commencing 6.30 pm council chamber, moreland civic … · 10/24/2018 · e) location of other...

D18/396109

COUNCIL AGENDA

PLANNING AND RELATED MATTERS

WEDNESDAY 24 OCTOBER 2018

COMMENCING 6.30 PM

COUNCIL CHAMBER, MORELAND CIVIC CENTRE, 90 BELL STREET, COBURG

Council - Planning and Related Matters Meeting 24 October 2018 2

1. WELCOME

2. APOLOGIES

3. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS AND/OR CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS

4. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

The minutes of the Council meeting for Planning and Related Matters held on 26 September 2018 be confirmed.

5. COMMITTEE REPORTS

PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

DED66/18 301-303 BELL STREET, COBURG - PLANNING APPLICATION MPS/2017/720 (D18/187252) 3

DED67/18 36 GLADSTONE PARADE, GLENROY - PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2018/310 (D18/288985) 36

DED68/18 80 JOHN STREET, BRUNSWICK EAST - DEVELOPMENT PLAN (D18/351424) 69

DED69/18 200-216 SYDNEY ROAD, COBURG - MPS/2017/1029 (D18/364653) 92

6. URGENT BUSINESS REPORTS


DED66/18 301-303 BELL STREET, COBURG - PLANNING APPLICATION MPS/2017/720 (D18/187252)

Director Planning and Economic Development

City Development

Executive Summary

The application seeks approval for buildings and works associated with the existing use of the land as a service station, use and development of the land as a convenience shop, display of business identification signs and internally illuminated signs and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone. The application was advertised, and 48 objections were received. The main issues raised in objections are the impact of the development to the residents along the southern boundary of the site, the orientation of the building and traffic travelling along Rose Street.

A Planning Information and Discussion (PID) meeting was held on 24 May 2018. Changes to the application were made following this meeting, including a reduction in the size of the building to allow an increase in building setback from the south boundary, alterations to the Rose Street egress from the site and removal of signage from the southern elevations.

The report details the assessment of the application against the policies and provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

The key planning considerations are:

• Whether the proposed new use is appropriate in the zone.

• The location of new buildings.

• Traffic movement to and from the site.

• Protecting the amenity of residential properties abutting the site.

The reduction in the size of the building results in an increased setback off the southern boundary and traffic leaving the site via Rose Street will be directed towards Bell Street preventing left hand turns into Rose Street.

Conditions in the recommendation will require all noise associated with the uses to comply with SEPP-N1 (control noise from commerce industry and trade) requirements.

It is recommended that a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit be issued for the proposal.

Officer Recommendation

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No. MPS/2017/720 be issued for buildings and works associated with the existing use of the land as a service station, use and development of the land as a convenience shop, display of business identification signs and internally illuminated signs and alteration of access to road in a Road Zone at 301-303 Bell Street, Coburg subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the use and development commences, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must be generally in accordance with the plans received 10 August 2018 but modified to show:

a) All parking spaces with a wall adjacent to one side of the parking space be at least 0.3m wider, to allow for opening car doors in accordance with diagram 1 of Clause 52.06 of the Planning Scheme.

b) The location of the apron line marking as required by Vic Roads (condition 26 of this permit).


c) A notation of the details of the acoustic fencing to be constructed along the southern and eastern boundary of the site in accordance with the acoustic report approved under condition 10 of this permit.

d) Initiatives contained within the amended SMP including:

i. The location of the raingardens and rainwater harvesting tanks as detailed in the WSUD report with a note that the tanks will be used only for reuse within the development, and that they are completely independent of any detention requirements.

ii. A section detail of the raingardens that is consistent with Council’s raingarden guidelines. The raingarden must have a submerged zone, and if appropriate, an underdrain and overflow pipe connected to the stormwater drainage system, and full lining around the raingarden excavation area.

iii. A 5-10KW solar photovoltaic system as per the amended SMP, including an approximate location of the relevant number of individual solar panels.

e) Location of other services such as air conditioning units and plant and equipment with details of any proposed screening as set out in the acoustic report approved under condition 10 of this permit.

f) Any modifications to the layout to achieve compliance with the lighting report required by condition 9 of this permit.

2. The use and development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. This does not apply to any exemption specified in Clauses 62.01, 62.02-1 and 62.02-2 of the Moreland Planning Scheme unless specifically noted as a permit condition.

3. Prior to the occupation of the development, access to the site, any vehicle crossover and any ancillary road and road drainage works must be constructed in accordance with any requirement of the Responsible Authority (Moreland City Council, City Infrastructure Department).

4. Prior to the occupation of the development, any existing vehicle crossing not to be used in this use or development must be removed and the kerb and channel, footpath and nature strip reinstated to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority (Moreland City Council, City Infrastructure Department).

5. Prior to the commencement of any development works, a landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The landscape plan must provide the following:

a) Identification of any existing tree(s) and vegetation on site and adjoining land proposed to be removed and retained, including the tree protection zone(s). Vegetation retainment must include strategies for the retainment (i.e. barriers and signage during the construction process).

b) A schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers (including numbers, size at planting, size at maturity and botanical names), as well as sealed and paved surfaces. The flora selection and landscape design should be drought tolerant and based on species selection recommended in the Moreland Landscape Guidelines 2009.

c) The provision of a generous landscape theme particularly along the southern boundary of the site with the inclusion of an adequate number of trees to ensure that the residential boundary is adequately screened from the existing site.


Sustainable Management Plan

6. Prior to the commencement of the development, an amended Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) must be submitted to and approved to the satisfaction by the Responsible Authority. The Sustainable Management Plan must demonstrate a best practice standard of environmentally sustainable design and be generally in accordance with the SMP prepared by Living Building Solutions (LBS Reference Number LBS_138) and dated 15/06/2018, but modified to include the following changes:

a) An improved response to the ‘energy response’ objectives of Clause 22.08, including:

i. Provide a preliminary JV3 modelling report to demonstrate the commitment of a 21% improvement on minimum NCC compliance (proposed building annual heating/cooling energy consumption 21% less than the reference building annual heating/cooling energy consumption); include the reference glazing spreadsheet and proposed glazing spreadsheets as part of this assessment. The JV3 report should be prepared at a minimum as per the example energy analysis report format provided in the ABCB Protocol for Building Energy Analysis Software.

ii. Briefly outline how the maximum illumination power density in at least 90% of the shop will be at least 20% less than NCC requirements; i.e. an indicative type, number and wattage of the proposed lighting (e.g. specification of only LED lighting, type and wattage of the LED lighting).

iii. Provide a minimum 5-10KW solar photovoltaic (PV) solar system on the roof of the proposed shop connected to the main electricity usage on the site, or suitably justify why this cannot be achieved for this site.

iv. Specify the use of energy efficient lighting systems and controls for exterior lighting and signage.

b) An improved response to the ‘water resources response’ objectives of Clause 22.08, including:

i. The ‘Water’ category amended to either reduce the toilets from 5 star WELS to 4 star WELS, or justify the use of 5 star WELS toilets.

c) Demonstration of best practice stormwater management as per clause 22.08 by amending the on-site stormwater management response (WSUD report), including:

i. Provide MUSIC modelling to demonstrate the site stormwater management approach instead. Provide an electronic copy of the MUSIC model file and an accompanying report which outlines the modelling assumptions and parameters used to address stormwater management on this site;

ii. Reassess the stormwater management response to include the rainwater tank treating roof runoff;

iii. All impervious and pervious areas on the site must be addressed;

iv. Raingardens should be generally sized so that they are 2% of their catchment area;

v. Provide site stormwater drainage design drawings to confirm the stormwater response and demonstrate how the site runoff will be practically drained to the raingardens and rainwater tank;

vi. Provide a Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) Catchment Areas Plan, to show all impervious surfaces (dimensioned, with incremental and total areas) and their treatment/non-treatment to align with the entries in a WSUD Report;


vii. Raingardens must be installed at least 300 millimetres away from any slab, footings, significant structures and boundary; and

viii. Provide a brief description of the Stormwater Quality Improvement Device (SQUID) and how it will address the pollutant load in the site stormwater runoff and how it will be integrated with the other site stormwater management devices such as raingardens.

Where alternative ESD initiatives are proposed to those specified in this condition, the Responsible Authority may vary the requirements of this condition at its discretion, subject to the development achieving equivalent (or greater) ESD outcomes in association with the development.

When submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the SMP and associated notated plans will be endorsed to form part of this permit.

Implementation of the Sustainability Management Plan

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

SMP monitoring condition

8. Prior to the occupation of the building approved under this permit, a report (or reports) from the author of the Sustainability Management Plan (SMP), approved pursuant to this permit, or similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority.

The report(s) must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must confirm that all measures specified in the approved SMP have been implemented in accordance with the approved plans. Specific details confirming the ESD measures have been implemented must be included, such as:

a) Evidence that the development achieved an improvement of 21% (or greater) in annual heating and cooling energy consumption above minimum Section J requirements.

b) Evidence that improved glazing and insulation as specified in the final endorsed JV3 report has been implemented throughout the site.

c) Solar Photovoltaic system installed.

d) LED lighting and lighting controls installed for interior and exterior lighting.

e) Water efficient fixtures, fitting and appliances have been installed.

f) Construction and waste management targets (including for construction and demolition waste and reuse of materials on site) occurred.

g) Materials with improved sustainability were used (including recycled/reused or certified timber).

h) Paints, adhesives, sealants and flooring, adhered to the maximum levels of volatile organic compounds.

i) The WSUD treatments were installed and constructed (raingardens and rainwater tank).

j) Any other ESD initiatives committed to or referenced in the SMP occurred and were installed or constructed.


9. Prior to the endorsement of the plans a lighting report must be submitted to and approved by the responsible authority. The endorsed report will form part of this planning permit. The report must demonstrate that the proposed lighting of the development will not result in any unreasonable light spill to the residential property south of the site. The approved lighting report must be implemented to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

10. Prior to the endorsement of plans the Acoustic Report (Resonate Acoustics, September 2017) must be updated to reflect the application as amended in August 2018. When submitted to the satisfaction of the responsible authority the acoustic report will be endorsed to form part of the planning permit and must be implemented to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

11. The area set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes shown on the endorsed plan must to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

a) Be completed prior to the commencement of the use and occupation of the development.

b) Be maintained.

c) Be properly formed to such levels that it can be used according to the endorsed plan.

d) Be drained and surfaced.

e) Have the boundaries of all vehicle parking spaces clearly marked on the ground to accord with the endorsed plan.

f) Not be used for any other purpose other than the parking of vehicles.

12. The car parking spaces provided on the land must be solely associated with the development allowed by this permit and must not be subdivided or sold separate from the development for any reason without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

13. The area marked as a loading bay on the endorsed plan must not be used for any other purpose.

14. All deliveries to the site and rubbish collected from the site must be carried out during the following hours:

• Monday to Saturday 7 am to 10 pm

• Sunday and public holidays 9 am to 10 pm

15. Prior to the commencement of works a tree protection zone must be established around the street tree on Rose Street with barriers/fencing in accordance with the Australian Standard for Protection of trees on development sites (AS4970-2009) or in accordance with Council’s Arborist direction to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

16. Public footpaths are to be reinstated with a crossfall slope of 1 in 40 (2.5%).

17. All stormwater from the land, where it is not collected in rainwater tanks for re-use, must be collected by an underground pipe drain approved by and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority (Note: Please contact Moreland City Council, City Infrastructure Department).

18. Stormwater from the land must not be directed to the surface of the laneway to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority

19. The stormwater run-off from the site must not flow out of the property over the public footpath to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


20. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit in relation to the development approved by this permit, a Development Infrastructure Levy must be paid to Moreland City Council in accordance with the approved Development Contributions Plan. The Development Infrastructure Levy is charged per 100 square metres of leasable floor space.

21. If an application for subdivision of the land in accordance with the development approved by this permit is submitted to Council, payment of the Development Infrastructure Levy can be delayed to a date being whichever is the sooner of the following:

a) A maximum of 12 months from the date of issue of the Building Permit; or

b) Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for the subdivision.

22. When a staged subdivision is sought, the Development Infrastructure Levy must be paid prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for each stage of subdivision in accordance with a Schedule of Development Contributions approved as part of the subdivision.

23. The Waste Management Plan approved under this permit must be implemented and complied with at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority unless with the further written approval of the Responsible Authority.

24. Within 2 months of the completion of the buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans, acoustic testing is to be carried out to ascertain whether the existing and new use comply with the maximum noise levels prescribed by SEPP N-1 The testing is to be carried out by an independent acoustician approved by the Responsible Authority. If the testing reveals that the use does not meet the specified maximum noise levels the buildings and works must be modified to make the use compliant with those levels. After any modifications have been made further acoustic testing must be carried out to ascertain whether the use complies with the prescribed noise levels. All acoustic testing is to be carried out during a busy period. The results of testing are to be provided to the Responsible Authority and made available to the public.

25. Noise levels associated with the new use must at all times comply with the State Environment Protection Policy (Control of noise from commerce, industry and trade) No. N-1. Should the Responsible Authority deem it necessary, the owner and/or occupier of the land must submit an Acoustic Report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority which demonstrates compliance, or which outlines any measures considered necessary to achieve compliance. The recommendations of the Acoustic Report must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The endorsed plans must be amended to accord with the recommendations contained in the Acoustic Report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority

Vic Roads requirements

26. Prior to the commencement of any works within the site, a functional layout plan must be submitted to and approved by the Roads Corporation. When approved by the Roads Corporation, the plans may be endorsed by the Responsible Authority and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and two copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans submitted with the application but modified to show:

a) An apron with line marking (diagonal lines) to narrow down both the entrance and exit from Bell Street.

27. Before the use approved by this permit commences, the following line marking works as approved by VicRoads must be completed at no cost to and to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

28. No compensation is payable under part 5 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 in respect of anything done under this permit.

29. The signs must not be flashing or reflective.


30. The signs must be located within the private property boundary.

31. The luminance of the advertising sign must be such that it does not give a veiling luminance to the driver, of greater than 0.25 candela per square metre (cd/m2), throughout the driver’s approach to the advertising sign.

32. The location, dimensions, shape and associated structures of every sign must accord with the endorsed plans and must not be altered, unless with the consent of the Responsible Authority.

33. Any externally illuminated sign must be designed, baffled and located to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to prevent any adverse amenity impact on any adjoining property.

34. This permit in relation to signage expires 15 years from the date of issue, at which time the sign and all supporting structures must be removed, and the site made good to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

a) The development is not commenced within 2 years from the date of issue of this permit;

b) The development is not completed within 4 years from the date of issue of this permit;

c) The use is not commenced within 4 years from the date of issue of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the period referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or:

• Within 6 months after the permit expires to extend the commencement date.

• Within 12 months after the permit expires to extend the completion date of the development if the development has lawfully commenced.

Notes: These notes are for information only and do not constitute part of this permit or conditions of this permit.

Note 1. It may be necessary to obtain a building permit prior to the commencement of any demolition, building works or occupation of the building. It is strongly recommended that you consult with a registered building surveyor to advise on any requirements under the Building Act, the Building Regulations and any other subordinate legislation. Further information can be sought from the Victorian Building Authority, Phone 1300 815 127 or www.vba.vic.gov.au. Council's building services branch can also assist you in the provision of this service and can be contacted on 9240 1111 or http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/planning-building/building-renovations-and-extensions/.

Note 2. Prior to the occupation of the development, any Council or service authority pole or pit within 1 metre of a proposed vehicle crossing must be relocated or modified at the expense of the permit holder to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and the relevant service authority.

Note 3. Prior to the occupation of the development, any Council or service authority pole or pit within 1 metre of a proposed vehicle crossing must be relocated or modified at the expense of the permit holder to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and the relevant service authority.

Note 4. Prior to the installation of any new underground tanks all existing tanks must be decommissioned by suitably qualified professionals, in accordance with EPA Publication 888.4 Underground Petroleum Storage Systems (UPSSs) 2015 or as amended and the Australian Standards referenced therein

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

http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/planning-building/building-renovations-and-extensions/

http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/planning-building/building-renovations-and-extensions/


Note 5. Prior to the installation of any new underground tanks the permit holder must ensure that an assessment of the environmental condition of the site is conducted by a competent and experienced environmental assessor when removing or decommissioning a UPSS.

Note 6. Petroleum storage tanks must be designed, installed and operated in accordance with the Guidelines on the Design, Installation and Management Requirements for Underground Petroleum Storage Systems (UPSSs) (EPA Publication No. 888.4, August 2015).


REPORT

1. Background

Subject site

The subject site is known as 301-303 Bell Street, Coburg and is located on the corner of Bell Street and Rose Street, Coburg. The site has a frontage width to Bell Street of 39.32 metres, a frontage width to Rose Street of 39.42 metres and an overall site area of 1528 square metres.

The site is occupied currently by a service station and car wash use that operates 24 hours 7 days per week, with existing buildings comprising of fuel canopy, convenience shop/control building, storage shed and canopy for the car wash facility. There is an existing pylon sign in the north-western corner of the site and minimal landscaping apart from some small shrubs adjacent the pylon sign. Seven car parking spaces are provided on the site’s eastern boundary (with only 5 accessible for parking due to a charity bin placement and a garden bed). There are 2 existing crossovers provided along the Bell Street frontage and 2 existing crossovers along the Rose Street frontage.

There are two restrictive covenants indicated on the Certificate of Title known as instruments number 1349071 and 1380233 which require that the land owner will not:

• dig or excavate or take up – carry away or remove from the said land transferred or any part thereof any earth clay stone gravel or sand except for the purpose of excavating for the foundation of any building.

