Download - Agenda of Council Meeting - 1 October 2018 · Web viewTo the north-west of the site is 1403 Dandenong Road), a large double storey brick apartment building containing 10 dwellings

Council MeetingNotice PaperMonday 1 October 2018 at 7pm

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

Vision

Stonnington will be an inclusive, healthy, creative, sustainable and smart community.

Council’s vision will be implemented through four key pillars:

Community: An inclusive City that enhances the health and wellbeing of all residents, where people can feel safe, socially connected and engaged.

Liveability: The most desirable place to live, work and visit. Environment: A cleaner, safer and better environment for current and future

generations to enjoy. Economy: A City that will grow its premier status as a vibrant, innovative and

creative business community.

These pillars reflect the shared priorities of our community and Council, and are consistent with our history and vision for a liveable future. For each pillar, there is a framework for our strategies, actions and measures which outline the key services and projects to be delivered to our community.

The Strategic Resource Plan sets out how Council will provide the resources needed to implement strategies and actions within the Council Plan.

Councillors

Cr Steven Stefanopoulos, MayorCr Glen AtwellCr Marcia GriffinCr Jami KlisarisCr John Chandler Cr Sally DavisCr Judy HindleCr Matthew KoceCr Melina Sehr

NOTESCouncil business is conducted in accordance with Part 4 Division 3 of the Meeting Procedure section of Council’s General Local Law 2018 (No 1). Some copies are available with the agenda or you can find a copy on Council’s website www.stonnington.vic.gov.au under local laws.

Councillors carry out the functions, powers, authorities and discretions vested with them under the Local Government Act 1989, and any other relevant legislation. Councillors impartially perform the Office of Councillor duties, in the best interests of the City of Stonnington residents to the best of their skills and judgement.

Councillors must formally declare their conflicts of interest in relation to any items listed on the agenda at the start of the meeting and immediately prior to the item being considered, in accordance with Sections 77 to 79 of the Act.

READING OF THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT

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

READING OF THE AFFIRMATION STATEMENT

We are reminded that as Councillors we are bound by our Oath of Office to undertake the duties of Councillor in the best interests of the people of the City of Stonnington and to faithfully and impartially carry out the functions, powers, authorities and discretions vested in us under the Local Government Act and any other relevant Act

Welcome

Welcome to a Stonnington City Council meeting. These meetings are an important way to ensure that your democratically elected Councillors work for you in a fair and transparent way.

About this meeting

The first page of tonight’s agenda shows the different parts to the meeting, some of these are administrative and are required by Stonnington’s Local Law.

In the agenda you will also find a list of all the items to be discussed under ‘General Business’. Each report is written by a council officer and outlines the purpose of the report, relevant information and a recommended decision for councillors.

Council will consider the report and either accept, reject or make amendments to the recommendation. Council decisions are adopted if they receive a majority vote from the Councillors present at this meeting.

Arrangements to ensure meetings are accessible to the public

Council meetings are held at the Malvern Town Hall, corner High Street and Glenferrie Road (entry via Glenferrie Road by the door closest to the Malvern Police Station).

The Malvern Town Hall has an entrance ramp and elevators to ensure that the Council Chamber is accessible to the public. Fully accessible toilet and bathroom facilities are also available.

If you require translation, interpreting services or a hearing loop set up, please contact Council’s civic support on 03 8290 1331 to make appropriate arrangements before the meeting.

To ensure that people in the chamber can follow the meetings’ proceedings, proposed alternate resolutions, also known as ‘yellows’, are displayed on a screen and microphones are used during debate.

Live webcasting

Council meetings are webcast live via Council’s website, allowing those interested to view proceedings without attending Council meetings.

This gives people who may otherwise be unable to attend access to Council decisions and debate. A recording of the meeting is available on our website after the meeting (usually within 48 hours).

Only Councillors and Council officers seated around the Council table are visible on film. People in the public gallery will not be filmed, but if you speak, you will be recorded. Visit stonnington.vic.gov.au for more information.

Members of the galleryIf you choose to attend a council meeting as a member of the public gallery, you should note the role of the Chairperson and your responsibilities under the City of Stonnington General Local Law 2018(1).

Extracts from the Local Law:

81. Gallery to be Silent

(1) Visitors must not interject or take part in the debate.(2) The gallery must be silent at all times during any Council Meeting.(3) The ring tones of mobile telephones and other devices must be turned off by people

in the gallery at all times.

88. Recording or Filming Proceedings

(1) A person must not operate an audio tape, mobile telephone or other recording or transmitting equipment or film ('a device') at any Council Meeting without first obtaining the consent of the Chairperson.

(2) Consent given under sub-clause (1) may be revoked by the Chairperson at any time during the course of a meeting.

(3) If a device is operated, or suspected of being operated, in contravention of sub-clause (1), the Chairperson may:(a) order the person operating, or suspected of operating, the device to produce

the device to the Chairperson; and(b) arrange for any matter that has been recorded on the device in contravention of

sub-clause (1) to be deleted, erased or otherwise removed from the device.(4) Subject to sub-clause (5), the Chairperson shall return any device that has been

produced to him or her pursuant to sub-clause (3) at the conclusion of the relevant Council Meeting.

(5) If the Chairperson has been unable to arrange for the matter that has been recorded on the device in contravention of sub-clause (1) to be deleted, erased or otherwise removed from the device, the device shall be returned to the person as soon as practicable after the deletion, erasure or removal has been carried out.

84. Removal from Chamber of a Councillor or Member of the Public

The Chairperson, or Council in the case of a suspension under clause 82, may ask any Authorised Officer or member of Victoria Police to remove from the meeting (including the gallery):(1) any person who the Chairperson has ordered to be removed under clause 82(3); or(2) any Councillor who has been suspended under clause 82 and who has not

immediately left the Council Meeting.

50. Questions to Council from Members of the Public

(1) Questions to Council from members of the public will be considered as part of the order of business of an Ordinary Meeting only when submitted in the format outlined below:(a) Questions must be in writing and lodged at the office of the Chief Executive

Officer by 12 noon on the day of the next scheduled Ordinary Meeting.(b) A limit of five (5) questions per questioner applies.(c) Questions must include the name and address of the questioner and the date of

the question. Questions by facsimile or email are acceptable.(2) Within four (4) working days of receiving a complying question to Council from a

member of the public, the Chief Executive Officer will dispatch a notice to the member of the public who submitted the question, advising that the question has been received.

(3) At a meeting at which a question is to be considered:(a) The Chairperson will acknowledge that a question or questions have been

received from a (named) person and ask if that questioner is in the gallery. (b) If the questioner is present in the gallery, a summary of the subject matter of the

question(s) will be read out by the Chairperson and the questioner advised that a written reply to the question(s) will be issued within 14 days of that meeting date.

(c) If the questioner is not in the gallery, Council will respond to the question(s) in accordance with any standard correspondence to Council.

(4) The Chairperson has the discretion to allow a question to be asked and/or answered at the meeting that is in variance with the procedure in this Local Law.

(5) The Chairperson may refuse to acknowledge a question if, in the opinion of the Chairperson, the question is, or is potentially, defamatory, indecent, offensive, abusive, objectionable in language or substance, irrelevant, trivial, aimed at embarrassing a Councillor or a member of Council staff, outside Council’s powers or functions, has been asked at a previous Council Meeting and a reply issued, or relates to matters that come under section 89(2) of the Act.

(6) Any question relating to electoral matter during an Election Period will not be considered at any Council Meeting.

(7) A copy of the questions and responses will be tabled and inserted into the minutes of the following Council Meeting.

47. Open Meetings

(1) Subject to sub-clause (2), Council Meetings must be open to members of the public pursuant to section 89(1) of the Act.

(2) Council may resolve, under section 89(2) of the Act, that a meeting be closed to members of the public if Confidential Business is to be discussed.

Your cooperation is appreciated, we hope you enjoy the meeting.

Mayor and Councillors, Stonnington City Council

Council MeetingNotice Paper

Monday 1 October 2018Order of Business and Index

a) Reading of the Reconciliation Statement and Affirmation Statementb) Introductionsc) Apologies d) Adoption and confirmation of minutes of previous meeting(s) in accordance with Section 93

of the Act and Clause 49 of General Local Law 2018 (No 1)1. MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 17 SEPTEMBER 2018...............................................

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

f) Questions to Council from Members of the Public (Clause 50 of General Local Law 2018 (No 1)

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

1. PLANNING APPLICATION 0292/18 - 2-4 CUMMINS GROVE, MALVERN VIC 3144 - DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DOUBLE STOREY DWELLINGS..................

2. PLANNING APPLICATION 1362/17- 118 BURKE ROAD, MALVERN EAST VIC 3145 – CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE STOREY APARTMENT BUILDING...........................................................

3. PLANNING APPLICATION 0302/13 - 1405 DANDENONG ROAD, MALVERN EAST VICTORIA 3145 – SECTION 72 AMENDMENT TO APPROVED APARTMENT BUILDING .................................................

4. PLANNING APPLICATION 0498/17 - 44-46 DUKE STREET, WINDSOR - CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING ON A LOT OF LESS THAN 300SQM IN A NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND REDUCTION TO THE CAR PARKING REQUIREMENT....................................................................

5. MOUNT STREET PRECINCT, PRAHRAN MASTERPLAN ....................................................................6. MALVERN TOWN HALL (EXTERIOR) - REMOVAL OF PAINT FROM BLUESTONE.................................7. MALVERN TOWN HALL & PRAHRAN TOWN HALL EXTERNAL COLOUR SCHEME..............................8. RISK MANAGEMENT & OHS REPORT FOR THE PERIOD 1 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 2018.......................9. MEETING DATES FOR 2019.......................................................................................................

n) Urgent Business

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

o) Confidential Business1. 2018 STONNINGTON FASHION HALL OF FAME INDUCTEE.............................................................2. CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS 2018-2020.......................................................................................3. POTENTIAL PROPERTY PURCHASE..............................................................................................4. PRAHRAN MARKET PTY LTD - APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR 2018 AGM - 2022 AGM, DIRECTORS

FEES 2018/19 AND STRATEGY PLAN PRESENTATION.................................................................

ADOPTION AND CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS

1 OCTOBER 2018

RECOMMENDATION

That the Council confirms the Minutes of the Council Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 17 September 2018 and Minutes of the Confidential Meeting of the Stonnington City Council held on 17 September 2018 as an accurate record of the proceedings.

GENERAL BUSINESS1 OCTOBER 2018

m) General Business

1. PLANNING APPLICATION 0292/18 - 2-4 CUMMINS GROVE, MALVERN VIC 3144 - DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING DWELLING AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DOUBLE STOREY DWELLINGS

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

PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of two dwellings in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone and Heritage Overlay.

Executive Summary

Applicant: SJB PlanningWard: EastZone: Neighbourhood Residential ZoneOverlay: Heritage OverlayNeighbourhood Precinct: Garden Suburban 1Date lodged: 20 March 2018Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

101

Trigger for referral to Council:

More than 7 objections

Cultural Heritage Plan NoNumber of objections: 8Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on 23 August 2018Officer Recommendation: Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Superdraft and are known as Project No. SD17-0546, Drawing No.s: TP-00 to TP-13 and Council date stamped 19 June 2018. A Landscape Plan prepared by John Patrick Landscape Architects and Council date stamped 6 June 2018 also accompanies the proposal.

Key features of the proposal are:

Demolition of the existing dwelling and outbuildings; Construction of two double storey dwellings in a side by side configuration, each with

four bedrooms; Provision of two car parking spaces for each dwelling within a basement level,

accessed via an existing crossover adjacent to the northern boundary; Pedestrian access is via individual entries located central to the frontage; Each dwelling is provided with ground level secluded private open space to the east in

addition to street facing balconies at first floor level; The proposed maximum building height is 8.8 metres;

Page 11


The building will be of contemporary design with a pitched, gabled roof form and material finishes including brick, stone and render;

A 1.5 metre high front fence constructed of rendered piers with metal picket infill.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the eastern side of Cummins Grove, approximately 36 metres south of the intersection with Wattletree Road. The site has the following significant characteristics:

A frontage to Cummins Grove of approximately 18.3 metres, a maximum depth of 37.1 metres, yielding an overall site area of 678 square metres.

The land is currently occupied by a single storey rendered brick dwelling with a tiled pitched roof setback approximately 7 metres from the street frontage and 1.4 metres from both side boundaries.

The dwelling was constructed in the mid-19th century and makes no apparent contribution to the heritage character of the street.

Vehicle access to the site is via two crossovers located at either end of the frontage, and car parking is provided in a single car garage adjacent to the southern side boundary.

The land is relatively flat with a slight fall of less than 300mm from front to rear (west to east).

Cummins Grove and surrounding streets are located within the Claremont Avenue Heritage Precinct (HO156). This area is of significance as a consistent and highly intact precinct of detached, modest Federation houses interspersed with some interwar dwellings. This description is apt within Cummins Grove which features predominantly Federation era housing on the western side of the street and interwar period housing on the eastern side of the street. The predominant scale of the street is single storey, with first floor additions typically setback well from front facades.

The site has the following direct interfaces:

To the north the site interfaces with three properties. 2A Cummins Road is a single storey semi-detached rendered brick dwelling with a driveway, garage and small portion of private open space adjacent to the subject site. East of this are two properties addressed to 228 and 228A Wattletree Road respectively. Each property is occupied by a semi-detached single storey dwelling with private open space at the rear adjacent to the subject site.

To the east at 230 Wattletree Road is a single storey dwelling with private open space adjacent to the subject site. The site has an approved planning permit allowing the construction of a four storey apartment building. Also to the east is a single storey dwelling addressed to 15 Gaynor Court, with secluded private open space adjacent to the subject site.

To the south at 6 Cummins Grove is a single storey semi-detached rendered brick dwelling with a driveway to the north adjacent to the common boundary. Private open space is located to the east at the rear.

Cummins Grove abuts the western side of the site. Directly across the road is a double storey rendered villa constructed c.1980.

Previous Planning Application(s)

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

Page 12


Planning Permit for 230-232 Wattletree Road, directly east of the subject site, was issued on 15 May 2017 at the direction of VCAT allowing the construction of a four storey apartment building containing 22 dwellings and two levels of basement, and including a reduction in the car parking requirement and creation or alteration of access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1. The permit is yet to be acted upon.

There is no permit history on the subject site.

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 6517 Folio 316 as Lot 3 on Plan of Subdivision LP015871.

A covenant contained in Instrument of Transfer 1822749 affects the land. The covenant restricts use of materials to be of brick, stone or concrete and that any building is to be used for residential purposes but not a church, dance hall, café or a place of amusement or entertainment.

It is considered that the proposal would not breach the intent of the restrictive covenant given:

The building will be used residential purposes; Proposed materials comprise substantially of limestone tiles and sandstone bricks.

The applicant has submitted independent legal advice supporting this view.

Planning Controls

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

ZoneClause 32.09 Neighbourhood Residential ZonePursuant to Clause 32.09-6 a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot. A development must meet the requirements of Clause 55.

Pursuant to Clause 32.09-4, a minimum garden area of 35% is required to be provided at ground level. The development provides a minimum garden area of approximately 45% in compliance with this mandatory requirement.

Pursuant to Clause 32.09-9, the maximum height of a building for use as a dwelling must not exceed the building height specified in a schedule to the zone. Schedule 2 to the Neighbourhood Residential Zone specifies that dwellings must not exceed a height of 9 metres unless the slope of the natural ground level at any cross section wider than 8 metres of the site of the building is 2.5 degrees or more, in which case the height of the building must not exceed 10 metres. This site allows for a maximum height of 9 metres and the development complies with this mandatory requirement.

Schedule 2 also specifies modified ResCode Standards as follows:

Standard RequirementSite coverage A5 and B8 Basements should not exceed 75% of the site area.

Page 13


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

Side and rear setbacks

A10 and B17 For a distance of at least 5 metres behind the front facade of the building fronting the street, setback new buildings (including basements) a minimum of 2 metres from at least one side boundary and at least 1 metre from the other side boundary up to 3.6 metres in height.

Where no setback is specified, standard A10 or B17 applies.

Walls on boundaries

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

OverlayClause 43.01 - Heritage OverlayPursuant to Clause 43.01-1 a permit is required for demolition and to construct a building or construct or carry out works.

Particular ProvisionsClause 52.06 - Car ParkingPursuant to Table 1 at Clause 52.06-5 two car parking spaces are required for each three or more bedroom dwelling, and at least one space is to be under cover. As the development proposes two dwellings each with four bedrooms, a total of 4 car parking spaces are required. There is no requirement for visitor car parking.

Each dwelling is provided with two car parking spaces within a basement level. Accordingly, the requirements of Clause 52.06-5 are satisfied and a permit is not required in this regard.

Relevant Planning Policies

Clause 16.01 - Residential DevelopmentClause 21.03 - VisionClause 21.05 - HousingClause 21.06 - Built Environment and HeritageClause 22.04 - Heritage PolicyClause 22.05 - Environmentally Sustainable DevelopmentClause 22.18 - Stormwater ManagementClause 22.23 - Neighbourhood Character PolicyClause 32.09 - Neighbourhood Residential ZoneClause 55 - Two or more dwellings on a lot (ResCode)Clause 65 - Decision Guidelines

Advertising

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

The site is located in East Ward and objections from 8 different properties have been received which can be summarised as follows:

double storey development is out of character with the heritage street;

Page 14


visual impact; loss of light; car parking; and impact of basement construction.

Subsequently, discussion plans were submitted to Council on 17 August 2018 on a without prejudice basis. The plans included the following changes:

Increased ground floor front setback from 7.6 metres to 7.8 metres (additional 0.2 metres), and increased first floor front setback from 9.6 metres to 12.8 metres (additional 3.2 metres);

Revised materials and finishes with darker tones provided to the ground floor and lighter tones to the first floor;

Deletion of first floor windows to Bedroom 3 on the south and north elevations in response to objector request;

Revised roof form to provide a hip in lieu of a gable at the rear in response to rear neighbour’s request;

UV solar glazing provided to first floor west facing windows; Deletion of cut-outs (side and roof openings) to street facing balcony shrouds; Vegetation provided to northern and eastern boundaries as requested by neighbours;

and Revised front fence design (to allow for pedestrian sight lines), basement height and

levels, and enlarged vehicle turntable to address traffic engineering concerns.

A Consultative Meeting was held on 23 August 2018. The meeting was attended by Councillor Davis, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. The discussion plans were considered at the meeting and the discussion did not result in any further changes to the plans.

Referrals

Heritage Advisor

The advertised plans were referred and the comments received are summarised as follows:

The building was constructed c.1950 which is after the period of significance of the Claremont Avenue Heritage Overlay Precinct, therefore it makes little contribution to the broader precinct and can be demolished on that basis subject to an appropriate replacement design.

The eastern side of Cummins Grove is almost uniformly characterised by semi-detached pairs of single storey interwar dwellings at identical setbacks from the street. In this context, appropriate infill would adopt identical setbacks, and a paired single storey form addressing the street, with any double-storey areas setback behind the front building volume.

The upper level should be setback deeper within the site to reduce the impact of this element in the Cummins Grove streetscape.

Although the wall to the first floor has been set back from the ground floor, the terrace element that frames this space is too high and contrasts with the front walls to most of the graded buildings to the south which are on a much lower plane. The measures that have been taken to reduce the visual bulk of the proposed scheme are inadequate.

Owing to these issues the proposal cannot be supported in its current form.

The following comments were provided in response to the discussion plans (summarised):

Page 15


The setbacks to the various building elements have been increased to a point where the overall massing of the proposed scheme is generally acceptable from a heritage perspective.

The setback to the ground floor elements now matches those of the adjoining semi-detached dwellings to the south, and the setback to the first floor volume has similarly been increased to reduce the visual bulk of this element when viewed from Cummins Grove.

However, the overall architectural expression has suffered in the process of amending the original scheme. Suggested amendments to the scheme include: Deletion of the framing element to the entrances that links both the ground floor

front rooms at the facade. These two rooms should be articulated as separate masses given the uniformity of built form to the south.

The recessed portion of the facade should be rendered in a darker, more recessive colour.

Side cut-outs to the roofs over front balconies should be reinstated. Implementing these recommendations would help ensure the proposed building is

more responsive to its heritage context.

Urban Designer

In the original proposal, the upper level presented a significant degree of visual bulk to the streetscape. It was suggested that the upper-level front setback be substantially increased.

The proposed upper level setbacks provided in the discussion plans are acceptable.

Transport and Parking

The proposal satisfies the parking requirement of the planning scheme, although the basement plan should specify the allocation of two spaces for each dwelling.

The dimensions of car parking spaces are acceptable. The turntable should be of adequate size to accommodate a B99 vehicle. The proposal will not significantly impact on traffic conditions in the area. The 3 metre width of the access ramp is sufficient, however ramp grades are required

to be further detailed. A height clearance of 2.2 metres is preferred at the access to the basement. Appropriate sight lines must be provided at the property boundary for pedestrian safety. The vehicle crossover should be designed and dimensioned in accordance with

Council policy.

