercial Road and beyond that is a petrol station at No. 262-268 Punt Road as well as the 7 storey residential building at No. 5 Commercial Road.

To the east of the site is a group of three double storey Victorian terraces at No. 8-12 Commercial Road which are affected by the Heritage Overlay and are A2 graded. The building at No. 8 Commercial Road which directly abuts the subject site is used as a dwelling.

To the west of the site is a three storey Federation building at No. 250 Punt Road known as Fawkner Mansions. This building contains residential apartments which were recently used as a boarding house but are currently vacant. The building is oriented to Punt Road with a driveway and service area directly abutting the subject site.


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

Planning Permit No. 110/01 was issued on 12 June 2002 for development of two double storey dwellings at No. 4 and 6 Commercial Road. This permit has not been acted on and has now expired.

Planning Permit No. 543/03 was issued on 11 November 2003 for alterations and additions to the rear of the existing dwelling including an upper level addition at No. 2 Commercial Road. This permit has not been acted on and has now expired.

Planning Permit No. 696/12 was issued on 13 May 2013 for a three storey dwelling with roof deck at No. 4-6 Commercial Road. This permit has not been acted on and has now expired.

The Title

Page 30


The site comprises 3 properties at No. 2, 4 and 6 Commercial Road which are each on separate titles as follows:

• No.2 Commercial Road is described on Certificate of Title Volume 04738 Folio 563 / Lot 1 of Title Plan 393483R and no covenants or easements affect the land. This property has an area of approximately 273 square metres.

• No 4 Commercial Road is described on Certificate of Title Volume 10138 Folio 352 / Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 331213L and no covenants or easements affect the land. This property has an area of approximately 226 square metres.

• No 6 Commercial Road is described on Certificate of Title Volume 10138 Folio 352 / Lot 2 on Plan of Subdivision 331213L and no covenants or easements affect the land. This property has an area of approximately 193 square metres.

The combined area of all three lots is approximately 693 square metres.

Planning Controls


ZoneClause 32.07 – Residential Growth ZonePursuant to Clause 32.07-4 a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot. Whilst the subject land is currently subdivided into 3 separate titles, each proposed dwelling does not strictly align with the layout of the current title boundaries. Accordingly, the proposal includes dwellings which span more than one allotment and therefore more than one dwelling on each lot.

OverlaysClause 43.02 – Design & Development Overlay Schedule 17Pursuant to Clause 43.02-2 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works for a building greater than 15.7 metres above Australian Height Datum (AHD). The proposal has a height of 25.02 metres above AHD and therefore requires a permit.

An application under this provision must be referred in accordance with Section 55 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 to the Department of Health and Human Services (a determining referral authority).

Clause 44.05 – Special Building OverlayPursuant to Clause 44.05-2 a permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works. Stonnington is the relevant floodplain management authority in this instance.

It is noted that Proposed Planning Scheme Amendment C221 seeks to include a number of schedules to the SBO, and the subject site is proposed to be included in Schedule 2, which relates to potential flooding of local drains. The extent that the overlay covers the subject site is proposed to be slightly reduced.

As the amendments propose no changes to the ground floor (other than materials), no further consideration of this overlay is required.

Particular ProvisionsClause 52.06 – Car ParkingNo changes to the existing car parking situation are proposed.


Page 31


Clause 11.06 Metropolitan MelbourneClause 15.01 Urban environmentClause 15.02 Sustainable developmentClause 16.01 Residential developmentClause 21.03 VisionClause 21.05 HousingClause 21.06 Built environment and HeritageClause 22.05 Environmentally Sustainable DevelopmentClause 22.18 Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design)Clause 22.23 Neighbourhood Character PolicyClause 32.07 Residential Growth ZoneClause 43.02 Design and Development OverlayClause 44.05 Special Building OverlayClause 55 Two or More Dwellings on a Lot and Residential BuildingsClause 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, objectors to the original application and by placing 4 signs on the site. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

The site is located in South Ward and objections from 17 different properties have been received.

The concerns, in summary, relate to:

• Noise Impacts• Parking• Overdevelopment• Amenity, Height & Visual Bulk Impacts• Potential Disorderly Conduct • Heritage Impacts• Building Works undertaken without permit

A Consultative Meeting was held on 31 January 2018. The meeting was attended by Councillors Hindle and Stefanopoulos, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. During the meeting, the applicant provided an acoustic engineering report to support the amendment application. No direct changes were made to the plans.

Internal Referrals

Infrastructure

Council’s Infrastructure Unit had significant objection to the changes to the garage. Those changes were subsequently deleted from the amendment application on 9 March 2018.

Heritage

Page 32


Council’s Heritage Advisor provided the following comment:As the proposed access to the roof deck will rise to an overall height that is greater than either of its highly graded neighbours, every effort should be made to reduce the visual bulk of this element.

One way of achieving this would be to delete the roof overhang (and the associated supporting wing walls) to the third level. Solar access could be controlled by alternative means (louvres, for example) that do not add bulk to the upper level as viewed from Commercial Road. Although a figured dimension is not provided on the plans, it appears that this would result in an additional metre or so setback.

The height of the proposed screens between the roof terraces is currently 2640mm: this height should be reduced as far as possible.

No doubt there are other ways of reducing the apparent bulk of the third level when viewed from Commercial Road, but the overall objective should be to ensure this element appears as recessive as possible.

External Referrals

Department of Health and Human Services

No objection subject to prescribed conditions included in recommendation, relating to a flight path construction management plan.

KEY ISSUES

The key issues of this proposal are:

Heritage & Built Form

The proposed amendment seeks to amend the original design to include a roof deck above the third storey to each dwelling at the front third of the three sites. These roof decks will be accessed by an extension to the existing roof and elevator core. The structures housing the stairwells and elevators also performs a function as a physical barrier separating the roof deck from the residential streets behind the site.

The proposed amendment increases the built form of the development resulting in an overall maximum height of 25.02m AHD, an increase of 2.5m from the approved height of 22.55m AHD. While the overall development is proposed to increase 2.5m in height, this additional height is mostly associated with the stairwell and elevator shaft/overrun. The street-facing parapet is proposed to increase by 0.22m to 22.77m AHD. This increase is to include a 1.0m balustrade around the deck for safety purposes. Screening between the dwellings rises an additional 1.64m above the parapet and blocks views between the decks in accordance with Standard B23 (Internal Views). This however results in 2.64m high screens between the decks. Given a 1.7m high screen would be considered to meet the standard, the additional 940mm of height introduces additional bulk to the proposal unnecessarily. It is recommended that a condition be placed on the permit requiring these screens be reduced to 1.7m.

There is a significant setback of the new built form from the rear boundary and there will be no change to shadowing or daylight access of surrounding properties.

Objections raised concerns over the interface of the development with neighbouring heritage listed properties. The controls of Clause 22.04 (Heritage Policy) and Clause 43.01 (Heritage

Page 33


Overlay) do not apply to a site outside of the Heritage Overlay. The relevant policy consideration is at Clause 21.06-10, which includes the following strategy:

In an application to use or develop land that adjoins land in the Heritage Overlay, requiring the use and development of the adjoining land to be compatible with and not adversely affect the significance of the heritage place.

As noted in the heritage comments, the principal concerns relate to the proposed roof decks creating a design that is visibly larger than its immediate and heritage protected neighbours.

While the proposed amendment seeks to increase the height of the approved development above the height of the neighbouring heritage-protected dwellings, the overall increase is relatively minor at 2.5m. The applicant has also provided a bulk and view line assessment of the proposal and it is considered that the proposed structure will be mostly invisible from the street except at certain oblique angles. Given the sites themselves are within the Residential Growth Zone on a main road, not specifically located within the Heritage Overlay and are not subject to the Heritage Policy at Clause 22.04, it is considered that there is insufficient policy basis to refuse the proposed amendment on this basis alone.

It is however noted that some unnecessary bulk can be removed from the proposal. The eaves of the proposed new storey (which houses the elevator and stairwell) move the 4th storey closer into view and can be removed easily, reducing the bulk of this structure. A flat structure such as louvres on the windows or internal blinds can equally accomplish the shade benefits of the eave. It is recommended that a condition requiring the removal of these eaves with an allowance for internal blinds or louvres on the windows be included.

Following the consultative meeting, the applicant was asked to look at what else could be done to reduce the impact, including options of moving the deck further to the rear. The response identified that the location of the stair and lift core is a constraint in the siting of the deck, and the relocation of the deck to the rear of the core would bring it closer to the areas of secluded private open space and habitable windows on the adjoining properties and may result in off-site noise impacts.

Having regard to the above considerations, and balancing the competing impacts of amenity and built form, the proposal is considered to be an appropriate built form response to the surrounding context.

Noise ImpactsThe proposed amendment seeks to place a roof deck at the northern side of the site, in front of the elevator/stairwell core of the attached buildings.

The submitted acoustic engineering report assesses the potential noise impacts of these spaces against a combination of State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade) No. N-1 (State of Victoria, 2001), the World Health Organization Guidelines for Community Noise (World Health Organization, 1999), and Environment Protection (Residential Noise) Regulations 2008 (State of Victoria, 2008).

The report found that a congregation of up to 16 adults on the rooftop terrace simultaneously will meet the SEPP N-1 requirements throughout the day as well as the WHO Guidelines (which relate to sleep disturbance) throughout the night at the nearest noise sensitive areas.

The report goes on to state that any amplified music up to 70dB in volume would comply with the Environmental Protection Regulations. Given this is approximately the level of a conversation, this is considered acceptable. While it could be contemplated that music could be turned higher, such an action could be

Page 34


undertaken at any residential backyard in the area to similar effect on the neighbourhood. Furthermore, increasing the sound beyond this level outside of allowable hours could lead to enforcement action by relevant authorities. It would be considered unreasonable to restrict music noise on this deck on the basis that they may one day breach these separate regulations, especially considering such restrictions do not apply to any other developments in the area.

Changes to GlazingThe proposal seeks a change to the ground floor glazing between the courtyard and living room from a tiled square window design to a more traditional full-height two-panel design. This change is internal to the courtyard and does not materially affect the consideration of the development.

Objections

In response to the grounds of objection not already discussed in the report, the following comments are made:

ParkingThe proposal no longer seeks to make changes to the garage. The existing car parking arrangement has been previously approved.

Overdevelopment

A building can be considered an overdevelopment if it adversely impacts the surrounding area in terms of visual bulk, off-site and on-site amenity and neighbourhood character. Such considerations have been directly assessed and it is considered that the proposed development does not result in an overdevelopment of the site.

Potential Disorderly Conduct

It is not considered that the approval of the proposed roof deck will result in an increase of disturbance and disorderly conduct in the surrounding neighbourhood.

Building Works undertaken without a permitCouncil’s planning investigations unit undertook investigations at this property in December 2017 and January 2018 and found no breach had occurred.

Notwithstanding the above, compliance with the existing permit is not a relevant consideration and cannot prejudice assessment of the amendment application.

Human Rights Consideration

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

CONCLUSION

Page 35


Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons: The proposed built form will not result in adverse impacts on the surrounding

neighbourhood The proposed roof deck will not adversely impact on the surrounding neighbourhood by

way of noise impacts The proposed changes to the glazing is of no consequence

ATTACHMENTS

1. Council Report Attachments Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant an amendment to Planning Permit No: 322/16 for the land located at 2-6 Commercial Road, Prahran be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for the following changes:

Amend plans to show the following changes1. A roof deck at the fourth storey with associated changes to built form

including stairwell, elevator and parapet.2. Changes to the south facing ground floor windows

New sub-conditions 1. o), p) and q):

o. The privacy screens between roof decks reduced to 1.7m in heightp. The northern eaves of the roof deck void and stairwell deleted and

replaced with window louvres or internal blindsq. The external walls to the east and west outer ends of the proposed

roof decks reduced to a height of 1.0m from finished floor level where the eave is to be removed

New conditions 6 & 7 as required by Department of Health and Human Services as follows:

6. Prior to the commencement of any development (including any demolition or excavation) or by such time as agreed by the Responsible Authority and Department of Health and Human Services in writing, a flight path construction management plan must be prepared to the satisfaction of the Department of Health and Human Services and be approved by the responsible authority. The flight path construction management plan must include measures to minimise the impact of the construction of the building on the safe and unfettered operation of the Alfred Hospital helipad.' The management measures incorporated within the plan must be implemented during the construction of the building to the satisfaction of the Department of Health and Human Services and the responsible authority.

7. The flight path construction management plan must identify the location and height of any construction equipment, including cranes.

Renumbering of existing conditions

Page 36


3. PLANNING APPLICATION 0379/17- 1352 MALVERN ROAD, MALVERN VIC 3144 – PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION OF A FOUR STOREY MIXED USED DEVELOPMENT CONTAINING A SHOP, FOUR DWELLINGS, FOUR CAR PARKING SPACES AND SIX BICYCLE SPACES


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for construction of a four storey mixed use development in a Commercial 1 Zone and Heritage Overlay at 1352 Malvern Road, Malvern.

This item was considered at the Council meeting of 7 May 2018. The application is now re-presented to Council for further consideration.

Executive Summary

Applicant: DCA DesignWard: EastZone: Commercial 1 Zone Overlay: Heritage Overlay Neighbourhood Precinct: NoDate lodged: 02 May 2017Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

94

Trigger for referral to Council: Height – four storeys and the number of objections Number of objections: 19 objections from 17 propertiesConsultative Meeting: Yes (27 March 2018) Officer Recommendation: Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council’s consideration are outlined in the following table:

Advertised materials

Plan Ref Description Council date stamped

Waste Management Plan Prepared by Leigh Design 2 August 2017Sustainable Management Plan Prepared by Efficient

Energy Choices 2 August 2017

Tree Information Statement Prepared by Glenn Waters Arboriculture

2 August 2017

Planning Assessment Report 2 May 2017TP-01 Cover Sheet rev A 2 August 2017TP-02 Existing Site Plan – Demolition rev 2 August 2017

Page 37


A

Prepared by DCA Design TP-03 Design Response rev A 2 August 2017TP-04 Proposed Floor Plan rev A 2 August 2017TP-05 Elevations rev A 2 August 2017TP-06 Shadow Diagrams rev A 2 August 2017

Revised plans

In response to the comments from Council’s Transport Unit, the applicant revised the plans showing the depth of car parking spaces at ground level increased to 5.4m (in lieu of 4.9m) and subsequent internal reconfigurations. Given the changes are confined to the internal layout, re-advertising is deemed unnecessary. Importantly, the revised plans are formally declared pursuant to Clause 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and thus will be referenced in the following assessment.

The revised plans were prepared by DCA Design and are outlined below:Plan Ref Council date stampedTP-01 Cover Sheet rev B 10 November 2017TP-02 Existing Site Plan – Demolition rev A 10 November 2017TP-03 Design Response rev A 10 November 2017TP-04 Proposed Floor Plan rev B 10 November 2017TP-05 Elevations rev B 10 November 2017TP-06 Shadow Diagrams rev A 10 November 2017

Key features of the proposal are: The front façade (facing Malvern Road) remains unaltered.

The eastern façade (facing Cawkwell Street) is to be largely retained. Specifically, on the ground floor, the front section of 13.91m is to be retained; and on the first floor, the eastern wall remains untouched. Internally, demolition works are also proposed, including the rear section at ground level and some at first floor.

As a result of the partial demolition, it is proposed to construct a four-storey mixed use development comprising a shop at ground level, four dwellings on the upper levels and associated car parking.

Specially, the proposal incorporates the following components: On the ground floor, the existing shop will be renovated and occupy the front

setback of the building. The rear section will contain a communal lobby, four car parking spaces (one for each dwelling), ten bicycle facilities, four storage cages (one for each dwelling), waste storage and service areas.

On the first floor, two x 2 bedroom dwellings are proposed. An east-facing balcony (with no less than 8.1sqm) is provided to each dwelling.

On the second floor, one x 2 bedroom dwelling is proposed, incorporating a north-facing balcony (of 11.93sqm in area) and an east-facing balcony (of 8.1sqm in area).

On the third floor, one x 2 bedroom dwelling is proposed, incorporating a southeast-facing balcony of 22.95sqm in area.

Pedestrian access to the shop is provided via the existing entrance from Malvern Road; whereas the access to the proposed dwellings is provided via a centrally located entry lobby from Cawkwell Street.

Vehicle access is provided via a widened existing crossover from Cawkwell Street.

Page 38


No onsite car parking arrangement is provided to the shop. The proposed maximum building height is 13.62m above the nominal ground level.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the south western corner of the intersection of Malvern Road and Cawkwell Street and is addressed to 1352 Malvern Road, Malvern. It is approximately 101.1m west of the intersection with Tooronga Road and 72.1m east of the intersection with McArthur Street.

The site has the following significant characteristics: The site is regular in shape with a frontage of 8.23m to Malvern Road, and a frontage

of 30.48m to Cawkwell Street, resulting in a total site area of approximately 250sqm.