The applicant has provided a legal opinion which concludes that the proposed development does not breach the covenant.

Surrounds

The site is located on the southern side of Bell Street, which is a major transport route and provides access onto the Tullamarine Freeway (City Link) approximately 1.4 kilometres to the west. The site is located within an existing residential area along the south side of Bell Street.

An existing residential area, predominantly of a single storey character, lies to the south of the site. The subject site abuts a single laneway along its eastern boundary. On the eastern side of the laneway at 299 Bell Street the existing dwelling is used as a Chinese Medical Centre. On the south west corner of Bell Street and Rose Street there is a single storey 3-unit development with all 3 dwellings facing Rose Street.

To the north of the site is an existing McDonald’s restaurant, which is situated on the western side of Bell Street and Sussex Street intersection. On the eastern side of this intersection is a Shell Service Station, which also includes a take way food premises (Hungry Jacks). There are also many commercial properties fronting Bell Street to the west of the McDonalds.

A location plan forms Attachment 1.


The proposal

The proposal as originally lodged includes the following uses and associated works:

• Demolition of all existing buildings on site (no permit required);

• Construction of a new building containing the Service Station with associated convenience shop operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week;

• 132 square metres of convenience shop (BP Fuel Shop);

• 88 square metres of ‘Take away food premises’;

• Fuel canopy and 8 double fuel dispensers (bowsers);

• Removal of existing underground tanks and installation of new underground petroleum (including LPG) tanks;

• Advertising signs; including, business identification and internally illuminated signs;

• 9 x car parking spaces; including once disabled access space;

• 3 bicycle parking spaces (loops); and

• Alteration of existing crossovers to Bell Street.

The original development plans (as advertised) form Attachment 2.

Planning Permit and site history

• MPS 1999/0300 – Permit for the use of an existing petrol station (service station) with an extension of hours to 24 hours in accordance with the endorsed plans.

• MPS 2000/0658 – Permit for alterations and additions to existing service station (including additions to existing shop and canopy) in accordance with the endorsed plans.

• MPS 2000/0864 – Permit for the use and development of the land for a take away food premises and a manual car was in conjunction with an existing service station in accordance with the endorsed plans.

• MPS 2004/0432 – Permit for buildings and works to construct a new carwash area in accordance with the endorsed plans.

• MP 2004/0432 (AM2006/0004) – Permit to amend Planning Permit MPS 2004/0432 to increase the size of the car wash bay to accommodate two work bays and canopy in accordance with the endorsed plans.

Statutory Controls – why is a planning permit required?

Control Permit Requirement

Residential Growth Zone

Clause 32.07-2 A planning permit is required for a Convenience Shop as it is a section 2 use

Clause 32.07-7 A planning permit is required for buildings and works associated with a Section 2 use.

Public Acquisition Overlay

Clause 45-01-1 A planning permit is required to demolish or remove a building, construct a building or construct or carry out works. This includes alterations to the Bell Street crossovers and any other buildings and works in the relatively small area at the front of the site affected by this Overlay.

Advertising Signs

Clause 52.05 Category 3 The proposed signage falls into Category 3 at Clause 52.05-9. A planning permit is required to display business identification signage exceeding 8 square metres.

Land adjacent to a Road Zone Category 1, or a Public Acquisition Overlay for a Category 1 Road

A permit is required to create or alter access to a Road Zone Category 1 (Bell Street).


2. Internal/External Consultation

Public notification

Notification of the application has been undertaken pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining and nearby land by placing 2 signs on the Bell Street frontage and Rose Street frontage of the site.

Council has received 48 objections to date. A map identifying the location of objectors forms Attachment 1.

The key issues raised in objections are:

• The orientation of the building facing Rose Street.

• Existing problems with traffic cutting through the petrol station and travelling south along Rose Street.

• 24-hour operation of the use.

• Proposed landscaping along the rear boundary.

• Does not comply with all the requirements of Clause 52.12 of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

A Planning Information and Discussion (PID) meeting was held on 24 May 2018 and attended by, a Council Planning Officer, the applicant and approximately 10 objectors. The meeting provided an opportunity to explain the application, for the objectors to elaborate on their concerns, and for the applicant to respond.

The applicant submitted an amended plan to the meeting upon which the discussion was based. The amended plan reduced the size of the building and increased the setback of the proposed building and the width of the landscaping strip from the southern boundary of the site.

As a result of the discussions at the meeting, the applicant committed to look further at the orientation of the building and the access arrangements onto Rose Street.

On the 10 August 2018 the applicant submitted a formal amendment to the application. In summary the amendment included the following components:

• Landscape buffer with the adjoining residential property to the south increased from 1.5 metres to 3 metres.

• Building setback from southern boundary increased from 4.5 metres to 6 metres.

• Overall building footprint decreased from 220 square meters to 190 square meters.

• Take away food premises deleted.

• Southern most crossover on Rose Street deleted and nature strip re-instated and the retained crossover modified to ensure cars turn right onto Rose Street when leaving the service station.

• Removal of the internally illuminated BP logo from the southern elevation of the canopy over the petrol bowsers.

• Increase in the height of the southern boundary fence from 1.8 metres to 2.4 metres.

It was not considered necessary to readvertise the amended application as the amended plan represents a less intensive development than was originally proposed and includes an increased setback to the south, deletion of one of the proposed uses and removal of internally illuminated signage from the southern elevation of the canopy over the petrol bowser.

A copy of the amended plans is included at Attachment 3 and the assessment of the application at section 4 of this report is based on these plans.


Internal/external referrals

The proposal was referred to the following external agencies or internal branches/business units

External Agency Objection/No objection

VicRoads No objection subject to conditions included in the recommendation.

The amended application was also referred to Vic Roads and there was no objection subject to the same conditions which have been included in the recommendation.

Internal Branch/Business Unit

Comments

Strategic Transport and Compliance Branch

No objections were offered to the proposal subject to modifications, which are addressed by conditions detailed in the recommendation.

ESD Unit No objection subject to conditions included in the recommendation

3. Policy Implications

Planning Policy Framework (PPF)

The following State Planning Policies are of most relevance to this application:

• Clause 11:01-1R Settlement.

• Clause 13.04 Soil Degradation.

• Clause 15.02 Sustainable Development.

• Clause 17.02 Commercial.

Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF)

The following Key Strategic Statements of the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and the following Local Planning Policies are of most relevance to this application: Municipal Strategic Statement:

• Clause 21.01 Municipal Profile.

• Clause 21.02 Vision.

• Clause 21.03-5 Environmentally Sustainable Design (Water, Waste and Energy).

Local Planning Policies:

• Clause 22.01 Neighbourhood Character.

• Clause 22.02 Discretionary Uses in Residential Zones.

• Clause 22.03 Car and Bike Parking and Vehicle Access.

• Clause 22.04 Advertising Signs.

• Clause 22.08 Environmentally Sustainable Design.

Whilst not located within an Activity Centre, the subject land is located on a Main Road and on a site currently used for non-residential purposes. The proposed use and development responds well to Council’s discretionary uses policy and the amount of car parking provided is considered reasonable given the scale of the use. The proposal is consistent with the relevant State and Local planning policy. This is discussed in more detail in section 4 of this report.


Planning Scheme Amendments

Planning Scheme Amendment VC148 was gazetted on 31/7/2018. It is noted with the introduction of Amendment VC148, Clause 52.12 as it relates to a service station has now been deleted from the Scheme. This Clause dealt with the way in which the service station uses were laid out and operated.

Human Rights Consideration

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

4. Issues

In considering this application, regard has been given to the State and Local Planning Policy frameworks, the provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme, objections received and the merits of the application.

Are the uses appropriate?

The service station enjoys existing use rights which includes 24-hour operation. Clause 63.05 of the Moreland Planning Scheme sets out that a use which is listed in section 2 of the zone may continue provided that a planning permit is issued for any buildings and works, any existing restrictions continue to be met and the amenity of the area is not further damaged by a change in activities.

It is not considered that there is a significant change in activity given that a 24-hour service station will continue on the land. Conditions included in the recommendation will ensure that the new development is designed to minimise off-site amenity impacts. The increased setback from the south and modified egress to Rose Street assist in reducing amenity impacts. These matters are discussed below.

The subject site is located within a Residential Growth Zone. The relevant purpose of the zone seeks:

• To allow educational, recreational, religious, community and a limited range of other non-residential uses to serve local community needs in appropriate locations.

The proposed use of the land for a convenience shop is considered appropriate for the following reasons.

• The site is located on Bell Street and will be associated with an existing commercial use on the site.

• The site is also well located in terms of providing a transition between areas of more intensive use and development and other residential areas. There are other commercial uses on Bell Street near the site.

The proposed use is therefore appropriate for the site and consistent with the purpose of the zone.


Are the proposed buildings and works acceptable?

The relevant decision guidelines at Clause 32.07-12 have been considered with respect to non-residential development in the Zone which includes the following.

• Whether the development is compatible with residential use.

• The scale of the development.

• The design, height, setback and appearance of the proposed buildings and works.

• The proposed landscaping.

In response to the above decision guidelines the proposed buildings and works are considered acceptable for the following reasons.

• The development itself is compatible in principle as there is already a service station on the site.

• The design, height and appearance of the proposed buildings is similar to the existing buildings on the site but represents a more modern design outcome.

• The scale of the structure is single storey in height and the area occupied by the proposed buildings represents a modest increase in area with respect to the existing buildings on the site.

• The proposed setback of 6 metres from the southern boundary allows for a 3 metre landscape strip along this boundary. A condition is included in the recommendation requiring the submission of a landscape plan to ensure appropriate landscaping to improve the appearance of the site and screen the development from residential properties to the south.

Council’s Discretionary Uses in Residential Areas Policy (Clause 22.02) has also been considered in respect to the location of the proposed new development.

With respect to built form it is policy to:

• Ensure that the built form of development to accommodate discretionary uses is of a scale, design and appearance compatible with the neighbourhood character, in accordance with the provisions of Clause 22.01 Neighbourhood Character.

• Ensure that landscaping is undertaken to buffer the use from residential areas.

• Encourage landscaping of the front setback area.

The proposed building is consistent with policy in that the scale of the building is appropriate, adequate landscaping will be required to screen the development from the residential dwelling along the southern boundary and new landscaping will be required in the front setback areas of the proposal.

Can off site amenity impacts be managed?

Council’s Discretionary Uses in Residential Areas Policy (Clause 22.02) have been considered with respect to the amenity of the adjoining residential areas.

The application as amended increased the setback of the building from the south boundary and increased the width of the landscape strip from 1.5 metres to 3 metres. These changes will assist in reducing impacts from the new development by increasing the separation from adjoining residential development.

The removal of the car wash use from the site is also beneficial to the residence along the southern boundary of the site.

The deletion of signage on the south face of the canopy and changes to the access to Rose Street to encourage vehicle movement towards Bell Street are positive changes that will reduce amenity impacts.

The proximity of the canopy and the associated lighting to the south boundary remains a concern. A condition is included in the recommendation requiring a lighting report confirming that that the lighting design ensures no unreasonable light spill to the property at 106 Rose Street.


The application has been amended to include a 2.4 metre high fence along the southern boundary of the site. The acoustic report submitted with the application recommends that the fence along this boundary be an acoustic fence. Conditions in the recommendation require the details of the acoustic fencing to be included on the plans.

The acoustic report has also identified potential noises from air conditioning units, toilet exhaust fans and kitchen exhaust fans. The report has identified that deliveries to and rubbish removals from the site must occur between the following hours.

• 7 am to 10 pm Monday to Saturday; and

• 9 am to 10 pm Sunday and public holidays.

Deliveries outside these hours will not be able to comply with relevant EPA guidelines. A condition is included in the recommendation to control times for deliveries.

The report recommends further testing after the use commences to ensure that building service noises comply with SEPP N-1. This is also included as a condition in the recommendation.

Proposed signage

The purpose of Clause 52.05 is to:

• Regulate the display of signs and associated structures.

• Provide for signs that are compatible with the amenity and visual appearance of an area, including the existing or desired future character.

• Ensure signs do not contribute to excessive visual clutter or visual disorder.

• Ensure that signs do not cause loss of amenity or adversely affect the natural or built environment or the safety, appearance or efficiency of a road.

The advertising signs within the Residential Growth Zone falls into Category 3 at Clause 52.05. The purpose of this signage category is to:

• Ensure that signs in high-amenity areas are orderly, of good design and do not detract from the appearance of the building on which a sign is displayed or the surrounding area.

The proposed advertising signs are defined as being a combination of business identification signs and internally illuminated signage. Pursuant to Section 2 – Permit required table of Clause 52.05-9, both a business identification sign and internally-illuminated sign. The existing pylon sign at the front of the site will be retained.

The proposal includes the following signs:

• 4 x internally illuminated BP logos within fuel canopy – business identification purposes.

• 1 x internally illuminated BP logo on northern wall of proposed BP Fuel Shop - business identification purposes.

• 1 x non-illuminated ‘BP Coburg’ on the western façade of the BP fuel shop – business identification sign.

It is submitted that the proposed signage is consistent with the purpose of Clause 52.05. The proposed signage adequately identifies the proposed uses on the site whilst respecting the amenity of the surrounding residential properties.


Local Policy Clause 22.02 Advertising Signs

The general policy guidelines of this Clause relevant to the application include the need to:

• Ensure that signs respect the style and scale of the host building, nearby buildings and the character of the street.

• Ensure that signs do not cause visual clutter.

• Ensure that signs fit within architectural forms and are integrated with the design of the building.

With respect to residential areas it is policy to:

• Ensure that signs are modest in scale and are sensitive to the residential character and amenity of the area.

• Discourage promotion, above-verandah, sky, high wall, reflective, pole and illuminated signs.

• Limit signs for non-residential uses to one business identification sign per premise.

The proposed signage is consistent with this policy for the following reasons:

• The site is a large site and the proposed signage is modest in respect to the scale of the buildings on the site.

• The signage is oriented to Bell Street and sensitive to the residential properties abutting the site.

• Illumination and lighting of the proposed signage will be conditioned to control its brightness beyond the boundaries of the site.

• In particular, all signage has been removed from the southern elevation of the canopies over the petrol bowsers to reduce impact on the amenity of residential properties to the south.

Has adequate car and bicycle parking been provided?

The existing service station has a floor area of 129 square metres and includes the provision of 5 existing car spaces. The latest development plan will have a floor area of 200 square metres and include a total provision of 9 car spaces.

If the increase in floor area of 71 square metres is attributed to the new use, additional car parking must be provided.

The site is affected by a Parking Overlay and the rate specified in Column B for a convenience shop is 3.5 car per 100 square metres of leasable floor area. With an additional floor area of 71 square metres 2 additional spaces are required.

The proposed development includes an additional 4 spaces. The provision of car parking for the proposed use is therefore acceptable.

With respect to bicycle parking there are no requirements under Cluse 52.34 to provide additional parking for the proposed use. It is noted that provision has been made for 3 bicycle spaces within the proposed development.

Are adequate loading/unloading facilities provided?

The traffic report submitted with the application shows a swept path analysis for tucks entering the site. Smaller trucks unloading goods for the convenience shop will unload in the loading bay provided along the northern boundary of the site. These trucks can enter and leave the site in a forward direction. The larger petrol tankers are able to park within the boundaries of the site whilst delivering petrol and can also enter and leave the site in a forward direction. These facilities are supported in this instance.


What impact does the proposal have on car congestion and traffic in the local area?

A Traffic Impact Assessment has been submitted with the application. The assessment outlines that a traffic volume survey was conducted on site between 7 am-9 am and 4 pm-6 pm on 15 August 2017. The results of the survey revealed that the existing site generates a total of 65 and 71 vehicles movements entering and exiting the site during morning and afternoon peaks respectively. It is also noted that Rose Street carries in the order of 1,500 vehicle movements per day.

Council’s Strategic Transport and Compliance Branch have reviewed the proposal, including the traffic report and have no concerns with the modifications to the site layout in terms of the way in which vehicles leave the site, and the number of vehicles travelling along Rose and Bell Street. The egress from Rose Street will be modified to only allow for Right Hand Turn movements discouraging south bound movements on Rose Street. As such, car congestion and local traffic volume impacts to the local area will be kept to a minimum.

Does the proposal incorporate adequate Environmental Sustainable Design (ESD) features?

The application has been considered by Council’s ESD department and the proposal can be supported once conditions included in the recommendation have been satisfied. These conditions mostly require the clarification of commitments made in the ESD report submitted with the application, as well as including the details of some of the ESD commitments on the layout plans.

Is the site potentially contaminated?

The applicant provided a response in respect to any potential contamination from existing petrol tanks in the ground.

• The existing underground tanks are monitored by fuel loss prevention systems.

• Once the new petrol pumps, underground tanks and associated infrastructure are installed, they will be subject to the same management process of monitoring. The new tanks will be constructed and installed in accordance with current day regulations and standards.

• At any time, should the fuel prevention system have an abnormal or uncharacteristic result, an Environmental Site Assessment Report will be undertaken.

The application was also discussed with the EPA with respect to the decommissioning of the existing underground petrol tanks with the following advice being provided:

• All tanks must be decommissioned by suitably qualified professionals, in accordance with EPA and relevant Australian Standards.

• An assessment of the environmental condition of the site must be conducted by a competent and experienced environmental assessor when removing or decommissioning a UPSS.

• Any contamination which may remain following removal or decommissioning of the UPSS must be appropriately managed.