Planner note: The discussion plans have addressed the size of the turntable and the ramp grades and lengths. The remaining issues are discussed in the below assessment.

Parks

The submitted landscape plan is suitable for approval. Tree protection fencing is required around the street tree during construction. A tree

protection bond is not required.

Infrastructure

Standard permit conditions are recommended to address drainage design and ensure the basement is not impacted by overland flows.

Page 16


KEY ISSUES

This assessment takes into account the changes shown on the discussion plans as outlined within the Advertising section of this report. The changes are to be required by way of conditions should a planning permit issue.

Strategic Context

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

Council's Strategic Framework defines the site as being within a "minimal change area" as it falls within a Heritage Overlay. Medium density development is accepted in the residential hinterland, provided it is in accordance with the requirements of the relevant overlay and other local planning policies.

The site is located within 40 metres of a tram route, and within walking distance of the Glenferrie Road Activity Centre, thus it is suitably located to support the modest increase in density proposed in line with these policy expectations.

Heritage

Demolition

The proposal includes full demolition of the existing dwelling and outbuildings on the site. Council’s Heritage Policy, at Clause 22.04-4.1, discourages demolition of contributory buildings unless it can be demonstrated that:

The demolition will not adversely affect the significance of the heritage precinct. The replacement development is sympathetic to the scale, setback and significance of

the heritage precinct.

Although all the dwellings along the east side of Cummins Grove, including the subject site, are identified as B graded buildings, the subject dwelling at 2 Cummins Grove is estimated to date from c.1960 in the heritage citation for this precinct. Council’s Heritage Advisor confirms that the building was in fact constructed during the 1950s, thus the B grading is likely to be an anomaly. As the Claremont Avenue Heritage Overlay Precinct is identified as being significant for its integrity to its c.1920s state, it is clear that the building makes little contribution to the broader precinct as it is not from the relevant period of significance. Council’s Heritage Advisor has confirmed that on that basis, the dwelling can therefore be demolished, subject to an appropriate design response for the replacement development.

Buildings and works

Council’s Heritage Policy, at Clause 22.04-4.5, seeks to ensure that new buildings:

Page 17


Are readily identifiable as new buildings while respecting and having minimal impact on the significance of the heritage place.

Retain vistas and viewlines to significant buildings. Ensure that new buildings complement adjacent significant or contributory places and

the prevailing character of the precinct. Discourage new built form in front of the primary building volume of significant or

contributory places.

The proposed development seeks to construct a semi-detached pair of double storey dwellings with two projecting elements separated by a recessed, central void. In principle, this design approach is generally consistent with the prevailing character of the eastern side of Cummins Grove, in which pairs of semi-detached dwellings are characteristic.

It must be noted that the boundary of the Heritage Overlay precinct on the eastern side of Cummins Grove begins at the subject site and the adjacent property to the north at 2A Cummins Grove is not affected by the overlay, so the subject site essentially forms a “book end” to the precinct. With this in mind, the basement access ramp has been appropriately located along the northern boundary to provide separation from the heritage buildings to the south.

The proposal as revised in the discussion plans adopts a ground floor front setback which is consistent with the dwellings to the south, which accords with policy objectives and ensures that viewlines to adjacent heritage buildings are not obscured at the gateway to Cummins Grove from Wattletree Road.

In heritage areas, it is important to acknowledge that the purpose of recessing the first floor behind the façade of new builds is to ensure that it does not dominate the streetscape with undue visual bulk. Conversely, a first floor extension to a retained heritage building would require a greater setback to ensure that the primary building volume is conserved, the integrity of the significant heritage fabric is not undermined, and that the heritage place remains the dominant visual element. Therefore, the first floor associated with a replacement building is generally not required to be setback the same distance as would be required for a first floor addition to an existing heritage building.

Council’s Heritage Advisor has confirmed that the first floor setback as proposed in the discussion plans is sufficient to adequately limit visual bulk in this streetscape.

The first floor is provided with a pitched roof form with street facing gables to complement the streetscape. Proposed materials are consistent with those present in the precinct and comply with the requirements of the covenant, and muted colours are employed to assist the building to blend in. To provide further visual recession to the central void, this area should be finished in a darker colour to the remainder of the façade, as recommended by the Heritage Advisor. This forms a permit condition, along with the other recommendations of the Heritage Advisor relating to deletion of the façade framing elements to the entrances to provide more prominence to the separate projecting rooms; and reinstatement of the “cut-outs” to the balconies, as depicted in the advertised plans, to lighten the visual weight of these structures.

Built Form

The provisions of the Neighbourhood Residential Zone require that the proposal for two dwellings be assessed against the objectives and standards of Clause 55 (ResCode) as well

Page 18


as the modified standards specified in Schedule 2 to the zone. A full assessment against the applicable 34 objectives and standards has been carried out and the development is generally compliant. The following relevant standards are highlighted and discussed:

Street Setback

The discussion plans provide a street setback of 7.8 to 8 metres, due to a slightly angled street frontage, which generally aligns with that of the adjoining dwelling to the south and adjacent properties beyond in the streetscape. This complies with Standard B6 which requires a street setback of 7.88 metres and meets the objective of respecting the existing neighbourhood character.

Building Height

The proposal has a maximum building height of 8.8 metres above natural ground level. This complies with the maximum 9 metre height limit permitted by the Neighbourhood Residential Zone, Schedule 2.

Site Coverage and Permeability

Schedule 2 of the zone states that a basement should not exceed 75% of a site’s area. The application complies with approximately 50% basement site coverage. It is noted that the site coverage of the building footprint is 51.46%, which is less than the 60% permitted by Standard B8.

The application proposes on site permeability of 27.66% in compliance with Standard B9, which requires a minimum of 20%.

Amenity Impacts

Side Boundary Setbacks

Page 19


The dwellings are setback from both side boundaries, with increased setbacks at first floor level. The following table demonstrates an assessment against the requirements of Standard B17:

Ground FloorLocation Wall height B17 Setback

requiredSetback proposed

Complies?

North-west corner 3.9 metres 1.09 metre 1 metre NoNorth-east corner 4.2 metres 1.18 metre 1 metre NoSouth-west corner 3.8 metres 1.06 metres 2 metres YesSouth-east corner 4 metres 1.12 metres 2 metres Yes

First FloorLocation Wall height B17 Setback

requiredSetback proposed

Complies?

North-west corner 6.7 metres 1.93 metres 2.2 metres YesNorth-east corner 6.5 metres 1.87 metres 2.2 metres YesSouth-west corner 6.5 metres 1.87 metres 3.195 metres YesSouth-east corner 6.7 metres 1.93 3.195 metres Yes

As depicted above, all first floor setbacks exceed the requirements of the standard. However a variation is sought at ground floor on the northern elevation. The variation ranges from 90mm at the front of the building to 180mm at the rear of the building.

The minor variations are considered acceptable given they are at ground floor level and will not pose unreasonable visual bulk to adjacent properties. Also, as the variations are proposed to the northern elevation, they will not increase any overshadowing impacts on neighbouring land. Therefore any amenity impacts will be limited.

The proposal complies with the varied requirements sought in Schedule 2 to the zone, by ensuring that side setbacks of 1 metre and 2 metres respectively are provided for a distance of 5 metres behind the front façade.

North facing windows

There are two neighbouring north facing habitable room windows at 6 Cummins Grove facing the subject site. Based on a maximum wall height of 6.7 metres, a setback of 2.86 metres is required. The development exceeds this requirement with a first floor setback of 3.195 metres.

Overshadowing

The overshadowing diagrams show that the proposal will not result in any additional overshadowing of the primary area of private open space at the rear of 6 Cummins Grove. Between the hours of 9am and 3pm on the 22nd September (the equinox) the shadow cast by the building will be predominantly contained within the shadow of the existing fence on the common boundary.

Overlooking

All ground floor windows will be appropriately screened by boundary fencing and all first floor windows on the side and rear elevations show either obscure glazing or sill heights to 1.7 metres above floor level. The development therefore offers no unreasonable overlooking opportunities and complies with Standard B22.

Page 20


The first floor balconies at the front of the building are shown to have enclosed sides and roofing on the discussion plans. However, as outlined above in the heritage assessment, a permit condition is requiring them to be provided with cut-outs to either side. As this may result in potential overlooking of the neighbouring private open space to north, as well as between balconies within the development, it is recommended that the cut-outs be located at least 1.7 metres above finished floor level.

Landscaping

The layout of the development will allow adequate opportunities for sufficient landscaping throughout the site. The submitted landscape plan includes provision for three canopy trees within the front setback which is consistent with the character of the streetscape and will assist to soften the built form presentation to the street. Additional vegetation is proposed throughout the site and Council’s arborist has confirmed that the proposed landscape design is an appropriate response in this context.

The development will not unreasonably impact on any neighbouring trees. Tree protection fencing is required for the street tree and will form a permit condition.

Internal Amenity

Each dwelling is provided with individual entries defined by separate pathways from the street.

The dwellings will each receive good access to daylight via windows facing outdoor spaces clear to the sky, and solar access is provided to seclude private open spaces which have a north-easterly aspect and convenient access from a living room.

Private open space areas are sufficient and include rear courtyards of 52 square metres and 60 square metres respectively. These are supplemented by small street facing balconies.

Generous storage facilities including bin storage are provided within the basement level.

Car Parking and Traffic

The proposal satisfies the car parking requirement under Clause 52.06 with two car spaces provided for each dwelling. In line with Council’s Traffic Engineer’s comments, the allocation of parking will be required to be shown via permit condition.

The height clearance of 2.1 metres provided at the entrance to the basement and the maximum ramp grade of 1:4 meet the applicable Design Standards of Clause 52.06 and are therefore acceptable.

Pedestrian sight triangles have been provided to both sides of the accessway and are considered adequate, particularly given all vehicles will be exiting the site in a forwards direction and front fencing is visually permeable. A permit condition will require the corner splays to be fully dimensioned and annotated to ensure visual obstructions such as landscaping are limited.

Environmentally Sustainable Development (ESD)

A Sustainable Design Assessment (SDA) was submitted with the application.

Page 21


The proposed development seeks to incorporate several ESD initiatives to ensure the development achieves a BESS score of 57%, which is considered to meet best practice and is satisfactory. The plans are required to be annotated to clearly show the proposed ESD initiatives.

A Water Sensitive Urban Design Response was also submitted with the application. The report includes a STORM Rating Report showing a STORM rating of 102% which is achieved by the provision of a 4000 litre rainwater tank located underground beneath the basement and connected to all toilets. This meets the requirements of Clause 22.18.

Human Rights Consideration

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

CONCLUSION

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

The proposed development is consistent with the objectives of State and Local Planning Policy.

Subject to permit conditions, the development is sympathetic to the heritage character of the precinct and will not undermine the significance of adjacent buildings within the streetscape.

The proposed development meets the objectives of ResCode and will not result in unreasonable amenity impacts.

Adequate car parking is provided in accordance with the Stonnington Planning Scheme and the development will not result in unreasonable traffic and parking impacts.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PA - 292-18 - 2-4 Cummins Grove Malvern - Attachment 1 of 1 Plans

Page 22


RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 292/18 for the land located at 2-4 Cummins Grove, Malvern be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of two dwellings in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone and Heritage Overlay subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development, 1 copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the advertised plans dated June 2018 and prepared by Superdraft, but modified to show:

a) All plans amended in accordance with the discussion plans, TP04 to TP08 Revision 1 submitted to Council on 17 August 2018 and including, but not limited to, increased ground and first floor street setbacks, deletion of bedroom 3 windows to first floor, revised materials/colours, hipped roof form at rear, UV solar glazing to west facing windows, additional vegetation to north and east boundaries, revised front fence design, changes to basement height and levels, and enlarged vehicle turntable, and further modified in accordance with the following requirements of Condition 1.

b) Deletion of the framing element to the entrances that links both the ground floor front rooms at the façade, to ensure the projecting rooms are articulated as separate masses.

c) Cut-outs/openings provided to the balcony shrouds, with a minimum height of 1.7 metres above finished floor level and a maximum transparency of 25 per cent.

d) The recessed portion of the façade to both ground and first floors to be finished in a darker, more recessive colour.

e) A materials and colours schedule in accordance with Condition 3.f) Provision of pedestrian access doors to all rooms within the basement.g) The landscape plan updated to reflect the changes to the front setback.h) Allocation of two car spaces for each dwelling clearly shown on the

basement floor plan.i) Pedestrian sight triangles either side of the accessway to be fully

dimensioned and annotated to state that the corner splays will be at least 50 per cent clear of visual obstructions and landscaping must not exceed 900mm in height.

j) The crossover to be fully dimensioned on the ground floor plan.k) Notations to demonstrate compliance with proposed ESD initiatives as

detailed in the Sustainable Design Assessment.

2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason, without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Before the development starts, a schedule of construction materials, external finishes and colours to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority must be submitted and approved. When approved, the schedule will be endorsed and will form part of the permit.

Page 23


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

5. Before the development (including excavation and demolition) starts, a tree protection fence must be erected around the street tree to define a Tree Protection Zone. Fencing is to be compliant with Section 4 of AS4970.

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

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

8. All plant and equipment (including air-conditioning units) shall be located or screened so as to minimise visibility from any of the surrounding footpaths and from overhead views and shall be baffled so as to minimise the emission of unreasonable noise to the environment in accordance with Section 48A of the Environment Protection Act 1970 to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

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

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

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

12. Prior to occupation of the building, any existing vehicular crossing made redundant by the building and works hereby permitted must be broken out and re-instated as standard footpath and kerb and channel at the permit holders cost to the approval and satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

Page 24


13. Prior to a building permit being issued, a report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in accordance with all ‘recommendations’ and requirements contained in that report. All drainage must be by means of a gravity based system. As required by the Building Regulations, the relevant building surveyor must check and approve the drainage design and ensure that protection of the building is provided from a 1 in 100 A.R.I. event.

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTES:

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

II. Nothing in this permit hereby issued shall be construed to allow the removal of, damage to or pruning of a significant tree (including the roots) without the further written approval of Council.

“Significant tree” means a tree:

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

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

iii. listed on the Significant Tree Register.

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

III. Nothing in the permit hereby issued may be construed to allow the removal of, damage to or pruning of any street tree without the further written consent of

Page 25


the Stonnington City Council. Contact the Council Arborists on 8290 1333 for further information.

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

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

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

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

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

Page 26


2. PLANNING APPLICATION 1362/17- 118 BURKE ROAD, MALVERN EAST VIC 3145 – CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE STOREY APARTMENT BUILDING


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for the construction of a multi-dwelling development in a General Residential Zone at 118 Burke Road Malvern East.

Executive Summary

Applicant: C.Kairouz ArchitectsWard: EastZone: General Residential Zone – Clause 32.08 - Schedule 7 -

Residential Boulevards & CorridorsOverlay: N/ANeighbourhood Precinct: Garden Suburban 4Date lodged: 27 December 2017Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

109


Application of interest to Council due to VCAT history

Number of objections: SixConsultative Meeting: Yes – held on 31 July 2018Officer Recommendation: Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by C. Kairouz Architects and are known as Drawing Nos. A01 – A25 (inclusive) dated 12 April 2018 (and Council date stamped 13 April 2018).


Construction of a three storey building above a basement carpark containing 8 three-bedroom dwellings.

Vehicle access is provided from Reed Lane to a basement containing 18 car spaces, bicycle spaces (9 spaces), storage areas (9 independent units), and three water tanks of various sizes.

At ground floor level, three large apartments are provided. The ground level, as with the first floor level, is staggered such that its northern portion is setback 6m from Burke Road and its southern portion is setback 7m. In other areas of the site, the development is generally setback from the property boundary. One exception to this exists where the development abuts the common southern boundary for Apartment 3.

Common ground floor entry is provided by Davies Street, broadly centralised along this frontage.

The first floor contains a further three large apartments. The first floor is setback either 5.45m or 6.5m from the front (western) boundary, meaning the first floor cantilevers above the ground floor. The glass line is setback a further 2m (approximately).

Page 27


The first floor adopts a very similar footprint to the ground floor below. This is with the exception of the northeastern portion of the building that has setbacks applied.

The second floor provides two large apartments. This level is generally provided at a greater setback to all boundaries. From the front, the second floor is setback at least 4.5m behind the level below.

The elevations are constructed with a mix of rendered concrete (venetian colour; lexicon white colour), black metal (upper levels), and metal fins. The maximum height of the development is 10.5m.

The fencing around the site comprises a combination of rendered concrete (venetian colour) and metal fins. Planting is generally provided in front of the metal fins.

It is noted that a set of ‘discussion plans’ were lodged to respond to concerns raised by Council and objector parties at the consultative meeting. These are prepared by C.Kairouz Architects and are known as A09, A10, A11, A13, A14 rev. 1, A14 rev. 1, A24, A25, TP03 (renders of the building). These are all Council date stamped 14 August 2018. These plans make the following changes from the formal plans advertised with the application:

a. Revised front fence materiality as follows: Brick Clinker (Dark) to replace the Black render. River Limestone – Veincut matt tile (or similar limestone look render finish) to

replace the Venetian render.b. Revised first façade design to include the following changes:

River Limestone – Veincut matt tile (or similar limestone look render finish) to replace the Venetian render.

Reduction in window sizes and incorporation of additional solid (inset) spandrel glazing sections.

Inclusion of thicker residential style window mullions in black frame. Reduction in the first floor parapet by 600mm to assist in reducing the scale and

bulk of the first floor podium, this has been further softened with the inclusion of a second floor planter (ref Item e).

c. Revised ground floor façade design to include the following changes as a response to the changes outlined in item b): River Limestone – Veincut matt tile (or similar limestone look render finish) to

replace the Venetian render. Reduction in window sizes and incorporation of additional solid (inset) spandrel

glazing sections. Inclusion of thicker residential style window mullions in black frame.

d. Apartment 8 south east balcony corner to be screen up to 1.7m @ Max 25% transparency to prevent overlooking.

e. Inclusion of a planter on the second floor balcony on the corner of Burke Rd and Davies St to assist in softening the amended first floor façade (as noted is Item b).

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the eastern side of Burke Road, Malvern East. The site has the following significant characteristics:

A land area of 1028m2. The site is currently vacant A frontage of 21.5m to Burke Road and a frontage of 47m to Davies Street Reed Lane adjoins the site to the east. The site has very little change in topography.

Adjoining the site to the south is 116 Burke Road Malvern East. This comprises a Council-run childcare centre, contained within the original Edwardian building erected on the site.

Page 28


Further south is the recently-constructed apartment building of 114 Burke Road Malvern East.

Across Reed Lane to the east is the single storey Edwardian dwelling of 2 Davies Street. This dwelling has two habitable openings within its western elevation.

To the north, beyond Davies Street, is small Neighbourhood Activity Centre that runs beyond Wattletree Road to the northwest.


A search of Council records indicates the following relevant planning applications

Planning Permit application 146/16, which sought the construction of a three storey apartment building, was refused at VCAT on 20 April 2017. This decision is critical to the assessment of the current proposal. This decision is discussed in greater detail later in this report.

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 03458 Folio 538 and no covenants or easements affect the land.

Planning Controls


ZoneClause 32.08 – General Residential ZonePursuant to Clause 32.08-6 a permit is required to construct two or more dwellings on a lot.

Particular ProvisionsClause 52.06 – Car ParkingPursuant to Clause 52.06-2, a permit may be granted to reduce the number of spaces required by the Scheme. The proposal for 8 three-bedroom dwellings generates a requirement for 16 car spaces. Given 18 car spaces are provided, a permit is not triggered pursuant to this Clause.


Clause 21.05 Housing Clause 21.06 Built Environment and HeritageClause 22.05 Environmentally Sustainable DevelopmentClause 22.23 Neighbourhood Character PolicyClause 55 Two or More Dwellings on a Lot and Residential BuildingsClause 65 Decision Guidelines

Advertising

Page 29


The application has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land (and by placing 3 sign(s) on the site). The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

The site is located in East Ward and objections from six different properties have been received. These can be summarized as follows: The proposal is not a suitable response to the character of the neighbourhood in terms

of forms, materials, colours. The proposal looks like a commercial building. Overlooking (despite being outside the 9m view cone) The applicant proposes to build on the splay in the northwestern corner which land has

vested in Council as a public highway. The waste bins should not be stored in the basement car park where they will need to

be wheeled up the ramp and then along the bluestone lane to be put out on Davies Street. This will be noisy and unsightly.

Air conditioning units have not been shown. In the event that a Permit be issued, the building should not be amended and the

project architect retained. Any meaningful change must be readvertised.

A Consultative Meeting was held on 31 July 2018. The meeting was attended by Councillors Atwell and Davis, representatives of the applicant, objectors and a Council planning officer. The meeting resulted in the changes as detailed within the ‘discussion plans’.

Referrals

Urban Design The proposal, which is a response to the previous VCAT refusal, is acceptable (as per

referral comments dated 10 May 2018). The proposal represented within the ‘discussion plans’ is a further refinement.