The land has a fall of approximately 1m from the north-east to the south-west of the site.

A B-graded double storey building improves the site with a shop at ground floor and a dwelling at first floor; and to the dwelling from a single door off Cawkwell Street.

Pedestrian access to the shop is provided via the front entry from Malvern Road.

An existing vehicle crossing is located on the eastern side of the site, providing access from Cawkwell Street.

The site is centrally located in the Malvern Village Commercial Precinct. The current physical context of the site, as viewed from Malvern Road, is varied. There are single and double-storey shops, some buildings with a residential appearance but used commercially, gaps created by vehicle access, some sections of consistent shopfronts and some more recent development of between three and five storeys. This mixed built form, that includes height up to five storeys, creates a local character that is low-medium scale. The front setbacks of building stock also varies considerably, ranging from zero (commercial sites) to 8m (residential properties). Where there are significant front setbacks the quality of landscaping varies. Front fences also range in height from low to high. Ultimately, Commercial 1 Zone (coupled with Heritage Overlay) is expected to be transitional between the landscaped residential areas to the south and more intense commercial activities to the east and the west (where heritage controls do not apply). Additionally, it is worth noting that the recently constructed and approved developments in the area includes three to five-storey apartments and mixed use buildings.

The site has four interfaces, which can be summarised as follows:

To the immediate west is a B-graded double storey retail shop with similar façade details as the subject site, addressed to 1348-1350 Malvern Road, Malvern and located in the Commercial 1 Zone. Further to the west, are predominantly commercial buildings most of which are two storeys in height.

To the immediate east, the site abuts Cawkwell Street. On the opposite side of the street is a property addressed to 1354 Malvern Road, which houses a C-graded double storey retail shop. Pedestrian access is provided via the shop entry on Malvern Road, whereas vehicular access is provided via an existing crossover on Cawkwell Street.

Page 39


Cawkwell Street, south of the commercial properties fronting Malvern Road, is residential in nature and comprises a mix of detached dwellings and medium density housing (including dual occupancy and multi-unit development). Although street setbacks vary from dwelling to dwelling, where possible, well-planted front gardens are maintained presenting an attractive and inviting streetscape.

To the immediate south, the site interfaces with Pryor Place, which is a narrow lane that runs parallel with Malvern Road and provides vehicle access to a number of properties fronting Malvern Road. To the south of Pryor Place, is a property addressed to 69 Cawkwell Street, which houses a single storey weatherboard dwelling with a pitched roof, 5.6m front setback from the footpath of Cawkwell Street, and a number of north facing windows. It is also noted that the north-facing windows have a setback of 1.1m from the northern boundary and include one immediately opposite the subject site.

To the immediate north, the site fronts Malvern Road. On the opposite of the street is a property addressed to 1405-1407 Malvern Road, which is improved by a three-storey mixed use development containing an office/retail premises on the ground floor and four apartments on the upper levels. The access to the ground floor tenancy is provided via Malvern Road, where pedestrian and vehicle access are provided via Cressy Street.


A search of Council records indicates no relevant planning applications.

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 05403 Folio 555 / Lot 1 on Title Plan 220000L and no covenants or easements affect the land.

Planning Controls


ZoneClause 34.01 – Commercial 1 Zone

Use The applicant proposes to use the ground floor as a shop and the above to accommodate four dwellings. Pursuant to Clause 34.01-1, ‘accommodation’ and ‘shop’ both fall into a Section 1 Use, which does not require a planning permit to facilitate such a use.

Building and works Pursuant to Clause 34.01-4, a planning permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works. Additionally, it is noted that an apartment development must meet the requirements of Clause 58.

OverlayClause 43.01 – Heritage Overlay Pursuant to Clause 43.01-1, a planning permit is required to: Demolish or remove a building

Page 40


Construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Particular ProvisionsClause 52.06 – Car Parking Pursuant to Clause 52.06-2, before the floor area or site area of an existing use is increased, the number of car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5 must be provided on the land.

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-3, a planning permit is required to (but not limited to): Reduce (including reduce to zero) the number of car parking spaces required under

Clause 52.06-5

It is also noted that pursuant to Clause 52.06-3, a planning permit is not required if (inter alia): The number of car parking spaces currently provided in connection with the existing

use is not reduced after the new use commences.

Pursuant to Table 1 under Clause 52.06-5, the required car parking spaces are summarized as follows:

Shop 4 car parking spaces is required to each 100sqm of the leasable floor area

Dwelling 1 car parking space is required to each one or two bedroom dwelling, plus

2 car parking spaces are required to each three or more bedroom dwelling (with studios or studies that are separate rooms counted as a bedroom), plus

1 visitor car parking space to every 5 dwellings for development of 5 or more dwellings

In the existing condition, the ground floor is used as a shop with a total area with a total area of 92.15sqm and the first floor contains a dwelling. In accordance with Clause 52.06, three car parking spaces should be provided to the shop; and one car parking space to the dwelling. As shown on the Feature Survey Plan, although no onsite car parking space is provided, it should be noted that a crossover with a width of 11.228m is clearly dimensioned; and it is reasonable to assume that car parking space(s) were provided within the site.

In this proposal, the development consists of four x 2 bedroom dwellings and one shop (with a total area of 92.15sqm, unchanged), resulting in three car parking spaces for the shop and one car parking space to each dwelling. As discussed above, the proposal incorporates one car parking space to each dwelling and zero parking space to the shop. As such, the number of car parking spaces in connection with the shop is reduced; and a planning permit is therefore required for the onsite car parking reduction associated with the shop.

Clause 52.29 – Land adjacent to a road zone, category 1 Malvern Road is a Road Zone Category 1. Pursuant to Clause 52.29, a planning permit is required to alter access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1.

Page 41


This proposal does not seek any changes to the street façade facing Malvern Road and the Clause is therefore not triggered.

Clause 52.34 – Bicycle Facilities Pursuant to Clause 52.34-1, a new use must not commence until the required bicycle facilities are provided on the land. As stipulated in Table 1 to Clause 52.34-3, one bicycle facility is required to each five dwellings. As the application proposes four dwellings in total, the Clause is not triggered.

Clause 58 – Apartment Developments Pursuant to Clause 58, provisions in this clause apply to an application to construct or extend an apartment development, or to construct or extend a dwelling in or forming part of an apartment development, if The apartment development is five or more storeys, excluding a basement, and is in

the General Residential Zone, Residential Growth Zone, Mixed Use Zone or Township Zone, or

The apartment development is in the Commercial 1 Zone, Special Use Zone, Comprehensive Development Zone, Capital City Zone, Docklands Zone, Priority Development Zone or Activity Centre Zone.

The application proposes to construct a four-storey mixed use development in a Commercial 1 Zone. Requirements set out in Clause 58 therefore apply.


11.06 Metropolitan Melbourne 15.01 Urban Environment 15.02 Sustainable Development 15.03 Heritage 16.01 Residential Development 17 Economic Development 21.04 Economic Development 21.05 Housing 21.06 Built Environment and Heritage 21.09 Reference Documents 22.04 Heritage Policy 22.05 Environmentally Sustainable Development 22.18 Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design)34.01 Commercial 1 Zone 43.01 Heritage Overlay 52.06 Car Parking 58 Apartment Developments65 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

Page 42


three signs on the site. The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

The site is located in East Ward and objections from 17 different properties have been received. The grounds of objections are: Car parking reduction is inappropriate. The proposed crossover is problematic. The development will further deteriorate the traffic congestion. The increased number of dwellings will generate additional noise and impact on the

livability of the surrounds. The development will contribute to the loss of a newsagency; and the loss of on street

parking on Cawkwell Street. The development will result in commercial impact on the Malvern Commercial Village. The development will create undue impacts on north facing habitable windows at 69

Cawkwell Street. The development will generate unreasonable shadows onto the southern adjoining

properties. The development will result in detriment to the footpath safety.

A Consultative Meeting was held on 27 March 2018. The meeting was attended by Councillors Atwell, Klisaris and Davis, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. The meeting did not result in any changes to the plans.

As discussed in the proposal section, the applicant has revised the plans showing modifications to the ground floor internal layout and crossover. Given the consistency with the advertised plans (in terms of the scale, massing and overall presentation of all façades), the revised plans were not re-advertised. Furthermore, as formal declaration has been made, the following assessment will have regard to the revised plans only.

Referrals

Transport and Parking Comments are summarised and responded as follows:

Advertised plans The headroom clearance at the lowest point in the garage must be no less than 2.2m

and should be shown on the plans. Sight distance at property boundary should be provided, depicting the minimum sight

lines of 2.5m in length x 2m in width for pedestrian safety. The proposed car parking bays 4.9m long by 2.6m wide are recommended to be at

least 5.4m in length to accommodate large vehicles. B99 turning templates should be shown, demonstrating that access to the parking bays

can be achieved from Cawkwell Street in a single movement.

The plans indicated that Ned Kelly style racks are proposed at 0.4m spacings. The Australian Standards requires a minimum spacing of 0.5m for staggered height racks, or 0.7m for non-staggered racks. Revised plans should be provided, depicting these dimensions.

The proposed crossover is unlikely to be functionally appropriate; and a separate consent from Council’s Building Department is required.

Page 43


Planner notesIn response to the above concerns, the applicant revised the plans and submitted to Council on 10 November 2017. Key changes consist of: The height of the garage doors has been increased to a minimum of 2.325m to achieve

a minimum headroom clearance of 2.2m. Sight distance (2.5m long by 2m wide) is shown on the proposed ground floor plan. The car parking space has been increased to 5.4m long x 2.9m wide. Dimensions of the bicycle facilities are provided, showing that 4 x Ned Kelly spaces

with a minimum 0.5m for each; and 2 x double hoop type with a minimum 0.7m for each.

The proposed crossover is amended.

The revised plans were referred to Council’s Transport and Parking department and received the following comments: Sight distance is unsatisfactory. The plans do not detail the proposed floor gradients of the entire parking area. The modified section of the proposed crossover has not been detailed in the plans. A pedestrian access door leading into Pryor Place is likely to create issues in the future

and raises safety concerns. The planting in the proposed garden area along the southern boundary (being at the

intersection of Pryor Place and Cawkwell Street) should not exceed 0.9m in height.

Planner notes The revised plans incorporate the sight splay by way of windows to the northern and

southern side of the proposed crossover. Resultantly, a pedestrian splay of 2m in width and 2.5m in length is provided to the north of the proposed crossover; and a pedestrian splay of 1.943m in width and 2.5m in length to the south of the proposed crossover can be achieved. It is therefore considered that the purpose is achieved and can be accepted.

The floor gradients of the entire parking area will be requested to be clearly shown on the proposed ground floor plan by way of conditions.

Details of the modified section associated with the proposed crossover will be requested to be clearly shown by way of conditions.

The proposed pedestrian door leading into Pryor Place is considered acceptable with the following considerations: The proposed pedestrian door is not the main access to the development. As

shown on the plans, it is likely to mainly provide access for waste management. Furthermore, the proposed pedestrian door is to be set back 1.5m from the

southern boundary, which allows for a clearance area of 1.2m in width and 1.5m in depth. As such, future occupants will be able to observe in this preserved clearance area when exiting the building thereby minimising any potential safety issue.

It is also worth noting that the current traffic flow in Pryor Place is low. As the development does not utilise this street for vehicle access, the traffic condition will remain more or less unchanged and will not unreasonably give rise to pedestrian safety.

The planting at the intersection of Pryor Place and Cawkwell Street will be conditioned, requesting that it should not exceed 0.9m in height.

Parks

Page 44


Advertised plans The tree on this site doesn’t look as if it is significant as per the Local Law however I

suggest you get the applicant to obtain a report on the tree to determine if it is significant or not.

Revised plansIn response to the above comments, the applicant provided a Tree Report, which was referred to Council’s Park Unit. The following comments were received: The tree within the rear setback does not appear to be significant. Replacement tree planting must occur along the southern aspect of the site. No detail has been provided on the green façade proposed for the southern façade.

Planner notesThe Tree Report submitted by the applicant was prepared by a qualified arborist. The Report specifically stated that the tree is deemed insignificant due to the measured dimensions. Council’s Parks Unit has reviewed the submitted Tree Report and confirmed that the tree is not significant. The removal of this tree in question therefore does not require a consent from Council’s Parks Unit. The planting replacement along the southern boundary is provided in the form of a water efficient garden. The details of the proposed green wall (as well as other landscaping feature) will be requested by way of conditions.

Infrastructure Comments were received on 20 May 2017 and raised no objections subject to conditions relating to the legal point of discharge and not altering the footpath levels.

Planner notesThe revised plans (Council received 10 November 2018) were not referred to Council’s Infrastructure Department, however, it is noted that the revised plans include a garage section which indicates that the existing footpath is to be modified. This change is not supported and will be conditioned to reflect the requirements stipulated by Council’s Infrastructure Department.

Urban Design Comments were received on 31 August 2017 and are summarised as follows: This is an application for the part-demolition of an existing 2-storey heritage building;

and the construction of a new 4-storey addition comprising 4 apartments and ground-level parking for 4 cars at the rear. The existing ground-floor shop is to be retained.

The subject site is located within a Commercial 1 Zone and Heritage Overlay. Following a pre-application meeting with Council Officers, the applicant has made the following suggested revisions to the previous proposal: The retention of the majority of the existing ‘primary’ envelope of the heritage

building. The rear addition to be setback 10m from the Malvern Road frontage. A reduction in the extent of the building footprint and building mass. Articulation of the form of the building addressing Cawkwell Street. Improving the form and scale transition, and setbacks, to the South. Improving and simplifying the design expression of the proposed addition.

There are two remaining matters that need to be clarified/confirmed: The existing heritage building has a semi-circular window at the First Floor on the

Malvern Road frontage; and, subject to advice from Council’s Heritage Advisor,

Page 45


this should be retained as part of the heritage fabric of the building (The current proposal indicates a new rectangular window in this location).

A ‘green wall’ is proposed to cover the South elevation of the building. It is suggested that further detail be provided on this proposed system, together with an ongoing landscape management plan to ensure its long-term effectiveness.

Subject to these matters being satisfactorily resolved, I would support the application.

Planner notes Two remaining matters are identified and will be discussed in details in the assessment section.

Heritage Comments are summarised and responded as follows:

Advertised plansComments were received on 16 August 2017 and are stated below: Demolition

This scheme now proposes the retention of part of the single storey wall along Cawkwell along with all of the two storey portion of the building. Whilst this still removes a portion of the building that is visible and contributes to the significance of the place it is a better solution than the previous scheme and can be supported.

New WorksThe new building is now set back 9.8M from the front of the existing building and this generally meets the heritage guidelines. It is also offset from the retained wall of the single storey section clarifying the relationship of the new to the old. Regardless, the new build will be highly visible from the intersection of Malvern Road and Cawkwell Street. The impact of the building will be determined by its height and design details. It would be preferable if the new build was reduced in height by one floor, but the impact on the heritage precinct would still remain significant at 3 levels. The materials and design of the new building seem to have been simplified and are hence an improvement on the previous scheme.

ConclusionThis proposal is an improvement on the earlier scheme and has addressed a number of the heritage concerns. It would be preferable if the building was of 3 levels and hence reducing the impact on the heritage precinct. It remains a large and imposing development and if such a development is to be agreed in this location it is acceptable.

Planner notesAs the revised plans are confined to the internal layout, no further referral was made. However, the above comments remain applicable and will be discussed in details in the assessment section below.

Local LawsRevised plans were referred to Council’s Local Laws Unit for comments. Comments received on 6 March 2018 and raised no objections.

KEY ISSUESWith considerations of all submissions (including objections), referral comments and the relevant provisions and policies of the Stonnington Planning Scheme, key issues arising from this application are comprised of:

Page 46


Is the proposal supported by the policy direction, in particular with regard to strategic justifications?

Is the built form an appropriate response to the site’s context?

Does the proposal respond acceptably to heritage values?

Will there be unacceptable off-site amenity impacts?

Will the development provide an acceptable level of amenity for future residents?

Will there be unacceptable traffic and car parking impacts arising from the proposal?

Key issues are demonstrated below:

Is the proposal supported by the policy direction, in particular with regard to strategic justifications?

At the State and local level, there is broad strategic support for housing intensification in activity centres. The application proposes to retain the ground floor retail shop and incorporate residential development at upper levels. This arrangement ensures more effective use of the commercial land and thus is considered to be broadly consistent with the State and local economic development policies.

Specifically, State policy generally encourages additional housing to fit the context and enhance the character of the area. At local policy level, the subject site is in a small neighbourhood activity centre (at Clause 21.03). Strategic direction of a small neighbourhood activity centre is further stipulated at Clause 21.04, which states as ‘a hub of retail uses for everyday needs with a complementary mix of uses in the peripheral areas such as speciality retailing, offices, services, residential and small scale entertainment uses, appropriate to the character and identity of the centre’. Moreover, pursuant to Clause 21.05, the subject site falls in to a ‘substantial change area’, where the local policy directs ‘medium and higher density housing’ and encourages ‘a range of dwellings (apartments, units, town houses and shop tops).