• New petroleum storage tanks must be designed, installed and operated in accordance with relevant EPA guidelines.

Permit notes are included in the recommendation reminding the permit holder of these obligations.


5. Response to Objector Concerns

The following issues raised by objectors are addressed in section 4 of this report:

• The orientation of the building facing Rose Street;

• Existing problems with traffic cutting through the petrol station and travelling south along Rose Street; and

• Proposed landscaping along the rear boundary.

Other issues raised by objectors are addressed below.

24-hour operation of the use

As noted above planning permit MPS 1999/0300 has permitted the use of an existing petrol station (service station) with 24-hour operation.

Doesn’t comply with all the requirements of Clause 52.12 of the Moreland Planning Scheme

Amendment VC148 deleted Clause 52.12 from all Planning Schemes. As detailed throughout this report the layout of the site is considered to be acceptable.

6. Officer Declaration of Conflict of Interest

Council Officers involved in the preparation of this report do not have a conflict of interest in this matter.

7. Financial and Resources Implications

There are no financial or resource implications.

8. Conclusion

It is considered that the proposed redevelopment of the site represents an outcome that is consistent with policy. The objector’s concerns have been given the appropriate consideration with the resultant design changes made to reduce the amenity impacts on the adjoining properties.

On the balance of policies and controls within the Moreland Planning Scheme and objections received, it is considered that Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No MPS/2017/720 should be issued for buildings and works associated with the existing use of the land as a service station, use and development of the land as a convenience shop, display of business identification signs and internally illuminated signs and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone at 301-303 Bell Street, Coburg subject to the conditions included in the recommendation of this report.

Attachment/s

1⇩ Location Map and Objector Plan D18/392070 2⇩ Advertised Plans D18/392076 3⇩ Amended Plans D18/392084


DED67/18 36 GLADSTONE PARADE, GLENROY - PLANNING PERMIT APPLICATION MPS/2018/310 (D18/288985)


City Development

Executive Summary

The application seeks approval for the construction of 4 double storey dwellings. The application was advertised and 15 objections were received. The main issues raised in objections relate to amenity impacts, traffic and car parking demand and impact on neighbourhood character.

A Planning Information and Discussion meeting was held on 13 August 2018 and the applicant has supplied without prejudice amended plans for discussion in response to the issues raised.

The report details the assessment of the application against the policies and provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme.


• The impact of the proposal upon the amenity of adjoining properties; and,

• The proposal’s compliance with Clause 55 (ResCode) of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

The proposal has been designed to satisfy the requirements of Clause 55 and to appropriately respond to the amenity of the surrounding properties. The without prejudice plans provide modifications to further reduce the impact upon an adjoining dwelling at 6/38 Gladstone Parade, Glenroy. These modifications are formalised through the officer recommendation.

It is recommended that a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit be issued for the proposal.


That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No. MPS/2018/310 be issued for the construction of 4 double storey dwellings at 36 Gladstone Parade, Glenroy subject to the following conditions:

Plans and documents for endorsement

1. Before the development commences, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and must be generally in accordance with the revision D plans (revision date September 2018) but modified to show:

a) The bathroom and robe of dwelling 1 designed (through an increased setback, reduced height or a combination of the 2) so that shadows cast at 9 am of the equinox by the wall of the bathroom and robe do not extend past the shadow cast by the bedroom walls of that dwelling.

b) The provision of a 1.8 metre wide drainage easement in favour of the City of Moreland along the length of the south-western property boundary.

c) The provision of a 1.8 metre minimum setback to the ground floor of dwelling 4 (excluding the garage) from the south-western boundary.


d) The ground floor ensuite wall of dwelling 1 to have a rendered finish to match the upper level of the dwelling.

e) The fence enclosing the yard to dwelling 1 to be relocated approximately 2 metres to the south-east, such that it is located forward of the ensuite but not forward of the bedroom 1 wall. This fence shall extend from the south-western side of bedroom 1 to the south-western boundary.

f) Upper level stairwell windows to dwellings 1 and 2 offset from one another in order to restrict overlooking between the dwellings.

g) The provision of at least 6 square meters of externally accessible storage for dwelling 4.

h) Initiatives contained within the Sustainable Design Assessment, including:

i. A notation that the rainwater harvesting tanks are completely independent of any detention requirements (through the Legal Point of Discharge process);

ii. A notation confirming the provision of double glazing for all habitable room windows, shown on the individual windows on both the floor plans and elevations; and

iii. The location of the raingardens in accordance with condition 3b) of this permit.

i) The plans to clearly indicate that the driveway is to be constructed in accordance with the endorsed arboricultural report.

j) Tree 1 to be clearly labelled on the ground floor plan.

k) A landscape plan in accordance with condition 2 of this permit.

2. Prior to the commencement of any development works, a landscape plan must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The landscape plan must provide the following:

a) Identification of any existing tree(s) and vegetation on site and adjoining land proposed to be removed and retained, including the tree protection zone(s). Vegetation retainment must include strategies for the retainment (i.e. barriers and signage during the construction process).

b) A schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers (including numbers, size at planting, size at maturity and botanical names), as well as sealed and paved surfaces. The flora selection and landscape design should be drought tolerant and based on species selection recommended in the Moreland Landscape Guidelines 2009.

c) The provision of at least one canopy tree within the front setback of dwelling 2 to assist in the integration of the development within the existing streetscape, with the tree species selected according to the available space, in accordance with the Moreland Tree Planting Manual for Residential Zones, 2014.

d) A section detail of the raingarden that is consistent with Moreland City Council raingarden guidelines. The raingarden must have a submerged zone, and if appropriate, an underdrain and overflow pipe connected to the stormwater drainage system, and full lining around the raingarden excavation area.

e) Any stormwater management details on the STORM report, including the specific location of rainwater harvesting tanks and raingardens etc.

f) Details of the location and type of all paved and sealed areas. Extensive hard surfaces are not supported. The adoption of porous/permeable paving, rain gardens and other water sensitive urban design features is encouraged.

g) The location of the new drainage easement along the south west property boundary and appropriate plant selections for the easement.


3. Prior to the endorsement of plans, a Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Sustainable Design Assessment must demonstrate a best practice standard of environmentally sustainable design and be generally in accordance with the BESS Report (Project Number 14340) and STORM (Transaction ID: 621616) but modified to include the following changes:

a) Update BESS Report as outlined below:

i. Change washing machine and dishwasher water efficiency selection from ‘scope out’ to ‘3 star’; and

ii. Briefly outline as a note in the BESS report how the development will achieve a maximum illumination power density of 4W/square metre or less.

b) An amended STORM report that maintains a minimum score of 100% but is modified so that:

i. Replace raingarden section with the one available at http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/environment-bins/environment/water/wsud-design-package/ and http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/globalassets/areas/esd/moreland-water-sensitive-urban-design-package.pdf ) on page 53/drawing SK012; and

ii. Raingardens must be installed at least 300 millimetres from significant structures associated with the dwellings.

c) The amended BESS Report must achieve an overall score of 50% or higher, and have ‘pass’ rates of 50% for the ‘Energy’, ‘Water’ and ‘IEQ’ categories and 100% for the ‘Stormwater’ category. Where alternative ESD initiatives are proposed to those specified in this condition, the Responsible Authority may vary the requirements of this condition at its discretion, subject to the development achieving equivalent (or greater) ESD outcomes in association with the development.

When submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the BESS Report and associated notated plans will be endorsed to form part of this permit.

Compliance with endorsed plans and documents

4. The endorsed arboricultural report prepared by Stem Arboriculture and dated 5 June 2018 forms part of this permit. At all times during the development of the land, Tree 1 indicated on the endorsed plans must be managed and protected in accordance with the endorsed arboricultural report.

5. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. This does not apply to any exemption specified in Clauses 62.02-1 and 62.02-2 of the Moreland Planning Scheme unless specifically noted as a permit condition.

6. All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Sustainability Design Assessment (SDA) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. No alterations to the SDA may occur without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

7. Prior to the issuing of a Statement of Compliance or occupation of the development, whichever occurs first, all landscaping works must be completed and maintained in accordance with the approved and endorsed landscape drawing to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

8. Following completion of the development, any stormwater treatment devices (eg raingardens, bio-swales etc) must be maintained to ensure water quality discharged from the site complies with the performance standard in the endorsed Sustainability Management Plan.

http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/environment-bins/environment/water/wsud-design-package/

http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/environment-bins/environment/water/wsud-design-package/

http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/globalassets/areas/esd/moreland-water-sensitive-urban-design-package.pdf

http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/globalassets/areas/esd/moreland-water-sensitive-urban-design-package.pdf


Prior to commencement

9. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit in relation to the development hereby approved a Plan of Creation of Easement (drainage) must be submitted to and approved by Council and thereafter registered on title. Evidence of registration of the Plan of Creation of Easement with LandVic must be provided to Council prior to the issue of a building permit and commencement of works.

10. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit in relation to the development approved by this permit, a Development Infrastructure Levy and Community Infrastructure Levy must be paid to Moreland City Council in accordance with the approved Development Contributions Plan.

If an application for subdivision of the land in accordance with the development approved by this permit is submitted to Council, payment of the Development Infrastructure Levy can be delayed to a date being whichever is the sooner of the following:

• For a maximum of 12 months from the date of issue of the Building Permit for the development hereby approved; or

• Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for the subdivision;

When a staged subdivision is sought, the Development Infrastructure Levy must be paid prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for each stage of subdivision in accordance with a Schedule of Development Contributions approved as part of the subdivision.

11. Prior to development commencing (including any demolition, excavations, tree removal, delivery of building/construction materials and/or temporary buildings), Tree Protection Fencing is to be installed to Tree 1 in accordance with the endorsed arboricultural report and landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

12. Prior to the commencement of the development, a legal point of discharge is to be obtained. A stormwater drainage plan showing how the site will be drained from the property boundary to the stated point of discharge must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority, including the provision of a stormwater drain along the south-western property boundary.

Prior to occupation

13. Prior to the occupation of the development, a vehicle crossing must be constructed in every location shown on the endorsed plans to a standard satisfactory to the Responsible Authority (Moreland City Council, City Infrastructure Department).


15. Before the occupation of the development, bollard lighting standing no higher than 1.2 metres above ground level is to be installed and maintained on the land to automatically illuminate pedestrian access to the dwelling(s) between dusk and dawn with no direct light emitted onto adjoining property to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

16. The bicycle parking racks must be installed in a secure manner that accords with the Australian Standard for Bicycle Parking (AS2890.3) 2015, and specifications in Bicycle Network’s Bicycle Parking Handbook, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

17. Prior to the occupation of the development, the garage roller doors must be automatic and remote controlled.


18. Prior to the occupation of the development, all boundary walls must be constructed, cleaned and finished to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

19. Prior to the commencement of occupation or at a later date with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the owner must make payment to Council to provide advanced tree(s) to replace that removed in an appropriate location in a nature strip nearby in accordance with the Moreland Street Landscape Strategy, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

20. Prior to the occupation of the development all telecommunications and power connections (where by means of a cable) and associated infrastructure to the land (including all existing and new buildings) must be underground to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

21. Prior to the issuing of Statement of Compliance or occupation of the development, whichever occurs first, all visual screening measures shown on the endorsed plans must be installed to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. All visual screening and measures to prevent overlooking must be maintained to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Any screening measure that is removed or unsatisfactorily maintained must be replaced to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Ongoing requirements

22. The car parking spaces provided on the land must be solely associated with the development allowed by this permit and must not be subdivided or sold separate from the development for any reason without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.


Time limit/expiry


a) The development is not commenced within 2 years from the date of issue of this permit;

b) The development is not completed within 4 years from the date of issue of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the period referred to if a request is made in writing before the permit expires or:


• Within 12 months after the permit expires to extend the completion date of the development if the development has lawfully commenced.


REPORT

1. Background

Subject site

The subject site is located on the northern side of Gladstone Parade, mid-way between Chapman Avenue and William Street. The site is rectangular in shape, with a frontage of 20.12 metres and a depth of 50.29 metres, giving a site area of 1011.8 square metres. The site is currently occupied by a detached single storey dwelling which is screened from view from the street by a 1.6 metre high timber fence. Vehicular access is provided along the south-western boundary with a tandem carport provided adjacent to the property boundary. The rear yard of the property is open in nature. There is a 17 metre tall Smooth Barked Apple at the front of the site.

There are no restrictive covenants indicated on the Certificate of Title.

Surrounds

The surrounding area is characterised by double storey multi dwelling developments constructed of brick with hipped tiled roof forms. Frontages are generally open in nature, with limited landscaping provided within open space areas. The Penola Catholic College Junior Campus is located at the termination of Gladstone Parade, approximately 210m south-west of the site.


The proposal

The proposal is summarised as follows:

• Construction of 2 double storey dwellings at the front of the site, separated by the shared driveway and with a setback of 7.5 metres from the street. Both dwellings have a double garage to the rear.

• Two further double storey dwellings to the rear, each with a double garage.

• Dwelling 2 contains 4 bedrooms, with the remaining dwellings having 3 bedrooms each.

• Secluded open space areas ranging between 42.5 square metres and 72.4 square metres in addition to the frontage setbacks.

• Use of a combination of gabled and flat roof forms facing Gladstone Parade, with flat and hipped roof forms to the side and rear. External cladding materials include a combination of charcoal brick, render and lightweight cladding, with a charcoal steel roof.

It is proposed to retain the sole large tree on the land and an arborist report has been supplied which details the measures to be employed to ensure that it is protected during construction. The proposal would also require the relocation of an existing juvenile street tree adjacent to the site.

The development plans form Attachment 2.



Neighbourhood Residential Zone

A permit is required to construct more than one dwelling on a lot. Pursuant to Clause 32.09-1 (NRZ) no permit is required to use land as a dwelling.


The following Particular Provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme are also relevant to the consideration of the proposal:

• Clause 45.06: Development Contributions Plan Overlay (Schedule 1). A condition is included in the recommendation requiring the payment of the DCP levy prior to the issue of a Building Permit for the development.

• Clause 55: Two or more dwellings and residential buildings.


Public notification

Notification of the application has been undertaken pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by:

• Sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining and nearby land; and

• By placing a sign on the frontage of the site.

Council has received 15 objections to date. A map identifying the location of objectors forms Attachment 1.

The key issues raised in objections are:

• Overlooking;

• Increase in shadow/loss of light;

• Noise from cars and air conditioners;

• Loss of air flow;

• Number and usability of garages;

• Traffic and parking impacts;

• Quality of open space;

• Inadequate space for vegetation;

• Materials proposed are inappropriate;

• Buildings are too large;

• Loss of housing diversity in the area; and

• Increased pressure on infrastructure in the area.

A Planning Information and Discussion meeting was held on 13 August 2018 and attended by 2 Council Planning Officers, the applicant and 5 objectors. The meeting provided an opportunity to explain the application, for the objectors to elaborate on their concerns and for the applicant to respond.

Following the meeting the applicant supplied amended floor plans, which increase the setback of dwelling 4 from the boundary with 6/38 Gladstone Parade and the setback of the upper level of dwelling 1 from the boundary with 7/38 and 8/39 Gladstone Parade. Specifically:

• The upper level dwelling 1 setback is increased from 4.48 metres to 4.85 metres for the bathroom and 5.6 metres for the bedrooms;

• The upper level bedroom 1 wall of dwelling 4 setback is increased from 2 metres to a minimum of 2.45 metres;

• The setback of the upper level bedroom 2 wall of dwelling 4 from the northern boundary increased from 4.73 metres to 5.82 metres.

The impact of these modifications include a reduction in shadow to the adjoining dwellings and updated shadow diagrams accompany the plans. The application was formally amended on 18 September 2018 at Council’s request to include the creation of a 1.8 metre wide drainage easement along the south-western property boundary. These plans also formalise the built form changes outlined above. It is considered that this modification will not result in an increase in detriment to any party and further public notification has not been required.

The amended plans form Attachment 3.



The proposal was referred internally to the following:


Comments

Development Advice Engineer


Drainage Engineering No objections, subject to the provision of a 1.8 metre drainage easement along the south western boundary. Approval of drainage plans for the development will include a requirement to install a drain along this boundary.

The application has been amended to include the requested easement.

ESD Unit No objections were offered to the proposal subject to modifications which are addressed in the conditions detailed in the recommendation.


Planning Policy Framework (PPF):

• Settlement (Clause 11)

• Metropolitan Melbourne (Clause 11.01-1R1)

• Water Conservation (Clause 14.02-3S)

• Built Environment and Heritage (Clause 15), including:

Built Environment (Clause 15.01)

Healthy neighbourhoods (Clause 15.01-4S and 15.01-4R)

Sustainable Development (Clause 15.02)

• Housing (Clause 16), including:

Integrated Housing (Clause 16.01-1S and 16.01-1R)

Location of Residential Development (Clause 16.01-2S)

Local Planning Policy Framework (LPPF):

Municipal Strategic Statement:

• Municipal Profile (Clause 21.01)

• Vision (Clause 21.02)

MSS Vision – Sustainable Neighbourhoods (Clause 21.02-2)

MSS Strategic Directions (Clause 21.02-3)

• Strategic Framework (Clause 21.03)

Housing (Clause 21.03-3)

Urban Design, Built Form and Landscape Design (Clause 21.03-4)

Environmentally Sustainable Development (Clause 21.03-5)

Local policies:

• Neighbourhood Character (Clause 22.01)

• Car and Bike Parking and Vehicle Access (Clause 22.03)

• Environmentally Sustainable Development (Clause 22.08)


The MSS envisages minimal housing growth in areas outside of Activity Centres with the Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ) purpose being to ensure an ongoing supply of single dwellings and low density multi-dwelling developments. Whilst the NRZ aims to limit opportunities for increased residential development, the proposal is considered to appropriately respect the existing character and contribute to an open landscaped character, as detailed in section 4 of this report.