Transport The proposed parking provision can be accepted. The overall development is not likely to significantly impact Reed Lane including the

inclusion of one extra space in the amended design. The width of the basement ramp; vehicular access from the lane; sight triangles;

parking space dimensions are acceptable. The basement headroom; B99 vehicular access to spaces 8 and 9; column

dimensions; sightlines for car spaces 7, 8 and 9; door openings into basement for service cupboards; basement ramp grades; gradients within parking level; bicycle space dimensions / type are unsatisfactory or require further clarification.

Parks The location of a new wall along a small section of the southern boundary could

compromise existing mature vegetation within the Central Park Childcare Centre. This has not been addressed in the submitted tree report. Furthermore, the construction process to erect this wall could also impact on the activities which occur within the centre.

Tree Management Plan to be conditioned which ensures mature vegetation within the childcare centre is not impacted by the construction works.

Standard street tree protection conditions to be included on the permit. When considering the increased built form within this site and its close proximity to the

childcare centre, large evergreen trees would be preferred as screening elements along the southern boundary instead of the proposed deciduous species.

Page 30


If only 2 feature trees are to be included along the Burke Road frontage, then they both need to be vigorous growing species in Melbourne’s climate. Jacaranda mimosifolia does not fit in this category.

Environmentally Sensitive DesignAs per the referral response dated 20 June 2018, outstanding matters within the ESD report/plans are as follows: The Sustainable Design Assessment provides a commitment to a Building User Guide

which is a good outcome. However, this credit does not appear to have been selected in the BESS tool.

The BESS report proposes use of a Carbon Monoxide monitor for car parking ventilation. This must be confirmed on car park plans.

There is a discrepancy between the BESS report and the SDA in terms of the average apartment NatHERS rating. The BESS report states this is 7.1, whilst the SDA provides a value of 6.9. This aspect to be corrected as appropriate.

Apartment energy ratings are based on double glazing assumptions and these must be reflected on architectural materials schedules.

Fixed clothes lines have not been proposed to units which would provide energy efficient options for residents

The applicant has proposed a combination of user operable and fixed shading to exposed windows on the northern, western and eastern facades. This is a good outcome. However, further information is required on elevations and materials schedules to detail the type of user operable shading proposed.

A number of units propose internal studies (Apartments 3, 7 and 8). Whilst these are not ordinarily supported, it is believed that each apartment provides sufficient space and daylight amenity to all other habitable areas for this not to be an issue. Internal windows are also proposed to these spaces to improve the daylight outcome.

Natural daylight is proposed to the lift lobby and stairwell which is a good outcome. It is recommended that the small fixed windows at the top level be changed to operable to provide night purging opportunities given the extent of unshaded north facing glazing proposed.

An annotation appears against the west facing balcony on Apartment 5 which states ‘cover canopy over 1st floor east facing terraces’. It is unclear what is meant by this when applied to a west facing terrace.

Roof plans must be annotated to confirm drainage areas (as per SDA) to be connected to the rainwater tank

Rainwater tanks to be annotated to confirm connection to all internal toilets as per the SDA

The ‘waste’ room in the basement to be annotated to confirm co-location of recycling facilities as per BESS tool requirements.

WasteIssues with the Waste Management Plan and/or the plans requiring addressing are: The Waste Management Plan’s allocation of garbage bins is in excess of the

Stonnington standard allocation of 120 litres per household per week and would result in one tenement having an elevated garbage charge.

To maintain all tenements with the ‘Minimum Garbage Charge’, an overall residential garbage storage capacity of no more than 120 litres per household per week must be achieved. Note: By utilising the previously calculated standard bin allocation, the residential tenements can also avail Council’s ‘Shared Garbage Bin Discount’.

Section 3.4 cites the City of Stonnington as offering one booked hard waste collection per financial year. This is inaccurate. The City of Stonnington provides two ‘blanket’ style hard waste collections per year, one in Autumn and the other in Spring.

Page 31


Any details of Council services included in the Waste Management Plan must be accurate.

Infrastructure There will be significant additional stormwater runoff generated by the development

and there are known drainage problems and flooding downstream of the property. The applicant must at their cost provide a stormwater detention system to restrict runoff from the development to no greater than the existing runoff based on a 1 in 10 A.R.I. to the satisfaction of Council’s Infrastructure Unit. Alternatively, in lieu of the stand alone detention system, the owner may provide stormwater tanks that are in total 3,500 litres greater than those tanks required to satisfy WSUD requirements for the development. Those tanks must be connected to all toilets.

Prior to a Building Permit being issued, a report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in accordance with all ‘recommendations’ contained in that report.

Prior to an ‘Occupancy Permit’ being issued, a suitably qualified Engineer must carry out a detailed inspection of the completed stormwater drainage system and associated works including all water storage tanks and detention to ensure that all works has been constructed in strict accordance with the Engineer’s design and the relevant planning permit conditions.

The existing levels of the rear right-of-way must not be lowered or altered in any way (to facilitate the basement ramp).

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

Previous VCAT decision – Ellis Road Investments Pty Ltd v Stonnington CC [2017] VCAT 516

As noted above, the previous VCAT decision forms an important assessment tool for this application. The previously refused VCAT plans are appended to this report. Key issues highlighted in the VCAT Order were:

26. I consider that the proposal represents a generally poor response to the preferred character statement for this area, in that it does not offer either innovative or contemporary design responses. Perhaps more significantly, it does not complement the key aspects of building form, scale or design detail of the older dwellings in the precinct.

27. I find that there are two key deficiencies with the proposal in neighbourhood character terms. The first is that the design and layout is too reliant on key elements of character that are either downplayed in the current setting or are sought to be avoided by relevant policy. On the other hand, it neglects to incorporate key valued elements of character as the basis for its design. This proposal cannot rely on the policy ‘boost’ that may otherwise accrue from a contemporary response to neighbourhood character.

32. ….I have serious reservations about the ‘blocked’ response of projecting columns and solid, wide balconies along the front façade that wrap around the full extent of the Burke Road frontage and across the Davies Street corner. Contextually, this building massing and treatment does not reflect the rhythm and

Page 32


differentiation within the streetscape to its north which is an important aspect of built form in this neighbourhood centre.

35. The second deficiency (and potentially the most concerning) is that the building, as it turns the corner into Davies Street and moves along Reed Lane, does not pay sufficient deference to the reduced scale of buildings in that street in terms of its massing, footprint, articulation or external presentation.

39. In my opinion, this neglects to look at the underlying massing and scale of the building as it turns the corner to Davies Street. I find the composition of this façade, supplemented by its heavy styling and design detailing to be problematic in its setting.

40. In this case, the design and styling adopted has resulted in the scale and massing of the building with a strongly defined, tall and generally consistent double storey base with a recessed upper level along a virtually singular alignment. These features are very much contrasted with the existing and preferred character of this residential street.

41. While the standard of ResCode for side setbacks may be met in the case of the Davies Street façade, I find this more limited setback should be confined to the corner with Burke Road. Beyond this, in my opinion, an appropriate character response would entail larger, genuinely staggered setbacks for a building of a singular form at a height of three storeys, to transition to the prevailing setback of residential properties to the east.

In terms of fencing, the Tribunal stated:

50. My strong preference would have been to convert the supplementary secluded private open space within the Davies Street apartment frontages to more conventional open landscaped front gardens (bearing in mind that there are generous secluded primary areas of open space for these apartments elsewhere on the land). This should be accompanied by lower front fencing that is genuinely visually transparent, with bolstered plantings within the space to better reflect that in front gardens of Davies Street residential properties.

Notably, no issue was raised regarding off-site amenity impact nor traffic within the ROW.

KEY ISSUES

In assessing the current proposal, it is necessary to consider the following key questions:

Is there policy justification for the proposal? Would the proposal provide a reasonable response to the existing and preferred

character of the area, including landscaping? Will the proposal cause unreasonable off-site amenity impacts? Does the proposal offer future occupants an adequate level of internal amenity? Are the parking and traffic impacts within reasonable limits?

The previous VCAT decision will be referred to as part of this assessment where applicable.

Is there policy justification for the proposal?

Page 33


The site is located within a General Residential Zone, with a mandatory maximum building height of 10.5m. It is also located within an Incremental Change Area, which anticipates ‘multi-unit development (2-3 storeys) to lots capable of accommodating increased density’.

The proposal for a three storey apartment building is in accordance with these expectations. The Tribunal in its previous decision acknowledged this stating:

3. There is a reasonable expectation that the subject land will be redeveloped in the short term future. In balancing all relevant matters in this proceeding, I find that there is support for a residential proposal of this general intensity in this location.

Would the proposal provide a reasonable response to the existing and preferred character of the area?

This is the key question relating to the acceptability of this proposal, and formed the central reason why the previous application was refused by VCAT.

The following summarised reasons set out why the previous proposal was considered to be unacceptable:- The proposal does not offer an innovative or contemporary response;- It does not compliment the key aspects of building form, scale or design detail of the

older dwellings in the precinct. - The building, as it turns the corner into Davies Street and moves along to Reed

Lane, does not pay sufficient deference to the reduced scale of buildings in that street in terms of its massing, footprint, articulation or external presentation.

- The composition of its Davies Street façade, supplemented by its heavy styling and design detailing, is problematic in its setting.

- The design and styling adopted has resulted in the scale and massing of the building with a strongly defined, tall and generally consistent double storey base with a recessed upper level along a virtually singular alignment. These features are at odds the existing and preferred character of this residential street.

- An appropriate character response would entail larger, genuinely staggered setbacks for a building of a singular form at a height of three storeys, to transition to the prevailing setback of residential properties to the east.

The current application proposes a vastly different external expression to that which was refused. The proposal now incorporates a highly contemporary design that has been broken down into a variety of modulated forms across both its Burke Road and Davies Street frontage – particularly the latter. As an example, the previously refused first floor layout can be compared with the current proposed first floor in Figure 1.

Page 34


Figure 1: refused first floor plan (top) compared with current advertised plan (bottom)

It is noted that following the Consultative Meeting, further modifications were made to the development. Chiefly, this modified the main colour of the building from a ‘venetian’ render (pale colour) to a ‘river limestone’ colour (grey/brown colour). Also, modifications were made to the two level base of the building as it turns into Davies Street to reduce the vertical mullions, giving a more domestic appearance to the building. These are best described in the montages that form part of the discussion plans.

The Tribunal commented that an appropriate character response to Davies Street would entail larger, genuinely staggered setbacks to transition to the prevailing setback of residential properties to the east.

The proposal is considered to respond appropriately to these requirements. As seen in Figure 1, the proposal ‘staggers back’ to the 6-8m front setback that exists at 2 Davies Street. Even though recessed behind the first floor level, the top (second floor) level provides a similarly staggered recession. Moreover, the northern and eastern terrace to Apartment 8 is treated with vertical metal balustrade which serves to lighten the northeastern corner of the building. This is best demonstrated in the render provided at plan A13.

In terms of front fencing to both Burke Road and Davies Street, the proposal seeks a combination of both tall rendered walls as we as vertical black open metal fins. This fencing is setback from both boundaries, where low-level landscaping intervenes.

Page 35


In principle, this is considered to provide a positive balance between providing a reasonable level of privacy to north-facing secluded private open space (SPOS) as well as creating the sense of openness that was identified as an important character within Davies Street. This proposal is contrasted to the previously refused 1.9m - 2.1m solid fence at a zero street setback.

The discussion plans make further changes to the proposed fencing by replacing the black low render walls with dark bricks, as well as replacing the venetian render with river limestone colour. These are considered to further enhance the appearance of the front fencing.

The height of the solid fencing component varies between 1.6m (scaled) to upward of 2.2m – due to both topography as well as design. Notably, the taller fence heights exist at the eastern end of the Davies Street frontage, which runs contrary to the objective sought by the Tribunal to reduce the scale of any proposal as it transitions to the more typical residential properties. To provide reasonable levels of privacy, a 1.8m fence height is considered reasonable. As such, a condition will require that each section of masonry fence is no taller than 1.8m on average.

As a result of the changes brought about by the proposal, including those made as part of the discussion plans (and required by condition) it is considered that the proposal provides an appropriate response to the previous VCAT decision and the planning policies within the Stonington Planning Scheme. In response to the relevant objectives at Clause 22.23 (Garden Suburban 4), the following is noted:

Design objective ResponseAny upper levels should be designed to minimise impact on any adjoining residential property.

The proposed top level is significantly recessed behind the base of the building below. In addition, the upper levels of the building are well articulated to break down their mass.

New buildings should respond to the streetscape character in an innovative and contemporary manner.

Articulate the facades of buildings with the use of recesses, verandahs, balconies, window openings and variations in materials and colours.

The proposal is highly contemporary. All elevations are well articulated, with a variation of colours and materials. The colours and detailing within the discussion plans further improve the building such that it will sit comfortably within its immediate and wider surrounds.

Provide adequate space between and around buildings to accommodate vegetation.

Include planting around the perimeter of the site to strengthen the garden setting.

Setback basements from all property boundaries to allow for in-ground planting.

The proposal is setback from all its site boundaries. The landscape plan advertised with the application (dated April 2018) provides a reasonably strong response.

Provide either no front fence or a low, open style front fence.

As noted above, the proposal is considered to strike the right balance between providing an openness to the front gardens of the development and an element of privacy.

Page 36


Will the proposal cause unreasonable off-site amenity impacts?

Visual bulk

The proposal that was considered by the Tribunal was not found to be problematic in terms of residential amenity impact.

In terms of the interface to the south, the impact to the childcare centre as found to be acceptable given the views of the proposal were obscured by a shade sail that existed above the rear play area, as well as the opinion that a childcare centre is less sensitive than a dwelling.

Even so, the current proposal has reduced building bulk along this setback primarily by providing an increased setback at first floor level.

To the east, the previous proposal was found to be acceptable primarily due to the laneway separation coupled with the limited direct outlook toward the subject land. However, the Tribunal did provide the following comment:

70 … it would have been preferable to provide a lighter weight balustrade treatment (such as glazing) to the upper level balcony which extends along much of the rear of the building so that it is not viewed as a parapet extension to the levels below which are already in close alignment in terms of their footprint.

The current proposal has applied black metal balustrade to this northeastern balcony in accordance with the Tribunal’s comments. Apart from this, the proposed setbacks remain mostly unchanged to this interface in the current application. It is noted that these setbacks continue to strongly adhere to the requirements of Standard B17.

Overlooking

In terms of overlooking, all first floor south facing windows (toward the childcare centre) are screened to 1.7m. However, the second floor middle bedroom window of Apartment 8 should be screened to sufficiently deal with overlooking, as should the southern edge of the eastern deck to this apartment. It is however not considered necessary to screen the south-facing balconies at second floor level given they serve as secondary areas of secluded private open space and are not directly aligned with the rear open play area of the childcare centre.

In terms of overlooking to the east, all areas within the development are in excess of 9m from the west-facing habitable windows of no. 2 Davies Street as well as those areas of secluded private open space to the southeast. Notwithstanding, the discussion plans show the second floor southeastern balcony as screened to 1.7m in response to objections made at the Consultative Meeting. This change will be brought into effect by condition.

Does the proposal offer future occupants an adequate level of internal amenity?

The proposed apartments all have high levels of internal amenity. Each dwelling is large, and has its living areas at its corners to maximum light entry. Each dwelling also has ample storage within the basement.

Page 37


Are the parking and traffic impacts within reasonable limits?

As established in the previous VCAT decision, the use of the laneway for car parking access is considered to be acceptable. As per the comments from Council’s Transport Department, there are some matters of detail that remain outstanding including the basement headroom; B99 vehicular access to spaces 8 and 9; column dimensions; sightlines for car spaces 7, 8 and 9; door openings into basement for service cupboards; basement ramp grades; gradients within parking level; and bicycle space dimensions / type.

The majority of these issues will require clarification/correction via conditions. However, it is not considered necessary to require further modification to the car spaces of 7, 8 and 9 to deal with sightlines given the layout is not unusual and the likelihood of conflict is very low. The inward opening of the service cupboard will also not be required given this is not achievable nor is it necessary in the context of an infrequently utilised cupboard.

Other matters:

Tree impact to south

Council’s Arborist has identified the potential impact to the tree within the childcare centre directly adjacent to the on-boundary wall comprising the master bedroom to Apartment 3. This is a valid observation, particularly given the previous VCAT decision did not contemplate an on-boundary wall in this location.

Given this wall may be within both the SRZ and/or greater than 10% of the TPZ of this adjacent tree (which is that required by Australian Standards), a condition will require an Arborist Report that considers its impact. Should this Arborist Report not be able to confirm compliance with Australian Standards or justify via alternative means its acceptability, then this wall will need to be setback. The layout of this apartment could however easily deal with this change if necessary.

A condition will also require a tree bond to ensure the reasonable protection of the London Plane trees within Davies Street.

ESD issuesThe issues raised within the ESD referral are considered relatively minor and can be remedied via condition.

Objections

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

The applicant proposes to build on the splay in the northwestern corner which land has vested in Council as a public highway.

In terms of whether the implied easement is vested in Council and therefore cannot be constructed upon, this is not a planning issue. This is in line with the findings of the Tribunal in their decision. In planning terms, the proposal has provided a sightline in the northwestern corner of the property by setting back the fencing to this corner, which serves the practical purpose of any implied easement.

The waste bins should not be stored in the basement car park where they will need to be wheeled up the ramp and then along the bluestone lane to be put out on Davies Street. This will be noisy and unsightly.

Page 38


Whilst it would be preferable that bins are not wheeled from the basement to Davies Street via the laneway from a noise perspective, it is not desirable for urban design or landscaping reasons to accommodate bins at ground floor level with direct access to a street frontage. On balance, the noise created from bins being wheeled once per week (in each direction) is considered acceptable.

Air conditioning units have not been shown.

Air conditioning units are shown on the roof of the development.

In the event that a Permit be issued, the building should not be amended and the project architect retained. Any meaningful change must be readvertised.

Council cannot prevent any further amendments being lodged by the Applicant. Any amendment that is considered to result in material detriment would however require the giving of public notice. In terms of requiring the current architect to be retained for the course of the build, such a requirement would not be justified in the current circumstances.



CONCLUSION

Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported for the following reasons: The proposal (which includes the changes shown in the discussion plans) responds to

the criticisms of the previous VCAT Order, and produces a built form that assimilates well within its Burke Road and Davies Street contexts.

The proposal will not result in unreasonable amenity impacts.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PA - 1362/17 - 118 Burke Road Malvern East - Attachment 1 of 1 Plans

Page 39


RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 1362/17 for the land located at 118 Burke Road Malvern East be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for the construction of a multi-dwelling development in a General Residential Zone at 118 Burke Road Malvern East subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development, one electronic copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the plans will be endorsed and will then form part of this permit. The plans must be generally in accordance with the application plans Drawing Nos. A01 – A25 (inclusive) dated 12 April 2018 (and Council date stamped 13 April 2018) but modified to show:

a. The following changes as generally shown in the discussion plans A09, A10, A11, A13, A14 rev. 1, A14 rev. 1, A24, A25, TP03 (renders of the building) Council date stamped 14 August 2018:

i. Changes to the colour of the development, including the front fencing;

ii. Changes to the modulation of the façade as it presents to Davies Street.

iii. Reduction in the first floor parapet by 600mm to assist in reducing the scale and bulk of the first floor podium, further softened with the inclusion of a second floor planter.

iv. Apartment 8 south east balcony corner to be screen up to 1.7m @ Max 25% transparency.

b. Basement headroom; B99 vehicular access to spaces 8 and 9; column dimensions; basement ramp grades; gradients within parking level; and bicycle space dimensions / type, all in general accordance with Clause 52.06 or Australian Standards.

c. Screening to the second floor middle bedroom window of Apartment 8 with mechanisms contained within Standard B22 (must not be timber screens nor obscure film).

d. Detail of screening to the southern and eastern edges of the balcony serving Apartment 8, as required in condition 1(a)(iv) to ensure no greater than 25% transparency.

e. The front fencing to Davies Street lowered such that each masonry section is no taller than an average of 1.8m.

f. Any changes as required by condition 3 (Waste Management Plan), 4 (Sustainability Management Plan), 6 (landscape plan), 8 (Arborist Report), 9 (Tree Management Plan) and 16 (Stormwater Runoff).

2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

Page 40


3. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a Waste Management Plan must be approved by the Responsible Authority. The Waste Management Plan must be generally in accordance with the Waste Management Plan by Sustainable Development Consultants dated April 2018 but modified to show

a. An overall residential garbage storage capacity of no more than 120 litres per household per week.

b. Correction to Section 3.4 which incorrectly states the City of Stonnington as offering one booked hard waste collection per financial year. Stonnington has two ‘blanket’ style hard waste collections.

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

4. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans, a Sustainable Management Plan (SMP) must be approved by the Responsible Authority. Upon approval the SMP will be endorsed as part of the planning permit and the development must incorporate the sustainable design initiatives outlined in the SMP to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. The report must be generally in accordance with the plan prepared by Sustainable Design Consultants, date stamped 16 April 2018 but modified to respond to the ESD referral comments dated 20 June 2018.