Additionally, it is worth noting that the land is well served by public transport, including the Malvern Road tram and the nearby Tooronga and Gardiner railway stations (390m and 900m away respectively). It also has a good access to Tooronga Village shopping centre (to the north, at the intersection between Tooronga Road and Toorak Road); and commercial strips along Glenferrie Road (to the west).

With consideration of the above, it is reasonable to state that the overarching polices encourage urban consolidation in established urban areas and higher density residential development in and around neighbourhood activity centres and close to public transport. These strategies call for well-designed medium density housing that respect neighbourhood character, improves housing choice, makes better use of existing infrastructure and improves energy efficiency of housing.

The site fronts a road zone and is in a small neighbourhood activity centre, adjacent to a tram line and other services. As Council’s Municipal Strategic Statement specifically

Page 47


encourages medium density development along this section of Malvern Road, the proposal is considered generally consistent with the policy direction. Moreover, the proposal incorporates residential dwellings with a complementary use of retail at ground level, which accords with the strategic direction. In addition, given the location, the proposed siting of a medium density development will not only contribute to the growth of the neighbourhood activity centre zone but also reasonably further the strategies of the State and Local Planning Policy.

Is the built form an appropriate response to the site’s context?

The subject site sits in a rather complex context, which requires careful consideration of its physical attributes and the strategic position the context warrants in the current planning scheme. The subject site is located in a Commercial 1 Zone, borders a General Residential Zone (to the south) and is not too far from a Mixed Use Zone (to the west). Within the immediate context, the prevailing scale presents one to two storeys, however there are also three to five storey developments to the north and east. The varied neighbourhood character is comprised of low scale residential developments with landscaped frontages to the south of the subject site; and robust commercial developments built boundary to boundary where sites are situated along Malvern Road. The subject site contemplates a multi dwelling development that contributes to strengthening the transition between the local scale residential forms to the south and the robust commercial forms in the surrounds.

With respect to the policy direction, State and the local policies both seek to maintain and enhance the character and amenity of residential areas and encourage new development that reflects the scale, character and appearance of the an area. Specifically, considerations must be given to Clause 21.03 (Vision), Clause 21.04 (Economic Development), Clause 21.06 (Built Environment and Heritage), Clause 34.01 (Commercial 1 Zone) and Clause 58 (Apartment Developments). Council’s Local Policy at Clause 21.03 seeks well-designed new built form that respects the valued, traditional built form character elements of its host precinct. The objectives of residential uses at Clause 21.04 aim to achieve the right balance of commercial and residential development and to manage the amount and location of new residential development to ensure it does not diminish future opportunities for retail and commercial expansion in core areas. The strategies and objectives at Clause 21.06 aim to ensure higher elements above street walls of 2-3 storeys are set back behind the façade to minimise impacts on the streetscape; and building heights are not significantly higher or lower than the surrounding buildings. It is also noted that for corner sites, the policy supports development designed to address both street frontages and reflect the existing scale and character of each centre. The purpose of the zone (at Clause 34.01) seeks to provide for residential uses at densities complementary to the role and scale of the commercial centre; and directs apartment developments through the implementation of Clause 58, which aims to provide reasonable standards of amenity for existing and new residents; and seeks built form that respects existing or preferred urban context and response to features of the site.

As the subject site provides frontages to Malvern Road, Cawkwell Street and an abuttal to Pryor Place, a design response should achieve a suitable transition to the residential neighbourhood to the south and the east, whilst maintaining the commercial nature to Malvern Road. The proposal is considered an acceptable design response to the site and context. Reasons are stated as follows:

Malvern Road

Page 48


The presentation to Malvern Road is in three distinct elements: retention of the ground floor retail shop; a two-storey street wall (existing); and two levels above which are recessed from the street.

As the existing façade is to be retained, the heritage values will not be unreasonably compromised as a result of this proposal. A detailed assessment regarding the heritage controls is included in a later section of this report. In terms of built form, the retention of a significant portion of the existing B-graded heritage building is considered a positive component in the design.

The third and the fourth floor levels (measured from the principal façade) appears to be visually recessive in Malvern Road streetscape. Specifically, the third floor is set back 7.817m (measured to the northern wall of the balcony) or 9.817m (measured to the northern wall of the dwelling); and the fourth floor is set back 9.817m. It is also noted that the proposal presents an overall building height of 13.62m to Malvern Road. Within the immediate context, higher density development is not uncommon. For instance, a five-storey mixed use building (permitted under the direction of the Tribunal) at 1387-1395 Malvern Road has an overall building height of 16.15m measured from ground level; and a four-storey mixed use building (permitted under the direction of the Tribunal) at 1396-1402 Malvern Road has an overall building height of 16.95m measured from ground level. As the proposal incorporates a further recession on the upper levels and provides a lesser building height, it is not considered it will become a dominant feature compared to other developments within the immediate context.

Moreover, as the layout does not incorporate additional access from the Malvern Road frontage, the pedestrian environment on Malvern Road footpaths will not be unreasonably interrupted. Additionally, as the glazed double storey shopfront is to be retained, the proposal will continuously contribute to the vitality and safety of Malvern Village Commercial Precinct. Additionally, it is worth noting that the proposed 9.8m setbacks to the two upper levels generally accord with the 10m setback recommended by Council’s Urban Designer.

Overall, the combination of the design features of the building will result in a building that is respectful of the prevailing streetscape character of the commercial centre.

Cawkwell Street A four-storey building fronting Cawkwell Street will result in an increased level of built form being presented to this interface. However, as the policy direction identifies the site as part of a substantial change area where higher density development is contemplated, coupled with the zoning purpose and the activity centre location, the context allows for and is capable to accommodate a built form change. The proposal is considered a reasonable outcome with the following considerations:

The ground level of the building presents a section of the existing façade (13.4m in length), a pedestrian entry centrally located and a rear section featured by two vehicle access doors. This appearance is generally consistent with other corner sites, in which these elements are incorporated. For instance, the three-storey development at 1405-1407 Malvern Road provides a similar street façade to Cressy Street, in the form of one garage door. This proposal, however, provides two garage doors to interface with Cawkwell Street. To limit any potential visual dominance of the proposed garage doors, it is recommend to incorporate a condition, requesting the implementation of cohesive material palette to the garage doors and surrounding frame structure to allow the doors to integrate with the door surrounds. Overall, it is considered that the context supports a combination of various urban design

Page 49


elements for the purpose of avoiding the presentation of excess bulk to the Malvern Road commercial streetscape. The proposed ground floor therefore is acceptable (subject to conditions).

Above the ground level, the proposal incorporates a number of balconies and windows facing Cawkwell Street. Due to the orientation towards the street, there is sufficient distance from any sensitive use in the form of a habitable room window and/or secluded private open space of neighbouring residences; and thus, screening is not required. Furthermore, various setbacks are proposed through the upper levels. On the first floor, with a distance of 9.957m from the principal façade of the existing building, the proposal incorporates a section of 7.49m to be set back 1m from the Cawkwell Street boundary. A balcony to Apartment 1 allows the main wall to be a further 2.78m from the recessed eastern wall at this level; and a balcony to Apartment 2 allows the main wall to be set back 2.25m from the boundary at this level. On the second floor, a north-facing balcony and the front setback will be set back 1m from the eastern boundary. For the remainder of this level, the building is either built to the eastern boundary or set back 2.25m from the boundary to allow for a balcony. On the third floor, the layout is entirely set back 1.051m from the eastern boundary. Lastly, it is worth noting that a range of materials are proposed, comprising brick to match the existing, render finish, metal finish and brick pattern panels.

In combination, as the eastern elevation is articulated with a diverse range of materials, varied setbacks together with the inclusion of balconies and windows, the proposal will create an attractive and cohesive interface that will sit comfortably in its context.

Pryor PlaceOn the southern side of Pryor Place is a property addressed to 69 Cawkwell Street, which houses a single storey dwelling. As Pryor Place has a width of 3m, this interface is considered the most sensitive and any design response should avoid an abrupt change in presentation.

The proposal steps up from a ground floor shop to a four-storey height with each level at increased setbacks from the southern boundary which sits between the commercial and residential zones. On the ground floor, the proposed building is separated from the street with a 1.5m wide water efficient garden (i.e. a raingarden), resulting in a distance of approximately 4.7m from the northern boundary of the southern neighbouring property at 69 Cawkwell Street. On the first floor, a water efficient garden is proposed, which creates a setback of 3m from the street and softens the building façade. On the second floor, the proposal will be set back 3m from the street, resulting in a distance of 6.2m from the southern neighbouring property. On the third level, a balcony is to be constructed with a setback of 3m from the boundary. Resultantly, the southern wall of the fourth level has a distance of 5.14m from Pryor Place and 8.34m from the southern neighbouring property. Overall, the proposal provides a sensible level of articulation in this interface with gardens, balconies and varied materials including a charcoal render finish for the top level. This treatment will break up the scale and mass of the façade.

Additionally, the proposal incorporates planting on vertical steel cables on the first and second floors. This will not only give a softer and more colourful element to the façade but also contribute to shading and insulation. However, the applicant has not provided detailed information in relation to the planting and maintenance. A condition will be placed requesting a planting management plan to ensure that suitable climbing plants will be implemented.

Page 50


Overall, the proposal provides a transition in scale when viewed from the street and allows for a reasonable distance from the southern adjoining dwelling thereby minimising undue amenity impacts on the surrounding residential buildings (A detailed assessment regarding the amenity impact is included in a later section).

Western Interface To the west is a property addressed to 1348-1350 Malvern Road, which houses a B-graded double storey shop. It is also noted that in the current layout, the rear section (with a depth of 13m) is used for car parking. Given the commercial context, the absence of setbacks will not result in any undue amenity impact on the western adjoining property. Moreover, as the materials do vary from section to section at all levels, the proposal will not be read as a blank four-storey when viewed from the west. It is therefore considered that this interface is acceptable.

Does the proposal respond acceptably to heritage values?

The subject site is affected by a Heritage Overlay, which apples to the Malvern/Tooronga Road Precinct. It is an area that is of local historical and aesthetic significance. Clause 22.04 further stipulates heritage controls and requirements for building and works in a heritage place. The following considerations have been taken into account:

Demolition Pursuant to Clause 22.04-4.1, the policy states as follows (including but not limited to): Discourage demolition of significant buildings. Discourage demolition of parts of significant buildings (including but not limited to

significant building fabric, the primary building volume, original fences, outbuildings, gardens and other features identified in the statement of significance or heritage assessment) unless it can be demonstrated that one or more of the following apply:o The demolition is minor in scale. o The demolition will not adversely affect the significance of the heritage place. o The replacement development is sympathetic to the scale, setback and

significance of the heritage place.

Furthermore, as stipulated in the Stonnington Heritage Design Guidelines 2017, demolition works in commercial places should retain the primary building volume and retain significant shopfronts. Specifically, the Guidelines indicate that the front section (i.e. the first 8-10m of building behind the façade) should be retained.

In this proposal, partial demolition is proposed. In general terms, the proposed demolition works are primarily confined to the internal layout and the majority of the rear section (existing a majority of the eastern façade). The existing facades of the building to Malvern Road and Cawkwell Street will be largely retained. On the ground floor, the Malvern Road façade remains untouched; and the first 16m of the Cawkwell Street will be retained. With considerations of the above policy controls and guidelines, the extent of retention is considered a positive element, as it respects well to the heritage value of the building and makes efforts in minimising any undue impact on the significance of the existing building. On the first floor, the Malvern Road façade remains unaltered; and the first 10m of the Cawkwell Street façade will be retained. As such, the extent of retention at both levels satisfies the controls in the Scheme and responds appropriately to the Guidelines. Overall, the proposal ensures the existing facades of a significant building will be apparent in the streetscapes of both Malvern Road and Cawkwell

Page 51


Street thereby preventing adverse impacts on the heritage precinct. The extent of demolition is therefore considered reasonable in scale and can be accepted.

AdditionsIn commercial areas, the policy seeks to ensure retention and encourage restoration of all original or early shopfronts; and ensure that all upper additions are respectful to the heritage place. As outlined above, the principal façade (facing Malvern Road) will be well retained and thus meets the heritage objective. On the first floor, the existing façade is to be re-used and therefore considered acceptable. On the second and the third floors, the proposal is set back 9.8m from the front of the existing building, which generally satisfies the policy stipulated in the Scheme.

Furthermore, as set out in the Stonnington Heritage Design Guidelines 2017, it is worth noting that in commercial areas, a ground level addition should be set back at least 1.5m from the rear boundary; an upper level should achieve a minimum setback of 8-10m from the principal façade and be visually recessive.

In this proposal, a water efficient garden is to be installed at the rear, providing a 1.5m setback from the rear boundary. For the upper levels (i.e. the third and the fourth floors), a minimum setback of 9.8m is provided from the Malvern Road façade thereby minimising visual impact. It is acknowledged that Council’s Heritage Advisor stated that it would be preferable if the new building was reduced in height by one floor. However, as the subject site is located on a corner, it should be noted that any upper additions will result in a level of visual impact on the side street (in this case Cawkwell Street).

As such, visibility when viewed from the streets should not be the mere test; and ultimately, an appropriate development should be an outcome arising from the balance of policies and the context. Given that the proposal meets the suggested setbacks in the Guidelines, considering that policy supports more intensive development in and near the activity centre (which is already emerging in the context), the proposal accords with the prevailing policy direction and is responsive to the emerging character of the precinct whilst minimising the potential impacts on the heritage values. Additionally, it is noted that the semi-circular window at the first floor on the Malvern Road frontage is to be replaced with a new rectangular window. This is not considered a most satisfactory design outcome given that the Malvern Road façade bears the heritage significance of the existing building. A condition is therefore recommended requesting the retention of this window in question. Overall, the proposal can be accepted subject to conditions.

Materials The proposed materials are mixed, comprising brick to match and complement the existing brick finish, white render finish, charcoal painted and metal finish. The materials and design of the new building appear to be simplified and hence will contribute an acceptable design outcome.

Will there be unacceptable off-site amenity impacts?

Given the current physical setting, the only interface that warrants attention is the south, where a single storey dwelling is contained at 69 Cawkwell Street. Key aspects are examined as follows:

Page 52


(Note: as Clause 58 does not contain design guidelines regarding daylight access, overshadowing and overlooking, and the Clause 34.01-8 requires consideration of these impacts, relevant objectives of Clause 55 will therefore be referenced below assisting the assessment.)

Daylight Access As shown on the survey plan (submitted by the application), one north-facing habitable room window is located in the southern neighbouring land and has a direct interface with the south-west corner of the subject site. However, Council’s record indicates that this window in question is an opening associated with the entry hallway and does not constitute a habitable room window. The Standard therefore does not apply. Overall, the proposal will not unreasonably compromise daylight access to existing habitable room windows. A condition however will be placed requesting the type of this window in question to be correctly shown on the floor plans. Overshadowing As demonstrated on the shadow diagrams, the additional overshadowing will be largely cast onto the adjoining commercial building to the west, Cawkwell Street and Pryor Place, together with some shadows onto the northern service yard and a small section of the front setback associated with the land at 69 Cawkwell Road. However, no shadows will be cast onto the secluded private open space of this property, which is located further west and has a distance of approximately 22.7m from the proposed building. It is therefore considered that the proposal will not result in unreasonable shadow onto any sensitive private open space of the surrounding land.

Overlooking On the first and the second floors, it is assumed that the habitable room windows on the southern interface will be installed 1.7m above the finished floor level. In the absence of the dimension, a condition will be placed, requesting the sill of the windows to be clearly dimensioned and installed no less than 1.7m above the finished floor level. On the third floor, as no direct sight (with a 45 degree 9m distance) will fall into any habitable room windows or secluded private open space, screening is not required.

Conclusion Overall, the proposal will not result in any undue offsite amenity impact subject to conditions.

Will the development provide an acceptable level of amenity for future residents?

Requirements are set out at Clause 58.05, Clause 58.06 and Clause 58.07. Any omission should be interpreted as a full compliance or inapplicable to this proposal.

Private open space Standard D19 requires the provision of an 8sqm balcony with a minimum dimension of 2m to each 2xbedroom dwelling.

Dwelling 1 is provided with a balcony of 8.8sqm in size, which has a minimum dimension of 2.78m; and thus complies.

Dwelling 2 is provided with a balcony of 8.1sqm in size, which has a minimum dimension of 2.25m; and thus complies.

Page 53


Dwelling 3 is provided with two balconies: one is north facing and of 11.93sqm in size with a minimum dimension of 2m; and the other is east facing and of 8.1sqm in size with a minimum dimension of 2.25m. Overall, it complies.