4. Issues

In considering this application, regard has been given to the State and Local Planning Policy frameworks, the provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme, objections received and the merits of the application.

Does the proposal meet the mandatory requirements of the zone?

The proposal meets the mandatory garden area and height requirements of the Scheme:

Minimum garden area required 354 square metres (35%) Minimum garden

area met Garden area provided 365 square metres (36%)

Maximum height permissible 9 metres / 2 storeys Maximum height not exceeded Maximum height proposed 7.4 metres / 2 storeys

Does the proposal respond to the preferred character of the area?

The proposal is an acceptable response to Clause 22.01 (Neighbourhood Character) and Clause 55.02 (Neighbourhood Character and Infrastructure) of the Moreland Planning Scheme. The use of double storey form, with predominantly hipped roofs, and a front setback that is complementary to other development in the street will ensure that the development sits appropriately alongside its neighbours. The context is not one with a prevailing character of open rear yards. Double storey dwellings at the rear of the site is therefore an appropriate response.

The open space areas provided are larger than the ResCode Standard and will allow for landscaping to soften the development and contribute to an open leafy character in the area. Garaging is appropriately recessive in nature, with a single crossover and driveway accessing garages located within the centre of the site.

Does the proposal satisfy the requirements of Clause 55?

A detailed assessment of the proposal against the objectives and standards at Clause 55 has been undertaken. The proposed development complies with the objectives of Clause 55. Key issues from the Clause 55 assessment are discussed under the headings below.


Site layout and building massing

The proposal incorporates a frontage setback of 7.5 metres to dwellings 1 and 2. Standard B6 requires a setback of 8.25 metres. However, whilst the adjoining dwelling to the west has a setback of 8.9 metres, the majority of dwellings in the street have frontage setbacks ranging from 7.5 metres to 8.0 metres. In this context, the proposed frontage setback is acceptable.

The proposal meets the standard side and rear boundary setbacks detailed in Standard B17, which are considered to be sufficient for reasonable light and ventilation. The without prejudice plans supplied on 16 August 2018 further increase the northern and western setbacks of dwelling 4 at the upper level. These modifications reduce the impact of the proposal upon the adjoining property at 6/38 Gladstone Parade without resulting in an increase in detriment to any other party. These amendments form a condition of the recommendation.

Amenity impacts

Overshadowing

The open space areas of the adjoining dwellings to the north-east and south-west are substantially shaded by the dwellings they serve, associated verandahs and by existing boundary fences. The result is that none currently meet the standard for overshadowing of open spaces.

In this context, Standard B21 provides that the subject development should not result in an increase in shadow to the development on either side. Whilst the proposal has been sited and designed in a manner to restrict the extent of additional shadow cast to the neighbouring open spaces, there are some minor increases in shadow depicted on the formally amended plans, as follows:

Dwelling (unit)

SPOS (square metres)

Increase in shadow in square metres

9 am 10 am 11 am 12 noon 1 pm 2 pm 3 pm

1/34 30.8 - - - - - - 1.6

2/34 35.0 - - - - - - 1.2

3/34 33.6 - - - - - - 3.4

6/38 67.2 1.1 - 3.1 - - - -

7/38 41.9 1.8 - - - - - -

8/38 43.1 7.2 - - - - - -

The extent of current shade, as well as these increases are due to the angled nature of the site relative to north. The additional shadow cast to the neighbouring properties is in most instances minor in extent. Most of the additional shadow is cast over Unit 8 of 38 Gladstone Parade. It is also noted that the development has sought to minimise this impact by lowering Dwelling 1 relative to other dwellings within the development and siting the first floor level up to 5.6m from the common boundary. However it is considered that the extent of non-compliance should be further reduced and a condition is included in the recommendation requiring further changes, which will see the additional shadow cast reduced to approximately 3.5 square metres at 9 am.


Overlooking

Clause 55.04-6 (Overlooking) of the Moreland Planning Scheme does not aim to eliminate all overlooking, but rather seeks to prevent unreasonable overlooking. Up to 9 metres is the standard accepted by state-wide provisions as being a reasonable distance where screening is required to minimise overlooking. The plans utilise a combination of window location, obscure glass, wing walls and screens to a height of 1.7 metres to appropriately restrict overlooking to the adjoining properties.

A screening detail is depicted on the elevation plans to demonstrate that the fixed external screens comply with Standard B22.

Internal views

Whilst the plans meet the requirement of the Scheme to restrict overlooking between habitable rooms within the development, further improvement should be achieved to prevent internal views between dwellings 1 and 2. A condition of the recommendation requires the offset of the stairwell windows of these dwellings to limit internal views.

Noise

Clause 55.04-8 has an objective of containing noise sources that may affect existing dwellings. The adjoining neighbour has raised concerns in relation to the location of garages within proximity to the western boundary. The garages are fully enclosed and located 1 metre from the boundary. Any resultant increase in noise is considered to be periodic and acceptable. It is considered that Standard B24 is satisfied.

On site amenity and facilities

The proposal responds appropriately to the provisions of Clause 55.05, including providing open space areas which exceed the minimums outlined in Standard B28, and including space for the planting of trees within both the front and rear setback. However, it is considered that the external storage indicated for dwelling 4 requires some modification. The storage for dwelling 4 is indicated as being accessed from the laundry, which is not external to the dwelling. It is considered appropriate to require direct access from the garage. Alternatively, a separate storage shed should be provided.

Detailed design

The proposed use of a mix of pitched and flat roof forms is considered to be complementary to the character of the area, as is the extent of articulation provided to the frontage.

Whilst the parapets above the entries to dwellings 3 and 4 are relatively tall, these are central to the site and located approximately 40.5 metres from the street. As a result, the parapets will not be inappropriately dominant within the street.

Whilst objectors have raised issue with the proposed metal roof cladding, the use of a dark coloured metal is considered to be complementary to the existing mixture of medium and dark tiled roofs in the area.

Has adequate usable car parking been provided?

The proposed development satisfies the Moreland Planning Scheme with respect to the provision of car parking. A total of eight spaces are required for the development which are provided via garages to each dwelling, each adequately dimensioned in accordance with the requirements of Clause 52.06.

The dwellings will not be eligible for parking permits in the event that on street parking restrictions are imposed by Council.



In relation to traffic impacts, Council’s Strategic Transport and Compliance Branch have assessed the proposal and consider that the development will result in 15 additional vehicle movements per day on Gladstone Parade. This remains within the street’s design capacity and is not expected to cause traffic problems.

What impact does the proposal have on cycling, bike paths and pedestrian safety, amenity and access in the surrounding area?

The proposal provides an acceptable response to Council’s Local Planning Policy Clause 22.03 (Car and Bike Parking and Vehicle Access) as it:

• Limits the number of vehicle crossings to one per site frontage;

• Limits the removal of on-street public parking spaces, removal of street trees, and encroachment into landscaped front setbacks; and

• Provides 4 bicycle spaces.

Does the proposal incorporate adequate Environmental Sustainable Design (ESD) features?

ESD features of the development are considered to be adequate and include:

• A NatHERS energy rating of 6.5 stars for each dwelling;

• Achievement of a STORM score of 105 by including 2000 litre water tanks for each dwelling and 3 rain gardens for the development;

• Anticipated use of indigenous and drought tolerant landscaping; and

• Provision of a clothes line for each dwelling.

Is the proposal accessible to people with limited mobility?

Objective 9 of Clause 23.03-3 (Housing) is to increase the supply of housing that is visitable and adaptable to meet the needs of different sectors of the community. The proposal incorporates ground level bedrooms and bathrooms to both dwellings 1 and 2, with entries that are, or can readily be adapted to be able to be used by those with limited mobility.

Is the proposed easement creation acceptable?

The application has been amended to create a drainage easement in favour of Council along the south-western property boundary. This modification is a direct response to advice from Council’s Drainage Engineer and will allow for the protection of a drain to be installed along the boundary as part of the construction of the development. The creation of the easement also necessitates the relocation of the laundry to dwelling 4, which is required by permit condition.


The following issues raised by objectors are addressed in section 4 of this report:

• Overlooking;

• Increase in shadow/loss of light;

• Loss of air flow;

• Number and usability of garages;

• Traffic and parking impacts;

• Quality of open space;

• Inadequate space for vegetation; and

• Materials proposed are inappropriate.

Other issues raised by objectors are addressed below.


Noise associated with dwellings

Concerns have been raised regarding the potential noise generated from the dwellings after occupancy. The consideration of this planning application is confined only to the construction of the dwellings. The residential use of the dwellings does not require a planning permit. Residential noise associated with a dwelling is considered normal and reasonable in an urban setting. Any future issues of noise disturbance, if they arise, should be pursued as a civil matter.

Dwelling size

The proposal satisfies the requirements of Clause 55 in respect to site coverage, setbacks, permeability, car parking, and open space provision and therefore the proposal is not considered to be an over development of the site.

Housing diversity

It is considered that the proposed provision of 3x3 bedroom dwellings and one 4 bedroom dwelling on the land, whilst being similar in nature to other development within Gladstone Parade, will contribute to a greater diversity of housing stock in Glenroy more broadly. The dwelling diversity standard of Clause 55 does not apply to developments of less than 10 dwellings.

Drainage, flooding and inundation concerns

An objector concern was the impact of the dwellings on infrastructure, particularly an increased pressure on drainage infrastructure and an associated increase in potential for flooding. The application was referred to Council’s Strategic Transport and Urban Safety Branch and its Engineering and Transport Unit who raised no concerns in relation to the application.

However, it is noted that the site owner will be required to install a stormwater drain along the south-western boundary. In addition, they will be required to address infrastructure servicing demands of the additional dwellings as required by the various service agencies at the time of subdivision or connection of the development, including any service authority’s requirements to contribute to the cost of upgrading trunk infrastructure.





8. Conclusion

It is considered that the proposed development responds appropriately to the site and its surroundings, as well as the provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme. Notwithstanding this, the modifications to the proposal suggested by the applicant after the Planning Information Discussion meeting, represent a further improvement which will improve the amenity of the adjoining dwelling at 6/38 Gladstone Parade.

On the balance of policies and controls within the Moreland Planning Scheme and objections received, it is considered that Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No MPS/2018/310 should be issued for the construction of 4 double storey dwellings subject to the conditions included in the recommendation of this report.

Attachment/s

1⇩ Location and Objector Map D18/322255 2⇩ Advertised Plans D18/322307 3⇩ Formally Amended Plans D18/322309


DED68/18 80 JOHN STREET, BRUNSWICK EAST - DEVELOPMENT PLAN (D18/351424)


City Development

Executive Summary

A request to approve a Development Plan which addresses the requirements of Clause 43.04 of the Moreland Planning Scheme (Development Plan Overlay, Schedule 11 – DPO11) was lodged on 4 May 2018 for 80 John Street, East Brunswick. The Development Plan was placed on public display for 28 days from 20 July 2018. No submissions have been received.

The purpose of this report is to consider the Development Plan. The primary matters for consideration are the building envelope and car and bicycle parking.

The Development Plan includes building siting and height which is generally appropriate to the setting. The car parking layout dictates a single form of development which is not the purpose of a Development Plan and it is recommended that detail of this layout be removed to allow more detailed consideration of parking layout and façade activation at the planning application stage.

This report recommends that Council approves the Development Plan subject to a number of recommended changes to improve clarity and ensure the intention of the Development Plan Overlay is met in relation to Environmentally Sustainable Design, accessibility, affordable housing and façade activation.


That Council approves the issue of Development Plan MPS/2018/398 at 80 John Street, Brunswick East, subject to the following modifications:

1. The Development Plan Report and all supporting documents and plans altered to:

a) Replace references to the screening of overlooking in accordance with Standard B22 with the following:

Direct views from development into the private open space and habitable rooms of existing dwellings are to be limited.

Development should not directly view adjacent private outdoor spaces or habitable room windows within a horizontal distance (measured at ground level) of 9 metres of the window, deck, balcony, terrace or patio of the new building.

Minimise direct overlooking of the main internal living areas and private open space of neighbouring dwellings through:

• building layout;

• location and design of windows and balconies;

• landscaping; and

• separation by distance.

Minimise the use of screening devices to avoid overlooking. Where screening is used, it should integrate within the design of the building. Total reliance on screening devices is strongly discouraged.


b) Delete reference to the provision of a 6 metre wide accessway along the length of the site, with Drawing DP14 deleted from the drawing set and Drawing DP09 modified to:

i. Indicate the location and width of the vehicular crossing;

ii. Include a notation to allow pedestrian access path within the area hatched ‘Potential planting/green areas’; and

iii. Include an annotation stating:

Activation and passive surveillance provided to John Street and internal pedestrian path

c) References to sheet DP14 within the Development Plan Report and appendices are to be deleted or amended to refer to DP09 as required.

d) Replace reference to a maximum building height of 10.49 metres on sheet DP12 with 11 metres being the preferred maximum building height with the depiction of the height of the proposed built form modified to indicate floor-floor heights over three levels and to delete built form which is not indicated on the envelope plans DP09-11.

e) Delete reference to the provision of balconies outside of the building envelopes on sheet DP11.

2. The Development Plan Report prepared by Planning and Property Partners modified as follows:

a) The inclusion of wording acknowledging that subsequent planning permit applications for the site are to be developed and assessed against the provisions of the approved Development Plan, as well as applicable sections of the Planning Scheme, including:

• The Planning Policy Framework and Local Planning Policy Framework;

• Clause 34.01 (Commercial 1 Zone);

• Clause 45.03 (Environmental Audit Overlay);

• Clause 45.06 (Development Contribution Plan Overlay);

• Clause 45.09 (Parking Overlay);

• Clause 52.06 (Car Parking);

• Clause 52.34 (Bicycle Facilities); and

• Clause 55 (Two or More dwellings on a Lot).

b) Section 9 of the report amended with respect to Clause 22.11 to state:

i. Direct views from development into the private open space and habitable rooms of existing dwellings are to be limited.

ii. Development should not directly view adjacent private outdoor spaces or habitable room windows within a horizontal distance (measured at ground level) of 9 metres of the window, deck, balcony, terrace or patio of the new building.

iii. Minimise direct overlooking of the main internal living areas and private open space of neighbouring dwellings through:

• building layout;

• location and design of windows and balconies;

• landscaping; and

• separation by distance.


iv. Minimise the use of screening devices to avoid overlooking. Where screening is used, it should integrate within the design of the building. Total reliance on screening devices is strongly discouraged.

c) Delete reference to ‘making use of the location of existing walls on boundary’ in section 3 on page 8.

d) Replacement of the text ‘with direct access provided to each dwelling’ with ‘with convenient access provided to each dwelling’ in subsection 5 on page 9.

e) Provision of a Public Areas Plan which:

i. References and provides consistency with any approved Public Areas Plan to the north of the site through to Albert Street;

ii. provide for a street tree or trees outside the site; and,

iii. Provides for two bicycle hoops within the frontage of the site.

f) To include reference to the provision of a street tree or trees outside the site within subsection 6 on page 9 of the Development Plan Report.

g) Section 12 (‘Affordable, Accessible and Adaptable Housing’) amended to also state that future planning applications will:

i. Include a mix of housing consistent with Clause 21.03-1 (Housing) of the Moreland Planning Scheme;

ii. Ensure all dwellings are designed to be visitable by those with limited mobility.

iii. Ensure at least one or 10% (whichever is the higher) of the dwellings will be adaptable (achieve Silver level or higher when assessed against the Livable Housing Guidelines).

3. The Environmentally Sustainable Design Report prepared by Efficient Energy Choices modified to include clear, confirmed and committed ESD aspects, principles and technologies including:

a) Inclusion of the text ‘Best practice performance standards are to be utilized, and will include the following measures as a minimum’, beneath heading:

3 Energy

4 Water

5 Material

6 Transport

7 Indoor environment Quality (IEQ)

b) An undertaking that all ESD best practice performance standards will be consistent with the best practice standards at the relevant time of planning assessment, that this may result in a modification to the undertakings outlined.

c) Section 9, with respect to ‘Access’ deleted.


REPORT

1. Background

Site location

The subject site is located on the eastern side of John Street, between Albert Street and Glenlyon Road. The site is currently developed with a detached single storey weatherboard dwelling and a brick industrial building to the rear. The buildings appear to be vacant at present and extensive vegetation screens their view from the street.

The site is provided with vehicular access via a crossover adjacent to the northern boundary, and rear laneway access is also available.

The surrounding area is undergoing transition from industrial to residential and commercial land uses, with construction currently underway at the East Brunswick Village site at 127-151 Nicholson Street, located directly to the north and east of the site. Construction on that site has commenced, with excavation for a basement car park adjacent to the common boundary. The property to the south is developed with 5x2 and 3-storey dwellings which are arranged in a terrace format with vehicular access to their south and minimal setbacks to the common boundary. The ground floor of these dwellings is set below the site’s natural ground level.

A site location plan forms Attachment 1.

Previous Development Plan submission

A request for the approval of a Development Plan for the site was refused by Council under delegation on 22 August 2017. Grounds of refusal related to:

• A lack of activation of the street frontage, including the extent of parking at the ground floor level;

• Failure to maintain existing industrial building fabric;

• Insufficient setback to the north and west having regard to Standard D14 to Clause 58.04-1;

• Inadequate support of alternative transport options, and a failure to provide appropriate streetscape improvements to support the East Brunswick Shimmey;

• Inadequate response to the needs of those with limited mobility; and

• A lack of affordable housing.