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

5. Prior to the occupation of the development approved under this permit, a report from the author of the Sustainability Management Plan, 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 Sustainability Management Plan have been implemented in accordance with the approved plan.

6. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, a landscape plan to be prepared by a landscape architect or suitably qualified or experienced landscape designer, must be approved by the Responsible Authority. When approved, the landscape plan will be endorsed and will then form part of the permit. The landscape plan must be generally in accordance with the plan prepared by John Patrick Pty Ltd dated April 2018 but modified to show:

a. The proposed deciduous trees along the southern boundary to be replaced with large evergreen trees.

b. The 2 Jacaranda mimosifolia trees located along the Burke Road frontage to be replaced by a vigorous growing species in Melbourne’s climate. These are to maintain a medium/large canopy.

Page 41


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

8. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans, an Arborist Report must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The Arborist Report must detail the potential impact to the tree adjacent to the ground floor boundary wall of Apartment 3 as well as the two street trees within Davies Street. The Arborist Report must detail one of the following the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority:

a. The proposed works, including proposed fencing, not extending within the Structural Root Zone (SRZ) and no greater than 10% into the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ); or

b. A non-destructive root exploratory trench in the location of the proposed works to demonstrate no important root matter is to be disturbed.

In the event that neither of the above two requirements can be satisfied, the proposal must be modified to ensure one of the above two above requirements is satisfied.

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

The Tree Management Plan must detail measures to protect and ensure the viability of the tree within the adjacent property of 116 Burke Road as well as the two street trees along Davies Street.

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

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

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

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

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

Page 42


10. Prior to the commencement of any works on the land, each Tree Protection Zone nominated within the Tree Management Plan must:

a. be fenced with temporary fencing in accordance with the attached specifications annotated in this permit to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

b. include a notice on the fence to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority advising on the purpose of the Tree Protection Zone, the need to retain and maintain the temporary fencing and that fines will be imposed for removal or damage of the fencing and trees.

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

11. Prior to the commencement of any works at the site (including demolition and excavation whether or not a planning permit is required), the project arborist must advise the Responsible Authority in writing that the Tree Protection Fences have been installed to their satisfaction.

12. Prior to the endorsement of plans and prior to any development commencing on the site (including demolition and excavation whether or not a planning permit is required), the owner/ developer must enter into a Deed with the Responsible Authority and provide it with a bank guarantee of $8,111 per tree as security against a failure to protect the health of the two street trees within Davies Street. The applicant must meet all costs associated with drafting and execution of the Deed, including those incurred by the responsible authority. Once a period of 12 months has lapsed following the completion of all works at the site the Responsible Authority may discharge the bank guarantee upon the written request of the obligor. At that time, the Responsible Authority will inspect the trees and, provided they have not been detrimentally affected, the bank guarantee will be discharged.

13. Concurrent with the endorsement of plans or prior to the commencement of any works at the site (including demolition and excavation whether or not a planning permit is required), whichever occurs sooner, a letter of engagement must be provided to the Responsible Authority from the project arborist selected to oversee all relevant tree protection works. The project arborist must be an appropriately experienced and qualified professional (minimum Cert IV or equivalent in experience).

14. The project arborist must maintain a log book detailing all site visits. The log book must be made available to the Responsible Authority within 24 hours of any request.

15. Prior to the commencement of the development, fencing around the mature street trees is to be erected and maintained for the duration of the construction at the site. All fencing must be compliant with Section 4 of AS 4970.

Page 43


16. The applicant must at their cost provide a stormwater detention system to restrict runoff from the development to no greater than the existing runoff based on a 1 in 10 A.R.I. to the satisfaction of Council’s Infrastructure Unit. Alternatively, in lieu of the stand-alone detention system, the owner may provide stormwater collection tanks that are in total 3500 litres greater than those tanks required to satisfy WSUD requirements for the development. Those tanks must be connected to all toilets as well as used for irrigation.

17. Prior to an ‘Occupancy Permit’ being issued, a suitably qualified Engineer must carry out a detailed inspection of the completed stormwater drainage system and associated works including all water storage tanks and detention (if applicable) to ensure that all works has been constructed in strict accordance with the Engineer’s design and the relevant planning permit conditions. Certification of the completed drainage from the Engineer must be provided to Council prior to a ‘Statement of Compliance’ being issued for the subdivision.

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

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


21. Prior to occupation of the building or commencement of use, any existing vehicular crossing made redundant by the building and works hereby permitted must be broken out and re-instated as standard footpath and kerb and channel at the permit holders cost to the approval and satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

22. Prior to the development commencing a report for the legal point of discharge must be obtained from Council and a drainage design for the development must be prepared by a suitably qualified Engineer in compliance with Council's report prior to a building permit being issued. The drainage must be constructed in accordance with the Engineer's design.

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

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

Page 44


the Responsible Authority thereafter for the life of the building.

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

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

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

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

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

permit.


NOTES:

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

Nothing in this permit hereby issued shall be construed to allow the removal of, damage to or pruning of a significant tree (including the roots) without the further written approval of Council.“Significant tree” means a tree:a) with a trunk circumference of 180 centimetres or greater measured at its base;

or b) with a trunk circumference of 140 centimetres or greater measured at 1.5

metres above its base; orc) listed on the Significant Tree Register.Please contact the Council Arborists on 8290 1333 to ascertain if permission is required for tree removal or pruning or for further information and protection of trees during construction works.

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

Page 45


information

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

The permit holder / developer must advise Council in writing that a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued in respect to the development and that the 12 month establishment period has commenced.

Council has adopted a zero tolerance approach in respect to the failure to implement the vegetation related requirements of Planning Permits and endorsed documentation. Any failure to fully adhere to these requirements will be cause for prosecution. This is the first and only warning which will be issued.

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

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


Page 46


3. PLANNING APPLICATION 0302/13 - 1405 DANDENONG ROAD, MALVERN EAST VICTORIA 3145 – SECTION 72 AMENDMENT TO APPROVED APARTMENT BUILDING


PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for a Section 72 Amendment to allow for an increase in the height of the approved apartment building and changes to elevations including variations to the external materials.

Executive Summary

Applicant: John Henry ArchitectsWard: EastZone: Clause 32.07 – Residential Growth Zone – Schedule 1 (Key

Boulevards)Overlay: NilNeighbourhood Precinct: Garden Suburban 5Date lodged: 24 May 2018Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

44


Increase in wall heights of a building which is four storeys

Number of objections: 1Consultative Meeting: NoOfficer Recommendation: Issue a Notice of Decision to Grant an Amended Planning

Permit

BACKGROUND

Planning Permit 302/13 (the permit) was issued under delegation by Council on 4 June 2014 and allows for a multi-dwelling development, altered access to a road in a Road Zone Category 1 and a reduction in the standard car parking requirement at 1405 Dandenong Road, Malvern East (the site). More specifically the permit allows for the construction of an apartment building containing 10 dwellings (8 x two bedroom and 2 x three bedroom), over a basement containing 14 car parking spaces.

Plans were first endorsed under the permit on 28 August 2014.

On 22 May 2017, Council officers approved a series of minor changes to the plans pursuant to secondary consent. Approved amendments included changes to floor levels, although the height of the building (both the parapet and lift overrun) was not altered.

The current approved building includes three habitable levels however, since the basement projects more than 1.2m above natural ground level, the approved building is technically referred to as four storeys.

Development has commenced on the site and the building is at the frame stage.

On 13 July 2018, Council approved an extension to the time in which to complete the development. The development must now be completed by 4 June 2019.

Page 47


The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by John Henry Architects and are known as PA-000, PA100, PA101, PA200-208 stamped received by Council on 25 June 2018; PA209-211 stamped received by Council on 20 August 2018; and PA 400-405, PA500-501 and PA900 stamped received by Council on 25 June 2018. These plans are also stamped Advertised Document September 2018.


Raising of levels across the site, specifically:

LevelOriginal

Approval (RL)First Approved

Amendment (RL)

Proposed Amendment

(RL)

Change Proposed (metres)

Basement Floor 54.95 55.29 55.29 0.00Ground Floor 57.95 58.14 58.14 0.00First Floor 60.95 60.99 61.49 + 0.5Second Floor 63.95 63.84 64.84 + 1.0Parapet 67.15 67.15 68.19 + 1.04Lift Overrun 67.55 67.55 68.44 + 0.89

Provision of architectural screen across the building’s exterior. The screen generally results in reduced boundary setbacks of 250mm, and up to 1100mm.

Adoption of varied colours and finishes. The approved exterior is primarily grey and beige render, while the proposed exterior includes green and black screens and bronze cladding.

Extension of the Apartment 10 balcony to align with roof edges.

Site and Surrounds

The site is located on the northeast side of Dandenong Road, Malvern East, approximately 300m southeast of the Chadstone Shopping Centre. Specifically the site fronts the service road which extends along the northeast side of Dandenong Road in this location.

The site has the following significant characteristics:

A rectangular shape with a street frontage of 20.32 metres and a depth of 45.7 metres. An overall site area of approximately 928 square metres. A fall towards the north of approximately 1 metre. An easement along the full width of the rear boundary.

The property is currently being developed in accordance with the permit.

The area surrounding the subject site is residential and consists of a variety of housing types (i.e. houses, apartments, units). The site immediately abuts the following properties:

Page 48


1 Arcade Avenue abuts the eastern portion of the site’s rear boundary. The two storey detached dwelling at this property is situated towards its frontage and for the most part the immediate interface to the site is to an area of private and secluded open space.

36 Woodlands Grove shares the remainder of the site’s rear boundary. This property is developed with a double storey brick residence, which is located approximately 19 metres from the common boundary with the site. The intervening area is used as private and secluded open space.

To the south-east of the site, at 1407-1409 Dandenong Road, there is a large contemporary double storey residential building, comprising 7 dwellings. . A single crossover provides access to a basement car park. Dwellings are orientated to the side boundaries with private open space located on the north and west side of the building. The development is largely setback 3.4 metres from its north-west boundary (i.e. the common boundary with the subject site). A communal open space area has been incorporated to the rear (north-east) providing a setback of 7 metres to the rear boundary.

To the north-west of the site is 1403 Dandenong Road), a large double storey brick apartment building containing 10 dwellings. The building is setback 1.9 metres from its south-east boundary and there are habitable room windows with an outlook to the south (towards the site).


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

Planning Permit 1204/05 was issued on 9 May 2006 and allowed for a multi-dwelling development at the site. More specifically the permit allowed for the construction of a two storey apartment building containing seven dwellings, over a basement car park with 10 parking spaces. This permit has expired.

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 07198 Folio 596 I Lot 65 on Plan of Subdivision 006609. There is an easement that runs along the rear boundary of the site. There are no restrictive covenants on the title.

Planning Controls


Clause 32.07 Residential Growth Zone – Schedule 1 (Key Boulevards)

Pursuant to Clause 32.07-5, a permit is required for the construction of two or more dwellings on a lot. A development up to four storeys must meet the requirements of Clause 55.

Pursuant to Clause 32.07-8, a building must not be constructed for use as a dwelling or residential building that exceeds the maximum height specified in a schedule to this zone. If no maximum building height is specified in a schedule to this zone, the building height should not exceed 13.5 metres. No maximum building height is specified in RGZ1.

RGZ1 includes the following variation to Clause 55:

Standard B8 Site Coverage - Basements should not exceed 75% of the site area.


Page 49


The following clauses of the Stonnington Planning Scheme are particularly relevant to this application:

Clause 11 Settlement Clause 15 Built Environment and Heritage Clause 16 Housing Clause 21.02 Overview Clause 21.03 Vision Clause 21.05 Housing Clause 21.06 Built Environment and Heritage Clause 22.05 Environmentally Sustainable Design Clause 22.18 Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) Clause 22.23 Neighbourhood Character Policy

Advertising

The application has been advertised pursuant to Section 52 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 by sending notices to the owners and occupiers of adjoining land (and by placing 1 sign on the site). The public notification of the application has been completed satisfactorily.

The site is located in East Ward and one objection from one property has been received. The grounds for objection are as follows: The proposed green colour scheme is inappropriate to the neighbourhood character. The screen results in inadequate building articulation.

KEY ISSUES

It is proposed to modify the apartment building that has been approved at the subject site. Building works have commenced on site, including construction of the building framing for each building level. It has been ascertained however, that the three habitable building levels have been approved and constructed without adequate ceiling clearance or floor to floor separation. Specifically the constructed first floor has a ceiling clearance of 2.55m and the second floor 2.61m, neither of which comply with the minimum requirement under the Building Regulations of 2.7m.

Since construction commenced, the land has sold and a new project architect has been engaged. The amended scheme seeks to resolve the internal issues identified above and to also employ a new external expression, in particular, the incorporation of an external architectural screen, or second skin, across the building’s facades.

This application needs to be primarily considered in terms of its implications for neighbourhood character and residential amenity. These issues are discussed below, with reference to Clause 55 where applicable.

Neighbourhood Character

The site is located within a robust context, facing an arterial main road. It is subject to the Residential Growth Zone (RGZ), and it is within the context of multi-storey, multi-dwelling development in Dandenong Road.

Pursuant to Clause 21.05 (Housing), the site is located within a Substantial Change Area given Dandenong Road in this location is identified as a Tram / Bus Priority Route within the

Page 50


Strategic Framework Plan provided at Clause 21.03 (Vision). It is an appropriate location for higher density housing, as is evident by the existing approval for the site.

In terms of building height, RGZ1 does not include a specific height control, meaning that the default, discretionary building height control of 13.5m applies. Generally, this equates to a four storey building, which is the height that is referenced in the Purpose to the zone. The proposal is essentially a three storey building, although the basement level is partly elevated above 1.2m, which means that for the purpose of the Planning Scheme it constitutes a four level building.

It is proposed to increase the building’s parapet height by 1.04m, from 10.56m to 11.60m. This height remains comfortably within the discretionary building height requirement and can be absorbed within this context of mixed and fairly substantial building forms.

Pursuant to Clause 22.23 (Neighbourhood Character) the site is part of the Garden Suburban 5 Precinct, where the following Statement of Preferred Neighbourhood Character applies:

The Garden Suburban 5 (GS5) precinct is defined by spacious and leafy streetscapes withInterwar or Post-war era and new buildings set in established garden surrounds. Generous, regular front and side setbacks provide space around buildings and allow for canopy trees. New buildings or additions offer innovative and contemporary design responses, while complementing the key aspects of building form, scale and design detail of the older dwellings in the precinct. Open frontages, or low front fences retain views to gardens and buildings from the street. Areas within a Residential Growth or Mixed Use Zone or within a substantial change area will accommodate more development with a more compact setting but with space for canopy trees and other vegetation and high quality, responsive design.

As acknowledged by the description above, RGZ areas will see more a compact development setting as a consequence of the higher development aspirations for these areas, as compared to the more spacious and leafy streetscapes evident in the local residential hinterland.

The proposal appropriately responds to the objectives for this area. The development remains a contemporary design response and it is considered that the external screen has the potential to improve the architectural impression of the building. The approved building present a fairly rudimentary apartment form, finished primarily in grey and beige render. The concept of encasing the building in a perforated metal screen, or skin, is appropriate, and will positively contribute to the range of building styles and finishes present in this context.

Samples of the external screen has been provided to Council as well as a detailed finishes board. Specifically the screen exhibits a pattern of circular openings with various degrees of transparency, depending on whether it doubles as privacy screening or sits outside a solid wall. The proposal has been discussed with Council’s Urban Designer who has offered support, subject to the adoption of a more refined colour pallet in place of the proposed greens and bronze. It is noted that the objector has also raised an issue with the selected green finish. This issue has been discussed with the permit applicant who has agreed to substitute the proposed colours with a pallet of greys. This modification can be achieved by way of the imposition of a permit condition.

The subject amended proposal has minimal impacts upon the degree of site coverage or the ability to establish landscaping on the site. The proposed screen sits mostly around 250mm outside of the approved building walls. Review of the endorsed Landscape Plan shows that

Page 51


almost all of the affected setback area is already paved, and the only affected area (a strip along the southeast side of the building) is planted with grasses. This grass will still be able to be established adjoining the screen.

The new screen results in a reduction in the building’s setback to Dandenong Road of up to 650mm at first and second floor level. A minimum street setback of 6.7m is still achieved, which means the building will continue to sit comfortably between the 5.8m and 7.6m street setbacks of adjacent buildings (and comply with Standard B6 (Street Setback) of Clause 55).

It is considered that the proposal achieves an appropriate response to the neighbourhood character.

Amenity Implications

A consideration of external amenity impacts generally addresses overlooking, overshadowing, daylight and visual bulk. These issues are considered below.

Overlooking

The proposed external screen provides the dual purpose of architectural articulation and privacy screening. In locations where external screening is required of balconies and habitable room windows, the proposed screen has a transparency of 20%. It therefore meets the requirements of Standard B22 (Overlooking) of Clause 55. Some of this screening however, is proposed to be operable, rather than fixed, and this would allow unreasonable overlooking into adjacent properties. A condition of permit should be imposed which ensures that screening required for privacy purposes is fixed (i.e. at least fixed to 1.7m which will still allow operability of upper areas for solar access and ventilation).

It appears from the proposed North Elevation that the screening around the raised ground floor balcony of Apartment 4 is only 1.1m in height. This should also be raised to 1.7m, which would match the approved building's screening.

With these conditions, the proposal will not unreasonably impact upon the privacy of neighbouring properties.

Visual Bulk

One means of assessing the visual impacts of a proposal is Standard B17 (Side and Rear Setbacks) of Clause 55. It is noted that the proposed building continues to fall within the parameters set down in this clause with two exceptions.

The first area of non-compliance is the eastern corner of the building, in the location of the proposed extension to Dwelling 10's balcony. The proposed extension of this balcony requires the extension of the privacy screening, which creates an additional building volume with a direct relationship to the private open spaces at 1407-1409 Dandenong Road. Specifically, the extension results in a wall height of 8.5m which is setback from the boundary by 2.67m. Standard B17 would require a setback of 3.79m. The permit applicant has agreed to reduce the balcony to the degree necessary to comply with Standard B17. This change should be affected by a permit condition.

It is also proposed to continue the screen along the length of the southern elevation outside Level 2 of the building. This results in a reduced side setback of the upper level of up to 2.2m. This element is also considered to create excessive visual bulk, and does not accord with Standard B17 (it is between 7.39m and 8.5m tall and should be setback 2.48m-3.79m rather than between

Page 52


2.29m-3.09m). A condition therefore should also be imposed which requires deletion of the screen at Level 2 of the south elevation or its relocation to comply with Standard B17, which will allow the screen to wrap around the south eastern edge of the building, if it is further setback.

The second area of non-compliance is around the north elevation of Apartment 9 where the building has a relationship to the 1403 Dandenong Road. 1403 Dandenong Road is developed with an apartment building which is setback around 2m from the common boundary. In this location, the proposed building height is 11m and the screen will be setback 3.17m from the common boundary, rather than 6.1m as required by Standard B17. The existing approval (at 10m high and setback 3.44m) also did not comply with Standard B17, although the amendment seeks to worsen this condition and in particular, the screen outside Bed 3 is proposed to be moved 1.11m further out into the side setback. The proposal in this location also does not meet Standard B19 (Daylight to existing windows) as discussed below.

The impacts upon the adjacent property are considered to be unreasonable. To resolve this issue it is recommended that a condition be imposed which requires the deletion of the screen from the upper level of the north elevation outside Apartment 9's Kitchen, Bath and Bed 2 and 3. While the additional building height which is being proposed will still not comply with Standard B17 in this location, with this condition, the impact of this amendment will be reasonable and the setbacks proposed at the site more generous on the whole than these present at 1403 Dandenong Road.

The proposed plans appear to indicate that the wall on the south boundary of the site is to be increased. This wall is already 4m in height, and given it abuts a sensitive area at the adjacent property, it should not be further increased. This should be confirmed by a permit condition.

As noted already, the proposal has essentially no impact upon the ability to establish landscaping at the site. New landscaping will therefore continue to provide a visual screen to the building and assist to moderate the building bulk.

It is also considered that the new screen presents an appropriate visual impression for neighbouring dwellings. The screen is considered to be visually interesting, and with the modification to colours suggested above, the building will not be unacceptably dominating or bulky for this context.

Overshadowing

Shadow diagrams have been prepared as part of this application, since the additional building envelope will result in additional shadowing implications.

The orientation of the site means that the only private property affected by additional shadow is the dwellings at 1407-1409 Dandenong Road. Specifically, the amendment means that private and secluded open spaces within this neighbouring property will be affected by shadows which are approximately 800mm longer at 12 noon. The changes at Level 3 recommended above will reduce this impact.

Considering the properties are within the RGZ, it is considered that the degree of additional shadowing is acceptable. Furthermore, it is also noted that these areas are already affected by shadow cast by vegetation growing within the neighbouring property.