Dwelling 4 is provided with a balcony of 22.95sqm in size, including a south-facing section of 15.6sqm with a minimum dimension of 2.14m; and the remainder of 7.35sqm facing the east (i.e. Cawkwell Street).

Storage Standard D20 requires the provision of a total minimum storage volume of 14 cubic metres, including 9 cubic metres within the dwelling to each 2 x bedroom dwelling.

The proposal incorporates storage spaces within each dwelling and provides storage cages on the ground floor car park. However, dimensions have not been clearly dimensioned on the plans. A condition will therefore be placed, requesting the clear dimensions of all storage space.

Waste and recycling Standard D23 seeks to ensure that waste and recycling facilities are accessible, adequate and attractive. The applicant provided a Waste Management Plan for Council’s considerations. In conjunction with Council’s Waste Management Unit’s comments, the outstanding matter is whether a separation of at least 1.2m between the bin storage and the car space can be achieved. As shown on the proposed ground floor plan, no separation between the car parking space and the bin storage area is proposed. This however is acceptable, given that the southern boundary has a mere width of 8.23m and a car parking space takes a minimum of 5.4m.

Room depthStandard D25 seeks to allow adequate daylight into single aspect habitable rooms. Additionally, it is worth noting that the Standard also states that ‘the depth of a single aspect, open plan, habitable room may be increased to 9m if the following requirements are met: The room combines the living area, dining area and kitchen. The kitchen is located furthest from the window. The ceiling height is at least 2.7m’.

On the first floor, the ceiling height is 3m and the room depth should not exceed 7.5m. Apartment 1 has a maximum room depth of 9.25m. However, this room combines the living area, dining area and kitchen; a balcony is incorporated between the living area and the dining area (providing daylight into the open plan living / dining area), and the ceiling height exceeds 2.7m. The objective is therefore considered met and the room contained in Apartment 1 can be accepted. Apartment 2 has a maximum room depth of 6.6m and thus complies.

On the second floor, the ceiling height is 3.3m and the room depth should not exceed 8.25m. Apartment 3 has a maximum room depth of 6.6m and thus complies.

On the third floor, the ceiling height is 2.7m and the room depth should not exceed 6.75m. Apartment 4 has a maximum room depth of approximately 7.7m. It is however noted that the living area and the dining area have direct access to the balcony and are serviced with

Page 54


windows. It is therefore considered that adequate daylight access can be achieved; and the objective is therefore considered met.

WindowsStandard D26 seeks to allow adequate daylight into habitable room windows.

Apartment 1 has two north facing bedrooms to Malvern Road, including a main bedroom with north-facing and east-facing windows; and a north-facing window to the secondary bedroom. Although the secondary bedroom is equipped with one window, given that the window fronts Malvern Road, it will receive adequate daylight. The objective is therefore considered met.

Apartment 2 has two south facing bedrooms. Each bedroom is provided with a south-facing window. While the main bedroom is to be constructed on the western boundary, the layout is not capable of accommodating another window. The concern here is whether the proposed planting vine on the southern interface would allow for sufficient daylight to these two habitable room windows. Conditions therefore will be placed requesting clear indication as to how the vine would not obscure the windows in question.

Apartment 3 contains two bedrooms. The main bedroom is located in the north and has two north-facing windows. This is considered sufficient. The secondary bedroom is located in the south-east and provided with a south-facing window and an east-facing window. It is therefore considered that adequate daylight into habitable room windows can be achieved.

Apartment 4 has two bedrooms. The main bedroom is located in the north and has a full length window to Malvern Road. This is considered sufficient. The secondary bedroom is located in the south-west and provided with one floor to ceiling window. Given the scale of the window, the proposal will allow adequate daylight to this bedroom and thus can be accepted.

Natural ventilation Standard D27 states that the design and layout of dwellings should maximum openable windows, doors or other ventilation devices in external walls of the building; and sets out the requirements in the form of a breeze path.

The proposal incorporates cross ventilation diagram shown on the floor plans, detailing how the proposal will achieve effective natural ventilation. It is considered acceptable. Additionally, it is recommended that a condition should be incorporated, confirming that all south-facing windows are operable.

Will there be unacceptable traffic and car parking impacts arising from the proposal?

With considerations to relevant planning policies together with objections, matters that warrant assessment include the provision of onsite car parking, onsite parking arrangement, the proposed crossover, the impact on the street car parking and the generation of traffic. They are examined as follows:

Car parking provision

Page 55


The Planning Scheme requires four car parking spaces for the shop and one car parking space for each dwelling. The proposal incorporates one car parking space to each dwelling and seeks a waiver for the car parking requirement associated with the shop. This is considered acceptable for the following reasons:

In the existing condition, the rear garden has not been used for car parking purpose. In this regard, non-provision of the car parking for the shop reflects the existing status quo and thus can be accepted. Furthermore, in terms of the location, the subject site is situated in a commercialised area, where numerous public transport options, including trains, trams and buses, are conveniently accessible. It is therefore considered that the shop will be well serviced by public transport. Moreover, as a result of a great reliance on public transport within the locality, it is contemplated that vehicle dependence would be low for the regular visitors and residents. Lastly, it is worth noting that as addressed at Clause 22.23, ‘the built environment within the municipality is designed to promote the use of walking, cycling and public transport; to minimise car dependency; and to promote the use of low emissions vehicle technologies and supporting infrastructure’. As such, the proposed waiver responds to the Policy appropriately and can be supported.

Onsite parking arrangementIn conjunction with the comments from Council’s Transport Unit, concerns primarily rest on the dimensions of each parking space, the allowance for sight distance and the due provision of bicycle facilities. In response to these concerns, the applicant has amended plans. As demonstrated on the revised plans (Council received on 10 November 2017), the car parking space has been increased to 5.4m in length, a pedestrian splay has been provided on either end of the widened crossover, and six bicycle racks have been incorporated. Overall, the proposed onsite parking arrangement is considered reasonable and acceptable.

Crossover An existing crossover is located on Cawkwell Street, which has a width of 11.28m. This proposal seeks to widen the existing crossover by approximately 3m, resulting in an independent vehicle entry for each of the proposed four dwellings.

As the installation of a vehicle crossover would trigger a separate process from Council’s Local Laws Unit, the revised plans have been referred to Council’s Local Laws Unit for comments. As demonstrated in the referral comments, no concerns nor objection was raised. It is therefore considered that the proposed crossover responds appropriately to Council’s Vehicle Crossing Policy and can be supported.

Street car parking The residents stated that the existing crossover had been disused and the reinstatement of the crossover would result in a loss of three on street car parking spaces.

The residents’ concerns are acknowledged, however, as the crossover currently exists and has not been removed, the owner’s right to use these crossovers to access their property is not extinguished. The enlargement of the crossover at the southern end will not result in a reduction of on-street parking spaces.

CONCLUSION

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

Page 56


The proposal is supported by the policy direction, in particular with regard to strategic justifications.

The built form is considered an appropriate response to the site’s context.

The proposal responds acceptably to heritage values.

The proposal will not result in any unreasonable off-site amenity impact.

The development will provide an acceptable level of amenity for future residents.

The proposed car parking arrangement responds to relevant policy direction appropriately.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PA - 37917 - 1352 Malvern Road Malvern - Attachment 1 of 1 Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 379/17 for the land located at 1352 Malvern Road, Malvern be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for partial demolition and subsequent construction of a four storey mixed used building and associated car parking waiver in a Commercial 1 Zone and Heritage Overlay 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 (Council received 10 November 2017) but modified to show:a) The first floor semi-circular window on the Malvern Road façade to be

retained b) The sill of the two south-facing bedroom windows associated with

Apartment 2, to be dimensioned no less than 1.7m above the finished floor level

c) The sill of the south-facing bedroom window associated with Apartment 3 to be dimensioned no less than 1.7m above the finished floor level

d) The floor gradients of the entire parking area to be clearly shown on the proposed ground floor plan. The minimum gradient of the parking area must be 1 in 100 (1.0%) for outdoor areas and 1 in 200 (0.5%) for covered areas to allow for adequate drainage as per AS 2890.1

e) The type of a north facing window (located immediate opposite the proposed development and associated with the dwelling at 69 Cawkwell Street) to be correctly described on all floor plans

f) Annotations to be included in the proposed garage section, stating that the existing footpath levels will not be altered

g) The materials of the proposed garage doors as well as the surrounding frame structure to be updated, reducing the visual dominance and ensuring the garage doors concealed within the proposed development

h) A section and elevation to be provided, depicting how the planting vine

Page 57


on the southern elevation will not obscure the two south-facing bedroom windows associated with Apartment 2; and one south-facing bedroom window associated with Apartment 3

i) Confirmation that all south-facing windows are to be operable by way of annotations

j) Storage space associated with each dwelling to be clearly dimensioned in accordance with Clause 58.05-4 (Standard D20 – Storage)

k) Any amendments required by Condition 3 (SMP), 6 (Landscaping)and 8 (Waste Management Plan)

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 without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans pursuant to Condition 1, a Sustainable Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The SMP report must be generally in accordance with the advertised plans (Council received on 2 August 2017) but modified to include (not limited to) the following:a) Any changes required pursuant to Condition 1 and 6

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

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

6. 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 generally in accordance with the revised plan (Council received on 10 November 2017). The landscape plan must include but not be limited to show:a) Survey (including botanical names) of all existing vegetation to be

retained and/or removedb) Buildings and trees (including botanical names) on neighbouring

properties within three metres of the boundaryc) Indication of all of permeable surfaces where applicabled) A minimum of four upright narrow trees must be provided in the rear

water efficient garden facing Pryor Place

e) A schedule of all proposed planting to be installed in the ground floor water efficient garden, including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant

f) In the ground floor water efficient garden, the proposed planting in the south-east corner of 1.5m long (along Cawkwell Street) x 1.2m wide (along Pryor Place) must not exceed 0.9m in height

g) A schedule of all proposed planting to be installed in the first floor water efficient garden, including botanical names, common names, pot sizes, sizes at maturity, and quantities of each plant

Page 58


h) A management plan demonstrating how the planting vine will be maintained

i) Any changes required by Condition 1

All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority

7. 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.

8. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must be generally in accordance with the advertised materials (Council received 2 August 2017) but modified to demonstrate:a) Dimensions of waste areasb) The number of bins to be providedc) Method of waste and recyclables collectiond) Hours of waste and recyclables collection e) Method of presentation of bins for waste collectionf) Sufficient headroom within the basement to allow the passage of waste

collection vehiclesg) Any required pursuant to Condition 1

When approved, the plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. Waste collection from the development must be in accordance with the plan, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

9. All plant and equipment (including air-conditioning units) shall be located or screened so as to minimise visibility from any of the surrounding footpaths and from overhead views and must not be located on balconies. All plant and equipment 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.

10. 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.

11. The existing footpath levels must not be altered in any way at the property line (to facilitate the car access).

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. Before the development starts, a schedule of construction materials, external

Page 59


finishes and colours to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted and approved. When approved, the schedule will be endorsed and will form part of the permit.

15. 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 crossover/s 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.

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

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

18. Adequate provision must be made for the storage and collection of wastes and recyclables within the site prior to the commencement of use or occupation of the building. This area must be appropriately graded, drained and screened from public view to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

19. 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.

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

C. This property is located in a Heritage Overlay and planning permission may be required to demolish or otherwise externally alter any existing structures. External alterations include paint removal and any other form of decoration and works, but does not include re-painting an already painted surface.

D. The crossover must be constructed to Council’s Standard Vehicle Crossover Guidelines unless otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority. Separate consent for crossovers is required from Council’s Building and Local Law Unit.

E. 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.

Page 60


“Significant tree” means a tree:a) with a trunk circumference of 180 centimetres or greater measured at its

base; orb) 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.

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

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

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

Page 61


4. MELBOURNE METRO TUNNEL PROJECT - COMMITMENTS AND ADVOCACY

Manager City Strategy: Susan PriceManager Parks & Environment : Simon Holloway General Manager Planning & Amenity: Stuart Draffin

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is:

to update Council on the current status of the Melbourne Metro Tunnel Project;

to inform Council of the commitments and public realm legacy outcomes achieved to date; and

for Council to endorse the continued strategic advocacy approach outlined within this briefing for the Melbourne Metro Tunnel Project.

BACKGROUND

The Victorian Government is constructing two new nine kilometre rail tunnels and five new underground stations as part of the Melbourne Metro Tunnel Project, connecting the Cranbourne/Pakenham line with the Sunbury line. While the majority of the route crosses through the City of Melbourne, the Eastern Portal (tunnel entrance) will be located in South Yarra, within the City of Stonnington.

The Project was assessed through an Environment Effects Statement process - an integrated assessment of the potential environmental, social, economic and planning effects of the project. An Inquiry and Advisory Committee was appointed to conduct public hearings and give stakeholders and interested parties an opportunity to be heard in relation to matters of concern. The Hearing was conducted in August, September and October 2016.

A detailed analysis of the Inquiry and Advisory Committee findings, the Minister’s response to these findings and the subsequent response from the Melbourne Metro Rail Authority (MMRA) was presented to Council in July 2017. It is noted that the MMRA has recently been renamed to Rail Projects Victoria in reference to its broadening scope.

In the context of the imminent commencement of contracted works within the Eastern Portal, it is timely to inform Council of current happenings in relation to the Project, provide a summary of the commitments received in relation to the Project, and to seek endorsement for a continued advocacy campaign.

In regard to the Eastern Portal, there are two separate contracts which are relevant, the Cross Yarra Partnership (CYP) contract, and the Rail Infrastructure Alliance (RIA) contract. The project area of each contract is shown on Attachment 1.

Cross Yarra Partnership

CYP has been awarded the contract to build the tunnels and stations, comprising a consortium led by Lend Lease Engineering, John Holland, Bouygues Construction and Capella Capital. This contract includes all mechanical and electrical systems, tunnel and stations maintenance and commercial development opportunities.

Page 63


For Stonnington, the CYP contract extends to works within the Osborne Street Reserve only (at the northern end), and involves the construction of a tunnel boring machine retrieval shaft, and, in its legacy state, an ancillary building above the tunnels, which accommodates plant and emergency access. It also includes below ground tunnel works west of the Osborne Street Reserve.

Works in this regard are due to commence in early June 2018, where changes to Osborne Street and the Osborne Street Reserve will be observed and in place for several years.

Rail Infrastructure Alliance

The RIA will be responsible for the track decline and tunnel portal cut and cover structures (both of which are located within the area of the Eastern Portal to the east of the Sandringham rail corridor) and also, for the existing track reconfiguration and the modification of existing rail infrastructure (eg. signalling). Preferred bidders for the RIA contract will be announced towards the middle of 2018, with the winning contract consortium expected to be announced in the second half of 2018.

DISCUSSION

In an effort to mitigate the impact of the Project on the community, and being particularly cognisant of the lengthy construction period, Council officers have been negotiating with representatives from the MMRA for the past two years in an effort to achieve the best possible outcomes for Stonnington both during construction and in its final, legacy state. Advocating in-line with Council’s strategies and policies, the strategic approach has resulted in a mutual understanding and agreement in relation to a number of works/outcomes that will be delivered by the Project within the Eastern Portal.

Public Realm Plan

The Eastern Portal Public Realm Plan includes a description of context, list of reference documents (including Chapel reVision and other relevant Council policies), a vision statement and general performance requirements. The vision statement is:

The Eastern Portal will be an integrated open space and transport corridor in a high quality landscaped setting that maximises and enhances an appropriate mix of public green open space and plaza spaces which improve rail, pedestrian and bicycle linkages, while complementing neighbouring built form and the public realm through the application of best practice urban design principles covering land use, built form, connectivity, design, creativity, character and amenity.

Project Scope and Terms of Reference

This agreement (in written and plan form – Attachment 2) has been included in the formal Project Scope and Terms of Reference for the whole Metro Tunnel Project. Both CYP and the ultimate RIA contract consortium are obliged to respond to, and demonstrate how they will deliver the agreed outcomes.

The scope of works that will be carried out within the area of the Eastern Portal will achieve the public realm performance guidelines, and include a much improved public realm environment, particularly within the South Yarra Siding Reserve, with better accessibility to an increased area of public open space for pedestrians and cyclists. The scope of works includes:

Page 64


Maximisation of the usable passive green open space between the rail corridors of the South Yarra Siding Reserve by levelling the Reserve, through the use of retaining walls on the northern half (western, northern and eastern sides), to an agreed point immediately south of the existing Digital Transmission Radio Signal (DTRS) tower.

Design and construction of the Metro Tunnel Project infrastructure on the Osborne Street Reserve so as to minimise the above-ground footprint and visual impact to residents.