This refusal was upheld by VCAT, who advised that:

• Inadequate information was included within the submitted Development Plan; and

• Specific setbacks should be provided from property boundaries.

Previous Development Plan submissions

The East Brunswick Village (EBV) Development Plan was endorsed at the direction of VCAT on 4 October 2012. It guides the future development of 31,221 square metres, (63%) of the precinct, including the precinct’s largest land parcels known as 127-137 and 139 Nicholson Street, 3 Elm Grove and 98 John Street, Brunswick East.

The amendment to the EBV Development Plan was supported by Council in October 2017 (DED 88/17). Following an application for review by the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), VCAT directed Council to approve the amendments to the Development Plan which was endorsed by Council on 25 June 2018.


Of the smaller land holdings within the precinct affected by DPO11, the following applications have or are currently being considered by Council:

• A Development Plan was approved for 32 Albert Street Brunswick East on 27 July 2007. The site has now been developed with 10 dwellings up to 3-storeys in height.

• At the 29 November 2017 Urban Planning Committee meeting, Council resolved to approve the 18 Albert Street, Brunswick East Development Plan, and support Planning Permit Application MPS/2016/44, which allowed the construction of 7 triple storey dwellings and a reduction of the resident parking requirement.

• At the 26 September 2018 Planning and Related Matters meeting, Council resolved to support the Development Plan subject to conditions for 22-26 Albert Street, Brunswick East. This matter is listed for an Administrative Mention at VCAT on 3 October 2018.

• At the 26 September 2018 Planning and Related Matters meeting, Council resolved to support the Development Plan subject to conditions, for 104-106 John Street, Brunswick East. This matter is listed for a full merits hearing at VCAT on 28 October 2018.

• The 6-8 Gamble Street, Brunswick East Development Plan was approved by VCAT (at the consent of all parties) on 30 October 2013. Planning Permit MPS/2013/1022 was subsequently approved by the Urban Planning Committee on 30 April 2014, providing approval for the construction of a 5-storey mixed use building.

• An application (MPS/2017/245) is currently being considered for the development of 2 Elm Grove, Brunswick West which forms part of the East Brunswick Village Development Plan. The application seeks approval for the construction of a 6-storey residential building (maximum height of 23.8 metres), use of the land for dwellings, reduction of car parking and waiver of the loading bay requirement.

Proposed development plan

A Development Plan has been prepared for the land, and includes:

• Wholly residential development, with a terrace style development of 3-storeys plus rooftop deck.

• Vehicular access via the existing crossover, widening to a 6 metre driveway along the northern side of the site, with individual access to ground level parking facilities for each dwelling.

• Pedestrian access to dwellings along the southern boundary, with a setback of 1.5 metres – 1.7 metres for much of this boundary at ground level, 1.5 metres at the first floor and 3.0 metres at second floor. A 6.7 metre section of the ground floor would be located on the south boundary at the rear of the site.

• Setbacks of 3.0 metres – 4.4 metres to John Street at each level.

• Construction on the northern boundary at the ground floor and part of the first floor. Setbacks of 3.2 metres for the remainder of the first floor and 3.0 metres at the second floor.

• Construction on the eastern boundary at the ground floor, with setbacks of 1.54 metres and 3.04 metres at the first and second floors respectively.

• Landscaping to include the retention of one existing tree, with one additional tree plus smaller planting within the frontage and southern boundary setbacks.


The supporting reports indicate that:

• The proposal will have limited impact upon traffic volumes;

• Bicycle parking space for each dwelling, plus some potential for the provision of visitor bicycle parking;

• Resident car parking to be provided on-site, with no on-site visitor parking required by the Planning Scheme;

• Any proposed dwellings are unlikely to be detrimentally affected by noise from surrounding properties, including the former Drop Forge at 2 Elm Grove.

• Key services are available to the site and Environmentally Sensitive Design features may reduce the servicing requirements of the proposal.

• Environmentally Sustainable Design principles will be utilised, including an average energy rating of 6.6 stars and a STORM rating of at least 100.

The key plans depicting the proposed building form are contained within Attachment 2.

Statutory Controls – why is approval required?


Development Plan Overlay (DPO)

Pursuant to Clause 43.04, a permit must not be granted to use or subdivide land, construct a building or construct or carry out works until a development plan has been prepared to the satisfaction of the responsible authority.

Subsequent planning permit applications for the site would be assessed against the provisions of the approved Development Plan, as well as applicable sections of the Planning Scheme, including:

• The Planning Policy Framework and Local Planning Policy Framework;

• Clause 34.01 (Commercial 1 Zone);

• Clause 45.03 (Environmental Audit Overlay);

• Clause 45.06 (Development Contribution Plan Overlay);

• Clause 45.09 (Parking Overlay);

• Clause 52.06 (Car Parking);

• Clause 52.34 (Bicycle Facilities); and

• Clause 55 (Two or More dwellings on a Lot).

It is appropriate that the Development Plan Report accompanying the application acknowledge the ongoing relevance of these controls, and whilst some are referred to, it is recommended that it be altered to include reference to the remainder. This requirement is referenced in the recommendation.


Public Notification

Clause 4.0 (Development Plan Consultation) of the DPO11 states:

• The Responsible Authority may authorise the display of a Development Plan, or an amendment to a Development Plan, once satisfied appropriate content has been provided pursuant to the provisions of this Schedule.

At its meeting of 11 May 2011, Council resolved (DCD25/11) to:

• give written notice to owners and occupiers of properties affected by the relevant schedule to the DPO and to any other person or agency that in the opinion of the Responsible Authority (Council) may be materially affected.

• when giving written notice, display the proposed amendment for one month at Council’s municipal offices and on Council’s website.

The Development Plan was placed on public display for 28 days from 20 July 2018 to 20 August 2018.


Written notices were mailed to owners and occupiers of affected and nearby properties (totalling 184 letters). Documentation was available for viewing on the Moreland City Council’s website.

No submissions have been received to date.

Internal referrals

Council’s Environmentally Sustainable Development Unit and Development Advice Engineer provided the following advice and comments in relation to the proposed Development Plan:

Environmentally Sustainable Development

The ESD report supplied does not include sufficient clear commitments and may end up resulting in little ESD actually being applied to the site. It is recommended that the wording of the report be altered to address this issue. This is referenced in the recommendation.

Development Advice Engineer

The content of the Development Plan Report is acceptable.

External referrals

The Development Plan was referred to Transport for Victoria and VicRoads. To date neither authority has responded. In responding to other Development Plans nearby, Transport for Victoria has consistently advised that the following should be considered in the preparation of any subsequent planning application:

• The provision of bicycle parking well in excess of the minimum statutory requirements under Clause 52.34; and

• The provision of parking below the statutory rates outlined in the Parking Overlay.

The Development Plan includes advice that dwellings would be provided with at least one bicycle parking space each, whilst the rate of parking provision would be considered in respect to a detailed planning application. This is considered to be acceptable.

3. Policy implications


The following State Planning Policies are of most relevance to this application:

• Settlement (Clause 11)

• Metropolitan Melbourne (Clause 11.01-1R1)

• Noise (Clause 13.05)

• Water Conservation (Clause 14.02-3S)

• Built Environment and Heritage (Clause 15)

• Housing (Clause 16)

• Principal Public Transport Network (Clause 18.02-2R)


The following Key Strategic Statements of the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and the following Local Planning Policies are of most relevance to this application:


Municipal Strategic Statement

• Municipal Profile (Clause 21.01)

• Vision (Clause 21.02)

MSS Vision – Sustainable Neighbourhoods (Clause 21.02-2)

MSS Strategic Directions (Clause 21.02-3)

• Strategic Framework (Clause 21.03)

Activity Centres (Clause 21.03-1)

Housing (Clause 21.03-3)

Urban Design, Built Form and Landscape Design (Clause 21.03-4)

Environmentally Sustainable Development (Clause 21.03-5)

Local planning policies

• Neighbourhood Character (Clause 22.01)

• Car and Bike Parking and Vehicle Access (Clause 22.03)

• Environmentally Sustainable Development (Clause 22.08)

Council through its MSS, seeks increased residential densities in the Brunswick Activity Centre to take advantage of the excellent access to public transport and other services within this location. The proposal meets the objectives and strategies of the Planning Policy Framework by incorporating increased housing and active spaces at ground level to create and reinforce an active and pedestrian friendly street environment. The proximity of the site to a variety of public transport options and the provision of bicycle facilities on the site encourages less reliance on cars as a means of travel.

Council’s Neighbourhood Character Policy supports substantial change and creation of a new character of increased scale associated with increased density in this new Neighbourhood Major Activity Centre. The proposal enjoys strong strategic support at both State and Local level.

Amendment C92

Amendment C92 to the Moreland Planning Scheme came into operation on 20 January 2011 to facilitate the creation of a new Neighbourhood Activity Centre on the land generally bordered by Nicholson Street, Glenlyon Road, John Street and Albert Street, Brunswick East, described as ‘the Precinct’.

Under Amendment C92, industrially zoned land was rezoned to Business 1 and 2 Zone (now Commercial 1 Zone) to enable consideration of a mix of retail, commercial, residential and community uses within the precinct, consistent with the Brunswick Structure Plan. The Amendment also applied an Environmental Audit Overlay to the majority of the land.

As part of Amendment C92, Schedule 11 to the Development Plan Overlay (DPO11) was introduced to the Moreland Planning Scheme.


Development Plan Overlay 11 (DPO11)

The Development Plan Overlay (DPO) at Clause 43.04 of the Moreland Planning Scheme requires the form and conditions of future use and development of an area to be shown on a ‘Development Plan’ before a permit can be granted to use or develop the land.

As consultation with the surrounding community occurred as part of the planning scheme amendment process to rezone the land and introduce a DPO, the DPO now exempts future planning permit applications from third party notice and review rights. However, planning permit applications must be generally in accordance with an approved Development Plan, that meet the requirements of the DPO.

Schedule 11 to the DPO (DPO11) sets out specific requirements for development plans for the land it affects. The ‘Concept Plan’ at section 6.0 of DPO11 sets out the framework for redevelopment of the precinct that Development Plans must respond to.


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

4. Issues

The Schedule to the Overlay requires a number of matters to be addressed in any Development Plan and this report addresses each in turn, together with the proposal’s response to the previous VCAT decision.

Response to previous VCAT decision

The proposal incorporates the following key differences to the earlier Development Plan proposal:

• The clear inclusion of supporting documents as required by the Development Plan Overlay, including an integrated transport plan, acoustic report, and environmental management plan.

• A simplified depiction of the proposed built form;

• Modifications to some boundary setbacks, as follows:

An increase in the predominant southern boundary setback from 1.3 metres to 1.5 metres at ground and first floor level. Construction on the boundary at the eastern end of the site is maintained;

The provision of 1.5 metre and 3.0 metre setbacks to the rear boundary to the first and second floor respectively, where no setback was previously proposed; and

The northern boundary staggered to include a setback of 3.2 metres to part of the first floor, where no setback was previously proposed. The second floor altered to show a 3.0 metre setback to the second floor, where previously setbacks of 2.0 metres – 2.7 metres were proposed. Balconies are indicated as intruding into the northern boundary setback at the upper level.

The inclusion of additional detail is supported and the proposal meets the setbacks from property boundaries specifically sought by the Tribunal. There is a lack of clarity in the Tribunal decision in relation to the southern boundary whilst the provision of balconies and rooftop decks outside of the building envelope requires additional exploration.


Wall on southern boundary

There is some ambiguity in the Tribunal decision which advises that at:

ground and second storey, the October plans show a 1.3 – 1.7 metre south side setback that is followed through to the second storey

whilst the proposal before it included a section of ground floor wall on the southern boundary. The Tribunal ultimately stipulated that any future development plan indicate a 1.5 metre setback to the southern boundary for the lower two levels of development, but no clarity is provided in relation to the wall on the boundary. The current proposal seeks to retain the wall on the boundary at ground level on the basis that the Tribunal’s guidance only applies to the section of building envelope located off the boundary. This interpretation of the Tribunal decision is valid, and it is noted that:

• The wall is shorter in height and length than the existing boundary wall on the site; and

• The plans contain an annotation stating ‘maintain existing access to sunlight to adjoining private open space and habitable rooms or satisfy Clause 55 overshadowing standard’, thereby ensuring that the amenity of the neighbouring properties are not compromised.

Balconies and rooftop decks

The second floor plan includes an annotation that ‘balconies for each dwelling [are] to encroach into the second floor setback from northern boundary’, with the extent of these encroachments unclearly indicated. This is at odds with the Tribunal decision which states that:

I find no logic or need to identify possible roof decks and balconies that may sit within a three-storey building envelope or slightly deviate from this development plan envelope. A future planning permit must be ‘generally in accordance’ with the approved development plan. Whether this includes a minor encroachment outside the envelope for a low rise, screen or similar architectural feature is a matter for detailed assessment when a complete set of permit application plans exist. The development plan needs to provide some flexibility to enable a planning permit to be designed within.

The officer recommendation includes a requirement to remove the annotation.

In addition, the plans indicate that a 3-storey development is proposed at a height of 10.94 metres exclusive of any roof deck/terrace, architectural features, building services, stairs and the like. Whilst the 3-storey height and some additional height associated with discrete rooftop features is acceptable, the height indicated is well in excess of a conventional three storey height and if combined with extensive rooftop screening, would present as four storeys to the street and the neighbouring properties. This is not considered to be appropriate and the officer recommendation includes a requirement to show the 11 metre maximum preferred height over 3 levels.

General

The Schedule includes a requirement to have regard to the Activity Centre Design Guidelines, which have since been replaced with the Urban Design Guidelines for Victoria. The Guidelines are detailed and much of their relevant content is reflected in Council policy which would be applied to the assessment of a planning application, however it is of note that bicycle paths are identified as being the most inviting when they have improved amenity and ‘on busy or long distance bicycle paths shade and shelter, way-finding signs and frequent seating should be provided.’ A Public Areas Plan has been requested as part of the recommendation which includes the provision of street tree/s and 2 bicycle hoops.


Community facilities

Since the Development Plan Overlay was introduced, the Development Contribution Plan Overlay has been introduced into the planning scheme and any future permit for development would be subject to a condition requiring payment of a contributions levy which includes a Community Infrastructure aspect. Given the size of the proposed development, it is considered that a contribution toward broader community facilities is more appropriate than the provision of services on site.

Servicing and infrastructure

The applicant’s consulting engineers have indicated that adequate infrastructure capacity exists to support the proposal. It is considered that no modification to the servicing and infrastructure report is required.

Adverse amenity impacts

The acoustic report supplied in support of the Development Plan indicates that the site is not subject to excessive noise impacts from surrounding land uses. Notably this report was prepared prior to the closure of the Townley Drop Forge at 2 Elm Grove in August 2018 with the site having a separation distance of in excess of 100 metres from the Drop Forge. It is considered that no modification to the Development Plan is required as a result of the acoustic report.

Built form and layout

The built form guidance contained within Schedule 11 to the Development Plan Overlay identifies a preferred maximum height of 3 storeys (11 metres) for the site, with taller development to the north and east. The adjoining property to the south is not within the Overlay. The following is also sought in any future built form:

• Articulated facades to the public realm;

• Use of a diversity of materials and finishes;

• The provision of active and passive surveillance;

• Active frontages to the public realm;

• A high level of pedestrian amenity; and

• Parking to be located in positions where an emphasis on ensuring active facades and/or visually interesting street edge treatments and streetscapes can be provided.

The proposed Development Plan responds appropriately to the provisions of the Schedule in many respects, and as detailed above it meets the specific setbacks dictated by VCAT, however some modification and clarification is required with respect to:

• The activation of the street façade; and

• The interface treatment to the southern boundary.

Activation of the street facade

The plans indicate the provision a driveway along the northern boundary which widens from 3 metres at the street frontage to 6 metres at the street façade, with the northern 6 metres of the ground floor envelope taken up with driveway. This is considered to be detail beyond the level sought for a Development Plan and would result in 44% of the ground floor façade being taken up with parking access. A simplified approach, whereby the extent of the driveway is not shown is sought by the officer recommendation. This would allow an appropriate assessment of the level of activation of the street façade to be conducted at the planning permit stage and would allow for a range of design options to be explored. This requirement is contained in the recommendation.


Interface treatment

The Overlay seeks that development with an interface to a Residential Zone should:

• maintain the existing access to sunlight to adjoining private open space and habitable rooms or satisfy Clause 55 overshadowing standards; and

• satisfy Clause 22.11 overlooking objectives.

The reference to Clause 22.11 is now outdated, but previously referred to Council’s policy on development of 4 or more storeys. This included a requirement that dwellings be designed to restrict overlooking, with screening to be provided where views remained. This Clause contained more emphasis on utilising dwelling design to restrict overlooking than the corresponding section of Clause 55, resulting in greater amenity for future occupants. It is considered that annotation on the plans that requires screening to be provided be updated to include text that corresponds with the former Clause 22.11. This is included in the officer recommendation.

Access and transport

Vehicular access points

The plans supplied indicate a single vehicular access from John Street in a location which both accords with the existing crossing and with the location stipulated by VCAT. This remains appropriate given that no alternative access is available to the site.