Daylight

Page 53


The setbacks around the building generally provide for adequate daylight to existing dwellings. To the east (1 Arcadia Avenue) and south (1407-1409 Dandenong Road) the building setbacks continue to fall comfortably within the requirements of Standard B19 (Daylight to existing windows).

To the north, the majority of the building also achieves this standard with an incursion around the Apartment 9, as discussed above. Given the building is proposed to be around 11m tall in this location, Standard B19 would require a 5.5m setback to the adjacent windows. With the deletion of the screen recommended above, the setback to these windows will be 5.44m. Given the degree of non-compliance is minor this is considered to be acceptable.



CONCLUSION

Having assessed the application against the relevant planning controls, it is recommended that the proposal be supported subject to conditions. With the imposition of these conditions, the development is appropriate to the neighbourhood character and will not unreasonably affected existing residents.

ATTACHMENTS

1. 302 13 1405 Dandenong Road Malvern East Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant an Amended Planning Permit No: 302/13 for the land located at 1405 Dandenong Road, Malvern East be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme with an amended Condition 1 and additional Condition 1 sub-sections imposed as follows:

1. Before the commencement of the development, three (3) copies of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the plans prepared by John Henry Architects and are known as PA-000, PA100, PA101, PA200-208 stamped received by Council on 25 June 2018; PA209-211 stamped received by Council on 20 August 2018; and PA 400-405, PA500-501 and PA900 stamped received by Council on 25 June 2018 but modified to show:

Page 54


n. Substitution of the exterior materials to the following (as shown on the Materials Schedule PA900 Revision 2 prepared by John Henry Architects received by Council on 20/08/2018):

i. C01 Fibercement Cladding with Porter's Original chosen Paint (dark grey)

ii. R01 Black Paint Finishiii. S01/ S02 Powdercoated Perforated Aluminium Privacy Screen

(grey / silver)

Or to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

o. All screening which is required to achieve compliance with Standard B22 (Overlooking) of Clause 55 must be fixed (and not operable).

p. Screening of the balcony edges of Apartment 4 to comply with Standard B22 (Overlooking) of Clause 55.

q. The balcony of Apartment 10 setback from the southeast boundary to comply with Standard B17 (Side and Rear Setback) of Clause 55.

r. The external screen deleted from the South Elevation at Level 2 or redesigned to comply with Standard B17.

s. The height of the approved wall on the southeast boundary of the site must not be increased.

t. Deletion of the external screen from the Kitchen, Bath, Bedroom 3 and Bedroom 2 of Apartment 9. Windows must subsequently be treated with screening measures to accord with Standard B22 (Overlooking) without encroaching into the north setback.

Page 55


4. PLANNING APPLICATION 0498/17 - 44-46 DUKE STREET, WINDSOR - CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING ON A LOT OF LESS THAN 300SQM IN A NEIGHBOURHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND REDUCTION TO THE CAR PARKING REQUIREMENT

Statutory Planning Coordinator: Phillip Gul General Manager Planning & Amenity: Stuart Draffin

PURPOSE

For Council to consider a planning application for the construction of a new dwelling on a lot of less than 300sqm in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone and reduction to the car parking requirement at 44-46 Duke Street, Windsor.

This item was considered at the Council meeting of 9 July 2018, 6 August 2018, 20 August 2018 and 17 September 2018. The application submitted revised plans on 4 September 2018 for Council’s assessment.

Executive Summary

Applicant: James Livingston Planning

Ward: South

Zone: Clause 32.09 – Neighbourhood Residential Zone (Schedule 3)

Overlay: N/A

Neighbourhood Precinct: Inner Urban Precinct

Date lodged: 05 June 2017

Statutory days: (as at council meeting date)

27


Councillor Call-upNumber of objections

Cultural Heritage Plan No

Number of objections: 34 objections from 29 addresses

Consultative Meeting: Yes – held on 23 May 2018

Officer Recommendation: Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit

BACKGROUND

The Proposal

The plans that form part of the basis of Council's consideration were prepared by Cook Gordon Architects and are known as Drawing No.s: A01 (rev TP04), A02 (rev TP04), A03 (rev TP03), A04 (rev TP07), A05 (rev TP08), A06 (rev TP09), A07 (rev TP07), A08 (rev TP09), A09 (rev TP07), A10 (rev TP04), A11 (rev TP04), A12 (rev TP04), A13 (rev TP04), A14 (rev TP05), A15 (rev TP05), A16 (rev TP06), A17 (rev TP04), A18 (rev TP07), A19(rev TP03), A20 (rev TP04), A21 (rev TP05), A22 (rev TP05), A23 (rev TP05), A24 (rev TP05), A25 (rev TP01) and A26 (rev TP01) and Council date stamped 4 September 2018.

Page 57


The application seeks permission for the construction of a double storey dwelling. Key features of the proposal are:

General

The existing dwelling will be demolished in full (note: a planning permit is not required for demolition)

A double storey dwelling is to be constructed. The proposed dwelling has a maximum building height of 7.33m (measured from

natural ground level and shown on the proposed west elevation). Pedestrian access and entries are provided from Duke Street. No onsite car parking is provided. The proposal is featured by its contemporary architectural style. The proposed materials and finishes include brick, metal roof cladding, flat metal plate

finish, perforated metal mesh, metal louvered screen and perforated metal mesh.

Ground Floor

To the north, the proposal provides a centrally positioned entry section which has a width of 2.91m and a depth of 1.26m. The remainder of the proposal is to be constructed on the northern boundary.

To the south, the proposal incorporates a lightwell, which has a setback of 6.225m from Primrose Street, a length of 4.675m and a width of 1.49-1.565m. The remainder of the proposed dwelling is to be constructed on the southern boundary.

To the west, the new dwelling is set back 1.29m from Primrose Street. To the east, the proposal is set back 6.035m from the boundary. The eastern section of

the site will be used as the main area of secluded private open space. An open steel pergola (i.e. uncovered) will be installed above the rear garden.

The ground floor comprises a study, an open plan kitchen / dining / living room and service areas.

First Floor

To the north, south and east, the first floor adopts the same boundary setbacks to align with the ground floor layout.

To the west, the first floor is set back 2.09m from Primrose Street. The first floor comprises two bedrooms and a bathroom.

There have been two stages of changes in the development plans. The first phase occurred prior to the consultative meeting. The development plans that form the basis of this assessment are plans (A01 – A24, Council date stamped 2 May 2018). These plans were formally declared pursuant to Clause 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and supersede the originally advertised plans (Council date stamped 27 January 2017). The revised plans were submitted to respond to concerns raised by Council and objectors, and show the following key changes:

The introduction of a hipped roof form to the rear section The rear (i.e. eastern) setback to be increased from 4.305m to 6.035m The depth of a lightwell on the south elevation to be increased from 4.2m to 4.825m A west facing window at first floor to be modified in shape

This is the second phase and the development plans that form the basis of this assessment are plans (A01 – A26, Council date stamped 4 September 2018). These plans were formally declared pursuant to Clause 57A of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 and supersede the first phase development plans (Council date

Page 58


stamped 2 May 2018). The current development plans under assessment show the following key changes:

The first floor setback from Primrose Street to be increased by 800mm (i.e. a total setback of 2.09m)

The section of the roof form (facing Primrose Street) to be changed from a gable end to a pitched roof

The Primrose Street fence to be lowered to 1.4m above the natural ground level The material of the street fencing (including Primrose Street and Duke Street) to be

changed from timber paling to timber batten The material of the southern wall at both levels to be changed from brickwork (painted

white) to brickwork (recycled common red)

Site and Surrounds

The subject site is located on the south eastern corner of the intersection of Duke Street and Primrose Street. It is approximately 181.1m east of the intersection with Chapel Street, and 55.8m west of the intersection with Hornby Street.

The subject site has the following significant characteristics:

The land is rectangular in shape, yielding a total site area of approximately 120sqm. The land has dual frontage: to the west, it provides a frontage of 5.23m to Primrose

Street; to the north, it adjoins Duke Street with a frontage of 24.51m. The land is currently improved by a two-bedroom single storey weatherboard dwelling. Pedestrian access is provided from Duke Street. The land does not provide any onsite car parking spaces.

The surrounding land is predominantly residential consisting mostly of single and double storey dwellings on smaller lots, mixed with a number of double storey brick dwellings and occasionally apartment buildings. Whilst the lot size varies, the immediate context generally reflects a fine grain pattern of development.

The subject site has four interfaces, which are summarised as follows:

To the immediate south is a property at 18 Primrose Street, Windsor, which houses a double storey dwelling with a contemporary rear addition.

To the immediate north, the subject site abuts Duke Street, which is a narrow one-way street that runs from Hornby Street to Chapel Street. On the opposite side of Duke Street are properties at 39, 45, 47 and 49 Duke Street respectively. Of significance is that the four properties are affected by a Heritage Overlay (HO129), which is commonly described as a Hornby-Mary Streets Urban Conservation Area. Specifically, the land at 39 Duke Street houses an A1 graded gothic style federation building which was previously known as the Red Lion Hotel and is currently used as a dwelling. The land at 45 Duke Street is improved by an A1 graded semi-detached single storey dwelling, paired with the dwelling at 47 Duke Street. The site at 49 Duke Street contains a B-graded single storey brick dwelling with a pitched roof.

To the immediate west, the subject site abuts Primrose Street, which is a narrow two-way street that runs from Duke Street to James Street. On the other side of the street is 42 Duke Street, which houses a single storey rendered dwelling.

To the immediate east is 48 Duke Street, which is developed with a single storey, single fronted weatherboard cottage.


Page 59


A search of Council records indicates no relevant planning applications for the subject site.

However, it is noted that Planning Permit No. 905/13 was issued to the southern adjoining property at 18 Primrose Street, which is relevant to the application at hand and will be discussed later in this assessment. This Permit allowed extension to a dwelling on a lot less than 500sqm in a Residential 1 Zone comprising ground floor extension and a first floor addition.

The Title

The site is described on Certificate of Title Volume 04691 Folio 097 / Lot 1 on Title Plan 696060H.

An easement extends to the immediate south of the subject site, with a length of approximately 9.45m and a width of approximately 0.37m. The Title also specifies that the right to use the said easement is limited to the purpose of overhanging eaves. Given the placement of this easement, a condition is recommended, requiring that notations are included on all site / floor plans, confirming that all new works will be constructed within the title boundaries on the subject site. Any subsequent amendments to the proposal should ensure that all new works (including boundary fencing) are clearly depicted within the title boundaries.

No covenants affect the land.

Planning Controls


ZoneClause 32.09 – Neighbourhood Residential Zone (Schedule 3)

Pursuant to Clause 32.09-5, a planning permit is required to construct or extend one dwelling on a lot of less than 300 square metres.

The application proposes to construct a new dwelling on a lot of 120 square metres. A planning permit is therefore required under the zone.

Furthermore, as stipulated in Schedule 3 to the zone, a building used as a dwelling or a residential building must not exceed a height of 9 metres. The proposed maximum building height is 7.33m and complies with the height controls.

Schedule 3 also sets out variations to requirements stipulated in Clause 54 (One Dwelling on a lot), which are stated as follows:

Page 60


Standard Requirement Site coverage A5 Basements should not exceed 75% of the site area.

Front fence height A20 Maximum height of 2 metres in streets in a Road Zone, Category 1.Other streets 1.2 metres maximum height.

OverlayThe subject site is not affected by any overlays.

Particular ProvisionsClause 52.06 – Car Parking

Pursuant to Table 1 at Clause 52.06-5, 2 car parking spaces are required to each three or more bedroom dwelling (with studies or studios that are separate rooms counted as a bedroom).

The proposal encompasses one study room on the ground floor and two bedrooms on the first floor; and is therefore considered a three bedroom dwelling. In accordance with Table 1, 2 car parking spaces should be provided.

Pursuant to Clause 52.06-3, a planning permit is required to reduce (including to zero) the number of car parking spaces required under Clause 52.06-5. As no onsite car parking is provided, a planning permit is required for the reduction to car parking requirement.

Clause 54 – One Dwelling on a Lot


21.06 Built Environment and Heritage

22.18 Stormwater Management (Water Sensitive Urban Design) Policy

22.23 Neighbourhood Character Policy

32.09 Neighbourhood Residential Zone (Schedule 3)

52.06 Car Parking

54 One Dwelling on a Lot

65 Decision Guidelines

Advertising

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

4 objections (from 3 affected properties) were received in the initial public notice.

Key aspects of the objections during the initial advertising period are summarised below:

Inconsistency with the neighbourhood character

Page 61


Amenity impacts in relation to daylight access to north-facing windows and overshadowing

Amenity impacts in relation to overlooking Over-development Visual bulk on the Primrose Street and Duke Street Inappropriate car parking arrangement

A Consultative Meeting was held on 23 May 2018. The meeting was attended by Councillors Hindle and Sehr, representatives of the applicant, objectors and their representative, and a Council planning officer. The meeting resulted in the following changes to the advertised plans:

The introduction of a hipped roof form to the rear section The rear (i.e. eastern) setback increased from 4.305m to 6.035m The width of a lightwell on the south elevation increased from 4.2m to 4.8m A west facing window at first floor to be modified in shape

The revised plans were circulated to all objectors via email. 30 further objections were received and can be summarised as follows:

Inconsistency with the planning policy framework Inconsistency with the heritage character of Duke Street Inadequate car parking provision Overshadowing Overlooking Inappropriate material use on the southern elevation Lack of design details

In response to all the above objections, the applicant submitted the second phase revised plans (Council received on 4 September 2018) for Council’s assessment. No objections have been withdrawn. The total number of objections counts as 34 (from 29 addresses).

Referrals

Urban Design In response to the first phase revised plans (Council received on 2 May 2018), Council’s Urban Design Advisor advised that:

Scale: the proposal for a 2-storey contemporary infill development on the subject site is not an unusual scale for a corner site in this neighbourhood.

Form: the proposed building is a contemporary interpretation of a simple pitched roof-form. Visual break is introduced in the building form, together with projecting window at first floor, adds visual interest and articulates the form of the building as it presents to Duke Street.

Setbacks: given the corner lot, a zero setback to Duke Street is consistent with the character of corner buildings in the area. The small setback to Primrose Street is appropriate for this context.

Materials and colour scheme: recycled common red bricks and dark-grey colouring for the subsidiary elements are supported. The face-brickwork on the south elevation is not supported as it creates a visual conflict with the predominant material – red-brick.

Fenestration: the relatively large sizes of the first floor windows and their (horizontal) rectangular shape(s), are at odds with the predominant character of the window sizes and proportions found in the Victorian/Edwardian-era buildings in the neighbourhood. It is suggested that a more finely-scaled and vertically-proportioned window arrangement

Page 62


would result in a better integration of the building with the character of the neighbourhood.

KEY ISSUES

The application seeks to construct a double storey dwelling at 44-46 Duke Street, Windsor. As the permit triggers concern Clause 32.09 (Neighbourhood Residential Zone) and Clause 52.06 (Car Parking), the key issues that Council has to determine are:

Is the proposal acceptable in neighbourhood character terms? Will the proposal unreasonably affect the amenity of the adjoining properties? Does the proposal provide an adequate level of internal amenity to the occupants? Is the car parking reduction (to zero) acceptable?

Is the proposal acceptable in neighbourhood character terms?

Having considered the policies, provisions and decision guidelines of the Stonnington Planning Scheme and the context of the subject site and its surrounds, the proposal is considered to be respectful and compatible with the existing neighbourhood character for the following reasons:

Consistency with the policy direction

Clause 15.01-1S seeks to create urban environments that provide good quality environments with a sense of place and cultural identify. Clause 15.01-5S also has an objective to recognise and protect neighbourhood character and sense of place and Clause 15.03-1S has an objective to ensure the conservation of places of heritage significance.

The above objectives are reiterated in the following Clauses:

Clause 21.05, which identifies the subject site as part of Incremental Change Area, where multi-unit development (2-3 storeys) to lots capable to accommodating increased policy is encouraged;

Clause 21.06-3 (Amenity), which seeks to ensure new development does not unreasonably affect the amenity of any adjoining residential properties through overlooking, overshadowing or traffic and parking associated with the use.

Clause 21.06-4 (Built form Character), which seeks to provide for medium density (2-3 storey) development provided the development respects the preferred character of the precinct.

The Planning Policy Framework requires the design of a development to respect the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and be appropriate for its setting. Objectors are concerned that the proposal does not respect the existing character of this neighbourhood by virtue of its height, scale and form. The proposal is considered appropriate for the following reasons:

As the subject site is situated in an Incremental Change Area, the construction of a 2-storey dwelling is responsive to housing policy provisions.

The overall height of the development, at two storeys, is consistent with the scale of many of the surrounding properties. As presented in the streetscapes of Duke Street and Primrose Street, two storey development (including single storey with first floor additions) is an emerging character of the area. On Duke Street, the land at 37 Duke Street has a visible first floor addition; and the properties at 39 Duke Street; and 67 Hornby Street are constructed with zero setback to the street. Similarly, on Primrose

Page 63


Street, to the immediate south, the land at 18 Primrose Street is featured by its contemporary first floor addition; and the land at 21 Primrose Street also has a visible first floor component on the street elevation. Furthermore, while the proposal presents more obviously to the streets (due to the corner site nature), it should be noted that many nearby examples possess more visually dominant features when viewed from the street. For instance, the land at 33-35 James Street (located approximately 100m south of the site) contains a four storey apartment building; and the land at 30 James Street is improved by a three-storey apartment building. As such, it is considered that the varied context would support the proposal, as the scale integrates well with the existing character of the surrounds.

The subject site is located in an area where buildings are often sited close to, or on, one or both side boundaries. This pattern of development has formed a prevailing character of this area, as it is common and reasonable to have properties constructed in very close proximity to the side boundaries of narrow sites. The proposal incorporates boundary walls on the northern and the southern boundary. This is considered a reflective response to the surrounds and consistent with the context.

The policy calls for new building in an innovative and contemporary manner and building materials that are in stark contrast with the character of the streetscape should be avoided. This proposal adopts a contemporary architectural style and incorporates recycled brickwork as a response to the dominant character of the streets. The proposal therefore is considered to be consistent with the policy controls and appropriate to the character of the area.

Consistency with the existing character

An objective contained at Clause 22.23 (Neighbourhood Character Policy) is to ensure that development reflects the intention of the statement of preferred neighbourhood character and design guidelines for each precinct.

The subject site is located in an Inner Urban Precinct (IU) that occupies the southern and western part of the municipality. This precinct is defined by buildings of innovative and high quality architectural styles that sit comfortably within compact streetscapes of Victorian, Edwardian and Interwar dwellings.

Consistent front setbacks reinforce the building edge along the streets, and building heights and forms complement, rather than dominate, the rhythm of development.

In conjunction with the referral comments from Council’s Urban Design Advisor, the proposed design response is appropriate in this neighbourhood. With regard to the first floor component particularly, it is worth noting that two storey development has become a more common aspect of Melbourne’s built form. As the Tribunal remarked in Waylan Consulting Group v Moreland CC [2000] VCAT 1198, ‘… double storey dwellings are not two headed monsters.

They are normal housing type throughout the metropolitan area’. Member Keaney also commented in Rendevski v City of Greater Geelong [1999] VCAT 1886:

Leaving aside the fact that this would not be the first two storey “intrusion” (either for a single home or multi-unit), the Tribunal would be reluctant to reject what is a perfectly normal and acceptable form of development right throughout our urban areas, except if

Page 64


the neighbourhood characteristics were so pristine and important so as to make a two storey proposal unacceptable.

With a view to the immediate context, double storey dwellings are not an uncommon feature of this area. For instance, the land at No. 20, 23, 28 Duke Street have visible first floor additions; and the southern adjoining property at 18 Primrose Street has distinct additions at ground and first floor levels. Given the variety in building heights and the absence of design-specific overlays (such as Heritage Overlay or Neighbourhood Character Overlay), it is considered that the proposal with a maximum height of 7.33m will not result in any unreasonable adverse impact on the character of this neighbourhood.

Built form

The proposal does not introduce a built form that is dominant or overwhelming to this neighbourhood. The 2-storey red-brick building on the corner of Duke Street and Hornby Street is one of the nearby examples on a corner site. Specifically, the said land is at 67 Hornby Street and contains a 2-storey brick dwelling built on the street frontages and the northern boundary. It is also noted that the street facades read as continuous double storey boundary walls with no break. The proposal however introduces pedestrian access and entries via Duke Street, which in return presents an articulated built form thereby reducing the dominance of double storey boundary wall to the street and providing visual interest.

Having regard to the existing context, it is considered that the proposed built form provides an acceptable response to its neighbourhood. Although the proposal is to be constructed along the northern and southern boundaries, as discussed above, the narrow and small subdivision pattern of the area has reinforced a prevailing character where buildings are often sited close to, or on, one or both side boundaries. Furthermore, the immediate context does not present a consistent pattern; rather it is featured by mixed built forms. The proposal therefore is not considered too remote or farfetched from the established mixed nature of the surrounds.