Preparation and implementation of a comprehensive landscape plan for both the South Yarra Siding Reserve and the Osborne Street Reserve including provision of canopy trees, appropriate shrubs and grasslands in accordance with the relevant Environmental Performance Requirements.

The short-edged north-facing retaining wall section is to be designed and constructed in such a way as to ensure any future construction of a bridge or deck link to Toorak Road is achievable and structurally sound, while provisioning for future construction work on the park side.

Provision of pedestrian and cyclist connections throughout the Eastern Portal, and in particular:

Linking William Street and the South Yarra Siding Reserve;

Linking Osborne Street to the South Yarra Siding Reserve via a new bridge to be constructed over the Sandringham rail corridor for use during the construction period and retention afterwards as a project legacy. The new bridge will be enhanced for its legacy state with the addition of creative elements;Construction of a promenade (minimum width 6 metres) extending along the eastern edge of the Siding, linking the northern-most point through to William Street;Continuation of this promenade (minimum width 3.6m, taking into account constraints of infrastructure) extending along the southern side of the rail corridor, connecting William Street with the intersection of Arthur and Chapel Streets.

Reinstatement and improvement of Lovers Walk to a high quality standard, including a creative design response which enhances amenity and mitigates the loss of vegetation and the potentially negative impacts of the throw screen/retaining wall environment.

Provision of wireless CCTV cameras to improve safety at agreed locations, and particularly at entry/exit points along Lovers Walk and within South Yarra Siding Reserve: up to ten (10) wireless CCTV cameras will be provided and co-located with lighting poles with a continuous power supply.

Provision of lighting, park facilities and furniture (including BBQ/picnic facilities and children’s play equipment and area), within the South Yarra Siding Reserve to a design and of a high quality standard agreed with the City of Stonnington at a later date.

The undergrounding of any new services (such as overhead powerlines) within the South Yarra Siding Reserve in order to create the best urban environment possible.

Management and mitigation of noise impacts of the rail project in line with the Environmental Performance Requirements for residential properties nearby.

The incorporation of well-designed throw screens and other safety measures, which are functional but also creatively designed to be aesthetically pleasing.

Provision of a maintenance access road (nominal maximum width 4m) between the southern edge of the Dandenong Rail Corridor and the retaining wall of the South

Page 65


Yarra Siding Reserve, with entry point from William Street to enable railway track maintenance for relevant authorities.

Related Projects and Commitments Whilst independent of the Metro Tunnel Project, there are nearby projects that are related to and “link” to the Metro Tunnel Project. They are:

South Yarra Station

The State Government has recently announced $12.3 million capital works funding towards immediate improvements to South Yarra Station. This includes upgrading the tram stop outside the station, as well as opening up the station building to improve access and safety. With the previous $2 million committed to planning to upgrade the station, a masterplan is currently being prepared for consideration of longer term improvements. Council Officers continue to engage in this process, consistent with Council’s existing advocacy approach.

Toorak Road “Plaza”

A planning permit has recently been granted to a private developer to deliver a deck and associated air rights development over the railway corridor south of Toorak Road, opposite South Yarra Station. The permit includes some low level development and some hard landscaped public space. The deck has the effect of significantly shortening the span required to reach the South Yarra Siding Reserve (to less than 10 metres), and the approved proposal has an ‘opening’ between the two buildings enabling a future link to the south (to South Yarra Siding Reserve).

Jam Factory

Council has recently approved a permit for a $500 million redevelopment of the Jam Factory site on the eastern side of Chapel Street opposite Arthur Street in South Yarra. The permit relies on a heavy modal shift to public transport and as such the permit includes a condition to contribute $1.5-$2 million towards improving the link from the site to South Yarra Station. The permit will be valid should no appeals be received within the statutory timeframe.

Recommended Advocacy

Since the announcement of the Melbourne Metro Tunnel Project by the State Government, Council has advocated strongly for the inclusion of an interchange station at South Yarra.

Council has also strongly advocated for public realm improvements in the Eastern Portal area, and Council Officers are confident that the scope of works and public realm plan now included in the formal Project Scope and Terms of Reference will result in an improved and accessible park at South Yarra Siding Reserve for the benefit of the Stonnington community.

Notwithstanding this, Council Officers are mindful of the impacts of the project on the community in the area, particularly during the extended construction period. The South Yarra Siding Reserve will be inaccessible – being used for construction purposes, the surrounding road network will be disrupted and changed to allow for construction vehicle access, and noise and other amenity impacts will be felt by our local residents and traders.

Additionally, with the awarding of the two major contracts, design detail is evolving and will continue to develop over time. In this regard, there are emerging opportunities which could not be quantified previously, and which Council should be pro-active about pursuing.

Page 66


In this context, and given the now known positions of the various authorities and decision makers with respect to the Project as a whole, it is recommended that Council continues its advocacy for the best possible outcomes for the municipality, namely:

Continued pursuit of interchange station at South Yarra

Council should maintain its position and continue to advocate for an interchange station at South Yarra, in addition to better and more frequent rail service and capacity to South Yarra. Upgrading the existing South Yarra Station is already a key part of Council’s strategic advocacy programme.

The legacy state of the Eastern Portal

Public realm improvements within the Eastern Portal will be the legacy of the Melbourne Metro Rail Project in South Yarra, thanks to the relevant content of the Eastern Portal Project Scope and Terms of Reference, which contractually binds the winning bidders to implementing.

Notwithstanding these improvements, Council should continue to advocate strongly for additional improvements to the Eastern Portal, and in particular:

The construction of a direct link between Toorak Road and the South Yarra Siding Reserve. Council has strong ground to advocate for this, as the Minister for Planning clearly enunciated his support for such a link within his assessment of the overall project in the Environmental Effects Statement Hearing. Further, as previously noted, a planning permit has been granted to a private developer to deliver a deck or air rights development over the railway corridor in this location, opposite South Yarra Station. The deck has the effect of significantly shortening the span required to reach the South Yarra Siding Reserve (to less than 10 metres), and the approved proposal has an ‘opening’ between the two buildings, which could provide a direct bridge link to the northern most point of the Siding Reserve (refer Attachment 3).

In this context, it is recommended that Council continue to advocate for a direct link between Toorak Road and the South Yarra Siding Reserve, as the benefits in relation to making this significant public open space more accessible (especially to the fast growing Forrest Hill population) are profound.

A Digital Transmission Radio Signal Tower is currently located at the northern most point of South Yarra Siding Reserve. The Tower’s current location is an impediment to a direct bridge link to Toorak Road, and / or the Plaza and it would preferably be relocated. Obviously, the functionality of the Tower and appropriate sight lines need to be maintained, but it is understood that an alternate location could be found (perhaps mounted on the roof of the new buildings to be constructed on the air rights development.) Council should continue to advocate for this.

Page 67


Originally the Project proposed a bridge over the Sandringham rail corridor to allow construction vehicles to access the South Yarra Siding Reserve directly from Osborne Street. This requirement was eliminated by the clear delineation and separation of project area land of the CYP and RIA contracts. However, Council Officers were successful in arguing that the bridge over the rail corridor should still be constructed – not for construction access reasons, but as a legacy item for pedestrians and cyclists. This bridge, referred to as the Osborne Street bridge is now included within the Project Scope and Terms of Reference, and will be constructed and delivered by the RIA for pedestrians and cyclists and to create a direct link to South Yarra Sidings from Osborne Street. The specific design of the bridge has not yet been revealed, but will be part of the bidders’ packages, due to be received by Rail Projects Victoria shortly. Council expects to be consulted and have some input into the ultimate design of this bridge later in the year.

Given the shortage of open space in South Yarra generally, a preliminary investigation was undertaken into the feasibility of extending a deck over the Sandringham corridor. This would effectively connect the two reserves (Osborne Street and the South Yarra Siding) to increase the area of a ‘united’ park. While this is potentially feasible, there are some physical constraints (relating to level changes) and cost implications which would need to be investigated further.

While it is pleasing that the Osborne Street bridge is a confirmed legacy item, and will increase access to the park for the residential community to the west and south of Osborne Street, further work could be done to investigate the feasibility of expanding the bridge to provide a bigger, more contiguous open space.

Rail Projects Victoria has acquired a number of sites (refer Attachment 4) abutting the rail corridor for widening and/or construction purposes. It is not clear yet, whether some of these sites (or parts thereof) may ultimately be surplus to the Project, but Council officers see value in continuing to advocate for these sites to be converted to public open space as a legacy for the longer term benefit of the Stonnington community. This is particularly so, as the sites on the northern side of the corridor abut Lovers Walk, and those on the southern side, could be incorporated into the new promenade that will ultimately link Toorak Road and Chapel Street.

Community Engagement and CommunicationsCommunity Reference Group The MMRA has convened the Eastern Portal Community Reference Group, comprising members of the Metro Tunnel Project team, local residents, traders and Council officers. This group is meeting regularly, every 6-8 weeks, and is informed of upcoming works and happenings, including changes to traffic and parking arrangements.

Members of this group are able to table issues as they come to hand for discussion and resolution where necessary and appropriate.

CYP, Rail Projects Victoria and RIA are responsible for joint face to face engagement. There will be a variety of pop ups, doorknocks and information sessions. It is recognised that the project will be seen as one by the community.

Council

Council will, where appropriate, replicate messages more broadly issued and capitalise on issued digital communication to help inform the community of impacts.

Page 68


Council will continue to update the community on advocacy work in relation to this project via a range of Council communication channels, including across social media, the Stonnington website, InStonnington and other forms of communication.

POLICY CONTEXT

Council Plan (2017-2021)

The vision of the new Council Plan is that Stonnington will be an inclusive, healthy, creative, sustainable and smart community.

It is composed under the four pillars of community, liveability, environment and economy with objectives and strategies relating to each, including, as relevant:

Liveability: Stonnington will be the most desirable place to live, work and visit.

L3: Balance the competing demands of maintaining residential amenity and population growth through appropriate planning.

L4: Enhance the design outcomes of public spaces, places and buildings.

L5: Advocate for improved and accessible public transport to enhance liveability and economic growth

Environment: A cleaner, safer and better environment for current and future generations to enjoy.

E8: Promote and facilitate the use of sustainable transport options across the City.

Plan Melbourne

Plan Melbourne is a 35 year State Government blueprint to ensure Melbourne grows more sustainable, productive and liveable as its population approaches 8 million. It is currently referenced in the State Planning Policy Framework of the Stonnington Planning Scheme and acknowledges the investment being made in the transport network via Melbourne Metro and other projects. Outcome 3 is of particular relevance:

Melbourne has an integrated transport system that connects people to jobs and services and goods to market.

The completion of the Melbourne Metro Tunnel Project is listed as one of the key initiatives underway to achieving this outcome.

Stonnington Planning Scheme

Clause 18 (Transport) of the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF) aims to ‘ensure an integrated and sustainable transport system that provides access to social and economic opportunities, facilitates economic prosperity, contributes to environmental sustainability, coordinates reliable movements of people and goods, and is safe’.

Of relevance to the Project, the Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF) identifies policies relating to Housing, Built Form and Heritage, Open Space and Infrastructure. The policies seek to ensure housing is directed to locations with high accessibility to an Activity Centre and the Principal Public Transport Network (PPTN) and designed in a way that is consistent with the urban character and to minimise amenity impacts.

Page 69


The Framework Plan at Clause 21.03 – Vision, identifies Toorak Road as a Neighbourhood Acting Centre (large) and the South Yarra Station (Forrest Hill) area as a Principal Activity Centre. The LPPF also notes ‘a low ratio of public open space compared to the metropolitan average’.

Council has invested a significant amount of time and resources into development of the strategic policy known as Chapel reVision. It provides a strong foundation and strategic basis for consideration of all proposals within the Activity Centre Zone. The area covered by the Eastern Portal is included in this area, and the relevant Neighbourhood Framework Plan (Toorak Road Central/South Yarra Siding) contemplates a variety of outcomes that Council considers to be appropriate for the area.

The Melbourne Metro Tunnel Project should be designed and constructed in a way which assists in delivering Council’s vision for the area.

Strategies for Creating Open Space 2013

These strategies identify a significant shortage of and access to open space, particularly in the South Yarra area, which is subject to substantial population growth. An increase in quality and access to as well as the creation of new open spaces is consistent with the Strategies.

FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

Council currently has an Officer dedicated to managing and advocating for Stonnington’s interests in regard to the Project. This Officer co-ordinates relevant and various expertise across Council (including planning, traffic, parking and transport, urban design, environmentally sustainable design, infrastructure and visual arts). Resources for this project stretch across the organisation to input to the planning and design phase of the project, and approvals for works.

The position is funded by Rail Projects Victoria. This funding arrangement is reviewed every six months, and is currently valid until the end of 2018. Given the pending announcement of the preferred bidders (and the subsequent awarding) of the RIA contract, combined with the fact that the RIA contract has a larger and more significant effect on the Eastern Portal and surrounds, it is considered likely that the workload will increase. Funding from Rail Projects Victoria to assist Council in the management and mitigation of the effects of the Project on the municipality will be sought as necessary and appropriate.

LEGAL ADVICE & IMPLICATIONS

Relevant legal advice or implications have not been identified at this stage, but may emerge in the future and advice will be sought as required.

CONCLUSION

The Metro Tunnel Project is an important project for Melbourne which will have a noticeable impact on the Eastern Portal area within South Yarra for the foreseeable future. It is important that the City of Stonnington continues to advocate for the best possible outcomes for the community.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION

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

Page 70


ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Eastern Portal works by CYP and RIA Excluded

2. Attachment 2 - Eastern Portal Legacy Concept Drawings Excluded

3. Attachment 3 - 162 - 164 Toorak Road, South Yarra Deck Level Concept Plan

Excluded

4. Attachment 4 - Metro Tunnel Project Property Acquisitions Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Note the current status of the Melbourne Metro Tunnel Project;2. Note the commitments and public realm legacy outcomes achieved to date; and3. Endorse the continued strategic advocacy approach outlined within this briefing

for the Melbourne Metro Tunnel Project.

Page 71


5. STREET TREE PRUNING PROGRAM - RESIDENT NOTIFICATION

Manager Parks & Environment : Simon Holloway General Manager Assets & Services: Simon Thomas

Council at its meeting on 23 April 2018 resolved that the matter be deferred to the meeting to be held on 21 May 2018.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to update councillors on Council’s current street tree pruning program, including resident notifications, and present an overview of options and cost of notifying residents via letter box drop.

This report follows a query from Cr Atwell at the 5 February 2108 Council Meeting as to whether Council could consider additional resident notifications ahead of street tree pruning works.

BACKGROUND

Street tree pruning program

The City of Stonnington manages approximately 55,000 trees in the public realm including street trees, park trees, trees in Council-managed facilities and trees in the Malvern Valley Golf Course.

Of these, there are approximately 32,500 street trees in total, comprised of: 7,200 on designated streets 25,300 on non-designated streets

Designated streets are typically major arterials and streets containing high-voltage power lines. Designated streets are inspected and pruned on an annual basis.

Non-designated streets include all other streets in Stonnington, and are typically local streets. Non-designated streets are inspected and pruned on a biennial basis.

Given this inspection and pruning regime, approximately 20,000 street trees are pruned each year in the City of Stonnington, representing 61% of all street trees.

Pruning of Council’s street trees is undertaken by two contractors, one that manages trees in designated streets and one that manages trees in non-designated streets.

Tree pruning is undertaken in accordance with Council’s contract specifications, Australian Standards and where relevant, the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015 Code of Practice.

The Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015 specify mandatory clearance requirements from electric lines of various voltage. Compliance with these clearance distances is a legislative obligation and is routinely audited by power distribution businesses and enforced by Energy Safe Victoria. Pruning in accordance with these regulations can have a dramatic impact on the structure, amenity and shade value of street trees located under power lines.

Pruning schedule

Page 73


All street trees in the City of Stonnington are pruned to a specific schedule, which is published on Council’s website.

For non-designated streets, the municipality is divided into 48 tree maintenance zones. Each calendar month in the two year pruning cycle has one, two or three tree maintenance zones allocated for completion in that month. See Attachment 1.

For designated streets, there are 61 streets pruned each year. Each month of the calendar year has between 2 and 14 streets allocated for completion in that month. See Attachment 2.

In addition to the scheduled maintenance program, Council has a reactive tree maintenance program to address any out of cycle pruning needs, action community requests and respond to emergency situations.

Resident notifications

The City of Stonnington currently notifies residents of upcoming street tree pruning in accordance with its obligations under the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015.

In addition to the information provided on its website, Council publishes a written notice in the Stonnington Leader newspaper each month advising residents of the programmed street tree pruning to occur in the month following. See Attachment 3 for an example notification.

The notice advises residents of pruning that will occur in a particular area bound by certain streets (non-designated streets) and pruning that will occur in particular streets (designated streets) in the following calendar month. The notice does not specify a day or week that the pruning will be undertaken. This provides Council’s contractor with the flexibility required to manage variable pruning rates (depending on extent of cutting required) and variable site access.