Integrated transport plan

Council policies seek to encourage the use of alternative means of traffic in preference to the private motor vehicle. The site is well located with respect to alternative modes of transport, with good public transport access and abuts the East Brunswick Shimmy bicycle route. The Integrated Transport Plan supplied provides recognition of these factors and outlines that each dwelling is to be provided with at least one bicycle parking space, which is appropriate. However it outlines that a 6 metre wide access way is to be provided along the length of the building envelope (also shown on Drawing DP14) and that direct access is to be provided from the parking area to each dwelling. This is not considered to be appropriate, as it dictates a form of development on the site which may not be appropriate and which prevents alternatives, such as a shared parking area. This is addressed in the officer recommendation.

Environmentally Sustainable Design

The Environmentally Sustainable Design report provided includes appropriate guidance with respect to the elements of the Built Environment Sustainability Scorecard, however the document contains specific actions without stating that best practice is to be employed, and omits some aspects of ESD. It is recommended that the document be amended to provide clear undertakings to achieve best practice in each of the elements contained in the Built Environment Sustainability Scorecard. Detail in relation to these matters would then appropriately form part of a future planning application for the land.


Affordable, accessible and adaptable housing

The Overlay seeks that Development Plans include details showing how the development will incorporate adaptable, accessible and visitable design features.

The submitted ESD report supplied with the Development Plan outlines that the liveable housing guidelines should be applied to the development and gives detail of some of the requirements for achieving compliance with silver level accessibility. The advice does not contain clear commitments however, and is not appropriately sited within the ESD report. The officer recommendation contains a requirement that this detail be deleted and that the Development Plan Report be amended to include clear commitments, including that at least 10% of the future dwellings will be adaptable, with all being visitable. In addition, it is recommended that the Development Plan be amended to state that future planning applications will include a mix of housing consistent with Clause 21.03-1 (Housing) of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

The development does not commit to any affordable housing. In the earlier decision of the Tribunal for the Development Plan over the subject site, VCAT concluded that the Development Plan should be amended to, amongst other matters, reiterate the principles of the DPO11 that a future planning permit should respond to the principles for affordable, accessible and visitable housing.

The Planning and Environment Act 1987 was recently amended to provide both a definition of affordable housing and basis to enable S173 agreements for the provision of affordable housing though this remains on an entirely voluntary basis and is most likely to be achieved as part of larger development projects.

While the land owner has been encouraged to explore the provision of affordable housing as part of this application, no voluntary agreement has been reached.

In respect to dwelling mix the recommendation includes a requirement that the Development Plan Report include a commitment to a mix of housing.

Open space and landscape

The Schedule seeks information in relation to any public open space within the development plan area, as well as a landscape masterplan. The Development Plan includes a ‘landscape masterplan’ which indicates potential planting and green areas proposed on the site, but no public open space or streetscape works are proposed. It is considered that whilst the proposed site landscaping is acceptable the provision of street trees within John Street would be appropriate, and this has been required within the recommendation as part of a Public Areas Plan.

Staging

The documentation provided indicates that the development is not to be staged. This is appropriate given the size of the site and anticipated development.


No submissions have been received.






8. Conclusion

It is considered that the proposed Development Plan outlines a future development form on the site that is largely acceptable, however modification is required to ensure that the document results in a built form which is appropriate to its context without dictating a particular design outcome.

On the balance of policies and controls within the Moreland Planning Scheme it is considered that the all interested parties be advised that Council supports the Development Plan, subject to the modifications included in the recommendation of this report.

Attachment/s

1⇩ Site Location Plan D18/360544 2⇩ Development Plan Drawings D18/360541


DED69/18 200-216 SYDNEY ROAD, COBURG - MPS/2017/1029 (D18/364653)


City Development

Executive Summary

This report considers an application currently before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) for the development of the land for an 8-storey building comprising shops, offices and apartments, and 2 and 3-storey townhouses; a reduction of the car parking requirement; and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1 (removal of crossovers), at 200-216 Sydney Road, Coburg

The application was advertised and 23 objections were received. The main issues raised in objections were traffic and parking, and the height and bulk of the development as viewed from the rear of properties fronting Rennie Street. Had a VCAT review not been lodged, Officers would have refused the application under delegation. There are now 5 objector parties to the VCAT proceedings.

At a Compulsory Conference on 3 October 2018, all parties reached an in-principal agreement that a permit should be granted for a development consistent with ‘without prejudice’ amended plans but subject to further modifications via agreed permit conditions. Settlement of the matter is now subject to the approval of Council.

This report details the assessment of the mediated proposal, comprising the ‘without prejudice’ amended plans and agreed permit conditions, against the policies and provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

The mediated proposal includes the following significant changes:

• Increased boundary setbacks between the south-east corner of the mixed use building and the southern boundary at all floor levels.

• Modification to the siting of level 7, resulting in reduced built form at the rear, where the building interfaces with residentially zoned land.

• Deletion of Townhouse 10 and provision of an approximately 200 square metre pocket park in its place.

• Modifications to the Cash Street townhouses to provide for a more recessed second floor level.

• An improved Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) response.


• Whether the height of the development is consistent with planning controls in the Activity Centre Zone, Schedule 1 (ACZ1).

• Whether the proposal has any unreasonable impacts on adjoining residential properties outside the Activity Centre.

The mediated proposal is a design of high quality, which limits the impact of building height on adjoining residential properties, while ensuring the uppermost levels read as a recessive element in the Sydney Road streetscape. The provision of public benefits, including a pocket park and pedestrian link, support the proposed building height in accordance with the policy of the ACZ1.

The mediated proposal will have no unreasonable impacts on the amenity of adjoining residential properties and will provide a good level of amenity for further residents. A high degree of compliance with Clause 55 and 58 of the Moreland Planning Scheme is achieved.

It is recommended that Council’s submission to VCAT be that it consents to the agreement reached with the parties.



That Council advises VCAT and all parties that it consents to the issue of Planning Permit No. MPS/2017/1029 for the development of the land for the purpose of an 8-storey building comprising shops, offices and apartments, and 2 and 3-storey townhouses; a reduction of the car parking requirement; and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1 (removal of crossovers), at 200-216 Sydney Road, Coburg, subject to the following conditions:

Amended plans required

1. Before the development commences, amended plans to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The plans must be drawn to scale with dimensions and three copies must be provided. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by Hayball Pty Ltd Drawing Nos. TP01.00 to TP01.10, TP01.13, TP06.01 to TP06.04, TP07.01 to TP07.03, TP08.01 to TP08.03 and TP12.01, all Revision 9 and dated 1 October 2018 but modified to show:

a) Deletion of dwellings W701, W702 and W703 at Level 7.

b) Screening of all habitable room windows and balconies/terraces where necessary to prevent overlooking of neighbouring secluded private open space and habitable room windows in accordance with Standard B22 of Clause 55.

c) A screen diagram drawn at a scale of 1:20 which details the any screening proposed to prevent overlooking in accordance with Standard B22 of Clause 55. The diagram/s must include:

i. All dimensions, including the width of slats and the gap between slats.

ii. The angle of any louvres.

iii. All side screens.

iv. How compliance is achieved with the standard of Clause 55.04-6 (overlooking) of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

d) The location of bollard lighting as required by condition 23 of this Permit.

e) The after-hours gates at the eastern and western ends of the pedestrian link deleted.

f) An apartment storage summary table that details the internal, external and total storage for each apartment (or apartment type) and shows compliance with Standard D20 of Clause 58.

g) Initiatives contained within the amended Sustainability Management Plan (SMP), including:

i. External shading devices (or eaves where appropriate) to protect exposed north, east and west facing glazing from peak summer sun, which does not detract from desired winter heat loading. This includes windows as well as glazed sliding doors. A section detail of the shading is required.

ii. Stormwater management treatments, such as rainwater harvesting tanks (and the tank capacity in terms of litres, which is independent of any detention requirements), raingardens (including a clear location, type of raingarden, and relevant setbacks from adjoining structures). If a raingarden is used, a section detail of the raingarden as per Moreland raingarden guidelines is required.

iii. Any details required to achieve the energy efficiency improvements, such as improved glazing or external sun shading.


iv. Confirmation that the bin chutes within the apartment building have dedicated chutes for both garbage waste and recycling waste (not only garbage waste).

h) Introduction of screening vegetation including retention of Tree 11 along the south boundary adjacent to numbers. 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 and 13 Rennie Street;

i) At least 20% of the bicycle parking devices on each level and at each location to be designed to park bicycles horizontally (i.e. 1.7 metres long) in accordance with the Australian Standard for Bicycle Parking (AS2890.3).

j) One bicycle parking device in each of the townhouse garages but not located within the ‘clearance required’ areas in diagram 1 of Clause 52.06 of the Moreland Planning Scheme. The plans are to specify the type of bike parking device and the dimensions shown must accord with the specifications in Australian Standard for Bicycle Parking (AS2890.3).

k) All parking spaces with a wall adjacent to one side of the parking space be at least 0.3 metre wider, to allow for opening car doors in accordance with Clause 2.4 of the Australian Standard for Off-Street Parking (AS2890.1).

l) The arbour/trellis over the widened north-south laneway from Rennie Street contained within the title boundaries of the subject site.

m) All commercial spaces marked ‘retail’ re-labelled as ‘shop’.

n) Additional windows to apartments E003, W409 and W509 to allow for cross ventilation.

o) Floorplans modified to note windows as openable where necessary to achieve cross ventilation, including windows to communal corridors.

p) The location of any substation required by the power company for this development. Any substation must be incorporated within the building (i.e. not free standing or pole mounted in the street) to ensure minimal impact on the visual amenity of the public realm.

q) 1:50 or 1:20 detailed drawings of any service cupboard/s facing a street, showing a proposed design, including details of materials, finishes and colours, that complements the appearance of the development and does not detract from the amenity of the public realm.

r) All existing trees clearly labelled as ‘to be retained’ or ‘to be removed’.

s) Landscape plans in accordance with condition 5 of this permit.

t) A Sustainability Management Plan in accordance with condition 32 of this Permit.

u) A Waste Management Plan in accordance with condition 34 of this Permit.

v) An Acoustic Report in accordance with condition 38 of this Permit.

w) An Accessibility Report in accordance with condition 36 of this Permit.

x) Any practical changes to the plans required by the additional reports and plans required by conditions of this Permit.

Public works plan

2. Prior to the commencement of development, a Public Works Plan and associated construction drawing specifications detailing the works to the land must be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The plan must detail works within the public realm surrounding the site and include:

a) A detailed level and feature survey of the footpaths and roads.

b) The proposed vehicle crossings to a standard satisfactory to the Responsible Authority (Moreland City Council, City Infrastructure Department).


c) Any Council or service authority pole or pit within 1 metre of a proposed vehicle crossing, including the 1 metre splays on the crossings, relocated or modified.

d) Any required relocation of parking and traffic signs.

e) Public footpaths to be reinstated to the previous levels with a maximum cross fall slope of 1 in 40 (2.5%).

f) A request for a traffic management device for traffic calming measures opposite the pedestrian link on Cash Street.

g) Any other works to the public land adjacent to the development.

The approved Public Works Plan will form part of the endorsed plans under the permit and must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority at the expense of the owner of the land, prior to the occupation of the development unless otherwise agreed with prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Section 173 Agreement – Public asset/pedestrian access/indemnify

3. Prior to the occupation of any part of the development hereby permitted, an agreement under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 must be entered into between the Owners of the land and the Responsible Authority in a form satisfactory to the Responsible Authority providing for:

a) Unrestricted public pedestrian and bicycle access to the pedestrian link and pocket park for 24 hours a day (364 days a year) unless otherwise agreed to by the Responsible Authority.

b) The owners of the land to indemnify the Moreland City Council against any claims associated with the use of the pedestrian link and pocket park and responsibility for the on-going maintenance of the pedestrian link and pocket park.

Development not to be altered

4. The development as shown on the endorsed plans must not be altered without the written consent of the Responsible Authority. This does not apply to any exemption specified in Clauses 62.02-1 and 62.02-2 of the Moreland Planning Scheme unless specifically noted as a permit condition.

Landscaping

5. Prior to the commencement of any development works, amended landscape plans must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The landscape plans must be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by LBA Design dated January 2018 but modified to show:

a) All existing trees clearly labelled as ‘to be retained’ or ‘to be removed’. A schedule of all proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers (including numbers, size at planting, size at maturity and botanical names), as well as sealed and paved surfaces. The flora selection and landscape design should be drought tolerant and based on species selection recommended in the Moreland Landscape Guidelines 2009.

b) Details of proposed planter boxes and above basement planting areas confirming sufficient soil volume for the proposed planting and appropriate drainage design.

c) Details of proposed watering methods and maintenance of the plants, including an automatic irrigation system for all planter boxes and planting directly above the basement.

d) Details of the location and type of all paved and sealed areas. Extensive hard surfaces are not supported. The adoption of porous/permeable paving, rain gardens and other water sensitive urban design features are encouraged.


e) The provision of at least one tree within the front setback of each townhouses facing the street to assist in the integration of the development within the existing streetscape, with the tree species selected according to the available space, in accordance with the Moreland Tree Planting Manual for Residential Zones, 2014.

f) The location of any rain gardens as detailed in the endorsed Sustainability Management Plan.

g) Planting within all open areas of the site.

h) Details of the design of the ‘pocket park’ adjacent to the Cash Street frontage.

6. Prior to the issuing of a Statement of Compliance or occupation of the development, whichever occurs first, all landscaping works must be completed and maintained in accordance with the approved and endorsed landscape drawing to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

7. Prior to the commencement of occupation or at a later date with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, the owner must pay Council to remove and provide advanced replacement tree(s) in an appropriate location in a nature strip nearby in accordance with the Moreland Street Landscape Strategy for each street tree removed for the vehicle crossing, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Tree protection

8. Prior to development commencing (including any demolition, excavations, tree removal, delivery of building/construction materials and/or temporary buildings), all trees to be retained, including Council street trees, must have a Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The fencing associated with this TPZ must meet the following requirements:

a) Extent

The tree protection fencing (TPF) is to be provided to the extent of the TPZ, calculated as being a radius of 12 x Diameter at Breast Height (DBH – measured at 1.4 metres above ground level as defined by the Australian Standard AS 4970.2009)

If works are shown on any endorsed plan of this permit within the confines of the calculated TPZ, then the TPF must be taken in to only the minimum amount necessary to allow the works to be completed.

b) Fencing

The TPF must be erected to form a visual and physical barrier, be a minimum height of 1.5 metres above ground level and of chain mesh or similar material. A top line of high visibility plastic tape must be erected around the perimeter of the fence.

c) Signage

Fixed signs are to be provided on all visible sides of the TPF clearly stating ‘Tree Protection Zone – No Entry’, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

d) Irrigation

The area within the TPZ and TPF must be irrigated during the summer months with 1 litre of clean water for every 1cm of trunk girth measured at the soil/trunk interface on a weekly basis.

e) Service provision

Unless with the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority, all services (including water, electricity, gas and telephone) must be installed underground, and located outside of any TPZ, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


f) Access to TPZ

Should temporary access be necessary within the Tree Protection Zone during the period of construction, the Responsible Authority must be informed prior to relocating the fence (as it may be necessary to undertake additional root protection measures such as bridging over with timber).

Parking and access

9. The area set aside for the parking of vehicles and access lanes shown on the endorsed plan must to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

a) Be completed prior to the commencement of the use or occupation of the development.

b) Be maintained.

c) Be properly formed to such levels that it can be used according to the endorsed plan.

d) Have the boundaries of all vehicle parking spaces clearly marked on the ground to accord with the endorsed plan.

e) Not be used for any other purpose other than the parking of vehicles.

f) Be marked with the associated apartment or shop number to facilitate management of the car park.

10. Car parking within the development must be allocated as follows:

a) At least 1 car parking space to each commercial tenancy.

b) At least 1 car parking space to each 1 and 2 bedroom dwelling.

c) At least 2 car parking spaces to each dwelling with 3 or more bedrooms.

d) Any tandem parking spaces must be allocated to the same dwelling or commercial tenancy.

Car parking spaces must be available for use by the allocated dwelling or commercial tenancy at all times.

11. Prior to the occupation of the development, the car park entry gate and/or garage roller door(s) must be automatic and remote controlled.

12. The vehicular access ramp from the basement to the street be installed with traffic signal devices so vehicles do not enter the bend from opposing directions at the same time to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

13. Prior to the occupation of the development, a vehicle crossing must be constructed in every location shown on the endorsed plans to a standard satisfactory to the Responsible Authority (Moreland City Council, City Infrastructure Department).


15. Public footpaths are to be reinstated with a crossfall slope of 1 in 40 (2.5%)

16. The widened north-south laneway from Rennie Street is to be constructed to Council’s standards using construction plans approved by Council and the works supervised by Council.

17. All bicycle parking racks must be installed in a secure manner that accords with the specifications in Australian Standard for Bicycle Parking (AS2890.3), to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.


Projections over the street

18. All awnings over the Sydney Road footpath must not project beyond the street alignment more than 2.4 metres and at any height less than 2.4 metres above the level of the footpath in accordance with Clause 508 of the Building Regulations 2006 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Stormwater


20. Stormwater from the land must not be directed to the surface of the right-of-way to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

VicRoads conditions

21. All disused or redundant vehicle crossings must be removed and the area reinstated to kerb and channel to the satisfaction of and at no cost to the Roads Corporation prior to the commencement of the use or the occupation of the buildings or works hereby approved.