Additionally, in the wider neighbourhood, it is noted that the land at 14 White Street (located the corner of James Street and White Street) houses a contemporary example of a double storey redevelopment on a corner site of a similar size to the subject site. The development incorporates face brickworks on the ground floor; and continuous first floor boundary wall to White Street with dark grey vertical cladding.

With all the above considerations, the proposed built form is considered appropriate and will sit comfortably in its context.

Site Layout and Building Massing

Street setback

With specific regard to the street setback requirements, it is noted that the site is located on a corner. Standard A3 stipulates the following preferred setbacks for developments on corner sites.

Minimum setback from front street:

Page 65


If there is a building on the abutting allotment facing the front street, the same distance as the setback of the front wall of the existing building on the abutting allotment facing the front street or 9 metres, whichever is the lesser.

Minimum setback from side street

The same distance as the setback of the front wall of any existing building on the abutting allotment facing the side street or 2 metres, whichever is the lesser.

The proposed setback to the primary frontage of Duke Street is zero. A variation to the Standard is therefore required; and may be supported on the basis that the existing dwelling on the site is built to the northern (Duke Street) boundary. Furthermore, the existing neighbourhood character has a prevailing feature where boundary construction is common due to the narrow nature of sites in this area. It is also noted that in the immediate context, two storey sheer walls constructed alongside boundaries are not uncommon. The proposal is therefore not inconsistent with the character of this neighbourhood.

To Primrose Street, on the ground floor, the proposed setback is 1.29m; on the first floor, the proposed setback is 2.09m. This is considered acceptable, as the proposal generally aligns with the setback of the southern neighbouring property at 18 Primrose Street.

Site Coverage

Standard A5 states that the maximum site coverage is 60 per cent. The existing site coverage is 66% and the proposed site coverage is 63%. Given the reduction in the overall site coverage, the proposal is considered an improved design outcome and can be supported.

Permeability

Standard A6 requires a minimum permeability of 20 per cent. The proposed impervious surface area is 67%, which allows for 33% of the site to be permeable. The proposal therefore complies. It is however recommended that the permeable surface should be clearly outlined in the site or floor plans. A relevant condition will therefore be included.

Design detail

The design detail of the proposed dwelling are considered to be appropriate. Reasons are outlined below:

Firstly, as discussed above, the built form and the scale (of being a 2-storey property) respond to the character of the area appropriately.

Secondly, the proposed pitched roof is consistent with the nearby properties.

Thirdly, in terms of façade articulation and detailing, efforts have been made to provide a positive response to the streetscapes of Duke Street and Primrose Street. For instance, the proposed street façades incorporate windows and introduce entries to articulate the double storey walls. This approach is considered acceptable in principle. With particular respect to the window shapes, the first floor north facing windows are of large sizes, which are at odds with the predominant character of the window sizes and proportions found in the Victorian/Edwardian-era buildings in the neighbourhood. A condition is therefore recommended, requiring a more finely-scaled and vertically-proportioned window arrangement to be provided at the first floor level on the north and west elevations.

Page 66


Furthermore, the material palette responds to materials that are not uncommon in the neighbourhood. The proposal incorporates recycled common red bricks for the external cladding, this is considered responsive to the variety of existing red-brick buildings in the area. The proposal also incorporates dark-grey colouring for window frames, screening and roofing, which complements the red brickwork and can be supported.

Additionally, one of the objectors raised concerns regarding the white finishes to be applied on the south elevation. As outlined in the referral comments, this treatment is not supported as a portion of this wall is visible from Primrose Street; and will likely cause a visual conflicts in material/colour with the north and west elevations of red-brick. In this second phase revised plans, the south elevation has been updated to show the brickwork in common red. This is considered consistent with the north and west elevations and can be supported.

Front fence

In accordance with Standard A20, the maximum height of front fences on Duke Street and Primrose Street should not exceed 1.2m. The Objective is to ‘encourage front fence design that respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character’. The proposal is considered to meet the objective for the following reasons:

The subject site sits in a corner, abutting Primrose Street and Duke Street. Traditionally, for corner sites, the narrow street is treated as the primary; and the other as the secondary. Primrose Street is therefore considered the frontage. On Primrose Street, the proposal incorporates a 1.4m timber batten fence. This is supported as it is consistent with other front fences along Primrose Street, in terms of the materials and colour finishes.

On Duke Street, pedestrian access and entries are proposed. The proposed pedestrian entry is enclosed with a timber batten fence with a height of less than 1.5m. This is considered responsive to the surrounds. It is also noted that at the eastern end, a 1.89m high timber fence is included. As shown on the proposed site plan, an additional access is provided from the rear section. The proposed north elevation however does not specifically depict the proposed additional access. A condition is therefore recommended, requiring the second access to be clearly depicted on the north elevation with dimensions and used for pedestrian access only.

For all the reasons outlined above, the proposal will assimilate well into the neighbourhood and it is considered acceptable in neighbourhood character terms.

Will the proposal unreasonably affect the amenity of the adjoining properties?

This application has been assessed against the relevant requirements of Clause 54 and the section below outlines the key findings:

Side and rear setbacks

Standard A10 (side and rear setbacks) sets out numeric requirements for side and rear setbacks. The proposed extension is largely constructed along the side boundaries (refer to assessment of Standard A11 below). However, part of the first floor extension is setback from the side boundaries.

Ground Floor

To the south, the proposed wall height does not exceed 3.6m and the required minimum setback is therefore 1m. As the proposal introduces a lightwell, the section where the internal staircase is located is to be set back 1.49m (minimum) and thus complies. The remaining is

Page 67


to be constructed on the boundary and will be assessed under Standard A11 (Walls on boundaries) below.

To the east, the proposal allows for a setback of 6.035m to accommodate a rear garden (i.e. secluded private open space). As the proposed wall height does not exceed 3.6m, the required setback should be 1m. The proposal therefore complies.

First floor

The first floor is to be constructed to be aligned with the ground floor layout and provides for the same boundary setbacks around the building.

To the south, the proposed wall height is 5.47m and the required minimum setback therefore is 1.56m. The proposed lightwell allows for a minimum setback of 1.49m from the boundary.

To the east, the proposed building height is 5.55m and the required minimum setback therefore is 1.59m. The proposal is to be set back 6.035m from the rear boundary and thus complies.

A variation is considered appropriate for the following reasons:

1. To the south, the proposal incorporates a lightwell, which ensures daylight access to the existing north facing windows. This will be discussed in the assessment of Standard A13 (North facing window objective) below.

2. Given the narrow spacing between properties in this neighbourhood, the variation is considered acceptable from a character perspective.

3. The existing dwelling is constructed on the northern and southern boundaries. The proposal is not considered remote from its existing condition.

Wall on boundaries

The proposed building will be constructed along both the northern and southern boundaries. The impact of the proposal with regard to the northern (Duke Street) boundary has been assessed above. Assessment of the proposed southern wall on boundary is provided as follows:

In accordance with Standard A11, the permissible maximum length of walls on boundary is 13.63m.

Standard A11 also states a new wall should not exceed an average height of 3.2m with no part higher than 3.6m. As the proposal is to be constructed on the southern boundaries at both levels, a variation to the Standard is required. It is considered that the Objective of Clause 54.04-2 is satisfied for the following reasons:

To the south, the ground floor boundary wall is generally consistent with the existing boundary wall in terms of the height and the length. Consequently, any impact will be generally consistent with the existing condition. The proposal introduces a lightwell to the immediate east of the ground floor study. The dimensions of the lightwell provide daylight access to the southern adjoining land. (Note: a detailed discussion is included in the assessment against Standard A13 (North facing windows objective) below).

The existing southern boundary wall has a total length of approximately 20m and a height of more than 3m. The front section of the existing southern boundary wall is

Page 68


directly opposite the ground floor habitable room window contained in the property at 18 Primrose Street; and the remainder is constructed simultaneously adjacent to the neighbour’s wall. In this proposal, where the ground floor habitable room window in the southern adjoining property is located, a lightwell is introduced and enclosed with a boundary wall of 2.19m in height (maximum). As a result of the reduction in the wall height, the consequential amenity impact on the southern adjoining property will be reasonably lessened.

With regard to the southern interface, the wall on boundary will not be positioned directly opposite the main rear courtyard of 18 Primrose Street, meaning visual bulk impacts to this space will not be unreasonable.

In light of the above, the proposed boundary walls are consistent with the character of developments in this neighbourhood and will not cause detriments to the amenity of the adjoining properties.

Daylight to existing windows

To the west and the north, the subject site adjoins Primrose Street and Duke Street. The Standard does not apply.

To the east, no habitable room windows are located opposite the subject site. The Standard therefore does not apply with respect to these interfaces.

To the south, all habitable room windows except one are defined as north facing windows and an assessment will be included in the following assessment against Standard A13 (North-facing windows) below.

The one non-north facing window of the neighbouring property at No. 18 Primrose Street that is applicable in this assessment is a narrow window that is part of the access door that connects the rear open plan living / kitchen area to the northern external access path. Given the angle of this window, it is not technically defined as a north facing window and therefore must be assessed against Standard A12 under the Daylight to Existing Windows Objective.

A variation to the Standard will be required as part of the proposed building on the boundary will be positioned opposite this angled window. A variation may be supported on the basis that the proposed light court will sit just west of the angled window allowing for adequate light access into this space. It is also noted that the window already receives compromised light under its existing arrangement. Importantly, it should be noted that this angled window is not the only source of light for this open plan kitchen / dining / living room, as the floor-to-ceiling east facing glazing door / windows is used as the main source of daylight access. Additionally, it is worth noting that the current development plans have been amended to show alignment with the northern wall of the dwelling at 18 Primrose Street. It is therefore considered that the daylight received by this angled window in question will be consistent with the existing condition.

North-facing windows

The North Facing Windows Objective states the following:

To allow adequate solar access to existing north-facing habitable room windows.

Standard A13 applies to any neighbouring north facing habitable room window that is positioned within 3m of the property boundary. The Standard provides a numeric boundary

Page 69


setback requirement based on the height of the proposed wall when positioned opposite the neighbouring north facing windows.

On the southern neighbouring lot at 18 Primrose Street, there is one north facing window at ground level, which serves a bedroom and a number of north facing windows at first floor level, which serve the two bedrooms respectively. A detailed assessment of all applicable windows is provided as follows:

Assessment of the impact on the neighbouring ground floor window:

The ground floor north facing bedroom window to 18 Primrose Street is positioned opposite the proposed lightwell. The northern end of the lightwell (i.e. the internal staircase) is proposed to be 6.09m in height, which means the wall should be set back 2.49m from the boundary in order to comply with the Standard. A setback of 1.49m – 1.565m has been provided resulting in a variation to the Standard. This is supported on the basis that due to the existing wall on the boundary and the associated eave, the affected window already receives little daylight and even less direct sunlight. It is considered that the proposal will result in an improved arrangement in relation to light access to this window, despite not complying with the Standard.

Assessment of the impact on the neighbouring first floor bedroom windows:

The upper level for 18 Primrose Street has a window arrangement where one bedroom (Bedroom 2) is served by a standard north facing window that wraps around to the western wall of this bedroom. It is also noted that both first floor bedrooms along with the first floor study are served by clerestory windows that sit higher (and further setback) from the main first floor north facing wall. Assessment against the clerestory windows is provided below.

With specific regard to the impact on the north facing Bedroom 2 window to 18 Primrose Street, it is noted that the proposal has a wall height of 5.47m and the Standard requires a setback of 2.12m. The proposal will be partly built to the boundary when positioned opposite this window and partly set back 1.49m. A variation to the Standard is supported on the basis that a majority of the window is positioned opposite the proposed light court which is set back adequately from the boundary to allow sufficient solar access. This is evident by the fact that if the ground floor levels were deleted from the calculations (which is reasonable given the affected window serves a first floor room) the light court element of the arrangement would comply with Standard A13. It is also noted that this room also benefits from unobstructed western light provided by a small west facing window.

Assessment of the impact on the neighbouring first floor clerestory windows:

The clerestory windows are set back approximately 1m from the boundary and sit higher than the main walls of all the upper level rooms in question. For the most part, the proposal will result in a wall being built on the boundary when positioned opposite these windows which technically results in a variation to Standard A13. However, given the height of these windows, the proposal will not result in any unreasonable obstruction to daylight or sunlight access to these windows.

Page 70


In light of the above, the proposal can be supported.

Overshadowing

The relevant assessment mechanism for overshadowing of neighbouring areas of private open space is the Overshadowing Open Space Objective, including Standard A14. This Standard states the following:

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

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

The Objective itself states that ‘ensure buildings do not significantly overshadow existing secluded private open space’.

As demonstrated on the submitted shadow diagrams, key findings are comprised of:

To the west, the subject site adjoins Primrose Street. No secluded private open space will be unreasonably overshadowed.

To the north, due to the orientation, the proposal will not create any overshadowing.

To the east, the subject site has a direct interface with the front section of the land at 48 Duke Street, the proposed shadow will be largely contained in the side service yard or the front setback associated with the eastern adjoining land. In the absence of any overshadowing cast onto the secluded private open space (at the rear, in the south), the proposal is considered to meet the Standard.

To the south, the submitted shadow diagrams show the following information: At 9am, the proposed shadow falls within the existing shadow. At 10am, the proposed shadow falls within the existing shadow. At 11am, the proposed shadow falls within the existing shadow. At 12pm, the proposed shadow falls within the existing shadow. At 1pm, the proposed shadow increases the total shadowed area by 0.2sqm. At 2pm, the proposed shadow increases the total shadowed area by 1.9sqm. At 3pm, the proposed shadow increases the total shadowed area by 3.16sqm.

A variation to the Standard is required due to the size of the neighbouring open space. However, it is considered that the proposal meets the Objective considering that compliance with the Standard is achieved for the most part.

The Standard requires a minimum of five hours of sunlight between 9am and 3pm on 22 September. As outlined above, from 9am to 2pm, there will be an increase of 0.2sqm at 1pm and an increase of 1.9sqm at 2pm. The increased 0.2sqm is considered minor in nature. At 2pm, although the increased shadow amounts to 1.9sqm, which is also considered a minor amount in this inner urban context,

Overlooking

Page 71


The key assessment tool to determine unreasonable overlooking is the Overlooking Objective, including Standard A15. The standard provides a 9m 45 degree angle arc that determines unreasonable overlooking, and windows or balconies that are located in such a position must be screened to a height of 1.7m above finished floor level accordingly.

To the west and the north, the subject site adjoins Primrose Street and Duke Street respectively. The Standard therefore does not apply.

To the east, on the ground floor, a 2m brick fence is proposed thereby preventing overlooking. On the first floor, a metal louvred privacy screening is to be installed up to 1.7m above the finished floor level and thus complies.

To the south, on the ground floor, the boundary wall has a minimum height exceeding 1.7m and thus complies.

On the first floor, no screening is proposed for the south facing stair window. Given the stair is not a habitable room, screening is not required. The proposed east elevation shows that screening is provided to the east facing Bed 1 window thereby preventing unreasonable overlooking issues. A section through light court indicates that screening is provided to the east facing Bed 2 window and the west facing window associated with the study nook. It is also noted that screening will be provided by way of perforated metal with a maximum transparency of 25%. Conditions are recommended, requiring notations to be included on the proposed first floor plan; and details of the proposed screening including certificate from manufacturers.

ConclusionIn light of the above, the proposal will not result in any unreasonable amenity impacts on the adjoining properties.

Does the proposal provide an adequate level of internal amenity to the occupants?

The proposed extension benefits from its northerly aspect and will provide the occupants with the necessary components for comfortable living, including the provision of windows to all habitable rooms, clear outlook and direct solar/daylight access. In addition, the provision of private open space complies with the requirements of Standard A17. Furthermore, the relevant Building Regulations are in place to ensure the proposed development meets the relevant energy efficiency standards.

Overall, the proposal will provide the occupants with an adequate level of internal amenity.

Is the car parking reduction (to zero) acceptable?

Pursuant to Clause 52.06, 2 car parking space should be provided to the proposal. In this proposal, no onsite car parking spaces are provided, the application seeks permission for the reduction in the car parking requirement.

This is considered acceptable with the following consideration:

Firstly, the subject site is located with convenient access to a wide range of public transport. It is located approximately 180m east of Chapel Street and 220m south of High Street, where numerous trams operate. It is also within walking distance to Prahran Railway Station and Windsor Railway Station. Given the location, the subject site will be well serviced by public transport.

The existing dwelling has no parking.

Page 72


Lastly, Council’s Policy at Clause 21.03 states that the built environment within the municipality is designed to promote the use of walking, cycling and public transport; to minimise car dependency; and to promote the use of low emissions vehicle technologies and supporting infrastructure. As such, the proposed waiver of car parking spaces responds to the Policy appropriately.

Overall, a reduction in the car parking requirement is acceptable.

Objections

The only key issue raised by the objectors that has not been discussed above concerns the existing crossover located to the north-east corner of the subject site.

With respect to the existing crossover, the applicant provided additional information on 12 June 2018, showing the exact location and dimensions of the existing crossover. It is noted that this crossover has a total width of 5.055m and shared with the eastern adjoining property at 48 Duke Street. As the application does not include any onsite car parking space, it is recommended to remove the portion of the existing crossover associated with the subject site, so that potentially, an additional on street car parking space may be gained. A condition is therefore recommended, requiring the reinstatement of the existing crossover associated with the subject site. This conditioned reinstatement should not have any impact on the access to the land at 48 Duke Street.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONSIDERATION

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

CONCLUSION

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

The proposal provides an appropriate response to the character of this neighbourhood. The proposed extension will not unreasonably impact on the amenity of the adjoining

properties. The proposal will offer the occupants an adequate level of internal amenity. The reduction in car parking requirement is acceptable.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PA1 - 498-17 - 44-46 Duke Street Windsor - Attachment 1 of 1 Plans

RECOMMENDATION

That a Notice of Decision to Grant a Planning Permit No: 498/17 for the land located

Page 73


at 44-46 Duke Street, Windsor be issued under the Stonnington Planning Scheme for the construction of a new dwelling on a lot less than 300sqm in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone and reduction to the car parking requirement subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the commencement of the development, 1 copy of plans drawn to scale and fully dimensioned, must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The plans must be generally in accordance with the revised plans (Council date received on 4 September 2018) but modified to show:

a) The existing crossover adjacent to the site boundary is to be reinstated while maintaining appropriate access to 48 Duke Street.

b) The proposed second entry access at the eastern end of the north elevation to be clearly depicted with dimensions. Notations should be included, indicating that this access is for pedestrians only.

c) The first floor windows on the north and west elevations amended to provide more finely scaled and vertically-proportioned windows.

d) Notations to be included on the proposed first floor plan, indicating how the east facing Bed 2 window and the west facing window associated with the study nook will be screened.

e) A certificate of verification from the manufacturer certifying that the proposed perforated panels are no more than 25% transparent.

f) A section plan detailing circumference of each puncture and calculation of total transparency of the proposed perforated panels.

g) All permeable surfaces to be identified on the ground floor level plan and shown to equate to a minimum of 20% of the overall site area.

h) Notations to be included on all site / floor plans, confirming that all new works will be constructed within the title boundaries on the subject site. Any subsequent amendments to the proposal to ensure that all new works (including boundary fencing) are clearly shown within the title boundaries.

i) Any requirements in Condition 3. j) Any subsequent changes required by Condition 3.

All to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

2. The layout of the site and the size, levels, design and location of buildings and works shown on the endorsed plans must not be modified for any reason without the prior written consent of the Responsible Authority.

3. Concurrent with the endorsement of any plans pursuant to Condition 1, a Water Sensitive Urban Design Response must be submitted to and approved by the Responsible Authority. The report must include, but not limited to, the following:

a) A site plan showing the location of proposed stormwater treatment measures and the location and area (square metres) of impermeable surfaces that drain to each treatment measure.

b) A report outlining how the application achieves the objectives of this

Page 74


policy including stormwater treatment modelling. Please note that for the modeling requirement you can use the following free program to demonstrate best practice, which is equivalent to a score of 100% or more: http://storm.melbournewater.com.au

c) If any water tank is proposed the plans must indicate the tank’s capacity in litres and what the tank is connected to (e.g. toilets).

d) If any rain garden is proposed, design details must be provided including cross sections which show details of the depth and materials for each layer of the rain garden.

e) Details of proposed maintenance measures for stormwater treatment measures including location of maintenance access to rainwater tanks if below ground.

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

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


7. This permit will expire if one of the following circumstances applies: a) The development is not started within two years of the date of this

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

permit.


NOTES:A. This permit does not constitute any authority to carry out any building works

or occupy the building or part of the building unless all relevant building permits are obtained.

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

C. Nothing in this permit hereby issued shall be construed to allow the removal of, damage to or pruning of a significant tree (including the roots) without the further written approval of Council.

“Significant tree” means a tree:

Page 75


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

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

c) listed on the Significant Tree Register.