The regulations require that the pruning of street trees must not occur earlier than 14 days from the date of the notice or later than 60 days from the date of the notice. If works do not occur within the timeframes specified, Council is obliged to renotify residents via public notice.

Each public notice costs Council $542 + GST.

Resident complaints

Council typically receives very few resident complaints regarding its street tree pruning program, totalling in the order of 5-10 per year.

Almost all of these relate to the extent of pruning undertaken and the impact on streetscape amenity, with very few relating to the notification provided by Council or other issues, such as saw dust or debris.

DISCUSSION

Page 74


Councillor request

Following the tabling of a resident complaint relating to inadequate notification of street tree pruning, Cr Atwell raised a question as to whether Council could consider additional resident notifications ahead of street tree pruning. Specifically, it was noted that doing a letterbox drop closer to the date of the pruning would enable people to move cars and take any other actions they need to do for the equipment in the street.

Letter box drop option

The following summarises how Council could notify residents via a letterbox drop and the associated costs.

The assumed model would involve placing a notification card in each letterbox of properties in streets where pruning is to occur at an agreed timeframe before works, for example one week. To minimise costs and labour, it is assumed that this would be a generic notification card (no customised information) that indicates the street tree pruning will occur in the following week and other information about Council’s management of trees and obligations.

The City of Stonnington has 63,311 rateable properties. On the basis that 61% of Council’s street trees are pruned each year, this translates to approximately 38,700 resident notifications that would require delivery each year.

The most practical option would be for Council’s two tree management contractors to print and deliver the resident notifications in the week prior to their crews working in specific streets.

Cost estimates have been obtained to deliver this activity, which is outside of current contract requirements.

Cost estimate

The estimated cost of this option include:

Contract area #1 – designated streetso Printing of notification cards - $3,467 + GST (via Council contractor)o Delivery of notifications - $11,520 + GST

Contract area #2 – non designated streetso Printing of notification cards - $1,800 + GSTo Delivery of notifications - $9,679 + GST

The total estimated cost would be $26,466 + GST.

It should be noted that Council would still be obliged to publish a written notice in the local newspaper, at an annual cost of $6,500 + GST, in accordance with its obligations under the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015.

Implications of letter box drop option

Page 75


Key implications of a letter box drop resident notification include:

CostThis notification option would cost Council in the order of an additional $26k per annum, over and above existing spending on advertising.

Staff resourcingThis option, depending on how delivered, may require additional allocation of Council staff resources to assist with the planning and management of notifications to correct streets. This would be significantly reduced if able to be implemented seamlessly by existing tree pruning contractors.

Heightened expectation on timing of worksCurrently, Council’s tree management contractors have one month to schedule and complete the programmed pruning works. This provides the flexibility required to manage variable pruning rates (depending on extent of vegetation growth discovered and associated cutting required) and variable site access.

Council’s contractors frequently need to return to a site multiple times in order to secure adequate access and need to adjust their program depending on conditions at the time.

The exact timing that contractors will be in specific streets is not currently known and to achieve this may require additional pre-pruning inspections, planning, programming and site securing on their part, which may not be covered under the existing contract.

Notifying residents that pruning will occur in the following week is likely to increase expectations that it will definitively occur in that time window and may increase the likelihood of expectations not being met due to the variability of this service delivery.

Having the tree pruning contractors manage the resident notifications would largely avoid this implication, as they could better regulate notifications around their actual pruning program

Alternative options to improve resident notifications

Other than delivering resident notification cards, there are a number of other, lower cost options for Council to notify residents of upcoming programmed street tree pruning. These include:

Digital / social media platform – approximately $3,800 + GST per annum In Stonnington – Free Connect Stonnington – Free

Other municipalities’ approach to resident notification

Page 76


A brief survey of seven inner metro municipalities and their approach to resident notifications for programmed street tree pruning reveals the following:

All include information of the pruning schedule on their web site One issues resident notification cards 7-28 days prior to pruning works Two include information in a monthly resident newsletter

Pros and cons of notifying residents via letterbox drop

The following summarises the pros and cons of introducing a direct resident notification system for informing the community of programmed street tree pruning one week before works commence:

Pros

Improved community notification Improved community awareness of street tree pruning requirements Increased opportunity to communicate with residents about Council’s tree

management program Potential to reduce community concern about lack of advanced warning

Cons

Cost – it is expected to cost Council an additional $26k plus per annum Potential additional staff resource allocation to assist with coordinating letter drops Increased expectation that service occurs in narrow window Risk of not meeting community expectations due to service timing variability Increased demand on contractor to schedule works in narrower window –

potential impact on future contract pricing

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The pruning and management of street trees in the City of Stonnginton is undertaken in accordance with Council’s contract specifications, Australian Standards and where relevant, the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015 Code of Practice.

Street tree management is an important function in delivering on Council’s Urban Forest Strategy.


Introducing a system of notifying residents via letter box drop one week prior to street tree pruning works is expected to result in an additional expenditure in the order of $26,000 + GST per annum.

Increasing the planning, pre-inspection, programming and site access activities by contractors to deliver the tree pruning service within narrower time window (one week compared to one month) may result in increased contract costs.


Page 77


Council currently meets its statutory obligations for resident notification of street tree pruning works under the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015.

CONCLUSION

Council currently manages a total tree population of 55,000 trees, of which 32,500 are street trees. Street trees are pruned on either an annual or biennial basis, with approximately 20,000 pruned each year.

In accordance with its obligations works under the Electricity Safety (Electric Line Clearance) Regulations 2015, Council currently notifies residents of programmed street tree pruning works via its website and a monthly public notice in the Stonnington Leader newspaper.

Following the tabling of a resident complaint relating to inadequate notification of street tree pruning, it has been queried whether Council could consider additional resident notifications ahead of street tree pruning works. Specifically, it was noted that doing a letterbox drop closer to the date of the pruning would enable people to move cars and take any other actions they need to do for the equipment in the street.

This report outlines how such a letter box drop option would work and estimates that it would result in an additional cost to Council in the order of $26,000 per annum.

Based on the historic low level of complaints, the additional cost, other impacts and limited benefits, it is recommended that Council not introduce a direct resident notification system for its street tree pruning program.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Pruning schedule non-designated streets Excluded

2. Attachment 2 - Pruning schedule designated streets Excluded

3. Attachment 3 - Example of public notice Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Note the option, cost, benefits and impacts of introducing a direct resident

notification system (letter box drop) for its street tree pruning program as outlined in this report.

2. Maintain its current approach to resident notification via Council’s website and monthly public notice in the local newspaper.

3. Not introduce an additional resident notification system.4. Explore alternative, low cost options, such as digital media, to further inform

residents of upcoming street tree pruning works.

Page 78


6. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION TARGETS

Coordinator Sustainable Environment: Jane Spence Manager Parks & Environment : Simon HollowayGeneral Manager Assets & Services: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to seek Council endorsement of new greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. This report also provides an update on Council’s progress towards meeting its existing targets.

BACKGROUND

Imperative for action on greenhouse gas emissions

In 2015, an historic global climate agreement (the Paris Agreement) was reached in which 195 countries, including Australia, committed to limit global warming to well below 2°C above preindustrial levels and work towards limiting warming to 1.5°C.

As part of this Agreement, governments around the world agreed to meet every 5 years to revise and set science-based targets, report progress on implementing the targets and track progress towards the long-term goal.

While all levels of government play a role, the Paris Agreement explicitly recognises the important role of local government in supporting the transition towards a more sustainable future. Council leadership is essential for the mitigation and adaptation of climate change at a local level.

There is a strong imperative for Council to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for a changing climate. Climate change will have a significant impact on Council’s strategic goals as well as Council operations, assets and areas of service delivery. The combination of rising energy prices, increasing demand on Council services and facilities from the growing population and ongoing demand to provide high quality services, facilities and infrastructure within a rate-capped environment all drive action on climate change.

There are also strong economic drivers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through energy efficiency measures. Energy prices in Victoria have risen dramatically in recent times and are projected to continue to increase. This has already had a significant impact on Council’s operating budget and is expected to continue to do so. Corresponding with this increasing price of grid-supplied energy, renewable energy and other energy efficiency technology is rapidly advancing and prices are falling.

Council’s investments to-date in energy efficiency measures have delivered significant operating savings. The return on investments in renewable energy and other energy efficiency initiatives are projected to continue to improve as a result of the combination of rising grid energy costs and the falling cost of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies.

The improving economics of renewable energy have resulted in Australia having the highest penetration of solar in the world. Cost reductions for battery storage are estimated at around 10 per cent per year until 2020, which will further drive investment in renewable energy.

Action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions throughout the City of Stonnington

Page 79


Council has a strong commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Environment is one of the four pillars of the Council Plan 2018-2021, which includes Strategy E1 – ‘Reduce energy use and associated greenhouse gas emissions’. It also contains multiple specific actions in the Annual Plan 2017/18 relating to energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emission reduction.

The Sustainable Environment Strategy supports the delivery of the strategies outlined in the Council Plan, including managing and using resources efficiently, enhancing biodiversity and leading community sustainability.

Council is committed to leading action on climate change through environmental innovation, leadership, quality delivery and accountability. Council continues to focus on both reducing its own corporate greenhouse gas emissions and supporting the wider Stonnington community to adopt energy efficient practices and reduce corresponding emissions.

Council delivers a range of environmental programs and events that aim to assist residents, schools, apartment complexes, businesses and community groups to reduce energy use. A recent example of such initiatives is the successful Making Solar Simple program that supports and facilitates Stonnington households to install rooftop PV solar on their properties.

Council greenhouse gas emissions

Council accounts for corporate emissions for which it has direct control over and for which it pays energy bills. The emission sources are categorised below:

Electricity Council buildings and facilities Street lighting throughout the City of Stonnington that Council is responsible for

Gas Council buildings and facilities

Fleet and equipment Transport fuels consumed by Council’s passenger vehicles, utility vehicles and

specialised heavy equipment

Page 80


Figure 1: Breakdown of Council’s corporate greenhouse gas emissions

Council does not account for indirect emissions, for example those that occur outside the operational boundary of Council such as municipal waste, contractors’ emissions or public transport used by staff for work purposes.

While Council’s own corporate emissions form less than one per cent of total emissions across the entire municipality, Council plays an important leadership role within the community, stimulating local action and supporting the transition to a more sustainable future.

Corporate greenhouse gas reduction targets

In 2013, through its initial Sustainable Environment Strategy, the City of Stonnington set targets to reduce its corporate greenhouse gas emissions:

20% below 2005 levels by 2015 30% below 2005 levels by 2020

These targets were largely arbitrary and ambitious, however they were also realistic, based on Council’s commitment to improving the energy efficiency of its buildings and facilities and demonstrating leadership.

Many councils across Australia have committed to ‘carbon neutral’ targets. While carbon neutrality is a strong communication tool and provides a platform for emissions reporting and accreditation, it involves purchasing carbon offsets each and every year to bring any remaining emissions down to zero. This adds a permanent, ongoing expense to Council’s budget and does not reduce actual emissions. In recent years, a number of councils have had to reconsider their carbon neutrality commitments due to this consideration.

On the contrary, the City of Stonnington has long adopted a focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions through prioritising efforts and investment into reducing actual energy use rather than purchasing green energy and offsets. This approach ensures ongoing financial and greenhouse savings.

Page 81


Progress towards achieving existing targets

To date, Council has achieved a 22 per cent reduction in its greenhouse gas emissions since 2005 through its Energy Efficiency Implementation Program (EEIP), which includes energy efficiency improvements and renewable energy generation, street lighting upgrades and light and heavy fleet efficiency improvements.

The majority of this reduction has been through emissions associated with street lighting, which have reduced by 41 per cent since 2005-06. Since 2011, there has also been an 18 per cent reduction in emissions from electricity use in buildings, including energy generation from rooftop solar PV systems.

Council has met its initial target to reduce emissions by 20 per cent below 2005 levels by 2015 and is well on track to meet its target of 30 per cent reduction by 2020.

Figure 2: Total Council greenhouse gas emissions

In addition to Council’s own action, there are a number of other factors driving emissions reductions, including:

Increasing renewable energy sources feeding into the grid Building efficiency and technology improvements, and Improved fleet / vehicle efficiency.

The overall effect of these results in a downward trend in emissions in the future, independent of specific energy efficiency actions. This is reflected in the later discussion on Council’s business as usual (BAU) forecasts.

Financial savings as a result of reducing corporate energy use and greenhouse gas emissions

Council’s investment in greenhouse emission reductions to-date has resulted in significant operating cost savings.

Since 2012, Council has saved approximately $200,000 in annual energy costs through energy efficiency upgrades at Council buildings and facilities and street lighting (see Figure 3 below).

Page 82


2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 $-

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

$1,600,000

$1,800,000

$2,000,000

Council energy costs 2012-2017

Total electricity Total gas

Figure 3: Total Council energy costs 2012-2017

It should be noted that Council’s investment in greenhouse emission reductions to-date will provide ongoing and increased financial benefit into the future as the underlying price of grid supplied energy continues to rise.

In 2017, Council engaged independent energy efficiency experts to undertake a comprehensive assessment of Council’s top energy consuming sites to identify energy savings opportunities. The resulting five year $3 million implementation plan estimates annual energy savings of $423,000 with an average 7 year payback period.

Looking at the renewable energy (solar) projects that Council is planning to implement over the next two years, the 23 projects are estimated to cost $560,000 and deliver annual savings of approximately $80,000. This equates to an average payback period of 7 years.

The bulk street lighting replacement program that Council is currently in the process of delivering was estimated in an early business case to cost $1.67m and deliver annual savings of $221,000 per annum, equating to a payback period of 7.5 years. The actual financial return on this project is expected to be improved on this modelling as a result of falling cost of LED lights and rising grid energy costs.

New Sustainable Environment Strategy

Council is well progressed in revising the Sustainable Environment Strategy to guide Council’s direction and decision-making over the next four year period and support community sustainability action. The new strategy considers international, federal and state government action on climate change and incorporates local community input.

The process of reviewing the Sustainable Environment Strategy has provided Council with an opportunity to review and revise its corporate greenhouse gas emission targets.

Page 83


Types of greenhouse reduction targets

In setting corporate greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, a number of different approaches are available. The following summarises these different approaches.

1. Aspirational

An aspirational target is set according to political or other considerations and typically serves as an effective communications mechanism or public call to action. It may not necessarily consider what action may be required to achieve the target or the feasibility of the target being met.

2. Top down

A top down, or science derived target, is set based on what needs to be achieved in order to reach a desired outcome.

Based on detailed modelling completed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a global “carbon budget” has been developed in line with the Paris Agreement that outlines the maximum amount of greenhouse gas emissions that can be released into the atmosphere for catastrophic climate change to be averted. The Climate Change Authority (CCA) has used this global carbon budget to develop Australia’s carbon budget to quantify national commitments. The carbon budget provides the basis for the development of a “science-derived” emissions reduction target for Australia, which can be scaled down to a municipal level, calculating an appropriate share of the reduction effort.

A science derived target for a council’s corporate emissions provides a framework to set a target that is fair, equitable and robust. It is consistent with the international carbon budgeting methodology and aligned with international best-practice target setting.

3. Bottom up

A bottom down target is set based on what can be achieved over a period of time. It is typically set based on an action plan that identifies realistic, achievable initiatives and their resulting impact. It can be ambitious, however its scope is directly derived from a series of planned actions.

DISCUSSION

New greenhouse reduction targets

A range of factors are driving the setting of new targets for Council’s corporate emissions including international commitments through the Paris Agreement, increasing energy costs, the imminent achievement of Council’s 2020 greenhouse reduction target and the development of the new Sustainable Environment Strategy.

Council is on track to meet its existing target to reduce emissions by 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020 based on its current investment in the EEIP and planned street lighting upgrades. It is appropriate to now review Council’s corporate greenhouse targets and look to the next decade ahead.

Page 84


To support the development of new greenhouse reduction targets, Council engaged an independent expert in this field to provide advice on best practice approaches to target setting; undertake an analysis of Council’s inventory data; and deliver a summary of potential targets for Council. The analysis incorporated planned services and new building projects, including Cato Square, Prahran Town Hall redevelopment and the indoor stadium.

An aspirational target, not tied to a realistic action plan, was not considered as part of this project due to Council’s interest in developing a target based on international best practice target setting and desire for a target that is realistic and can be achieved.

In considering new greenhouse gas emission reduction targets, the City of Stonnington reviewed targets set by other metropolitan Melbourne municipalities. These range in focus, scope, timeframe and level of commitment. However, the vast majority of metropolitan Melbourne local governments have adopted clear and strong commitments and targets to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Business as usual trajectory

In the process of setting meaningful greenhouse targets for Council, it is necessary to understand and forecast the likely trend in Council’s emissions if no energy reduction actions are taken. This is considered Council’s business as usual (BAU) trajectory.