Transport for Victoria condition

22. The permit holder must take all reasonable steps to ensure that disruption to tram operation along Sydney Road is kept to a minimum during the construction of the development. Foreseen disruptions to tram operations during construction and mitigation measures must be communicated to Yarra Trams and Public Transport Victoria eight (8) weeks prior. The permit holder must ensure that all track, tram and overhead infrastructure is not damaged. Any damage to public transport infrastructure must be rectified to the satisfaction of Public Transport Victoria at the full cost of the permit holder.

Pedestrian paths illuminated

23. Before the occupation of the development, bollard lighting standing no higher than 1.2 metres above ground level is to be installed and maintained on the land to automatically illuminate pedestrian access to the dwelling(s) between dusk and dawn with no direct light emitted onto adjoining property to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Front windows retained for display

24. The shopfront windows may only be used for promotion and display of goods and must not be painted or blocked out in any way to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Development Contributions Plan

25. Prior to the issue of a Building Permit in relation to the development approved by this permit, a Development Infrastructure Levy and Community Infrastructure Levy must be paid to Moreland City Council in accordance with the approved Development Contributions Plan. The Development Infrastructure Levy is charged per 100 square metres of leasable floor space and the Development and Community Infrastructure Levy is charged per dwelling.


26. If an application for subdivision of the land in accordance with the development approved by this permit is submitted to Council, payment of the Development Infrastructure Levy can be delayed to a date being whichever is the sooner of the following:

a) For a maximum of 12 months from the date of issue of the Building Permit for the development hereby approved; or

b) Prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for the subdivision;

When a staged subdivision is sought, the Development Infrastructure Levy must be paid prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance for each stage of subdivision in accordance with a Schedule of Development Contributions approved as part of the subdivision.

Environmental Audit

27. Prior to the commencement of construction or carrying out works pursuant to this permit, or any works associated with a sensitive use, or where no works are proposed, prior to the commencement of the permitted use, either:

a) A Certificate of Environmental Audit for the land must be issued in accordance with Section 53Y of the Environment Protection Act 1970 and provided to the Responsible Authority; or

b) An Environmental Auditor appointed under Section 53S of the Environment Protection Act 1970 must make a Statement in accordance with Section 53Z of that Act that the environmental conditions of the land are suitable for the use and development that are the subject of this permit and that statement must be provided to the Responsible Authority.

28. Where a Statement of Environmental Audit is issued for the land, the buildings and works and the use(s) of the land that are the subject of this permit must comply with all directions and conditions contained within the Statement.

29. Where a Statement of Environmental Audit is issued for the land, prior to the commencement of the use, and prior to the issue of a Statement of Compliance under the Subdivision Act 1988, and prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit under the Building Act 1993, a letter prepared by an Environmental Auditor appointed under Section 53S of the Environment Protection Act 1970 must be submitted to the Responsible Authority to verify that the directions and conditions contained within the Statement have been satisfied.

30. Where a Statement of Environmental Audit is issued for the land, and any condition of that Statement requires any maintenance or monitoring of an ongoing nature, the Owner(s) must enter into an Agreement with Council pursuant to Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Where a Section 173 Agreement is required, the Agreement must be executed prior to the commencement of the permitted use, and prior to the certification of the plan of subdivision under the Subdivision Act 1988. All expenses involved in the drafting, negotiating, lodging, registering and execution of the Agreement, including those incurred by the Responsible Authority, must be met by the Owner(s).

31. Prior to any remediation works being undertaken in association with the Environmental Audit, a ‘remediation works’ plan to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plan must detail all excavation works as well as any proposed structures such as retaining walls required to facilitate the remediation works. Only those works detailed in the approved remediation works plan are permitted to be carried out prior to the issue of a Certificate or Statement of Environmental Audit.


Sustainable Management Plan

32. Prior to the endorsement of plans, the Sustainability Management Plan prepared by JBA Consulting Engineers Pty Ltd dated 20 September 2018 must be amended by a suitably qualified environmental engineer or equivalent to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority to achieve best practice in environmentally sustainable development in accordance with Clause 22.08 of the Moreland Planning Scheme, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Where alternative ESD initiatives are proposed to those specified in this condition, the Responsible Authority may vary the requirements of this condition at its discretion, subject to the development achieving equivalent (or greater) ESD outcomes in association with the development.

When submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the amended Sustainability Management Plan and associated notated plans will be endorsed to form part of this permit.

33. All works must be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Sustainability Management Plan (SMP). No alterations to the SMP may occur without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Waste Management Plan

34. Prior to the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan generally in accordance with the Waste Management Plan prepared by Leigh Designs dated 19 December 2017 but updated to reflect the plans required by Condition 1, must be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. When submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, the Waste Management Plan and associated notated plans will form part of this permit.

35. The Waste Management Plan approved under this permit must be implemented and complied with at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority unless with the further written approval of the Responsible Authority.

Accessibility report

36. Prior to the endorsement of plans, an Accessibility Report prepared by a suitably qualified person must be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The report must be generally in accordance with the report prepared by Before Compliance Pty Ltd dated 20 February 2018 but updated to refer to the plans required by Condition 1 of this permit, detail how the development will incorporate adaptable, accessible and visitable design features in accordance with the Silver Performance Level of the Liveable Housing Design Guidelines 2012, and comply with Standard D17 (Accessibility) of Clause 58 of the Moreland Planning Scheme, including the detailed design of the adaptable bathrooms (e.g. confirmation of hobless showers and removable hinges to doors) and confirmation that the shower screen can encroach on the circulation space of the ‘design option B’ accessible bathroom layout. The recommendations of the report must be implemented to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority prior to the occupation of the development. No alterations to the plan may occur without the written consent of the Responsible Authority.

37. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling approved under this permit, a report from the author of the Accessibility Report, approved pursuant to this permit, or similarly qualified person or company, must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The report must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must confirm that all measures specified in the Accessibility Report have been implemented in accordance with the approved report.


Acoustic Report

38. Prior to the endorsement of plans, an Acoustic Report prepared by a qualified Acoustic Engineer and generally in accordance with the Acoustic Report prepared by Vipac Engineers and Scientists Limited dated 20 February 2018 must be submitted and approved to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

39. The building must be constructed and maintained in accordance with the recommendations contained within the approved Acoustic Report to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The Acoustic Report endorsed under this permit must be implemented and complied with at all times to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority unless with the further written approval of the Responsible Authority.

40. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling approved under this permit, a report from the author of the Acoustic Report approved pursuant to this permit or similarly qualified person or company must be submitted to the Responsible Authority. The report must be to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority and must confirm that all measures specified in the Acoustic Report have been implemented in accordance with the approved Acoustic Report.

Permit expiry


a) The development is not commenced within 3 years from the date of issue of this permit.

b) The development is not completed within 5 years from the date of issue of this permit.

The Responsible Authority may extend the period referred to a request is made in writing before the permit expires or:


• Within 12 months after permit expires to extend the completion date of the development if the development has lawfully commenced.


REPORT

1. Background

Subject site

The subject site is located at 200-216 Sydney Road, Coburg, on the eastern side of Sydney Road between Edward Street to the north and Rennie Street to the south.

The site is irregular in shape, with a maximum depth of 123 metres, a frontage to Sydney Road of 60 metres, a frontage to Cash Street of 47 metres and a frontage to Rennie Street of 12 metres. The total site area is approximately 7,438 square metres.

The site is currently occupied by a plumbing supplies business and is developed with a number of single and double storey buildings. Car parking is provided within the Sydney Road setback.

The majority of the site is within the Activity Centre Zone. The eastern end of the site, adjacent to Cash Street, is within the General Residential Zone.

Surrounds

The surrounding area is characterised by commercial uses fronting Sydney Road and dwellings fronting Cash Street and Rennie Street. Both residential and commercial buildings in the area are of a predominantly single and double storey scale.

Adjoining the subject site to the north is a single storey building fronting Sydney Road, which accommodates the Ferla Social Club at 218 Sydney Road, a car park associated with a retail premises at 228-238 Sydney Road, and dwellings at 2/7 and 5 Cash Street.

Adjoining the subject site to the south is an attached double storey building accommodating a restaurant fronting Sydney Road (188 Sydney Road) and the backyards of a number of residential properties facing Rennie Street. Most notably, a new double storey dwelling has recently been constructed at 1 Cash Street, which was formerly the rear of the two properties at the north-west corner of Rennie Street and Cash Street. This dwelling is oriented northwards, towards the subject site, and has been designed with a number of passive environmentally sustainable design features that rely on its northern aspect and access to sunlight.


Planning Permit and site history

Existing planning permit – MPS/2015/439

There is an existing planning permit for the site (MPS/2015/439) that allows the construction of a 5-storey building plus basement containing:

• 124 dwellings;

• a supermarket;

• a convenience shop;

• a convenience restaurant;

• food and drink premises and offices;

• use of the land for dwellings;

• a supermarket and a convenience restaurant;

• the construction of 5-double storey dwellings;

• alteration of access to a Road Zone Category 1 road; and

• a reduction in the bicycle parking.


This development complied with the preferred building envelope of the ACZ1 and was approved by Council at its March 2016 Urban Planning Committee meeting.

This permit is still valid.

The existing endorsed plans form Attachment 2.

Current application – MPS/2017/1029

The advertised plans are summarised as follows:

• Construction of an 8-storey building with an ‘H’ shaped layout comprising the following:

Commercial uses at ground floor level, including shops, offices and a café.

A total of 158 apartments at the upper levels.

Communal open space at ground level on the northern side of the building and on the rooftop.

2 levels of basement car parking accessed via a widened laneway from Rennie Street.

• Construction of 10 triple storey townhouses at the Cash Street end of the site (the Cash Street townhouses) above a separate basement garage accessed via a crossover from Cash Street adjacent to the northern boundary of the site.

• Construction of 2 triple storey townhouses at the Rennie Street end of the site (the Rennie Street townhouses) with ground level garaging accessed via the existing laneway from Rennie Street.

• Provision of a pedestrian link through the site to connect Cash Street and Sydney Road and also provide access to a semi-public open space on the southern side of the 8-storey building.

The advertised plans form Attachment 3.

On 19 June 2018, the permit applicant lodged a VCAT review against Council’s failure to determine the application within the 60 day statutory timeframe.

On 26 July 2018, Officers advised VCAT and all parties that if a review had not been lodged, the application would have been refused on the grounds relating to the following:

• The height of the mixed-use building;

• The visual bulk impact on neighbouring residential properties fronting Rennie Street;

• The design of the Sydney Road street wall;

• Daylight and outlook for apartments facing the northern boundary at the north-eastern corner of the mixed-use building;

• The 3-storey height of townhouses fronting Cash Street;

• Failure to achieve best practice ESD;

• Insufficient deep soil planting;

• The impact on the energy efficiency of 1 Cash Street;

• Overshadowing of the secluded private open space of 1 Cash Street from Townhouse TH10; and

• Non-compliances with the private open space and natural ventilation standards of Clause 58.

The advertised plans are still the formally lodged plans for the VCAT review. This means, if the mediated proposal is not settled, the matter would proceed to a merits hearing based on these plans (unless the applicant decides to formally amend the plans prior to the hearing).


The mediated proposal

The proposed changes in the mediated proposal are summarised as follows:

• Boundary setbacks between the south-east corner of the apartment building and the southern boundary increased substantially at all floor levels, as follows:

- Ground floor: Setback increased from 2.45 metres to 4.5 metres - Levels 1 and 2: Setback increased from 2 metres to 4.5 metres - Level 3: Setback increased from 7.5 metres to 9 metres - Level 4: Setback increased from 10.6 metres to 14.8 metres - Level 5: Setback increased from 13.9 metres to 21.5 metres - Level 6: Setback increased from 16.9 metres to 21.5 metres - Level 7: No significant change to the southern boundary setback, but the

eastern boundary setback has been increased by 11.3 metres, from 49.38 metres to 60.68 metres so that this level does not extend as deep into the site.

• Deletion of townhouse 10 and provision of a pocket park of approximately 200 square metres in its place.

• Modifications to the Cash Street townhouses to provide for a more recessed second floor level, which will be setback 1.6 metres from the ground and first floor levels below.

• ESD response improved to ‘best practice’.

• Changes to the design of the Sydney Road street wall.

• Provision of an additional point of pedestrian access to the pedestrian link and courtyard on the southern side of the 8-storey building via the Rennie Street laneway.

• Additional deep soil planting areas.

• The rear Rennie Street townhouse (TH11) reduced in height from 3 to 2 storeys.

• An additional 2-storey townhouse provided adjacent to the northern boundary (TH13) and associated changes to the ground level circulation.

• Townhouse TH05 reduced in height from 3 storeys to 2 storeys.

• Various changes to apartment layouts to achieve compliance with Clause 58 Standard D19 (Private Open Space) and Standard D27 (Natural Ventilation).

• A permit condition to allow 24 hour access to the pedestrian link (and pocket park).

• The number of apartments reduced from 158 to 155.

The ‘without prejudice’ mediated plans form Attachment 4. The mediated permit conditions are included in the recommendation.



Activity Centre Zone Schedule 1 (Precinct 6)

Clause 37.08-2: A permit is required for the use of the land for dwellings

Clause 37.08-5: A permit is required to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

General Residential Zone Schedule 1

Clause 32.08-9: A permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot.

Particular Provisions Clause 52.06: A permit is required for a 13 space reduction in the standard car parking requirement as it relates to the commercial spaces.

Clause 52.29: A permit is required to alter access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1. In this case, a permit is required to remove the existing crossovers from Sydney Road.


The following Overlays and Particular Provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme are also relevant to the consideration of the proposal:

• Clause 45.03 – Environment Audit Overlay

• Clause 45.06 – Development Contributions Plan Overlay (Schedule 1)

• Clause 45.09 – Parking Overlay (Schedule 1)

• Clause 55 – Construction of two or more dwellings on a lot (ResCode)

• Clause 58 – Apartment Developments.


Public Notification

Notification of the application has been undertaken pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by:

• Sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining and nearby land.

• By placing signs on the Sydney Road, Rennie Street and Cash Street frontages of the site.

Council received 23 objections to the planning application, of which 5 have joined as parties to the VCAT review and attended the Compulsory Conference.

A map identifying the location of objectors and parties to the review forms Attachment 5.

The key issues raised by the 5 objector parties are:

• Traffic and parking;

• Height of the mixed-use building;

• Height of the Cash Street townhouses;

• Inadequate setbacks to properties fronting Rennie Street;

• Overshadowing;

• Overlooking;

• Visual bulk;

• Impact on energy efficiency of adjoining dwellings; and

• Inadequate landscaping.

The mediated proposal does not require public notice as it represents an overall smaller building envelope and does not result in additional material detriment to any surrounding property.


The proposal was referred to the following external agencies or internal branches/business units:

External Agency Objection/No objection

VicRoads No objection subject to conditions included in the recommendation.

Transport for Victoria No objection subject to conditions included in the recommendation.



Comments

Urban Design Unit No objections were offered to the proposal subject to modifications, which are addressed by conditions detailed in the recommendation.

Strategic Transport and Compliance Branch


ESD Unit No objections were offered to the proposal subject to modification, which are addressed in the conditions detailed in the recommendation.

Open Space Design and Development Unit

Verbal advice has been sought from Council’s Open Space Design and Development Unit in relation to the proposed pocket park. It is recommended that the pocket park remain in possession of the owner of the site so that they are responsible for maintenance. Public access to the park can be ensured through a Section 173 Agreement, which is included in the recommendation. The pocket park is in an identified ‘Park Close to Home’ low priority gap area. While the pocket park will not ‘close the gap’ due to its relatively small size and private ownership, it nonetheless makes a positive contribution towards open space in the gap area. The pocket park is supported.



The following Planning Policies are of most relevance to this application:

• Clause 11 Settlement

• Clause 13.04-1S Contaminated and potentially contaminated land

• Clause 13.05 Noise

• Clause 15.01 Built Environment

• Clause 15.02 Sustainable Development

• Clause 16.01 Residential development

• Clause 17.02 Commercial

• Clause 18.02 Movement Networks


The following Key Strategic Statements of the Municipal Strategic Statement (MSS) and the following Local Planning Policies are of most relevance to this application:

Municipal Strategic Statement:

• Clause 21.01 Municipal Profile

• Clause 21.02 Vision

• Clause 21.03-1 Activity Centres

• Clause 21.03-3 Housing

• Clause 21.03-4 Urban Design, Built Form and Landscape Design

• Clause 21.03-5 Environmentally Sustainable Design (Water, Waste and Energy)

• Clause 21.03-6 Open Space Network


Local Planning Policies:

• Clause 22.01 Neighbourhood Character

• Clause 22.03 Car and Bike Parking and Vehicle Access

• Clause 22.07 Development of Five or More Storeys

• Clause 22.08 Environmentally Sustainable Design

Council through its MSS, seeks increased residential densities in the Coburg Activity Centre to take advantage of the excellent access to public transport and other services within this location. The proposal meets the objectives and strategies of the LPPF by incorporating a mix of uses including differing housing typologies in the form of both apartments and townhouses, with active spaces at ground level to create and reinforce an active and pedestrian friendly environment. The proximity of the site to a variety of public transport options and the provision of bicycle facilities on the site encourages less reliance on cars as a means of travel.

Council’s Neighbourhood Character Policy supports substantial change and the creation of a new character of increased scale associated with increased density in this designated Principal Activity Centre. The proposal enjoys strong strategic support at both State and Local level.



4. Issues

In considering this application, regard has been given to the Planning Policy Framework and Local Planning Policy Framework, the provisions of the Moreland Planning Scheme and the merits of the application.

Is the height of the mixed use building appropriate?

ACZ1 building envelope

The ACZ1 sets out a preferred building envelope as follows:

• An 11 metre Sydney Road street wall height.