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

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

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


Page 76


5. MOUNT STREET PRECINCT, PRAHRAN MASTERPLAN

Landscape Coordinator: Simon McKenzie - McHarg General Manager Assets & Services: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

To update Councillors on a proposed Masterplan for the Mount Street Precinct in Prahran and the upcoming stakeholder / community engagement process.

BACKGROUND

The Mount Street precinct in Prahran is currently undergoing a transition from single storey light industrial buildings to 8 to 10 storey mixed use commercial, residential and office development. The continued built form transition, compounded by the area’s increasing population is impacting on the quality and availability of open space within the precinct. In response to this, preparation of a masterplan for the area surrounding west of Bangs Street was identified as a key objective within the Chapel Revision Neighbour Framework Plan to ‘provide strategic direction and program for streetscape improvements for the area’ (Pg. 43). The area is being referred to as the Mount Street Area Masterplan. This Framework plan describes each street within the Mount Street Precinct Masterplan as follows:

Clifton/ Mount/ Regent Streets- light industrial, tight spaces, confused in transition. Hard surfaces with landscaping only within old housing sites. Many crossovers

Clifton Street- under radical transformation with the introduction of a large mixed use development on the former Vision Australia Site. Trilogy activates Clifton Street and increases pedestrian space along the footpath

Bangs Street- industrial mixed use with public housing Anchor Place/ Cecil Place- alternative, converted light industrial units King Street- starting to feel leafy, continuing presence of social housing, presence of

Chapel Street emerges

Attachment 1, Extent of the Mount Street Area Masterplan highlights the extent of the masterplan.

Mount Street Precinct Masterplan Objectives

In relation to public space, the Chapel Revision Neighbour Framework Plan, Pg. 43 & 44 identifies several opportunities for improvements within the Mount Street precinct, including:

Retain and enhance link through the King Street carpark site to provide pedestrian connectivity from Cecil Place to King Street

Encourage vehicle movement from Bangs Street for properties fronting Regent Street to remove vehicle crossings on the eastern side of Regent Street

Investigate a new east - west pedestrian link as public open space or publically accessible open space to enhance pedestrian connections between Clifton Street and Bendigo Street, either as part of future developments or via land acquisitions.

New links/ lanes, expanded footpaths and pedestrian spaces to create an opportunity for public open space in locations such as Anchor Place and Bendigo, Bangs, Regent and Clifton Streets

Investigate the opportunity to create a new public pocket park on the car park at 19 Cecil Place.

Investigate opportunities to widen footpaths on the eastern side of Regent Street, including considering the removal of on street parking

Provide a tree lined footpath along the eastern side of Bangs Street

Page 77


New east - west pedestrian link connecting Clifton Street to Bangs Street Investigate opportunities to underground or relocate the substation in Anchor Place to

improve laneway activation and to provide up to 1 meter setback at ground level at 3 Anchor Place, 1- 13 Anchor Place and 10 Cecil Place and along the southern boundary to Anchor Place

These objectives have formed the basis of the draft masterplan and will be further investigated through community / stakeholder engagement and the subsequent design processes.

DISCUSSION

In February 2018, Council officers engaged consultants to develop a Masterplan for the Mount Street Precinct. The masterplan process included assessing existing streetscape conditions, rationalise objectives and opportunities within the Chapel Street Revision Neighbourhood Framework Plan and make recommendations to improve pedestrian amenity, safety, introduce a ‘sense of place’ through the reconfiguration of traffic movement, parking, wider footpaths, increased greenery, public art, wayfinding and street furniture.

The draft masterplan is in its early stages and throughout its development will be reported to Council for endorsement at key stages. The process is defined below:

Phase 1 – Review, ideas and Concept Generation (October 2018 – November 2018)

Phase 1 involves a review of Council’s strategic documents and identification of other potential open space opportunities within the masterplan extents. Specifically this phase will:

Develop initial sketch ideas for each street and identify opportunities to improve the street environment for people.

Propose a landscape ‘language’ or character to introduce a ‘sense of place’ Engage with stakeholders and the local community on the above material to inform

the next phase of the masterplan process.

Phase 2 – Draft Masterplan (November 2018 – March 2019)

Based on professional expertise and stakeholder sentiment, a draft masterplan for the precinct will be developed for endorsement by Council. The draft masterplan will provide a summary of previous stakeholder engagement and graphically propose:

Modifications to traffic movement, parking and footpaths which would contribute to improving the public realm

Opportunities to redesign roads for better pedestrian amenity and safety, including potential shared pedestrian and vehicle zones

Concept designs for all existing and future public acquisition sites, highlighting their contribution to improving the public realm.

Concept designs for Council owned property for potential conversion to open space, including at grade car parking opportunities

A palette of materials and wayfinding elements Increased ‘greening’ opportunities

Stakeholders will be engaged to discuss these identified ideas, themes and opportunities for the precinct

Phase 3 – Final Masterplan (April 2019 - May 2019)

Page 78


This phase of the process will finalise the masterplan process for endorsement by Council. The final masterplan will include high level designs for all streetscapes, and public spaces and will incorporate community, stakeholder and Council feedback. Once endorsed the masterplan will be used to direct new development applications within the area, support Council in actively acquiring specific properties, inform the future design of public spaces and support future capital works budget bids for a staged delivery of the masterplan.

Timing for delivery of the Masterplan

Below is a summary of expected delivery and proposed Council reporting requirements throughout the development of the masterplan:

Phase Completion Council endorsement Review, ideas and Concept Generation November 2018 Not requiredDraft Masterplan March 2019 April 2019Final Masterplan May 2019 June 2019

Stakeholder and Community engagement

Each phase of the masterplan development process will require a series of community and stakeholder engagement workshops. The level and extent of engagement will align with the relevant phase of development and input required.

Stakeholder engagement within Phase 1- Review, Ideas and Concept Generation will be with relevant internal Council departments, the local community and third party stakeholders to obtain an understanding of how various public spaces are currently used, what people enjoy most about the spaces and what could be improved. No designs will be developed for this phase of engagement and feedback will be obtained through a series of on street pop-up sessions, a survey and workshops with relevant third party authorities such as Government Housing Victoria, VicRoads, Melbourne Water etc. The feedback received within this phase will be use to inform the draft masterplan proposal.

Stakeholder engagement within Phase 2- Draft Masterplan will be conducted with a similar catchment of stakeholders and will include several workshops with internal departments, residents, local businesses and third part service authorities. A second survey will be developed to gather direct feedback on specific design proposals within the draft masterplan and the plans will be used as a discussion point to gather stakeholder sentiment for the direction of the masterplan.

Stakeholder engagement within Phase 3- Final Masterplan will include presentations and exhibitions of the developed plans for information and final adjustment. This will conclude the stakeholder engagement process prior to being reported to Council for endorsement.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Development of the Mount Street Precinct Masterplan has been identified as an objective within the Chapel Revision Structure Plan and as such aligns with Councils policies and strategies.

Page 79


FINANCIAL AND RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

Council have allocated $50,000 (Excl GST) for the development of the Mount Street Precinct Masterplan. There are no other costs directly associated with this masterplan, however any implementation of the masterplan would require either capital or open space reserve funding. It is expected that these would be reported to Council at a future date as they arise.

LEGAL ADVICE & IMPLICATIONS

There is no known legal advice or implications associated with the development of the Mount Street Precinct Masterplan.

CONCLUSION

The Mount Street area in Prahran is currently undergoing significant development and is transitioning from an area which is majority single storey light industrial buildings to 8 to 10 storey mixed use commercial, residential and office properties. This transition is creating higher demand on available public space. The Chapel Revision Neighbourhood Framework Plan has identified the need for a masterplan for this precinct to find opportunities to implement a variety of public realm improvements to create a ‘sense of place’ for the local community. Council officers have recently engaged consultants to develop this masterplan and will shortly be undertaking initial engagement with the local community. Council officers will report back to Council throughout the development of the masterplan for endorsement as discussed within this report.


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

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1, Extent of Mount Street Area Masterplan Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council note:1. The development of the Mount Street Masterplan and

2. The upcoming community and stakeholder engagement process to commence in October, 2018

Page 80


6. MALVERN TOWN HALL (EXTERIOR) - REMOVAL OF PAINT FROM BLUESTONE

Manager Project Management & Delivery: Steve Morrell General Manager Assets & Services: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to respond to the request made at Council’s meeting on 8 May 2017 to consider the removal of paint from the bluestone sections of Malvern Town Hall.

BACKGROUND

Significance of Malvern Town Hall

Malvern Town Hall is a significant landmark building to the City of Stonnington, Melbourne and the State of Victoria. It is protected under the Stonnington Planning Scheme (HO349) and the Victorian Heritage Register (VHR H2288). The Victorian Heritage Register states that Malvern Town Hall is:

“…of historical and architectural significance to the State of Victoria.”

“…historically significant as a demonstration of the civic pride and post-gold rush wealth of the late nineteenth century” and “…as representation of the changes of municipal functions in Victoria in the late nineteenth century and the interwar period of the twentieth century.”

“…architecturally significant as an outstanding and relatively intact example of a grand nineteenth century town hall building, built in a Renaissance Revival style with French Second Empire style towers and interwar internal decorative schemes.”

“…an outstanding example from the group of late nineteenth century town halls which were constructed across Melbourne in the post-gold rush era.”

“…significant for its association with noted architects Beswicke and Wilson, for its nineteenth century design, and Hudson and Wardrop for the twentieth century alterations.”

Further to the above extracts from the Victorian Heritage Register on the significance of Malvern Town Hall, Council’s Conservation Management Plan (November 2013) for Malvern Town Hall, which was prepared by Robert Sands P/L (Architect & Conservation Consultant), states:

“The Malvern Town Hall is of social significance. The siting of the building at the highest point within the former City of Malvern, visible throughout the district and from surrounding municipalities, and at the intersection of two main roads and the junction of two tram routes, makes it a landmark known throughout Melbourne. The Malvern Town Hall is of social significance as a place known, used and valued by the residents of Stonnington who use the complex for council services and to the broader metropolis as a venue for dances, sporting activities, performances and dinners, and to employees of the City of Stonnington who use and value the building as a place of employment.”

Construction of Malvern Town Hall

Page 81


As it currently stands, Malvern Town Hall comprises of several constructions:

In 1886, the original Malvern Town Hall, designed by architects Wilson and Beswick, was constructed. It included a public hall, clock tower (but no clock), council chamber, court house, library and offices.

In 1890, the Malvern Town Hall underwent its first significant alteration, designed by architects Crouch and Wilson. The west wing was extended and a new north tower was constructed. The south tower was raised and a clock installed. The interior was altered and new offices constructed.

In 1927, the Malvern Town Hall underwent its second significant alteration, designed by architects Hudson and Wardrop. The 2 storey porte cochere was constructed on the west wing, the hall was expanded and reconstructed, additions were constructed on the north and south wings and the interior of the earlier constructions altered.

In 1929, the court house was removed from the Town Hall and a new court house constructed behind the Malvern Police Station.

In 1960, the hall’s kitchen was constructed, toilets were added to the north wing, the hall’s foyer toilets were refurbished and the south wing altered to create two levels of offices, under the design of architect Stewart Handasyde.

In 1981, the south wing was extended with new offices and the current entry to the south wing was constructed, under the design of architects Oakley and Parkes and Partners.

In 1996, the south wing’s single storey offices (constructed in 1981) were demolished and the offices altered, under the design of architects Perrott Lyon Mathieson.

In 2016, the offices were altered, under the design of architects Williams Ross Architects.

Heritage Review of Paint Removal from Bluestone

In May 2017, following the request for this report, the author of Council’s Conservation Management Plan (November 2013) for Malvern Town Hall – Mr Robert Sands of Sands de Vos Architects & Heritage Consultants, was commissioned to undertake an investigation and prepare a report on the proposal of removing the existing paint from the bluestone components on the external façade of Malvern Town Hall.

Attachment 1 is a copy of the report prepared by Sands de Vos Architects & Heritage Consultants titled “Heritage Review - Paint Removal from Bluestone - Malvern Town Hall (21 December 2017)”.

DISCUSSION

Appendix A of the Heritage Review shows the bluestone components on the external façade of Malvern Town Hall, which are:

- All of the window sills on the ground level of the south wing and west wing;- 85% of the plinth course on the west wing; and- 70% of the plinth course on the south wing.

Page 82


The non-bluestone plinth course and window sills are rendered brickwork, which were mostly constructed in the latter stages of Malvern Town Hall’s construction.

It is suspected that the bluestone plinth course and window sills were first painted during the alterations and additions in 1981, when the south wing was extended, and most likely for the same reasons the rest of Malvern Town Hall has been painted since being altered. As mentioned in the Heritage Review, the paint finish “… provides a continuous connection between the variety of building elements and additions which have taken place since 1885” and “conceals defects and staining, revitalises and enhances the appearance and reduces the need for ongoing repair and maintenance”.

Key Points of Heritage Review

Outlined below is a brief outline of the key points made by Sands de Vos Architects & Heritage Consultants in their Heritage Review report on removing the paint from Malvern Town Hall’s bluestone:

Conservation

Heritage Victoria encourages the use of external paint colours and treatments that enhance the understanding and appearance of Heritage Places.

Most brick and stone, and some rendered surfaces of the 19th and 20th century buildings, were not intended to be painted. There finish, texture and original surface were part of the design.

The overarching heritage recommendation is to return the masonry to its original natural appearance. Care must be taken to ensure that the removal of paint does not damage significant building fabric.

Approval from Heritage Victoria would have to be obtained before commencement of any paint removal work.

Cost

The Heritage Review makes the following further observations regarding the work;

The Paint removal process needs to be low impact, as abrasive methods can damage masonry, mortar and surrounding surfaces, and once exposed the masonry and mortar may be susceptible to further damage and deterioration. Low pressure water and steam, and/or chemical removal methods are recommended.

Hoarding and Bunding would be needed to collect and remove the runoff. Protection would also need to be provided to surrounding surfaces. Management for pedestrian access and circulation would need to be put in place.

The estimated cost to remove the paint from Malvern Town Hall’s bluestone will require specialist contractors, and is difficult to estimate but is likely to be in the order of $35,000 - $40,000 (Excl. GST).

Appearance & Continuity

Page 83


The removal of paint from the bluestone would result in the plinth course having a dull natural finish, which would not detract from the Malvern Town Hall’s white walls, but would necessitate the repainting of the abutting rendered plinth course in a paint finish matching as close as possible to the natural finish of the bluestone.

Moisture & Deterioration

The removal of the paint from the bluestone would reduce what little deterioration may be experienced by the bluestone, but would improve the condition and longevity of the pointing.

Maintenance

The removal of the paint from the bluestone would require the bluestone to be regularly cleaned and maintained, in lieu of it being repainted every 7-10 years.

Paint Removal Success

The specialist heritage building paint removal firm - High Pressure Cleaning Services P/L has advised Sands de Vos Architects & Heritage Consultants, based on the experience of removing paint from bluestone at Port Melbourne Town Hall, Former North Melbourne Town Hall and Richmond Town Hall, that 99% of the paint on the bluestone could be removed. Though, testing would have to be carried out to determine the best method of paint removal.

Impact on Civic Precinct

Removal of the paint from the bluestone would not have an impact on the Malvern Town Hall’s colour scheme or the appearance of the streetscape.

Other Key Considerations

In addition to the above key points made in the Heritage Review, it is appropriate to consider the following:

Existing Condition of Bluestone

The paint on the bluestone, the bluestones and their pointing are all in excellent condition, due to the annual cleaning and painting maintenance regime that has been in place for the last 40+ years, and their current condition does not warrant any repair or maintenance intervention, including the removal of its paint coating, now or in the foreseeable future.

Town Hall Presentation

Malvern Town Hall is an icon that is recognized across Melbourne. Its image is proudly displayed by Council on many of its communications and is a brand image for the City. It is vitally important to ensure that the value of Malvern Town Hall’s iconic image is not diminished by changes that may be detrimental to its external appearance.

While every endeavour could be made to match the painted rendered plinth, which comprises of 15% of the plinth course on the west wing (obscured by low level plantings) and 30% of the plinth course on the south wing (obscured partly by the recently constructed stair/ramp entry), with a natural bluestone plinth, it would appear to be noticeably different.

Although differences in the appearance of heritage significant and non-heritage significant building fabric are acceptable from an historical interpretive perspective, a noticeable

Page 84


difference in the appearance of the non-bluestone plinth may not be aesthetically acceptable to the community or Council.

Conservation Management

In accordance with conservation best practice for places of cultural significance, the Malvern Town Hall is maintained under a Conservation Management Plan, with regard to the Australia ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) Charter for Places of Cultural Significance – The Burra Charter, which advocates a cautious approach to change, viz. do as much as necessary to care for the place and to make it usable, but otherwise change it as little as possible so that its cultural significance is retained.

The Conservation Management Plan acknowledges the over painting of Malvern Town Hall’s render, bluestone plinth and brickwork to be a relatively minor alteration and makes no mention in it or recommendation in its Conservation Works Program for the paint to be removed.

The focus of the Conservation Works Program in the Conservation Management Plan is the repair and maintenance of the Town Hall’s significant fabric. In 2018/19, and beyond, roof replacement and roof drainage improvement has been identified to be the highest conservation priority.

Reason for Change

Until the request by Council at its meeting on 8 May 2017 for a report on the removal of paint from the bluestone sections of Malvern Town Hall, there had been no reason (ie. no concern raised over the condition or appearance of the bluestone, no community request, or request from Heritage Victoria or Council’s Heritage Advisors) to consider the removal of the paint from the bluestone.


Should Council decide to proceed with the removal of paint from the bluestone sections of Malvern Town Hall, an extra allocation of $60,000 (ie. for the paint removal work ($40K), heritage consultant ($10K) and project management ($10K).

Given that the proposed work will require Heritage Victoria approval, if the project is to proceed it is proposed that the approval be sought this year and the capital funding required be referred for consideration in the preparation of the 2019/20 capital budget.

CONCLUSION

Malvern Town Hall is a place of historical, architectural and social significance to the City of Stonnington, Melbourne and the State of Victoria. Accordingly, care must be taken when proposing any changes to its construction and presentation, and approval is required from Heritage Victoria prior to any change being carried out.

The benefit of removing the existing paint from the bluestone would be to expose the original fabric (ie. the natural finish of the bluestone) of the 1886, 1890 and 1927 construction stages of Malvern Town Hall.

On the other hand, the removal of the paint is not necessary from an infrastructure maintenance perspective or from a heritage perspective. Further it would not affect the

Page 85


cultural significance of the Town Hall, and could well effect the aesthetic appearance from a community perspective.The works would be relatively costly, and from an infrastructure maintenance perspective the funds could otherwise be spent on higher priority conservation work at Malvern Town Hall such as bringing forward proposed roof replacement and roof drainage improvement work.



ATTACHMENTS

1. MTH Removal of paint from bluestone 27Aug2018 Attach 1 of 1 Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat: 1. The report be noted; and

2. The paint on the bluestone sections of the Malvern Town Hall be retained at this time.

Page 86


7. MALVERN TOWN HALL & PRAHRAN TOWN HALL EXTERNAL COLOUR SCHEME

Manager Project Management & Delivery: Steve Morrell General Manager Assets & Services: Simon Thomas

PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to respond to a request made at Council’s meeting on 8 May 2017 to consider the external colour schemes of both the Malvern Town Hall and the Prahran Town Hall.

BACKGROUND

Significance & Construction of Malvern Town Hall

Details of the significance and construction of Malvern Town Hall are contained in the report on the removal of paint from the bluestone sections of Malvern Town Hall in this Agenda. It has not been repeated for this report.

Significance of Prahran Town Hall

Like Malvern Town Hall, Prahran Town Hall is a significant heritage building to the City of Stonnington, Melbourne and the State of Victoria. It is protected under the Stonnington Planning Scheme and Victorian Heritage Register and comprises of 3 separately registered places:

Prahran Town Hall (VHR H0203)Former Prahran Fire Station (VHR H0519)Former Prahran Court House & Police Station (VHR H0542).

The Victorian Heritage Register states that Prahran Town Hall is:

“…of architectural and historical significance to the State of Victoria.”

“…of architectural significance as a fine example of a group of buildings constructed over a period of time and involving three important Melbourne architects. Crouch and Wilson, Charles D’Ebro and Sydney Smith and Ogg” and “…for its interior decorative schemes which remain in the first town hall, council chamber and the new town hall” and “…as an important component of a fine group of substantial nineteenth century public buildings, which includes the court house and police station and the fire station.”

The Victorian Heritage Register states that the Former Prahran Fire Station and the Former Prahran Court House & Police Station are also of architectural and historical significance to the State of Victoria.

Further to the above extracts from the Victorian Heritage Register on the significance of Prahran Town Hall, Council’s Conservation Management Plan (November 2013) for Prahran Town Hall, which was prepared by Robert Sands P/L (Architect & Conservation Consultant), states:

“The Prahran Town Hall is of social significance to the City of Stonnington. The town hall, with its clock tower, is a landmark in the district that is known and valued by the community. The town hall buildings are known and valued by residents of the municipality as a central

Page 87


location for the provision of Council facilities and services, a place of entertainment and ceremony. It is also of social significance to Council employees who use the complex as a place of employment.”