The independent energy consultancy engaged to inform the setting of new greenhouse targets has modelled Council’s BAU trajectory through to 2050 (see Figure 4 below). The BAU line excludes Council’s investment in energy efficiency and greenhouse reductions but does include planned services and new buildings projects (e.g. Cato Square and Prahran Town Hall redevelopment).

The future emissions profiles out to 2050 for Council is based on a range of factors that provide upward or downward pressure on emissions over time. The modelling has taken into account the following pressures:

Downward pressures Grid emissions reduction due to growing renewable energy sources feeding into the

grid. Building efficiency and technology improvements - This assumes that as technology

progresses, Council’s building efficiency will inevitably reduce through replacement of fittings, plant and appliances.

Fleet efficiency improvements - This also assumes that Council’s fleet emissions will continue to reduce without taking action due to technology advances.

Upward pressures Population growth rate placing upward pressure on council services resulting in

higher emissions. This has been based on Council’s population forecasts up to 2050. Emissions from planned services, including new building developments.

Page 85


2015/16

2017/18

2019/20

2021/22

2023/24

2025/26

2027/28

2029/30

2031/32

2033/34

2035/36

2037/38

2039/40

2041/42

2043/44

2045/46

2047/48

2049/50

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

BAU emissions

Figure 4: City of Stonnington’s BAU emissions trajectory

Examining the total effect of these actions shows an overall downward trend in emissions over coming decades, independent of specific energy efficiency actions. Interestingly, the projected additional emissions from planned services are very small, constituting a net impact of around 1% of annual change in emissions. This is a result of newer buildings being commissioned, but these buildings being more efficient and occurring in conjunction with retrofits of existing buildings increasing efficiency as well.

Proposed new targets

The new greenhouse targets proposed by Council’s independent energy advisers include:

Target approach Recommended target

Top down (science derived target) 35% below 2005 levels by 2030

Bottom up (action plan based) 60% below 2005 levels by 2030

The top down target is based on the Climate Change Authority’s carbon budget for Australia that has been scaled down to a municipal level. It is projected that Council will meet this target of 35% below 2005 within the next two years (by 2020) as a result of the implementation of its energy efficiency program for buildings and facilities and planned bulk street lighting upgrades alone. It is expected that Council will well exceed the proposed target of 35% reduction by 2030.

The bottom up target has been modelled based on Council’s planned energy efficiency initiatives over coming years, an ongoing energy efficiency investment program and business as usual trajectory. The proposed target of 60% below 2005 levels by 2030 is realistic, achievable at the current level of expenditure and represents a significant leadership position on climate change action.

Page 86


The continued energy efficiency investment program used in the modelling is based on the current annual budget allocation of $600,000 and a corresponding emissions rate reduction rate of 2% per annum. Combined with a BAU reduction rate of 0.6% leads to an average decrease of 2.6% per annum.

It should be noted, however, that business case for acting is only improving over time. As utility prices continue to increase, and the costs of certain technologies (most notably solar, lighting, and battery storage) continue to decrease, the business cases for most applications renewables and energy efficiency improve reliably. This may result in a reduced investment requirement to achieve the 2.6% per annum emissions reduction.

Figure 5 below models Council’s projected greenhouse gas emissions to 2030, including the impact of Council’s energy efficiency action plan (including street lighting upgrades), the impact of a continued investment program and the proposed 60% reduction target.

Figure 5: Council corporate emissions trends

The graph above demonstrates that with the current program of initiatives and continued investment program in energy efficiency, the proposed 60% reduction target by 2030 is both realistic and achievable.

As utility prices continue to increase, and the costs of solar, lighting and battery storage technologies decrease, the business cases for renewables and energy efficiency will continue to improve and thereby open up new opportunities and provide ongoing operating savings.

The graph shows a significant decline in corporate emissions over the coming five years, as the bulk of currently identified energy efficiency measures are implemented.

Page 87


It should be noted that beyond the current program of energy efficiency initiatives, there remains considerable further opportunities to continue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These include:

Street lighting upgrades on arterial roads Lighting upgrades in car parks and public open spaces Renewable energy generation and battery storage Building efficiencies (lighting and HVAC) Transition of light and heavy fleet to low emission and alternative fuels

A 60 per cent reduction target demonstrates Council’s commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving energy efficiency and leading by example as outlined in the Council Plan.

Council is at the forefront of setting a greenhouse reduction target of this type. Very few councils have set greenhouse reduction targets beyond 2020 and even fewer councils have set targets that are consistent with international carbon budgeting methodology and aligned with international best-practice target setting.

It should be noted that while the proposed target is modelled based on a continued investment program in energy efficiency, setting a long range target of this nature does not lock Council into a definitive budget commitment through to 2030. Council’s corporate greenhouse gas emission target should be reviewed periodically and reassessed against the economic cost / benefit of energy efficiency investments and budget position of the day.

It has been demonstrated that investment in energy efficiency makes good economic sense and will continue to deliver improved operating savings in a climate of rising energy costs. Independent advice received by Council indicates this this scenario is likely to further improve in the future as the cost of grid supplied energy rises and the cost of renewable energy and other energy efficiency technologies decrease.

Interim target

In the past, Council has set five year interim targets. To enable Council to monitor and track its progress towards a longer-term 2030 target, an interim target of a 35 per cent reduction on 2005 levels by 2022 is proposed.

This interim target would align with Council’s existing budget allocation for corporate energy efficiency programs in the Four Years Capital Works Program 2018/19 - 2021/22 (Draft 2018/19 Budget) and the term of the Sustainable Environment Strategy 2018-2022 (Draft).

Setting an interim target for 2022 will enable Council to track its emissions trajectory and revise its 2030 target should this be necessary.

It should be noted that the modelling undertaken by Council’s independent energy advisers indicates that Council will have achieved a 48 percent reduction on 2005 levels by 2022, based on the BAU trajectory and current five year EEIP implementation. This provides a high level of confidence of meeting the proposed interim target.

Implementation and review

There are a number of factors that may impact the ability of Council to achieve targets proposed in this report:

Changes in Australian Government climate change commitments Significant changes to the energy market (such as a dramatic shift in electricity or gas

prices)

Page 88


Introduction of new technologies that change energy usage or other resource requirements

Significant changes to Council buildings and facilities assets beyond what has been included in the analysis undertaken by Council’s independent experts. This could include additional new buildings, expanding the capacity of existing buildings, or changing leasing/operational arrangements.

Changes to the scope of inclusions. This could mean adding new emissions sources (such as for waste or wastewater streams) or changing the way that boundaries are determined.

Council actively monitors and reports annually on its corporate greenhouse gas emissions via its Sustainability Snapshot and other Council publications.

Council will have multiple opportunities to further review its targets in the future as the energy and climate landscape continues to shift.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Council has a strong commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Environment is one of the four pillars of the Council Plan 2018-2021, which includes a strategy to “reduce energy use and associated greenhouse gas emissions” as well as budget activities to improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Sustainable Environment Strategy 2013-2017 has goals to ‘reduce Council’s corporate energy consumption and corresponding greenhouse gas emissions’ and ‘support the community to reduce energy consumption and corresponding greenhouse gas emissions’.


Current investment in the EEIP is $600,000 per year is directly tied to Council’s commitment to reduce its own energy use and associated greenhouse gas emissions. Council will continue to annually assess the energy efficiency budget and capital program and the merits of energy efficiency investment.

CONCLUSION

The Paris Agreement cements the international community’s commitment to reduce the impacts of climate change. This commitment explicitly recognises the importance of local government action.

Council leadership is essential for the mitigation and adaptation of climate change at a local level, through action to improve its own operations as well as supporting community sustainability.

Council has made strong commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the Council Plan 2018-2021 and the Sustainable Environment Strategy, investing $600,000 p.a. to reduce energy use and associated greenhouse gas emissions throughout its buildings and facilities.

Greenhouse reduction targets were set by Council in its Sustainable Environment Strategy 2013-2017.

Council has met its initial target to reduce emissions by 20 per cent below 2005 levels by 2015 and is on track to meet its existing target to reduce emissions by 30 per cent below

Page 89


2005 levels by 2020 based on its current investment in the EEIP and planned street lighting upgrades.

There is a strong imperative for Council to set new greenhouse reduction targets due to international commitments through the Paris Agreement, the anticipated meeting of Council’s 2020 greenhouse reduction target and the development of the new Sustainable Environment Strategy.

Council sought expert advice to help inform the setting of new greenhouse reduction targets, based on international best practice target setting and practicability in line with Council investment in energy efficiency initiatives.

It is proposed that Council adopt a new long-term, aspirational greenhouse gas emission reduction target of 60 per cent reduction on 2005 levels by 2030.

It is also proposed that Council adopt an interim greenhouse gas emission reduction target of 35 per cent reduction on 2005 levels by 2022. Such an interim target would align with Council’s existing budget allocation for corporate energy efficiency programs in the Four Years Capital Works Program 2018/19 - 2021/22 (Draft 2018/19 Budget) and the Sustainable Environment Strategy 2018-2022 (Draft).

These targets are achievable based on planned energy efficiency initiatives over the next 2-5 years and further energy reduction opportunities including major road street lighting upgrades, renewable energy and battery storage, building efficiencies and light and heavy fleet efficiencies.

These targets demonstrate Council’s commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving energy efficiency and leading by example as outlined in the Council Plan and the Sustainable Environment Strategy.



Page 90


RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. Acknowledge the significant achievements to-date in meeting Council’s 2015

greenhouse gas emission reduction target and the progress made towards meeting its 2020 target.

2. Acknowledge the financial savings realised to-date through the direct investment in energy efficiency initiatives and the opportunity to achieve further savings through such investments into the future.

3. Adopt a new long-term, aspirational greenhouse gas emission reduction target of 60 per cent reduction on 2005 levels by 2030.

4. Adopt an interim greenhouse gas emission reduction target of 35 per cent reduction on 2005 levels by 2022, which aligns with Council’s existing budget allocation for corporate energy efficiency programs in the Four Years Capital Works Program 2018/19 - 2021/22 (Draft 2018/19 Budget) and the Sustainable Environment Strategy 2018-2022 (Draft).

5. Periodically review Council’s long term, aspirational greenhouse gas emission reduction target and interim targets, including in 2022 as part of the redevelopment of the next Sustainable Environment Strategy.

6. Continue to identify energy efficiency investment opportunities; assess investment costs and benefits on a project by project basis; and annually review funding allocations through the Council Budget.

7. Monitor and report annually on Council’s corporate greenhouse gas emissions and promote achievements to the Stonnington community.

Page 91

7. PROPOSED DISCONTINUANCE AND SALE OF PART OF ROAD AT REAR 7 MILLICENT AVENUE TOORAK

Property Coordinator: Peter Angwin Corporate Counsel: Michael SmithGeneral Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the proposed discontinuance and sale of part of the road at the rear of 7 Millicent Avenue, Toorak (Proposal), which is shown as lot 1 on the plan contained in Attachment 1 to this Report, being part of the land contained in certificate of title volume 11644 folio 381 (Road).

BACKGROUND

The owner of the land known as 7 Millicent Avenue Toorak (Adjoining Land) which abuts the southern boundary of the Road proposed to be discontinued, is the applicant (Applicant).The section of the Road proposed to be discontinued also abuts the southern rear boundary of 16 Sargood Street and in part 14 Sargood Street together with part of the western boundary of 7A Millicent Avenue Toorak.

A block plan which shows the location of the section of road at the rear of 7 Millicent Avenue is shown in Attachment 2.

The Applicant, through his representative, asked Council to commence the statutory process required to discontinue the Road and transfer the discontinued Road to the Applicant.

Proposal.

The Applicant agreed to pay Council's costs and disbursements associated with the proposed discontinuance of the Road and transfer of the discontinued Road to the Applicant.

The CEO as Council’s delegate on 5 December 2017 approved the commencement of the statutory process required to discontinue the Road and transfer the discontinued Road to the Applicant.

In accordance with section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 (Vic), the Proposal was advertised in the Stonnington Leader on 12 December 2017. The Proposal was also shown on Council’s website. In addition, copies of the notice were also forwarded to other abutting owners.

Site InspectionThe site inspection was conducted by Reeds Consulting on 5 September 2017 and the site inspection report and appropriate plans were prepared so that the required statutory process for the Proposal could proceed.

The site inspection report noted that:

the Road provides vehicular access to the Adjoining Property;

no other adjoining property has or can have suitable access to the Road, or can utilise the Road, due to the topography of the Road; and

the Road is not required for public access.

Page 93


Council officers’ view is that the comments in the site inspection report may be accurate for at grade access on current conditions, however site works on other abutting properties (albeit at some expense to the owners of those abutting properties) could result in access to the Road, even though that access is not currently exercised at ground level of the Road.

Public AuthoritiesIn addition to Council, the following statutory authorities were advised of the proposed discontinuance of the Road and were asked to respond to the question of whether they have any existing assets in the Road, which should be saved under section 207C of the Act:

South East Water, Melbourne Water, Citipower, Multinet Gas, Telstra, Optus, APA Gas and Stonnington City Council

Melbourne Water, Citipower, Multinet Gas, Telstra, Optus and APA Gas have advised that they do not have assets in or above the Road and do not object to the proposed discontinuance of the Road.

Council officers advised that:

the existing surface of the Road is required for drainage for the abutting properties; and

an easement in favour of Council must be created over the Road shown as E-1 on the plan contained in Attachment 1 to this Report.

Council’s Infrastructure unit (if the Road was discontinued and sold) also requires the Applicant to enter into an agreement with Council pursuant to section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Vic) to ensure that:

the easement must be retained for drainage, in particular the existing surface drainage, to allow all existing and future surface drains and surface runoff from all abutting properties onto the easement;

the existing surface levels and surface type of the Road must not be changed without Council’s permission; and

the Applicant must not allow the drainage within the easement to be obstructed, including by any structures, buildings, landscaping or improvements on the Road.

South East Water advised that:

there is an existing 225mm sewer main located at the rear of 7 Millicent Avenue; and

a suitably sized easement in favour of South East Water must be created over the Road shown as E-1 on the plan contained in Attachment 1 to this report.

If the Road was discontinued, any rights to existing assets which are required by the statutory authorities to be saved under section 207C of the Act, will be saved in any transfer of the Road.

Submissions

Page 94

A formal submission regarding the Proposal was received from one of the adjoining owners to the Road (Adjoining Owner) by Council on 8 January 2018 regarding the Proposal.

The key points of the submission are as follows:

while the Adjoining Owner’s property is currently fenced with no gate access to the Road, the Adjoining Owner may require access to the Road in future;

the Adjoining Owner does value the right of way at the back of her property and if Council is looking to sell this land, then they would like the opportunity to purchase the land also; and

It is the Adjoining Owner’s understanding that the Applicant is proposing to build a structure to house vehicles, which will mean that there is a raised structure on or very close to the fence line of the Adjoining Owner’s property, which the Adjoining Owner would object to for security related reasons.

223 Hearing

The section 223 Hearing was held on 26 March 2018 at 6.45pm in the Council Committee Room at Stonnington City Centre at 311 Glenferrie Road, Malvern.

Documents provided to Councillors as background prior the 223 hearing included a copy of the submission, the site survey report carried out by Reeds and title plan.

The party that objected spoke to their submission advising that the laneway abuts their property and they value the access from this lane which will be required soon as they are about to start work at the property with the rear access easier than the front access.

The Applicant’s representative for the discontinuance outlined at the hearing that there would be no loss of amenity or services and there is no visual enjoyment of the area. It was also pointed out that there was significant barriers to access for the other properties while easy for the rear of 7 Millicent Avenue. There is a 1 metre high concrete retaining wall at the rear of the Sargood Street properties with palings and trees which means no access. They put forward that this proposal if successful could take it off the Road Management Register and 7A Millicent Avenue has already set the precedent.

No questions were asked by Councillors.

The Applicant and submitter were advised of the next steps in the process and the Mayor thanked them for their attendance and closed the S223 Hearing at 7.01pm with the Applicant and submitters leaving the meeting at that time.

After considering the submission at the hearing from both the objector and the Applicant, the matter was further discussed.

Officer comments regarding the Proposal

Whilst recognising that there is a difference in access levels from the Road and the Adjoining Owner’s property, and that the Adjoining Owner does not currently have at grade access from the Road to their property, the Adjoining Owner’s property nevertheless abuts the Road and benefits from access to the Road.

The Adjoining Owner is entitled to exercise the right to access the Road, albeit that the Adjoining Owner will need to carry out site works to have direct access from their property to the Road.

Page 95


The proposed discontinuance of the Road would take away an alternate access that the Adjoining Owner values and could be used at some time.

Council’s Infrastructure and Assets Services area have advised that with appropriate site works by the Adjoining Owner, access off the Road to the Adjoining Owner’s property could be obtained.