• An 18 metre overall maximum building height.

• A 7 metre minimum upper level setback from Sydney Road for levels above the street wall.

• Compliance with Standard B17 (side and rear boundary setbacks) of Clause 55 where adjoining the residentially zoned land outside the Activity Centre.

The mediated proposal complies with the preferred building envelope, except for the overall height of 25.7 metres, which is 7.7 metres above the preferred height.


Clause 4.4 of the ACZ1 sets out a series of policy ‘tests’ to be considered when a proposal exceeds the discretionary height limit (or when a preferred setback is not met, which is not the case here). These are as follows:

• The proposed development supports the vision for the Activity Centre and achieves objectives of this schedule; and

• The development is of an exemplary quality design that makes a positive contribution to the character of the neighbourhood;

• The additional height or reduced setback:

results in specific design benefits;

facilitates benefits to the community, such as excellent ESD performance, positive contributions to public open space or the public realm, or the provision of affordable housing;

does not have an adverse impact on the streetscape, heritage values, the public realm or the amenity of adjoining properties;

meets the overshadowing standards for key public spaces as set out in Table 1 where applicable;

does not increase overshadowing of primary pedestrian routes on 21 March/September (equinox) between 10.30 am and 2 pm, particularly the southern footpath of Bell Street, Harding Street and Munro Street; and

does not cause an unacceptable visual impact on surrounding streets, public spaces or private open space.

The mediated proposal is considered to satisfy the above policy, as discussed under the following headings:

Activity Centre vision and objectives

The vision for the Activity Centre is:

Central Coburg develops as the prime shopping, living, employment and activity precinct in Moreland. The Activity Centre is transformed into an attractive system of streets and spaces. Central Coburg becomes a sought-after living environment, offering a range of housing choices, including high density housing. Most people arrive at the Activity Centre on foot, by bike or by public transport. The provision of a range of services enables people to conduct a number of different activities based on the one trip. Central Coburg is linked with networks of green space.

The mediated proposal is consistent with this vision for the Activity Centre, with its mix of commercial and residential uses, including both higher density apartments and townhouses. The mediated proposal also makes adequate provision for bicycle parking and creates a pedestrian link through the site and to surrounding streets, which promotes active transport as envisioned.

In terms of the objectives of the ACZ1, the one most relevant to the question of height is:

To encourage the redevelopment of Coburg Central as a mid rise centre with buildings ranging from 6-10 storeys (except for Precincts 9 and 10) with lower built form at the interfaces with the established suburban hinterland.

An appropriate scale transition to the adjoining residential properties is achieved through the provision of townhouses at the rear of the site, and generous southern boundary setbacks at the south-eastern corner of the mixed-use building. These setbacks are significantly greater than those required pursuant to Standard B17 (side and rear setbacks) of Clause 55. This is a significant improvement on the advertised plans, which featured a ‘wedding cake’ tiered form at the south-eastern corner of the building (which is discouraged by the ACZ1), built up to the edge of the Standard B17 envelope.


Based on these increased setbacks, it is considered that the mediated proposal transitions appropriately to the adjoining residential properties and does not have an unreasonable visual bulk impact on these properties.

It is also necessary to consider how the additional height will impact on the Sydney Road streetscape. The most relevant objective to this consideration is specific to Precinct 6 and is as follows:

To enhance and reinforce the character of the Sydney Road corridor (horizontal, 2-3 storey Victorian-era scale) by establishing strong street wall forms and setbacks to upper levels.

It is considered that the mediated proposal will not have an unreasonable impact on the 2-3 storey Victorian-era character of Sydney Road.

The application proposes a 2-3 storey street wall in accordance with the ACZ1. Above the street wall, levels 3-5 are setback 7 metres in accordance with policy, but exceed the 18 metre preferred height by 1.7 metres, or approximately half a storey. It is considered that the minor extent of the non-compliance with the preferred building height at this point will not significantly detract from the 2-3 storey scale at the Sydney Road interface.

Level 6 is wholly above the preferred maximum height, however, it has been appropriately designed to read as an architecturally recessive element from Sydney Road. This level is setback 8.95m from the street wall, which is greater than the 7 metres minimum setback set out by the ACZ1. This level is also setback from both side boundaries to reduce its visibility from oblique angles, i.e. when viewed from further north and south along Sydney Road, rather than directly in front of the site. A dark metal cladding at this level assists in creating a recessive appearance.

Level 7 is also wholly above the preferred maximum height, but this level has a relatively small footprint and will generally not be visible from Sydney Road. This level is setback 13 metres from the street wall, and sight line diagrams show it will not be visible from the footpath on the opposite side of Sydney Road when directly in front of the site. The mediated conditions also require the deletion of Apartments W701, W702 and W703 at level 7. The deletion of these apartments will significantly reduce the visibility of level 7 from oblique angles, meaning that in all but possibly some very long-range views, level 7 should not be visible from Sydney Road.

The recessive appearance of levels 6 and 7 is consistent with the above objective.

It is also relevant that the subject site is not close to any heritage graded buildings, the nearest of which are over 100 metres to the south, towards the corner of Sydney Road and The Grove. This context weighs in favour of allowing a building above the discretionary 18 metres maximum.


Design quality

A proposal above the preferred height may also be justified on the basis of the quality of the design. The mediated proposal is a significantly improved design compared to the development approved by Planning Permit MPS/2015/439.

Compared to the approved development, the mediated proposal has:

• Better internal amenity for apartments, with fewer single aspect apartments, better outlook with less reliance on screening, larger apartment floor areas with more functional layouts, and less reliance on saddleback style bedrooms.

• A smaller overall building footprint, which permits more generous areas of ground level communal open space and the provision of the pedestrian link and pocket park.

• Higher quality materials and finishes, including the use of brick and timber for the Sydney Road street wall, which compares favourably to the largely concrete and render finishes of the approved development.

• A more articulated and fine grain Sydney Road street wall.

• Contributions to public open space through the provision of a pocket park.

• Improvements to local walkability and site permeability through the provision of a pedestrian link.

These improvements in the quality of the design support the additional height sought in accordance with the policy of the ACZ1.

The additional height allows, at least to some extent, a smaller building footprint compared to the existing approval. As noted previously, this allows a more generous provision of ground level communal open space and the provision of the pedestrian link pocket park.

The mediated proposed will achieve best practice ESD subject to the permit conditions in the recommendation.

The proposal does not overshadow any key public spaces or primary pedestrian routes as identified in table 1 of the ACZ1.

The additional height will not cause an unacceptable visual impact on the surrounding area. Levels 6 and 7 are located towards the centre of the site, with setbacks from Sydney Road greater than the 7 metre minimum set out in the ACZ1, and setbacks from adjoining residential properties greater than required under Standard B17 (side and rear setbacks) of Clause 55.

Are the Cash Street townhouses an acceptable neighbourhood character outcome?

The proposed townhouses facing Cash Street are located in the General Residential Zone Schedule 1, which allows development up to 3 storeys. Council’s MSS and Neighbourhood Character Policy (Clause 22.01) identify the General Residential Zone as an area of incremental change and place particular emphasis on ensuring the scale and siting of new development respects existing neighbourhood character. In particular, Clause 22.01 directs that in the General Residential Zone building height should not exceed two storeys unless it can be demonstrated that:

The prevailing height of surrounding buildings is three or more storeys, in which case the prevailing height should not be exceeded; or

The site is large enough to allow the off-site impacts of the development to be mitigated through the design response. In such cases, the building height at the interface with adjoining properties should be no more than two storeys.


The proposal complies with this policy. The prevailing height of the Cash Street streetscape is 1 to 2 storeys. In these cases, development up to 3 storeys may be appropriate provided the site is large enough to mitigate the impacts of the third level (e.g. the third level can be setback to appear as recessive). The mediated proposal reduces the number of townhouses fronting Cash Street from 5 to 4, with the southern-most townhouses deleted to provide for the pocket park. The remaining 4 townhouses have been modified to provide the uppermost level with a 1.6 metre setback from the ground and first floor below. This will provide a more recessive appearance, which is consistent with the above policy.

It should also be noted the subject site contains an existing commercial building with a height of 2.5-3 storeys, constructed to the Cash Street boundary at its northern end. This building will be demolished and replaced with the 3-storey townhouses, which will be setback from the street with small landscaped front setbacks. This will improve the appearance of the existing streetscape.

Does the proposal comply with the building separation requirements of Clause 22.07?

The proposal generally complies with the requirements of Clause 22.07, with the exception of setbacks to the northern boundary at the north-eastern corner of the apartment building.

The non-compliance occurs at the north-eastern corner of the mixed-use building where it is setback 5 metres from the northern boundary at all levels. The required setback for levels 1-4 is 6 metres for a main balcony outlook and at levels 5-7 it is 9 metres for a main balcony outlook.

All of the affected apartments are dual-aspect and the mediated proposal rearranges the majority of these apartments to provide a living room outlook to the east or west, in addition to their northern outlook. This ensures an acceptable outlook will be maintained even if the neighbouring site to the north is developed.

The 2 ground level apartments in this location do not have dual-aspect living rooms (although bedrooms face east or west) however, the overall amenity of these dwellings is considered to be acceptable, noting they are large 3-bedroom dwellings with more than 50m2 of ground level private open space each.

Daylight modelling for the apartments at the north-east corner of the building shows that they will continue to receive acceptable levels of daylight even if the neighbouring site to the north is developed to a similar extent.

Does the proposal result in any unreasonable impacts on neighbouring properties?

The advertised plans were not supported by Officers on a number of grounds relating to the impact on the adjoining residential properties fronting Rennie Street. This included concerns regarding the visual bulk of the mixed use building, overshadowing from Townhouse TH10, and the impact on the energy efficiency of the existing dwelling at 1 Cash Street. The increased setbacks between the south-eastern corner of the mixed used building and the deletion of townhouse TH10 have resolved these concerns.

The mediated proposal complies with Standard B17 (side and rear boundary setbacks) and Standard B21 (overshadowing) of Clause 55, which are included as development requirements in the ACZ1. Standard B22 (overlooking) of Clause 55 is also met, subject to conditions included in the recommendation.


Does the proposal provide an acceptable level of amenity for future residents?

Subject to conditions, the proposed development complies with the objectives of Clause 55 and Clause 58.

The advertised plans were not supported on the basis of non-compliances with Standard D19 (private open space) and Standard D27 (natural ventilation) of Clause 58. The mediated proposal complies with these standards.

Has adequate car and bicycle parking been provided?

Car parking

The mediated proposal requires a total of 246 car parking spaces to be provided. A total of 278 spaces are proposed, which is a surplus of 24 spaces. However, the allocation of spaces results in a shortfall of 13 spaces associated with the commercial uses. The surplus spaces are allocated as either additional parking for dwellings or as residential visitor parking, despite there being no planning requirement for visitor parking. The advertised plans proposed a similar parking provision and allocation.

The car parking reduction is supported on the basis that there is at least 1 car parking space provided for commercial premises that can be utilised for long-term parking for the business owner and also to facilitate small scale load and unloading. This is included as a condition in the recommendation.

Bicycle parking

The ACZ1 sets out increased bicycle parking rates that supersede those found at Clause 52.34.

The mediated proposal includes a total of 340 bicycle parking spaces, which exceeds the statutory bicycle requirement of 315 bicycles.

Strategic Transport and Compliance Branch have suggested a number of changes to the layout and style of bicycle parking spaces provided. The recommendation requires these changes via permit conditions.


In relation to traffic impacts, Council’s Strategic Transport and Compliance Branch assessed the advertised plans and considered that the development would result in 726 additional vehicle movements per day, comprising approximately 36 vehicle movements along Cash Street and 690 along Rennie Street (both local access streets). This remains within the design capacity of the streets and is not expected to cause traffic problems. The mediated proposal contains fewer dwellings and can be expected to result in less traffic.

Notwithstanding the above, the applicant has agreed to a permit condition requiring they make an application to Council to install a traffic calming measure (e.g. a flat top speed hump) in Cash Street in response to resident concerns about traffic volume and speed in Cash Street. The installation of any traffic calming measure would be installed at the cost of the owner. A condition to this effect is included in the recommendation. The application to construct the traffic calming measure would be subject to a consultation process to determine whether there is broader community support, and an engineering assessment to determine whether there is an appropriate location (e.g. clear of crossovers, drainage assets etc.).


What impact does the proposal have on cycling, bike paths and pedestrian safety, amenity and access in the surrounding area?

The mediated proposal provides an acceptable response to Council’s Local Planning Policy Clause 22.03 (Car and Bike Parking and Vehicle Access) as it:

• Utilises the laneway from Rennie Street for vehicle access to allow street frontages to prioritise pedestrian movement and safety and to create active frontages.

• Limits the number of vehicle crossings in Cash Street to one.

• Provides 340 bicycle spaces at a variety of locations throughout the development.

• Provides pedestrian access through the site, linking Cash Street, Rennie Street and Sydney Road.

Does the proposal achieve an acceptable landscaping response?

Standard D10 (Landscaping)

The mediated proposal increases the percentage of deep soil planting from 6% to approximately 11%, with the pocket park area achieving the 6 metre minimum dimension required by the standard.

While still below the 15% required to comply with the standard, it is considered that the deep soil planting of the mediated proposal achieves the related objectives of Clause 58.03-5, including:

To encourage development that respects the landscape character of the area.

To promote climate responsive landscape design and water management in developments that support thermal comfort and reduces the urban heat island effect.

The submitted landscape plans include the provision of planting above the basement and on rooftops, in addition to the deep soil areas. This is considered to be sufficient to satisfy the objective.

Furthermore, the additional deep soil areas included in the mediated proposal are provided in appropriate locations, including along the southern boundary to reduce the impact on existing vegetation and provide for screen tree planting, and within the communal open space on the northern side of the building, where shade from canopy trees will reduce the heat island effect consistent with the second of the Objectives listed above.

Does the proposal incorporate adequate ESD features?

The advertised plans were not supported by Officers on the basis that development did not achieve best practice ESD in accordance with Clause 22.08 of the Moreland Planning Scheme.

The mediated proposal includes an amended Sustainability Management Plan that is considered to be adequate and includes:

• A 30kW solar PV system.

• Modelling indicating that a 6.5 average NatHERS rating can be achieved.

• Reduced potable water use on site through rainwater harvesting.

• Provision of better than average natural cross ventilation to apartments and communal corridors.

• Improved IEQ through an emphasis on reduced screening and improved outlook.

• Electric Vehicle distribution boards installed at each basement level.


Further information is required to confirm the development achieves best practice, including detail regarding the stormwater response and additional energy modelling for apartments and commercial areas. The recommendation includes a condition requiring the submission of an amended Sustainability Management Plan that achieves best practice to Council’s satisfaction.

Is the proposal accessible to people with limited mobility?

All apartments will be visitable, and 10 out of 12 of the townhouses contain both a living area and toilet at ground floor level and can be considered visitable. Although Council’s MSS encourages all housing to be visitable, the proposal is considered to be a commendable effort given the townhouse typology, which commonly provides living spaces at the upper levels in a ‘reverse living’ arrangement that makes visitability difficult.

Standard D17 (Accessibility) of Clause 58 requires at least 50% of apartments to be accessible and meet certain design criteria, including clear paths of travel and adaptable bathrooms. The mediated proposal shows 141 out of 155 apartments to be accessible, or 91%. This significantly exceeds the standard.

The recommendation includes conditions requiring the submission of an updated Accessibility Report to confirm the details of the adaptable, accessible and visitable design features and to ensure these measures are implemented.

Is the site potentially contaminated?

The site is affected by an Environmental Audit Overlay. The applicant has submitted an environmental site assessment report detailing the extent of site contamination and confirming that the site would be appropriate for the intended uses subject to the completion of an Environmental Audit. A condition is therefore contained in the recommendation requiring an Environmental Audit to be undertaken before the development commences. This will ensure that the site is remediated to an appropriate standard to ensure the land is safe for the proposed uses.


The 5 objector parties have provided in-principal support for the mediated proposal. The objectors’ key concerns have been explored in section 4 of the report.





8. Conclusion

It is considered that the height above the preferred 18 metre maximum is consistent with the policy of the ACZ1, noting the following in particular:

• The additional height is appropriately sited away from the residential interfaces.

• From Sydney Road, level 6 will read as a recessive element while level 7 will generally not be visible.

• There will be a contribution to open space in the form of a pocket park.

• The pedestrian link (with 24 hour public access) provides a further public benefit.

• The mediated proposal is of a higher design quality than the approved development on the site.

Furthermore, the application substantially complies with the standards of Clause 55 and 58 and will not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts on neighbouring dwellings due to visual bulk, overlooking and overshadowing. The proposed setbacks to residentially zoned land are greater than those sought by the ACZ1.


On the balance of policies and controls within the Moreland Planning Scheme, it is considered that Council should inform VCAT that it consents to the issue of Planning Permit No MPS/2017/1029 for the development of the land for the purpose of an 8-storey building comprising shops, offices and apartments, and 2 and 3-storey townhouses; a reduction of the car parking requirement; and alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone, Category 1 (removal of crossovers), subject to the conditions included in the recommendation of this report.

Attachment/s

1⇩ Location Plan D18/380295 2⇩ Existing Endorsed Plans D18/380308 3⇩ Advertised Plans D18/380296 4⇩ Mediated Plans D18/380297 5⇩ Objector Map and Parties to the VCAT Compulsory Conference D18/380413

commencing 6.30 pm council chamber, moreland civic … · 10/24/2018 · e) location of other...

Documents