Construction of Prahran Town Hall

The Prahran Town Hall complex was constructed in stages during the period 1860 to 1915.

In 1861, the original Prahran Town Hall, designed by architects Crouch and Wilson, was constructed on Chapel Street, beside the Prahran Court House and Lock-up, which had been constructed in 1857 on the corner of Chapel and Greville Street. The Prahran Town Hall was constructed predominantly of un-rendered brick walls on a bluestone plinth, except for the walls of the main hall and the base of the tower, which were constructed of bluestone. The construction included a town hall, council chambers and library, and featured two 9 metre high ionic columns at its entrance.

In 1863, a clock was added to the Town Hall’s tower and the face brick walls and bluestone base of the Tower were rendered, under the supervision of architects Crouch and Wilson.

In 1869, the Prahran Court House and Lock-up was demolished and rebuilt at the rear of the Town Hall, with entry from Greville Street.

In 1878, the Greville Street addition to the Prahran Town Hall, designed by architects Crouch and Wilson, was built on the former site of the Prahran Court House and Lock-up. It featured rendered brick walls on a bluestone base which extended over 50 metres along Greville Street and was designed to accommodate the post and telegraph office, public library and police quarters.

In 1886, the Police Station and Court House, designed by architect Charles Gilchrist, was constructed of brick on a basalt plinth, clad with Barrabool sandstone and trimmed with Waurn Ponds limestone, on the corner of Greville and Macquarie Street.

In 1888, a new brick-walled town hall designed by architect Charles Débro, with entry from Greville Street was constructed mid-block between Chapel Street and Macquarie Street.

In 1889, the Fire Station was constructed of tuck pointed face brickwork in Macquarie Street to the design of the City Surveyor William Smith. It was subsequently remodelled in 1900 when it ceased to be a fire station.

In 1914, the main town hall was destroyed by fire. It was reconstructed in 1915 in its former position to the design by architects Sydney Smith and Ogg.Between 1915 and 1986, Prahran Town Hall experienced few alterations, except for removal of the Town Hall Balcony in 1953 and removal of the timber mansard roof from the top of the clocktower in 1955.

In 1982 and in the period between 2000 and 2012, the Prahan Town Complex experienced extensive internal alterations, refurbishment and restoration work.

Heritage Review of Malvern and Prahran Town Hall Colour Schemes

Page 88


In May 2017, following Council’s request for this report, the author of Council’s Conservation Management Plans (November 2013) for Malvern Town Hall and Prahran Town Hall – Mr Robert Sands of Sands de Vos Architects & Heritage Consultants, was commissioned to undertake an investigation and prepare a report on the external colour schemes of Malvern Town Hall and Prahran Town Hall.

Attachment 1 is a copy of the report prepared by Sands de Vos Architects & Heritage Consultants titled “Heritage Review – External Finishes Assessment - Malvern Town Hall (20 December 2017)”.

Attachment 2 is a complete copy of the report prepared by Wilson Sayer Core Pty Ltd for the City of Malvern titled “Malvern Town Hall Exterior Design Study Stage 1 (June 1989)”, which is referenced in the report by Sands de Vos Architects & Heritage Consultants, in Attachment 1.

Attachment 3 is a compilation of images of Malvern Town Hall recorded over the years which was prepared by the Stonnington History Centre.

Attachment 4 is a copy of the report prepared by Sands de Vos Architects & Heritage Consultants titled “Heritage Review – External Finishes Assessment - Prahran Town Hall (22 December 2017)”.

Attachment 5 is a compilation of images of Prahran Town Hall recorded over the years which was prepared by the Stonnington History Centre.

DISCUSSION

Malvern Town Hall Existing External Finishes

The existing external finishes of Malvern Town Hall are:

South Elevation – White painted rusticated rendered walls on a charcoal painted bluestone and rendered base course with white painted window frames and charcoal painted window sills on the ground floor level, white painted smooth rendered first floor walls divided into bays by Ionic pilasters that have gold painted bases and capitals, with white painted window frames and moulding sills, and above, a white painted balustraded rendered parapet and white painted clock tower with gold painted capitals, bases and acroterium.

West Elevation – Same as the South Elevation, except for the entrance doors and frames, which are painted a mustard-cream colour.

North Elevation & East Elevation - White painted rendered walls on a charcoal painted rendered base course with white painted window frames and sills, and entrance doors which are painted a mustard-cream colour.

Prahran Town Hall (Excluding Former Court House & Fire Station) Existing External Finishes

Page 89


The existing external finishes of Prahran Town Hall are:

East Elevation – Rusticated rendered walls painted a pale-straw colour on a natural finished bluestone base course on the ground floor level, smooth rendered first floor walls, painted a pale-straw colour, divided into bays by Ionic pilasters, and above, balustraded rendered parapet and clock tower, painted a pale-straw colour, with all window frames on both levels painted a mustard-cream colour.

North Elevation – Same as the East Elevation, except for the pilasters and balustraded parapet, which only feature at the east and west ends.

West Elevation – Same as the west end of the North Elevation at its north end and unpainted face brickwork beyond to the south.

South Elevation – Same as the East Elevation at its east end and unpainted face brickwork and basalt beyond to the west.

Appearance & Continuity

The existing external scheme for Malvern Town Hall, which is predominantly white painted walls and windows, charcoal painted plinth and window sills, gold painted decorative mouldings and mustard-cream painted doors, and for Prahran Town Hall, which is predominantly, pale-straw colour painted walls on the street frontages and natural finished bluestone and face brickwork elsewhere, with mustard-cream painted windows, successfully conceal the junctions and repairs of their past constructions and portray them as homogeneous buildings.

Past External Finishes

It is not known how long each of the Town Halls have maintained their current external finishes schemes, but it is believed to be at least 50 years.

In regard to Malvern Town Hall’s earlier external finishes schemes, it appears from the preliminary sampling and analysis of its external coatings by Wilson Sayer Core Pty Ltd in 1989, that Malvern Town Hall’s rendered walls had at that time 7-10 different coating systems, consisting of varying combinations of primer, undercoat and finish coats, and that its windows had 14 different coating systems.

Wilson Sayer Core reported that the earliest wall treatment of Malvern Town Hall was unfinished render, followed by a pale grey green finish, which from photographic evidence revealed that it existed in 1927 when the portico was added, followed by numerous cream and white schemes. They reported that the earliest joinery finish was a black varnish, followed by a grey-black coating, dark blue-green coating, a series of red-brown and dark-brown coatings and later cream, and off white coatings.

In regard to Prahran Town Hall’s earlier external finishes schemes, it appears from the preliminary sampling and analysis of its external coatings by Sands de Vos Pty Ltd Architects in 2017 that in the period C1914-55, its render was finished in a grey-green wash and its windows were finished in a pale beige-sandstone paint, and before that, its render was finished in a pale-brown wash and light beige wash, with grey-green painted windows.

Conservation

Page 90


Sands de Vos Sands Pty Ltd Architects’ conclude that it would be desirable to return the Malvern Town Hall and Prahran Town Hall to their authentic rendered appearance at the time of their last major additions, which for Malvern Town Hall was 1927 when the portico was added and the walls were painted pale grey-green and the joinery was black or dark blue-green, and for Prahran Town Hall, was 1888 when the new town hall was constructed and the walls were painted grey-green and the windows were a beige-sandstone colour.

Merits of Existing Town Hall Finishes

While it is understood and appreciated from a conservation perspective, that the existing finishes of the Town Halls are not influenced by the original architectural intent or referenced to one of their earlier colour schemes, they nevertheless have merit, in that they:

- Are long lasting, and have existed for over 50 years- Amplify the architectural, historic and landmark value of the Town Halls- Enhance the grand appearance and visibility of the Town Halls - Enable the Town Halls to fit harmoniously amongst the buildings in their precinct- Portray the Town Halls as the champion of all buildings in their respective streetscapes- Are accretions that protect building fabric, which can be removed if required in the future- Are what everyone appreciates and remembers about the Town Halls- Enhance the Town Hall’s images and City of Stonnington brand- Are symbolic of a progressive Council- Are in excellent condition and do not require repair, removal or alteration- Enable the Town Halls to be maintained to a high standard, at low cost- Are accepted and valued by the community, including Heritage Victoria.


For the last 50 years, Malvern Town Hall and Prahran Town Hall have been maintained under long term external painting maintenance contracts which currently cost $33,000/annum and $58,000/annum, respectively and are funded from Council’s Capital Works Budget (Capital Projects X8605 and X8600, respectively). The external painting maintenance contract is due to expire this year and a new long term contract is proposed to be tendered soon.

In terms of any proposition to return the external walls to their original finish it is worth noting the advice in the Sands de Vos Pty Ltd, Architects report which states;

Exposing the original rendered surface is problematic. The original surface is likely to have suffered deterioration due to water damage and weathering over time. ….The multiple layers of paint trap moisture and exacerbate the deterioration of the render and possibly the masonry and mortar beneath. Over time the surface has undergone many repairs, exposing the rendered substrate would also reveal these repairs and defects.

The report goes on to cite the example of the South Melbourne Town Hall where;

The proposal was to return the external rendered finish to its original sandstone colour and repair the deteriorated render….Research and investigation was undertaken over a period of two years prior to the commencement of work.

Page 91


If Council were of a mind to pursue the option of returning the Town Halls to their original colour scheme, further detailed investigation would be required to understand the probable cost implications.

CONCLUSION

Malvern Town Hall and Prahran Town Hall are places of historical, architectural and social significance to the City of Stonnington, Melbourne and the State of Victoria. They are registered places on the Victorian Heritage Register.

Both were constructed in stages that spanned several decades, with the first stage of each commencing over 130 years ago.

Due to their staged construction, they do not have a single original external colour scheme.

Since their construction, Malvern Town Hall and Prahran Town Hall have been presented in a number of external finishes schemes.

Malvern Town Hall’s façade began as unpainted rendered walls with black varnished windows and was followed by pale grey green walls with joinery painted at various times in grey-black, dark blue-green and a series of red-brown and dark-brown colours, and later, by cream and its current white scheme.

Prahran Town Hall’s façade was first finished in face brickwork and unfinished bluestone. It subsequently was rendered on its street facades and the walls finished in light beige tones with windows finished in grey-green tones, and later with walls finished in pale brown tones and windows finished in mid-level grey-green tones, and later again with walls finished in grey-green tones and windows in pale beige-sandstone tones, and finally finished to its current scheme of pale-straw coloured walls with mustard-cream windows on an unfinished bluestone base course.

It is acknowledged that the current external colour schemes for the Town Halls are not representative of the Town Hall’s earlier colour schemes, however they have been in existence for some time, and are accepted by the community. There is no imperative to change the colour scheme, and from an infrastructure maintenance perspective there are infrastructure maintenance perspective the funds could otherwise be spent on higher priority conservation work at Malvern Town Hall such as bringing forward proposed roof replacement and roof drainage improvement work.

If Council were of a mind to pursue the option of returning the Town Halls to their original colour scheme, further detailed investigation would be required to understand the probable cost implications.



Page 92


ATTACHMENTS

1. Heritage Review - External Finishes Assessment - MTH 20 Dec 2017 by Sands de Vos Architects & Heritage Consultants (Attach 1)

Excluded

2. Malvern Town Hall Exterior Design Study Stage 1 (June 1989) by Wilson Sayer Core P/L for the City of Malvern (Attach 2)

Excluded

3. Compilation of images of MTH recorded over the years by the Stonnington History Centre (Attach 3)

Excluded

4. Heritage Review - External Finishes Assessment - Prahran Town Hall (Attach 4)

Excluded

5. Compilation of images of Prahran Town Hall recorded over the years by the Stonnington History Centre (Attach 5)

Excluded

RECOMMENDATIONThat:

1. The report be noted,

2. Direction be provided as to whether further detailed investigation be commissioned to understand the costs and options for returning the Town Halls to their original color scheme(s).

Page 93


8. RISK MANAGEMENT & OHS REPORT FOR THE PERIOD 1 JANUARY - 30 JUNE 2018

Manager Risk, Safety and Assurance: David Taylor General Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to inform Council on the status of the management of Council’s Risk Management and Occupational Health & Safety (OHS) obligations and to give an overview of Risk Management and OHS programs for the six-month period ending 30 June 2018.

BACKGROUND

In accordance with the Council resolution of 20 February 2006, this report is to be presented to Council every six months to inform Councillors on these issues. Quarterly Risk Reports are also presented to the Executive and to Council’s Audit Committee.

DISCUSSION

The following report covers the 6 month period ending 30 June 2018.

Risk and IntegrityThe Risk and Integrity Unit manages Council’s ongoing processing of public liability, professional indemnity, corporate crime and motor vehicle claims, and has been active during the reporting period in supporting a number of Council functions in dealing with risk issues and insurance claims.

The Unit reports on matters of risk and insurance activity to Council’s Executive Management Team, the Audit Committee and where appropriate, Council’s insurers. ‘Report Only’ notifications to Council’s insurer do not create an imposition of an increased premium, or adverse claims history. Council is however bound to provide its insurers with early advice of any potential claim.

Some of the key Risk Management deliverables include;

Ongoing management of significant incidents; Maintenance of Council’s Operational and Strategic Risk Register; Investigation / support to Council’s Insurers on claims and litigation; Management and enhancement of Council’s CCTV capability; and Review of existing Policy and development of draft Policy.

Strategic Risk RegisterDuring a series of workshops with EMT during November and December 2017, the Strategic Risk Register was reviewed and the 32 Risks were reduced to 11 Risks. The final draft of the Risk Register was approved by EMT on 13 February 2018 and endorsed by the Audit Committee on 22 February 2018.

The Strategic Risk register is constantly monitored to ensure ongoing relevance and is benchmarked against other Councils (nationally), industry standards and advice regarding emerging risk exposures.

Page 95


CCTVDuring the reporting period, Council’s CCTV facilities have been of significant benefit to Victoria Police, in helping to investigate serious criminal events in the area surrounding Stonnington facilities.

There were 49 requests for CCTV footage during the six month period January – June 2018, the majority of which were from Victoria Police. A total of 92 sections of CCTV footage were downloaded to accommodate the requests. We continue to receive appreciation from Victoria Police for providing this service as our support has been instrumental in the solving of many serious criminal matters. It does however create a significant impost on resourcing as it is time and labour intensive.

For the financial year ending 2018, the details of CCTV requests and data provided is shown below.

Year Requests Footage retrieved2014 (Sept onward) 3 2

2015 31 79

2016 83 211

2017 79 209

2018 49 92

Insurance RenewalCouncil’s insurance renewal process for 2018/19 was initiated some 2 months earlier than usual this year, by the Brokers, JLT. The renewal has identified several changes:

Prahran Market has reduced the excess on the Property insurance to $10,000. Festivals & Events - options for the extent of cover being provided under the existing

Community Liability Pack are being considered.

Fraud Prevention Training for New CouncillorsIn line with the Auditor General requirement for annual fraud prevention training and to further provide guidance to EMT and new Councillors, a presentation was delivered to EMT on Tuesday 14th March and a further presentation was delivered to Councillors on Monday 1st May.

Policies under ReviewRisk, Safety & Assurance have reviewed the following policies;

Bank Guarantee Process Policy; Personal Duress Alarm Policy (in development). Fraud Control Plan (under review); Risk Management Policy (under review); and Procurement Policy.

Insurance Claims (Brackets contain statistics from previous reporting period)

Page 96


Public LiabilityWithin the six month reporting period, 160 (154) public liability claims were received.

The most significant of the 160 claims received were;

(a) Tree root damage 48;

(b) Slip, trip and fall 31; and

(c) Tree root other (e.g. tree branch falling on vehicle) 27.

During this period, 188 (140) claims were finalised with;

I. 34 (26) settled at a cost to Council of $145,104* ($252,059.28);

II. 150 (90) claims were resolved at either no cost or denied; and

III. 4 (24) were ‘Report Only’ notifications.(N.B. *Includes 1 x insurance excess of $50K, 1 x insurance excess of $10K)

Motor Vehicle50 (53) Motor vehicle claims were received for the six month reporting period. During this period, 63 (53) claims were finalised with:

I. 31 (13) claims settled at a cost to Council of $53,589.73* ($82,029.96);

II. 30 (33) were resolved at either no cost or denied; and

III. 2 (2) were ‘Report Only’ notifications.(N.B. *Includes 2 x insurance excess of $5,000.)

Safety and Prevention

MAV WorkCare Workers Compensation Self-Insurance Scheme (MAV WorkCare Scheme)Communication and implementation of Divisional OHS Service Plan actions continued in the reporting period and the focus for each Division was the review of OHS risk management and safe work procedural documentation. This process is providing teams with an opportunity to reflect on current OHS risk management strategies to ensure they’re effectively managing the OHS risks associated with their regular activities and to simplify existing OHS documentation being maintained.

S&P commenced training and workshops with targeted work groups on OHS incident reporting and investigation and contractor OHS management. Further sessions will be scheduled throughout the year.

Strategic OHS Plan 2017/2018

Page 97


The Strategic OHS Plan was developed for completion by the end of the 2017/18 financial year. To ensure that all action items can be achieved, extending the Plan timeframes for completion to the end of the 2018 calendar year is advised. The Plan will then be reviewed and a new Strategic OHS Plan developed which will also align to the Divisional OHS Service Planning timeframes

OHS Management System UpdateThe OHS Policy (OHS 01), OHS Responsibilities Procedure (OHS 02) and OHS Planning Procedure (OHS 03) were approved by the CEO in the reporting period.

The Safety and Prevention Unit (S&P) is managing the Council OHS Policy and Procedure implementation action plan, which includes the development of OHS guidelines to be included on the Council intranet. Council OHS Procedures continue to be reviewed in accordance with the MAV/JLT procedure review schedule, where appropriate

Performance Council reported 1 notifiable incident to WorkSafe in this period. The report was of an employee injury (laceration) which required stitches. Corrective actions deemed sufficient by WorkSafe Inspector, no further action required.

There were 33 employee related OHS incidents reported compared to 8 hazards in this period (reported via the Council electronic OHS reporting system).

A total of 8 lost time injuries were recorded in the period; both January 2018 and June 2018 were lost time injury free months. Manual handling injuries continue to be the greatest contributor at 50% of all lost time injures recorded in the period. A manual handling training delivery is scheduled for July-December 2018.


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

RECOMMENDATIONThat Council receives and notes the six-month Risk Management and Occupational Health & Safety report for the period 1 January to 30 June 2018.

Page 98


9. MEETING DATES FOR 2019

Manager Governance & Corporate Support: Fabienne Thewlis General Manager Corporate Services: Geoff Cockram

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to set the meeting dates for 2019.

BACKGROUND

Section 89 (1) of the Local Government Act 1989 outlines that any meeting of a Council must be open to members of the public, with section 89(4) requiring Council to give reasonable notice of meetings of the Council.

DISCUSSION

Council departments require direction to enable forward planning for the forthcoming year as the time-tabling for such matters as the progress of the Budget, Council Plan or planning items to meet statutory deadlines is essential. It also assists Councillors in planning around their own commitments.

The following meeting dates of Council and the closed Councillor Briefings are proposed for 2019 (public holidays and school terms are included for information only). The calendar is adjusted as is usual practice, around public holidays however 22 Council meetings and 22 Briefings are proposed and the annual Special Meeting for the election of the Mayor.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The March to June period for Council establishes the statutory timelines for the advertising, review and submissions before adoption of the Council Plan and Annual Budgets. Dates in August to October set the timelines for the completion of the Annual Report.

LEGAL ADVICE & IMPLICATIONS

The setting of Council meeting dates is a statutory requirement.

CONCLUSION

Council is required to set the dates for Council meetings and advertise accordingly.


This recommendation has been reviewed and complies with the requirements of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment One - Meeting Dates for 2019 Excluded

Page 99


RECOMMENDATIONThat Council:1. adopts the listed Council meeting dates for 2019;

2. advertises the Ordinary Council meeting dates in the Local Leader newspaper; and

3. lists the Ordinary Council meeting dates on its website.

Page 100

CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS1 OCTOBER 2018

o) Confidential

1. 2018 STONNINGTON FASHION HALL OF FAME INDUCTEE

General Manager Community and Culture: Cath HarrodConfidential report circulated separately.

2. CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS 2018-2020General Manager Community and Culture: Cath HarrodConfidential report circulated separately.

3. POTENTIAL PROPERTY PURCHASE

General Manager Corporate Services: Geoff CockramConfidential report circulated separately.

4. PRAHRAN MARKET PTY LTD - APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR 2018 AGM - 2022 AGM, DIRECTORS FEES 2018/19 AND STRATEGY PLAN PRESENTATION

General Manager Corporate Services: Geoff CockramConfidential report circulated separately.

Page 101

Download - Agenda of Council Meeting - 1 October 2018 · Web viewTo the north-west of the site is 1403 Dandenong Road), a large double storey brick apartment building containing 10 dwellings

Top Related