Taking account of the above, the Road is still considered reasonably required for public use.


Council’s Solicitors for this matter are Maddocks who have prepared the relevant documentation to date to assist with compliance with the relevant statutory procedures.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the Proposal not proceed on the basis that the Road remains reasonably required for public use, as the Adjoining Owner intends in the future to utilise access to the Road from their property.

Taking account of the above, the Road is still considered required for public use

HUMAN RIGHTS

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

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 DROW rear 7 Millicent Ave - Title Plan Excluded

2. Attachment 2 DROW rear 7 Millicent Ave - showing location of ROW Excluded

Page 96

RECOMMENDATION

1. That Council, acting under section 17(3) of the Road Management Act 2004 (Vic), resolves that the road at the rear of 7 Millicent Avenue, Toorak, be registered on Council’s register of public roads as the road is reasonably required for public use, for the reasons stated in the report.

2. That Council, having followed the required statutory procedures pursuant to sections 207A and 223 of the Local Government Act, and pursuant to its power under schedule 10 clause 3 of the Act; and having considered all submissions received in response to the public notice regarding Council’s proposal to discontinue the part of the road at the rear of 7 Millicent Avenue, Toorak (being the parcel of land shown as lot 1 on title plan TP956665Y shown in Attachment 1 to this report and being part of the land in certificate of title volume 11644 folio 381):

2.1 is of the opinion that the road remains reasonably required for public use; and

2.2 considers that the proposal to discontinue and sell the road should not proceed.

Page 97


8. FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 31 MARCH 2018

Manager Finance: Jon Gorst General Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE

To provide Council with an update on Stonnington City Council’s financial performance for the period ending 31 March 2018.

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 31 March 2018 was $34.4M against a budget of $29.5M, a favourable / positive variance of $4.9M.

The year to date net surplus excluding open space contributions at 31 March 2018 was $25.6M against a budget of $21.9M, a favourable variance of $3.7M.

The surplus is expected to increase to $40.6M by 30 June 2018 ($30.6M excluding open space contributions), resulting in a forecasted favourable full year variance to budget of $4.2M.

The favourable $4.9M year to date surplus budget variance is largely due to: Higher than budgeted operating income (excluding contributions) of $204K,

particularly higher user fees $685K, operating grants $99K, reimbursements $223K, interest income $316K and other revenue $95K, offset by lower rates income ($444K) and lower than budgeted statutory fees ($832K). The lower statutory fees are as a result of Infringement Court income being $750K lower than budget due to issues with Fines Victoria’s (State Government entity) implementation of a new IT system leading to delays in infringement income being passed on to Council. Council recently met with Fines Victoria with indications that this situation may be addressed by 30 June 2018.

Higher contributions – cash income ($1.0M) primarily due to the timing of the receipts of open space and developers contributions.

Operating expenditure is $3.7M less than the year to date budget. This is due to employee costs being $1.4M less than budget, lower materials and services expenditure $1.2M (due to year to date budget timing differences), community grants $118K favourable, finance costs $607K favourable and operating initiatives expenditure $628K favourable. These are partially offset by an unfavourable variance in other expenses ($132K).

As at 31 March 2018, Council held $129.6M in cash and investments. Council achieved a year to date working capital ratio of 2.55, indicating a continued strong ability to meet its current financial commitments. Net assets were $2.7B at 31 March 2018.

Page 99


Operating Result – Full Year ForecastThe full year forecast surplus compared to the full year original budget surplus is expected to be $4.2M favourable.

Operating IncomeFull year income is forecast to be $1.7M favourable as a result of:

$773K higher than budgeted user fees, mainly due to increased weighbridge activities $290K, higher Building and Local Law lodgement and applications fees from increased activity $456K and higher usage at aquatic centres $273K.

$266K higher than budgeted contributions – cash income, where unbudgeted capital works contributions are expected from Wattletree Early Centre to fund the Buildings Accessibility Improvement project $50K, and operating contributions from Melbourne University and Cabrini Hospital which were originally budgeted in operating grants

$263K higher than budgeted capital grants, predominantly from the Transport Accident Commission for the Greville Street Public Realm Improvement $70K and the Department of Justice and Regulation for the Princess Gardens Master Plan project $175K.

$351K higher than budgeted reimbursements income predominantly in the Operations and Transport areas.

$433K 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.

$90K higher than budgeted other revenue, mainly due to unbudgeted income received from a granting of easement over Council land $217K and VEC election infringements receipts of $130K. These are offset by lower Venue facilities regular and casual income ($187K), reduced rental income ($48K) and less than budgeted scrap metals sales ($40K).

These favourable income variances are partially offset by:

$350K lower than budgeted rates income, mainly due to lower than anticipated supplementary rates income.

$83K lower than budgeted statutory fees and fines, mainly due to a reduction in planning permits income $200K. This is partially offset by higher Municipal Building Surveyor lodgement fees $60K, higher demand for land information certificates $21K, and higher food registrations permits, transfer fees and property enquiries $25K.

Operating ExpenditureFull year expenditure is forecast to be $2.5M favourable as a result of:

Employee costs are forecast to be $2.9M less than budget due to various position vacancies and lower service utilisation levels leading to lower staffing requirements. A major contributor to this variance is the originally budgeted provision for a $2.0M Defined Benefits Superannuation call which is now unlikely to eventuate.

$795K lower than budgeted interest expense, as a result of the Cato Square project loan borrowings now deferred to 2018/19.

Page 100


These favourable expenditure variances are partially offset by:

Materials and services costs are forecast to be $744K greater than budget. This is due to higher than budgeted expenditure on recycling collection and processing costs in the wake of China’s restrictions on the importation of recycling materials and the impact this has on the global market for recycling materials ($192K); higher than budgeted Aquatic Services utilities costs ($109K); Property maintenance increased costs ($59K); Unbudgeted urgent repairs to Council’s property ($57K); Vehicle registrations higher than expected and operating leases from garbage sweepers converted from finance leases ($129K); Aquatic Services chemical and materials purchases higher than budget ($120K); Building and Local Laws higher than budgeted legal fees ($74K); Higher land tax than budgeted ($128K); Golf Course Management higher costs in servicing mowers and plumbing expenditures ($48K); Higher than budgeted consulting and legal costs associated with strategic property purchases ($57K); increased reactive works in Property Maintenance ($59K); and Risk Management higher than budgeted legal fees associated with claims matters ($114K).

This is partially offset by savings in Festivals and Events costs $51K; lower than budgeted Roads and Drains Maintenance expenditures $46K; Finance printing and bank charges lower than budgeted $42K; In Home Services savings in contract payments due to reduced demand for care services and meals on wheels $99K; Venues and Facilities savings in various expenditures $84K; and People and Culture savings in software license and legal fees $67K.

$295K higher than budgeted depreciation, as a result of the revaluation of roads and bridges assets at 30 June 2017.

$75K higher than budgeted other expenses, as a result of higher than anticipated insurance costs.

$165K higher than budgeted operating capital expenditure, mainly due to the work related to the Prahran Mechanics Institute ($40K); Glenloch Housing project ($40K); Parks and Environment project costs with Melbourne Metro Rail Authority ($65K) – cost recovery to be lodged with Melbourne Metro Rail Authority; and unbudgeted demolition costs for Will Sampson Centre ($39K).

Capital Works Expenditure – Full Year ForecastThe full year forecast net Capital Works expenditure excluding Operating Initiatives at 31 March 2018 is $74.0M. This includes the following key projects:

Dunlop Pavilion redevelopment $1.9M,

Chapel Street Precinct masterplan implementation $4.0M,

Local Road refurbishment and resurfacing $3.4M,

Cato Square development $17.1M,

Cato Street Road Refurbishment $1.1M,

Gardiner Park redevelopment $3.4M,

Prahran Town Hall masterplan $1.3M,

Strategic property purchases for open space realm and incidental costs $13.0M,

Malvern Golf Course condition audit works $2.3M,

Civic Centre basement rectification works $485K,

Page 101


Forrest Hill Public Realm $1.5M,

High Street Malvern Records Office refit $560K,

Yarra River Biodiversity project $850K, and

Energy Efficiency project for Council facilities $2.3M.

The year to date actual capital expenditure of $34.3M equates to 46% of the full year forecast.

Full year net capital expenditure (excluding Operating Initiatives) is forecast to be $74.0M compared to the net original budget of $87.1M. Capital works carry-overs and deferrals to 2018/19 are currently estimated at $24.5M (including Cato Square project $15.2M; Dunlop Pavilion redevelopment $2.5M; Gardiner Park redevelopment $1.3M; and Toorak/South Yarra Library air conditioner replacement $1.0M).

Cash FlowTotal cash and investments are $129.6M at 31 March 2018. The cash and investments balance is forecast to be $92.2M at 30 June 2018 which is $7.3M greater than budgeted.

The attachment provides Council with the following: Income Statement to 31 March 2018 Full Year Forecast Major Variance Analysis as at 31 March 2018 Balance Sheet as at 31 March 2018 Cash Flow Statement as at 31 March 2018 Financial Performance Indicators to 31 March 2018 Capital Works Expenditure Report as at 31 March 2018.



ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Financial Report for the period ending 31 March 2018 Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council receives and notes the Financial Report for Stonnington City Council for the period ending 31 March 2018.

Page 102


9. RISK, SAFETY AND ASSURANCE REPORT FOR THE PERIOD 1 JULY TO 31 DECEMBER 2017

Manager Risk, Safety and Assurance: David Taylor General Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to inform Council on the status of the management of Council’s Risk Management and Occupational Health & Safety (OHS) obligations and to give an overview of Risk Management and OHS programs for the six-month period ending 31 December 2017.

BACKGROUND

In accordance with the Council resolution of 20 February 2006, this report is to be presented to Council every six months to inform Councillors on these issues. Quarterly Risk Reports are also presented to the Executive and to Council’s Audit Committee.

DISCUSSION

The following report covers the 6 month period ending 31 December 2017.

Risk and IntegrityThe Risk and Integrity Unit manages Council’s ongoing processing of public liability, professional indemnity, motor vehicle and other claims, and has been active during the reporting period in supporting a number of Council functions in dealing with risk issues and insurance claims.

The Unit reports on matters of risk and insurance activity to Council’s Executive Management Team, the Audit Committee and where appropriate, Council’s insurers. ‘Report Only’ notifications to Council’s insurer do not create an imposition of an increased premium, or adverse claims history. Council is however bound to provide its insurers with early advice of any potential claim.

Some of the key Risk Management deliverables include; Ongoing management of significant incidents; Maintenance of Council’s Operational and Strategic Risk Register; Investigation / support to Council’s Insurers on claims and litigation; Management and enhancement of Council’s CCTV capability; and Review of existing Policy and development of draft Policy.

Strategic Risk RegisterDuring a series of workshops with EMT during November and December 2017, the Strategic Risk Register was reviewed and the 32 Risks were consolidated to 11 Risks. The final draft of the Strategic Risk Register was approved by EMT on 13 February 2018 and endorsed by the Audit Committee on 22 February 2018.

The Strategic Risk register is constantly monitored to ensure ongoing relevance and is benchmarked against other Councils (nationally), industry standards and advice regarding emerging risk exposures.

CCTV

Page 103


During the reporting period, Council’s CCTV facilities have been of significant benefit to Victoria Police, in helping to investigate serious criminal events in the area surrounding Stonnington facilities.

Council’s CCTV capacity continues to be enhanced and extended with Grattan Gardens upgraded in Dec 2017, from one camera overlooking the carpark, to 7 cameras covering the entire site. The Malvern Valley Golf Course CCTV has also now been commissioned with 26 cameras monitoring the venue and grounds.

There were 35 requests for CCTV footage during the six month period July – December 2017, the majority of which were from Victoria Police. A total of 93 sections of CCTV footage were downloaded to accommodate the requests. We continue to receive appreciation from Victoria Police for providing this service as our support has been instrumental in the solving of many serious criminal matters. It does however creates a significant impost on resourcing as it is time and labour intensive.

For the calendar years ending 2017, the details of CCTV requests and data provided is shown below.

Year Requests Footage retrieved2014 (Sept onward) 3 2

2015 31 79

2016 83 211

2017 79 209

TrainingAll Business Units have received training in the fundamentals of Operational risk management, to prepare them for the review of the Operational Risk Registers.

Policies Under ReviewRisk have reviewed the following policies; Fraud Control Plan; Risk Management Policy; and Procurement Policy.

Insurance Claims (Brackets contain statistics from previous reporting period)

Public LiabilityWithin the six month reporting period, 154 (142) public liability claims were received.

The most significant of the 154 claims received were;

(a) Tree root damage 44;

(b) Impact - other (e.g. impact with infrastructure, golf balls etc.) 27; and

(c) Contractor works 24.

During this period, 140 (151) claims were finalised with;

Page 104


I. 26 (24) settled at a cost to Council of $252,059.28* ($114,196.95);

II. 90 (116) claims were resolved at either no cost or denied; and

III. 24 (11) were ‘Report Only’ notifications.(N.B. *Includes 1 x insurance excess of $50,000.)

Motor Vehicle53 (64) Motor vehicle claims were received for the six month reporting period. During this period, 53 (48) claims were finalised with:

I. 31 (13) claims settled at a cost to Council of $82,029.96* ($37,389.42);

II. 18 (33) were resolved at either no cost or denied; and

III. 4 (2) were ‘Report Only’ notifications.(N.B. *Includes 8 x insurance excess of $5,000.)

Safety and Prevention

MAV WorkCare Workers Compensation Self-Insurance Scheme (MAV WorkCare Scheme)

Council continued to address the remedial actions identified in the 2016 WorkSafe audit against the National Self-Insurer Audit Tool (the “NAT”). WorkSafe conducted two verification visits in this period and were satisfied with the remedial actions closed.

From 1st November 2017 the MAV WorkCare Scheme commenced. Workers compensation claims were transferred for management from CGU Insurance to JLT Australia (the MAV appointed claims agent).

Strategic OHS Plan 2017/2018

The Strategic OHS Plan 2017/2018 was approved by the CEO in August 2017. The Strategy outlines Council’s strategic priorities to improve OHS performance and outcomes. Performance reporting against the Strategy objectives and targets is reviewed quarterly by the Executive Management Team and OHS Committee.

OHS Management System UpdateTen OHS Procedures were reviewed in this period to ensure they appropriately reflect the NAT requirements, current Council process and good OHS management practices. Work to implement the Procedural requirements is continuing in 2018.

Performance

Page 105


Council reported 10 notifiable incidents to WorkSafe in this period as follows:

a) six were employee related, b) two involved children (child care centres); and c) two involved members of the public.

There were 59 employee related OHS incidents reported compared to 16 hazards in this period (reported via the Council electronic OHS reporting system). The aim is for all areas across the organisation to increase hazard reporting to assist in the reduction of incidents and the further development of a proactive safety culture.

10 lost time injuries were recorded in the period and manual handling injuries were the greatest contributor at 40%. Strong remedial strategies are being implemented to address the manual handling injuries.



RECOMMENDATIONThat Council receives and notes the six-month Risk Management and Occupational Health & Safety report for the period 1 July to 31 December 2017.

Page 106


10. COMMUNITY GRANT - PROUD 2 PLAY

Manager Governance & Corporate Support: Fabienne Thewlis General Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to seek formal approval for an increase in the in-kind funding for use of Malvern Town Hall and Banquet Rooms for Proud 2 Play event.

BACKGROUND

Council, at its meeting held on 18 December 2017 approve an out-of- round, in-kind community grant as follows:

“That Council approve an over expenditure of the Community Grants Program for the Proud 2 Play to be granted $2,340 in kind funding through the Community Grants 2017/2018 Program for one use of the Malvern Town Hall & Malvern Banquet Hall on Thursday 15 February 2018 and $1,171.95 for the services of security staff.”

The Group subsequently changed the date of their event from 15 February to 16 February 2018 which was a Friday night and this increased the cost of the hall hire to $3,810 leaving a shortfall in approved in-kind hall hire of $1,470.

DISCUSSION

This was a fund raising event for Proud 2 Play and it would be contrary to the purpose of the event if Council were subsequently to charge the difference for the function.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

This was an approved out-of-round, in-kind grant and any variation must still be approved by Council.


While this is still an out-of-round grant, Council had approved the in-kind funding and this will be an additional $1,470 over-expended for Community Grants.

CONCLUSION

While Officers generally would recommend that this be refused as it is an out-of-round application, given that Council had previously approved the use of the Council facilities for this function it is proposed that Council still support this request for the additional over-expenditure.


This report has been reviewed and it is considered that the recommendation meets the obligations of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

Page 107


RECOMMENDATIONThat Council approve the additional hall hire fee and over-expenditure of in-kind community grants of $1,470 for the in-kind use of the Malvern Town Hall and Banquet Room by Proud 2 Play Group on 15 February 2018 .

Page 108